Houston19514

The store formerly housing Mervyn's at Memorial City mall was built for Lord & Taylor in 1977. Lord & Taylor closed in 1989 and Mervyn's relocated from the former Globe store across Gessner. The former Globe/Mervyn's became Oshman's until it was demolished in 2005.

Lord and Taylor returned to Memorial City in a new structure on the south side of the mall in 2002 but only lasted about two years this time. That store is now occupied by JC Penny.

The first Lord & Taylor at Memorial City was a handsome 1970's suburban department store. Much of its upscale detail was removed when Mervyn's took over. Recently the building was further degraded with the application of a press-on artificial stone veneer in an attempt to blend it with the rest of the redecorated old mall. It will be unfortunate for Houston to loose another piece of its retail heritage.

Until recently, Lord & Taylor was known for the outstanding design of their stores. The noted industrial designer Raymond Loewy designed seven suburban stores for Lord & Taylor in the 1950's. When Lord & Taylor came to Houston in the 1970's, they opened four stores which were located at the Galleria, Memorial City, Greenspoint, and West Oaks Malls. Only the Galleria location survived after the 1980s.

The present Foley's at Memorial City is a new structure which was built in the former parking area east of the former Montgomery Ward's store which was demolished and replaced with a Target store. Dillard's relocated from Town and Country Mall to the reconfigured and added-to former Foley's store at the east end of the Memorial City Mall. This 1970's Foley's was one of the early versions of the open concept department store. It originally had few walls and the departments were seperated only by fixtures, furniture, and draperies. It was very open and mod with an early 1970's molded white plastic scheme.

The apartment complex is to be located east of the north-east parking garage, across the street from the mall, at the site formerly occupied by the Holiday Inn and the mini-storage facility which fronts on I-10.

NORTH is up on this map:

Very interesting history. But IIRC, the old Foley's was actually demolished, not reconfigured and added-to.

s post lane is east of ambassador. I saw the map, but St Michael's backyard (bazaar area) sits directly west of the center now. also, Wulfe has been in talks with 5050 Ambassador in order to get them to sell but the residents will not, but nothing more has been said to them. both St Michael's and 5050 are watching the project closely.

So...?? There are other properties adjoining the site as well. As there almost always are with every development in every city. What is your point?

I was just at the med center across the street from MCM and I saw that they have started tearing into the old department store next to the ice rink... isnt that where the old Foleys was?

I think the old Foley's was gone a long time ago... isn't that approximtely where Dillard's is? The dept store next to the ice rink being torn down is probably the former Mervyn's.

The stirring motion is the only thing propping up the newspaper industry. What we have here is a classic elitist vs. populist debate...the latter usually wins out where publications with large distributions are concerned as a result of financial pressures. Elitists then tend more toward smaller demassified niche media.

CNN, for example, poses as a news organization, but is really much more about entertainment. Otherwise, they wouldn't have trash shows like Nancy Grace, Lou Dobbs, or Glen Beck.

If the Chronicle ever got itself a really good reporter, you bet that people would. Remember how Nancy wrote some crap about Bob Yari, some local guy in the industry that happened to be a producer of some movie? That's what you'd get with a good reporter at the Chronicle.

<YAWN> No, I don't remember her story about some movie producer. If I wanted to read about movie producers (and I'm thinking I'm not alone in this), I'd turn to the entertainment section of the paper.

A good real estate reporter writes about real estate. A good real estate reporter would have had something in the paper about the proposed Shamrock Tower BEFORE the sales trailer went on the property, not months afterward. A good real estate reporter would have had something in the paper by now about the Shamrock Tower being (presumably) dead. A good real estate reporter would have an occasional scoop on, oh, maybe the leasing activity at Houston Pavilions, or Boulevard Place, or City Centre, or the planning and development of the downtown park. A good real estate reporter would have had SOMEthing in the paper about the apparent demise of the Renaissance Hotel project in the old Texaco Building. We don't need fluff. We don't need "human interest" stories about some guy who happens to be a producer of some movie; we need information about real estate development and activity. As I said before, if they aren't going to get someone who can learn about, dig for, and report on real estate activities around the metro area, they are wasting their time and money. If they want another "fluff" reporter, they should be honest about it and just add another staffer to the entertainment section.

But my point was that the Chronicle doesn't exist to disseminate information...it exists to sell advertisements. To sell ads, you must have a readership. To foster a readership, you must stir the pot...that's the purpose of a reporter. Facts are kind of secondary, but a good reporter will still get them right and manage to throw in enough semi-entertaining fluff.

The purpose of a reporter is to "stir the pot"?!? That's the kind of thinking that is leading to the demise of the newspaper industry. If facts are secondary, newspapers will be less than "secondary", they will be worthless. Sorry, but for a successful news organization, the purpose of a reporter is to gather and disseminate the information. There is plenty of content in the daily paper that is there solely to entertain. I really don't think anyone goes to the real estate section for entertaining "fluff".

Having written a few myself, the answer is yes.

