Houston19514

Someone earlier in this thread suggested nuisance laws. That appears to be your best option. If I were you, I would strongly encourage your condo board to look into actions based on the nuisance laws (either city ordinances, state statutes or the common law). If the lighting is as bad as you say, you should have a pretty strong case. Surely, there is a lawyer or two living in the building that could do some preliminary research on the issue. Houstonians should not be willing to accept the "this is Houston, not Manhattan" excuse. Indeed, if being in Houston, not Manhattan, has any meaning at all, it should mean a better overall quality of life, not uninhabitable. (FWIW, I am a strongly free-market, anti-zoning kind of guy. Whatever the buildings looks like (and I have not seen it), I guess we have to live with, however disappointing it might be, and however much we were deceived in the process. BUT the lighting issue is another matter. Nobody has the right to create conditions that spill over on to their neighbors property, making their neighbors' lives miserable, or interfering with their business or homes.) And, BTW, where is Nancy Sarnoff on this? Is she really going to just let this building stand without any comment? Does she not realize she has been made the fool, the stooge, if you will? Do we have to issue a press release to her fax machine (i.e., write the story for her) to get her to notice it and cover the story?

First off, cut the attitude, sister. If you're bitter about having been decisively proven wrong on your predictions of multiple downtown hotel closings, I'm sorry, but get a grip already. I laid out some very respectful, and yes, logical questions regarding the hotel operations. A respectful and logical response would have been nice. (Sort of like The Niche gave last week or so). The fact remains, these very same hotels lower their rates substantially on the weekends, and presumably are still meeting their marginal costs in doing so. There is nothing illogical about this concept. Successful businesses do it every day, including successful hotels. I discussed this concept of cutting rates but still remaining above marginal (or variable) costs in an earlier post. I never suggested they should cut their rates to below marginal costs. I suggested that if they were losing huge sums of money with the status quo, they would surely move their rates in the direction of their weekend rates, which I presumed are still above marginal costs. I understand wanting to protect "rate integrity". But not if it means continuing a losing battle. As you know, but blithely ignored, I didn't say anybody should cut their rates to $75. Nice straw man attempt, but I'm not letting it fly. Nor did I ever suggest they cut their rates in half. (Most of them are charging well over $150 for weekday rooms. They could do a lot of cutting and still be well above $75.) AND, even if they cut into their "rate integrity", once their market improves, they can start inching their rates up, and those rates will be accepted, as you said in your post. Also, I am well aware that redecorating a 200 room hotel can get expensive. But if a business is losing money at the rates you suggest, and the future holds nothing but more of the same, as you also suggest... and if, meanwhile, the chain-flagged hotels in your market are doing well. Well, it seems rather obvious, the investment would be pretty much a no-brainer. (Especially when one considers that, in order to maintain their high weekday rates, they are soon going to have to do all of that redecorating anyway. (Anybody who knows the hotel business as well as you claim to also knows that luxury hotels have significant "spruce-ups" every 5-7 years or less, regardless of whether they are changing chains or trying to upgrade.) Besides which, none of the hotels being discussed are run-down flop-houses. It seems unlikely they would be required to install new water heating or climate control systems just to join a chain.) If, as you say, downtown unflagged hotels lose money, period, then one would think the investment to flag would be a good one And I doubt it would run as much as $10 million, but whatever . . . as I said above, most of that they will have to spend soon anyway, just to stay in the luxury hotel market. It does not cost $50,000 per room to do a redecorating job ($10,000,000 divided by 200 rooms), and most of these hotels have well under 200 rooms. Your choice of numbers suggests you may be intentionally setting up straw men. . . or you don't know nearly as much about the hotel business as you say. My bottom line question is, and the reason for my skepticism that the Alden, the Inn at the Ballpark, the Magnolia, the Lancaster and the Icon are all losing money hand-over-fist: Why would a hotel operator/owner who is losing big money with no end to the losses in sight, continue operating in the exact same manner, making no adjustments, even in rates? OR just shut the darned thing down already?... I can imagine that one hotel perhaps, for some set of idiosyncratic circumstances, will just continue merrily on its way losing huge sums year after year, but it just seems a little unlikely that we have FIVE such operators in downtown Houston. Businesses just don't go on year after year losing the same money year after year, without making (often drastic) changes to try to end the losses. With the exception of the Icon, none of these hotels have done so. What's up with that?

