Houston19514

Prior to the advent of the fully-enclosed shopping mall, there were open-air shopping centers all over the country, many of which were later enclosed. I think Gulfgate was probably one of those.

Barney's opened stores in Houston and Dallas roughly at the same time some years back. And closed both at roughly the same time. I think it had more to do with Barney's having over-expanded and put itself into bankruptcy, and nearly out of business, than with Houston or Dallas not taking to their stores.

So your answer is to lower peoples' expectations so they won't be disappointed? That would be an interesting chamber of commerce promotion.

If you want the "money spent elsewhere" it would seem like tollroads should be the answer to your prayers, especially the privately-funded variety. The folks who put up the bond money to build a toll road, whether as owners of the toll road or as lenders, do so with their returns tied to the tolls collected on the road. You can't fund education that way. What are you talking about? They are planning the expansion of 290 even as we type, not to mention the possibility of commuter rail in the northwest sector.

It appears to be just to the north of the Katy Freeway. I didn't realize Shell had a complex out there, but from Yahoo Maps, it looks like their current seven-building complex is just to the east of Conoco-Phillips. My tip-off was that the article refers to a "wooded site." From the Yahoo Satellite mapping, there do not appear to be any wooded sites just to the south of the Katy.

That does seem expensive, but just to clarify, that spending estimate is for building bridges over Terminal Subdivision railway line at seven locations: Bellaire, Houston, Richmond, San Felipe, Shepherd-Durham, TC Jester, and Westheimer.

You are a laugh a minute... Yes, it's just an observation... just an observation that (in your opinion) "cleaner civilization" is one way in which Dallas is superior to Houston. The "subject in question" (since you seem to have forgotten) is whether you have ever ever "said that Dallas was in any way superior to Houston." The post I referred you to earlier was also just an observation by you, an observation that picnicking at White Rock Lake is superior to picnicking at the Port of Houston (yes, a nonsensical, ridiculous comparison, but you chose to make the comparison, not me.) In another posting you shared your "observation" that the Dallas Galleria is superior to the Houston Galleria. While you may have studiously avoided the use of the word "superior", you routinely post ways in which you think that Dallas is "higher in order, degree, rank, quality, or estimation." If that's the way you feel, more power to you. I'm thrilled for you. But why can't you just be honest about it, and quit the charade.

You'd better sit down. You're probably getting dizzy from all that spinning you're doing. How about this quote from one of your earlier posts in this thread? "However when I returned back to Dallas(Cleaner Civilization)"

Not everyone works downtown. There is and always will be a tremendous amount of suburb-to-suburb commuting for work, as well as for shopping, dining, and, I guess for visiting girlfriends. The Loop and Beltway 8 serve the same purpose, and it seems that plenty of people have found reasons to use both. (I guess everyone needs to move to the same suburb as their girlfriend). The loop, beltway, and Grand Parkway, also serve as gathering/dispersal facilities, so that people can take a freeway to the radial freeways. Really quite an efficient freeway network.

ROFL Who's kidding who? It might have been helpful had you shared your personal and rather idiosyncratic definition of "new freeway". From my point of view (and I would suggest from the point of view of the standard usage of our shared language), a segment of "freeway" that is "new" and is indeed a "freeway," is what we call a "new freeway," espcially in this situation where the "extension" has never been planned. If it is "their own fault" for those people living in Black Horse Ranch beyond the current freeway infrastructure, why is it not likewise "their own fault" for people living in the 249 corridor who want to get downtown? In fact, it is fair to suggest that it is MORE "their own fault," since the extension of 249 into downtown has never been planned, whereas new freeways (including the Grand Parkway) have been on planning maps for those areas further out. Now, to your overriding point to the effect that we should not build new freeways because that's the only way to get people out of their cars and into mass transit. The sections from downtown to the loop, and to a slightly lesser extent to the Beltway,are exactly the sections of the metro area where mass transit is most likely to be able to replace some freeway demand, far more so than will ever be the case in the Grand Parkway corridor. How, exactly, would building a new freeway from the Beltway to I-45 or downtown in the northwest sector serve your stated goal of getting people out of cars and onto mass transit? I'm not following your logic.

You were indeed quite clear the first time. ;-) But no matter how you try to parse your words, building a freeway from the terminus of the current 249 freeway to I-45 would indeed be a "new freeway." How are you ever going to change peoples' dependence on the automobile if we keep building new freeways all the way into downtown or at least to I-45? ;-) (and by the way, the Grand Parkway will also benefit a lot of people, even if one of them is NOT you.)

Short-term memory problem there, Dallasboi? How about Post #383?

LOL So I guess what you really meant to say in that first sentence was "We need to quit building freeways period... except where they might benefit ME."

Wow! Talk about comparing apples and oranges. If you try real hard, Dallasboi, you might be able to come up with a more pointless comparison.

