Houston19514

The Chron doesn't delete articles. Look in the archives. Here's the info: "six stories housing administrative offices, nine studios (they currently have six), a black box theater (a new amenity) and a dorm for 20 students (eight more than they now house in two townhomes). Including the land purchase, it's a $53 million project."

ROFL Good to see you again, Dallasboi. I believe you promised me a meal of crow to be served at the top of Victory Tower. Surely that construction must be nearing completion by now . . . ;-) Is it really unreasonable to occasionally check back on some predictions and see how they turned out? Sorry you don't seem to be able to handle reality so well.

Is IronTiger the reincarnation of Plastic?

Posted Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 3:57 PM I'm not surprised you don't understand the relevance to this topic. That has seemed to be a problem from the beginning. I'm not saying it's the best we can do, I'm saying it is a very positive thing for downtown Dallas. Time will tell. How about we meet here in 1 year and analyze real estate and housing data to see who is right? I'll make an Outlook reminder now. Jason In another thread that was later closed, JasonDFW and I (and others) had a lengthy discussion about whether the Victory Park development would help or hurt downtown Dallas. I argued that to the extent Victory Park was successful, it would hurt the downtown Dallas office market. Jason (and others) argued that it would help downtown Dallas. As seen in Jason's post quoted above, we agreed to meet here in a year to check on how downtown Dallas was doing. I'm sorry that Jason's Outlook has apparently failed him because he never checked in. Well, here we are almost three years later. From the Dallas Business Journal, September 28, 2009: "The vacancy rate for the Dallas Central Business District is approaching 30%, jumping from 26.5 percent a year ago to its current 29.1 percent." (For the record, in 3rd quarter 2006, the CBD office vacancy rate as approximately 21.6%.)

The "last rendering" was simply a rendering of the other side of the building. Same building, same design, same quality of rendering, just a different viewpoint.

I think you're right about the hotel, Ducks. And they don't appear to be doing anything with the windows in the hotel building, contrary to earlier reports on this board. The hotel looks exactly like the picture from back in April earlier in this thread.

oops

As is so often the case, Niche, you are a little too eager to declare victory. (and doesn't it seem odd that victory for you always involves a project's failure?) The building JUST opened. They are trying to transform the university. Give it a little time.

That was an article based on pre-announcement rumors. It was 46 stories when Hines announced their plans for the building.

If by signature skyline view, you mean the view from Allen Parkway/Memorial, probably not much if any impact. From almost any other view, I think it will have a pretty strong impact.

Exactly my question. That rumor really makes no sense at all.

I think you should probably take another look.

Yea, would be nice. But looking to the Chronicle for serious journalism on any subject is a fool's errand. You'll probably have to settle for CITE magazine.

I think you missed my point. That is who wrote the article in the DMN: a classical music critic. The DMN does not have an architecture critic either.

Would you settle for a classical music critic who has occasionally written an article about architecture? ;-)

If you weren't implying that ridership projections were going to be at or near the ridership of the red line, what were the words "do not and can never have ridership even remotely close to what occurs on the Red Line" doing in your post? Just a non sequitur thrown in for your amusement? We shall see in due time just how "inflated" those ridership estimates are.

You are at least implying that Metro dishonestly got FTA funding for the new lines by projecting ridership comparable to that of the red line. That is simply not true. FWIW, the 2030 daily boarding projection for the Southeast line is 26,650, far below the current ridership of the red line (which, by the way, has FAR exceeded all projections). The daily boarding projection for the North line is 29,000, again far below the red line numbers.

Appears to be a pretty bad list. There are about a dozen Mexican consulates just in Texas.

The train runs every 6 minutes during peak time and every 12 minutes most of the rest of the day. It only drops to every 20 minutes after 9 PM.

Of course you know very well that nobody said that the number of users is the "sole" criteria. But it is certainly far and away the very most important criteria. The amount of users' time saved (or not) is not a terribly relevant criteria on its own because it is subsumed under the ridership statistics, i.e., if it does not give timely service for the users' needs, they would not be riding it. IF the light rail line had regular delays in its operations that cause people to have to sit and wait for hours every week as some do on certain freeways, that could certainly be weighed in the balance. But of course, that is not the case, and if it ever became the case, it would quickly be reflected in ridership numbers. Your oft-repeated fantasy about light rail causing traffic snarls and congestion on its route has worn itself out. IF that were true, it would be worth considering in weighing the success of the line, but it just is not true. I again invite anyone to drive the red line route during rush hour to see for themselves. Likewise, your oft-repeated complaint about re-routing buses to feed the rail line is pure silliness. OF COURSE, they route bus lines to connect with and feed the rail line. It would be idiotic not to. That's how one creates a more holistic transit system, if you will.

Third, behind New York and LA. According to the Greater Houston Partnership, we have 90 (and their list does not include Viet Nam, so I guess we now have 91. FWIW, it looks like LA has 98.

The ridership on Houston's light rail line says otherwise.

Earlier in this thread, we were told units there would start at about $800, so it doesn't seem they've dropped the price. Thanks for the edit, but after this post, it's pretty clear you don't really know terribly much about their pricing. ;-) Further occupancy and pricing reports will be interesting, but so far, I stand by my statement that it appears UH may actually know more about student housing demand than the resident "experts" at HAIF.

What is the price now?

What? Could it be that UH knows the demand for on-campus housing better than the HAIF experts? ;-)