Houston19514

Yes, there is 2 stories of steel framing up at the southwest corner of the project.

No. Lord & Taylor is long gone from all of Texas.

Or vice versa. (Capital One bought Hibernia, not the other way around.)

No joke! I noticed that too.

Exactly. My understanding is that Randall is a "fee developer" on this project. Meaning he is doing the development work for a fee... someone else actually owns the land and the project.

There is no question at all about who foots the bill. The same people who foot the bill for repairing the overhead wire system every time we have storm. The ratepayers. Installing underground service can be done without trenching at all. It can now be done with horizontal drilling technology. Quite amazing, really and I think a result of petroleum industry creativity. The electric utility in Tulsa, Oklahoma is going through a program of burying all lines in the city. They got a surcharge added to their electric bills to pay the cost (and as noted above, we are already paying the repeated costs of repairing the overhead lines). Centerpoint and Houston should take a very serious look at the same sort of thing.

I just got back from downtown. Strolled around HP while I was down there. It is progressing very nicely. McCormick & Schmick's (at the corner of Fannin & Dallas, IIRC) is very nearly finished on the insde. The tables are even in there already. Books a Million (at the corner of Main & Polk) is installing shelving and looks very nice. Forever XXI (at the corner of Main & Dallas) has started interior work. Guadalarja del Centro will be at the corner of Dallas & San Jacinto

They are putting the tower crane up today.

I would guess very little. Big holes in the ground tend to collect water when it rains. Nothing out of the ordinary.

It is not an assumption. It is what Metro has said. Until you provide a direct verifiable source for your claim that their ridership projection is 100 per day, I am certainly not buying it, and I doubt anyone here who has paid any attention to ANY of your previous posts about Metro will be believing it either. (And by the way, it seems you cannot or refuse to grasp the point that I am not and have never been arguing with your conclusion that this is not a service Metro should be spending money on... I am only arguing with your use of bad assumptions, lies, misstatements, and misunderstandings to "support" your conclusion". I can imagine an honest critic could make a reasonable argument for your position using actual facts and truth. Maybe you could give that a try some time.)

I'm sure it's painfully obvious to anyone reading this forum (except, I guess, MetroMogul) that Metro does not plan to operate this service for 33 passengers a day. That number of passengers was of course on one of the very first days of service, and before the official kick-off of service. After reviewing the actual facts of the service, it is also very obvious Metro has no intent whatsoever of continuing this service come hell or high water, as MetroMogul told us they would in his first post here. The very reason for leasing the land (rather than purchasing it), parking a (probably leased) trailer (rather than building a building), contracting vans for part of the service (rather than buying buses for the full service) is to test the service for a time to see if it works before making the full up-front capital investment required to buy the land, build a building and purchase additional buses.

Apparently, it has escaped your notice that I have never argued with your opinion. So, Great Hizzy's opinion on the utility of the service was not of any great moment to me. I was merely applauding him for having done some basic fact-checking and honest observation. My argument with you is entirely regarding your use of "facts" that are simply wrong, wild assumptions based on nothing, and bad observations (or plain dishonesty, from this distance I can't really tell which it is). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are not entitled to your own "facts." Again, assumptions do not equal fact-checking. You ASSUMED the vans were for shuttling people to downtown. You assumed wrong. You ASSUMED Metro had purchased a bunch of vans for this service. You assumed wrong. The facts are that Metro is contracting for the van use, not purchasing the vans (thus avoiding investing a lot of capital in this service, which an honest critic would at least acknowledge, if not praise). The facts are that the vans are being used for the service to IAH (thus avoiding an even bigger capital cost of investing in VERY expensive buses, allowing the buses to be used in other service, which an honest critic would acknowledge, if not praise.) You ASSUMED and stretched the truth to claim that Metro has sunk a whole bunch of capital buying and improving real estate for this service. The facts are that Metro is leasing the land, and instead of building an actual building (as you implied), they parked a trailer on the land; both the lease and the trailer (rather than an actual building) again avoiding huge capital investments, which, once again, an honest critic, especially one whose point is that Metro should be investing their resources elsewhere, would surely acknowledge, if not praise. Now, you continue with your baseless assumptions: That Metro will not be able to use the trailer anywhere else. That they will necessarily have to sell it at a loss. Even that they purchased the trailer. It is very possible that they are merely leasing the trailer as well. You claim to have been told by some horse that they expect only 100 riders a day. Sorry if I don't necessarily put a lot of weight on anything you post, with the track record of bad assumptions, faulty observations, and obfuscation. I'm not buying that Metro has set up this service planning for only 100 riders per day. If the horse indeed told you they expect only 100 riders per day, I think maybe your were talking to the wrong end of the horse. ;-)

ROFLMAO Thanks for the fact check Great Hizzy. Cat got your tongue, Metro Mogul? My comments about your observational skills stand confirmed.

Making assumptions based on your observations (observations being a skill set that you have shown in the past to lack), is NOT the same as checking your facts. If Metro plans to provide van service to downtown hotels, why would their website include this information: "On your ride into the city, METRO will notify your hotel of your arrival at the Airport Direct Passenger Plaza to allow for a timely pick up. Then on your way back, simply let your hotel know of your departure plans and allow them to arrange transportation to the Passenger Plaza for a worry-free ride to IAH on the METRO Airport Direct."? No doubt they have some sort of plan for those vans, but just the existence of vans (if they indeed exist) does not equal a plan to provide van rides throughout downtown to Airport Direct customers. You seem to have overlooked the downtown transit center and DTC MetroRail stop adjacent to the Airport Direct Plaza. Not to mention the coordination with hotel shuttles. As for the building, It does not take a much imagination to think of other possible uses... It could be a hub for Metro Park n Ride service... Besides which, the investment in the building is probably minimal. You certainly make it sound like it was a minimal investment... "small building with TVs, monitors and coffee bar..." This "ill-conceived" plan is something they should have been doing for at least 10 years. (Although I do think they may have over-priced it)

Look at your photo carefully and you will see the parking garage does not take up the whole block. Then if you look at the other photos you can see that there is some "plan" to place a residential tower on that parcel of land (the only portion of the block that would have any view of Discovery Green). I suspect the "building" shown where you colored blue is just a representation of the power/utility building. As to the utility plant next to the Hilton Americas "needs" to be there because it was there for years before the Hilton Americas was built. It would be very expensive to relocate. I agree it is an unfortunate location. Eventually, I would imagine, as we get rid of all of the blocks of surface parking, downtown land will be valuable enough to make it worth the expense of relocating the electric substation.

Sources for any of that? The buses and manpower are "dedicated" only in the sense they are being used for this service at this time . Obviously, they can be very easily moved to other services. I don't believe they have invested much at all in the way of buildings and what reason is there to think that such building is "nontransferable"? Further, I don't believe there is any "Metro Direct" van for transporting passengers to and from hotels. The hotels will provide that service for themselves. You seem to love bashing every move Metro makes. Criticizing is fine, but once in a while you might think about checking your facts.

That is the proposed new convention center hotel

That's a source, and, if true, a pretty darned good one. ;-)

Source?

The plan is for the buses to run ever half hour and the trip will take 1/2 hour. For any more detail, it looks like you'll have to be patient (and hope they get it started before your September trip)

Closing of what streets?

It has not been "there" since 1938. It may have been in business since 1938, but it has moved at least once, in relatively recent years. According to the Chron, it is just the pharmacy that is closing; the diner is a separate operation.

to be fair, I think it was always about negotiating a deal that does not breach their contracts.

LOL and then what? It will approach 2/3 the size of HP, sometime in the far distant, very uncertain future?