It's not deed restrictions. It's city ordinances. The structures with less than 25' setbacks are either grandfathered in (i.e., they were there before the ordinance was adopted) or sought and obtained waivers from the city. They have the very same issue in the Medical Center; if a developer wants to build to the curb they have to get a waiver from the city. It's amazing to me that the city has not altered this ordinance for the areas of town where seemingly everyone wants to see more urbanization/walkability. It seems to me they should reverse the ordinance for Midtown, Uptown, Medical Center, Montrose/Museum District, Upper Kirby/Rice Village, and the Heights at the very least and make the default requirement a ZERO setback.

Thank you for your investigation and post. That 60% figure had also struck me as wildly optimistic and improbable.

Yes, we know that. But they started construction in 1999. Much like the W, which did not open until earlier this year, but started construction in 2004 (hence the initial statement that started this discussion re: the W kicking things off in 2004.)

Actually, it all started in 1999 with the American Airlines Center.

I agree. They should go forward with the clearly-best plan. That GCI link has all sorts of great information, including links to many studies of effects on property values. From the studies (including from very similar cities, such as Dallas) it is clear that if AftonAg was at all pro-rail (as he pretends to be). or at all interested in facts, or really concerned about his property values... instead of fighting the Richmond alignment, he would be working with METRO to get the alignment to run through Afton Oaks and to include a station in the Afton Oaks neighborhood. The studies are pretty clear: proximity to stations leads to signficantly higher property values.

Nice straw man you set up there. Once again, you altogether missed (or intentionally avoided) the point. I did not say ANYTHING remotely like the words you are attempting to put in my mouth. NOTHING in my post said anything that can possibly be twisted to mean that I think you or anyone else should just lay down and totally "trust" METRO.

See, that's the problem. You keep telling us you "believe" that the LRT will reduce your property values (indeed, countless times). But you have not once "explained" your belief. What is your belief based on? What logic, what experience, what studies, what facts lead you to that belief? Yes, we can all see perfectly clearly how you were so willing to "work with" METRO. Your constant repetition of your belief that METRO lied and continues to lie to you and that METRO ran people out of business along the Main Street route so that METRO friends and insiders could snatch up the properties are the statements of someone clearly ready to enter into good faith attempts to "work with" METRO. NOT. The difference with the willingness of the north side people to "work with" METRO is that they were actally willing to compromise and accept routes that ridership studies showed would be preferable. They didn't just stampt their feet and say "No, the ballot said Hardy, it must go on Hardy". It entirely clear just how much you and the other AO'ers were willing to "work with" METRO. 'Yes, we'll work with METRO, so long as the rail line doesn't touch Richmond Ave.' It is to laugh.

The problem is, you have presented NO facts. People have shown you studies showing that in the large majority of cases, rail lines lead to increases in property values, not decreases. Yes, those studies were not done in YOU neighborhood, but they are instructive nonetheless. Posters have also pointed out evidence that there does not seem to be any widely-held belief in the community that rail will lead to a decrease in property values because if they did, people would surely not be proceeding with building million-dollar homes in the neighborhood. Seems like a perfectly logical argument to me. There are lots of places in town where one can build a new home. Why would ANYONE choose a neighborhood that may be heading towards ruination because of a rail line. You, on the other hand, have presented No facts and NO studies to support your strongly and emotionally held belief that the rail line will lead to a decrease in property values. You have not even shared with us any logic on which your belief is based. From day one, your posts have been nothing but tendentious and filled with falsehoods and speculation fueled by your emotions and preconceptions. See for example your 7:19 AM post. Wow, talk about speculation!! Now, you're attempting to read the minds of approximately 5% of the people who voted in the rail referendum. I would suggest (yes, I am merely speculating here) that IF there was a widespread belief that the line was going down Westpark, it is JUST as likely that 5% voted against the referendum because of that routing, either because (a) Westpark is in THEIR backyard, or ( they could apply simple logic and see that it is very clearly an inferior route. Face it, man. The ballot-language "argument" is a loser. Thank goodness the northside residents can see the benefits of a rail line and/or are not so breathtakingly clueless and self-centered that they aren't trotting out a lame argument about the North Hardy route having to be only on Hardy Street.

Here's the problem with trying to persuade AftonAg with facts and logic, and why ultimately even he sees that his mind is unchangeable.... When one's position is based on pure emotion and not on any facts or logic, one's position is impenetrable to facts and logic.

Are you referring to Fannin/San Jacinto? I cannot think of any Knight Street in downtown Houston, and I cannot find one on any maps either.

This is what I don't understand or agree with. It strikes me as perfectly intuitive that taking a bunch of buses and cars off the road and replacing them with rail cars (relatively very few in number, that stay in their dedicated areas, don't weave in and out of traffic, or constantly stop and go, and are operated by relatively professional drivers) would result in a reduction in accidents, perhaps even appreciably so.