So... River Oaks District, eh?

The tunnels are there. People like them. It is highly unlikely they will be removed or abandoned any time soon, if ever. I think the best we can do is make our peace with that and hope that as downtown comes more alive that the tunnel system could be integrated more closely with the surface, as was mentioned above. More visible and accessible tunnel entrances would/could help establish more of a flow and closer integration between the streets and the tunnels. As it is now, most of the tunnel ingress and egress is directly into the office buildings etc. The other thing we could hope for is that the hours of the tunnels and the businesses in the tunnels get extended.

They've already announced the Aloft will be in the Galleria area, just west of the Galleria at 5433 Westheimer.

IIRC, indoor ski resorts have been a pretty big success in Japan for quite a few years already, not to mention indoor surfing.

So now we're complaining about their choice of words, and their failure to take into account your personal prejudices and idiosyncracies??

Actually, it is very good traffic planning. Nothing crazy about it. Left turns are a huge contributor to congestion. And you wouldn't do a u-turn to make a left turn. You actually do two right turns, through special lanes, often in an exit/entrance ramp-type curving design. These are widely used in the New Jersey suburbs of NYC and are very effective and easy-to-use.

That was a pretty absurd statement. I would suggest never believing anything that friend tells you ... ;-)

Wow, what a bunch of negative nancies. The negativity of this board never ceases to amaze. We have CONSTANT complaints about nobody caring about appearance or design or aesthetics. When groups try to address such issues with improvements, they are bombarded with whining, ignorant complaints.

I think we know the answer to that. The fact that most projects currently being proposed and built around the country are very similar to Houston's Metro system has also apparently escaped CityKid's notice, even when he writes about it. Hmmmm.... could it be that Metro and Houston are actually leading the way to better, more efficient mass transit systems? What's this, Atlanta planning surface LRT and BRT?? The horror! How could it be that Atlanta, that paragon of all that is good in a city, would be following in Houston's footsteps?

You are quite right that lowering the rates does not necessarily mean that a sufficient number of hotel customers will be induced to stay there, etc. But you know as well as I do that it is quite likely to do so. Especially when we can all see that they do lower their rates on the weekends to induce demand. Your brainstorming list is interesting and most are possible. None are likely, especially in the combinations required to come up with three or four hotel/owner situations. There are plenty of chains of various levels not currently represented in downtown Houston. None of Starwoods chains are there (W, Westin, Sheraton, Aloft, and more). Fairmont. Raddison. Omni. Marriott has several chains not represented. Intercontinental Group has several chains not represented. (and it's highly unlikely that the agreement with Courtyard/Residence Inn would not allow a Marriott, Rennaissance, Ritz-Carlton or other Marriott property.) Yes, chains have certain standards. But, the properties we are talking about have all been recently built/rehabbed and are all well-done to pretty high standards. In most cases, the required remodeling would probably not be huge. As to owners' willingness to undertake such expense, you are sort of stepping on your message. On one hand you tell us they are willing to continue to bleed huge losses year after year. On the other hand, you suggest they would not be willing to spend money necessary to stanch those losses. In general, these people probably didn't become rich by being economic fools. I suppose it's always possible the owner is in it for his ego. But, again, is it really reasonably likely that we have 3 or 4 such owners operating hotels in downtown Houston? Seems unlikely. And even if they are doing if for their ego, wouldn't their ego get just as much stroking from a profitable hotel? I don't know, maybe not... As I said earlier in this thread, I know a lot of rich people with large egos. NONE of them enjoy writing checks. It's very difficult to imagine what could possibly be in the agreements with the city that would make affiliation with a chain difficult. That just makes no sense. It's in everyone's interest for the hotels to succeed. My skepticism of our resident insiders' claims of rivers of red ink for all downtown boutique hotels aside, the more important point is this. It has almost no relevance to the question of whether or not a W or Ritz-Carlton or Mandarin Oriental or other such uber-high-end hotel might be built downtown (or for that matter other high-end hotels). This is so for several reasons. 1. The market is pretty healthy, even if certain individual hotels are not. 2. All of those mentioned possible hotels are affiliated with strong chains. 3. Any of those hotels would also have (presumably profitable) condos associated with them.

New hotel numbers: Downtown Houston hotel occupancy: April 2007: 72.3%, up from last year's 70.9%. Jan-Apr 2007: 67.7%, down from last year's 72.3% (Katrina/Rita effect) downtown ADR: April 2007: $162.36, up 8.4% from last year Jan-Apr: $164.66, up 6.6% from 2006 Uptown/Galleria hotel occupancy: April 2007: 77.9%, up from last year's 73.9% Jan-Apr: 74.3%, down from last year's 76.1% uptown ADR: April 2007: $145.36, up 11.8% from last year Jan-Apr: $138.44, up 4.4% from 2006 What in those numbers would cause a rational investor to automatically exclude downtown from consideration for a new luxury hotel in favor of uptown?

Indeed. The Metro plan is to use diesel/electric hybrid vehicles on the BRT lines.

LOL Those stores sound remarkably similar to what we saw in that downtown Atlanta video. (Except the CVS would really class up that street in Atlanta.) We all know downtown Houston is not exactly teeming with street-level retail, but three stores? Get serious, man. Macy's (downtown Atlanta, I believe, has zero department stores). Joseph A. Bank. I can think of several others off the top of my head, but their names escape me at the moment. And lots more on the way, relatively soon.

I'm perfectly willing to believe it. But I am genuinely curious about why they would not take significant actions to save themselves, as I have asked in several previous posts. I seriously wish one of the industry people would tell me where my logic is wrong. Why would they not lower their weekday rates a bit to fill up some more rooms (and generate higher revenue)? Why would they not affiliate with a chain to instantly generate more business traffic?

Yes, a Z Tejas was announced a while back.

I agree, this will be a great addition to Discovery Green According to the article, it "will be moved to a plaza in the park along Avenida de las Americas, across from the convention center." The plan has always been for a plaza with a "monumental" art piece across the street from the center of the GRB, so I would imagine that's the location. What they have planned sounds even better: The plaza in front of the building will be redesigned with green space and water elements once the sculpture is removed later this year.

Houston Pavilions has a webcam on their site! Houston Paviions Discovery Green will have a webcam soon as well.

Excellent point, Musicman. It's quite comical that someone who thinks he has all the answers for Houston mass transit is so completely ignorant about the current system and plans.

Entertaining as always. Pointless, as always. This has got to be one of the funniest lines I've ever read on any board: The Niche saying: "I could be far more explicit and pedantic, believe me, BUT I AM NOT SO INCLINED." Too rich.

ROFL In other words, you don't have a clue, as usual. What posble measure of transit performance could possibly be more important than ridership? Try to wrap your mind around that question, if you can untangle yourself from your pedantic and meaningless mumbo jumbo.

The two Westins are similar but not twins.

ThePedant: Nobody said anything about ridership being the sole determinant of anything. But ridership is by far the dominant determinant of both success and benefit. That might be why they put so much emphasis on ridership studies. And I guess that might be why rankings of mass transit systems are routinely based on ridership. And I guess that might be why THE two fundamental items in considerations for federal funding are Cost and Projected Ridership (i.e. benefit).

Silly me, I'm always forgetting about those Metro Police out there rounding up people and forcing them to ride on Metro Rail. Give it a rest already with this "forced ridership" nonsense. Show me a rail system any where that does not feed bus passengers into the rail system, and I'll show you an inefficient, duplicative system.