Developers and other for-profit organizations will never offer countervailing opinions for the purpose of stirring up debate...it takes a reporter to track down the anecdotal man-on-the-street or quasi-academically-sourced quotes and work them into otherwise dry news so as to create a juicy story that people want to read. Even Sarnoff was a little bit lax about doing this, but a good reporter will never fail to present both sides of an issue...even if it requires coming up with a B.S. counterargument, themselves. Of course, when I say "good reporter", I mean one that is valued by the news organization for being able to stir things up...not necessarily one that practices a rigorous set of ethical journalistic standards.

Aside from all that, how else is the Chronicle going to screw up every third fact, number, and quote without having lots of folks go through what's written in the press release? Don't you know that if they actually got their articles right, hell might freeze over?

Sarnoff being "lax" about this (and before her, Ralphie being equally lax) was exactly my point. If they are not going to hire an actual "reporter" who gets out of the office and digs up information and does some fact-checking (and is at least familiar enough with the real estate development in this city to know some basic facts like... 2727 Kirby will NOT be the first high-rise condo in Houston and that Dallas is NOT ahead of Houston in high-rise living), then why go to the expense? Just put a secretary by the fax machine.

True and then again, not true. I agree with your initial point, but SW's ability to grow at say Midway or STL is limited. In both cases, by the number of either available gates not used by other carriers (many in the case of STL) or space to construct (as in MDW). SW does not own any of its terminals and are thus the prisoner of the municipality of airport authority as to new space construction for expansion. If Dallas wants to limit it terminal to 20 gates, it has that perogative. What is really interesting is the option never mentioned in the press. That is that SW's gate lease at DAL was scheduled to expire in December of this year - and Dallas very easily could have elected to not re-new that lease and just close the terminal altogether. Of course, Dallas would have needed to get AA and Continental to agree to forgo the remainder of their respective leases as well in that theirs extend for another 20-40 years. Such a move would have forced SW to choose between dropping service in Dallas altogether or moving ops to DFW.

Exactly which part of that was "not true"? Whatever, the other thing we haven't mentioned is ...

the actual reality at Hobby... While they may currently only be using 17 gates in the new Central Concourse, SW also still uses gates in the A Concourse. Additionally, even before the new Central Councourse was completed, SW asked for it to be expanded from the originally planned 20 gates to 24 gates. So whatever number of flights they can handle per day per gate, they will start with 50% more capacity at HOU than they will EVER have at DAL. I know SW does not own any of their terminals, but it is a rare airport that will not make arrangements to add gates for Southwest (or any other airline with the capacity to pay rent). And while there may in fact be physical limitations at some airports, there are usually ways around that (witness SW's recent investment in ATA to get access to more gates at Midway). Being subject to some limitations at some airports due to physical constraints is quite different than agreeing to permanently limit yourself to a relatively small number of gates. Your estimate of 14 flights per day per gate seems wildly optimistic compared to SW's actual operations. Of their major "hub" airports, They only have one operating more than 10 flights per day per gate (Las Vegas @ 10.4 flights per day per gate). The others all operate more in the range of 7-8 flights per gate per day. (I read on-line that SW was operating 10 flights per day per gate at HOU, PRE-EXPANSION.) If they realistically thought they could operate at that level (and in deed 40% above that level) for the long term I highly doubt they would have agreed to the large expansion project (and while they do not own the terminal, rest assured, they largely pay for it).

Thus, it seems more realistic to estimate that SW anticipates nothing more than 160 flights per day from DAL (16 gates at 10 flights per day per gate).

I would like to see a similar concept done in houston. Whisperings are that the Ritz might be part of the BLVd project.

Our good friend, 713 to 214, might have some thoughts on that possibility.

From my visits to Houston, I think there are several things Downtown can do to improve the nightlife on Main. It seems to me like almost all the nightlife options are clubs that are open a few nights a week from about 8pm to 2am. I think that the scene down there would get a lot better if you can add more casual bars. I think more people would hang out downtown if it wasn't associated with dressing up, going to a club, paying a cover, spending a lot of money on drinks, etc. I think there should be bars like Sherlocks with a live cover band or a Rock Bottom Brewery. In Long Beach, CA where I live, a lot of the bars downtown are actually restaurants during the day. They make money off of the daytime crowds eating out and then come 10 or 11 pm, all the tables/chairs vanish, the lights get turned down, DJ or band starts, and it is a bar/club. I think this would work well for DT. Club owners wouldn't have to depend only on alcohol sales/cover charges a few nights a week in order to survive. I really think casual bars with live music would be a big help. Look at Austin. It is very exciting to see the changes in DT Houston and I am hoping for more positive growth.

Agreed. More "casual bars", as you put it, would be great.

so to expand s post oak to ambassador way they have to tear down both 5050 ambassador way (a luxury mid-rise) and they have to tear up St Michael's Catholic Church's backyard. I really dont think they can do either. The project is likely dead until they get a new rendering.

Post Oak Lane is well to the east of both of those properties. Should not be a problem at all. (I'm guessing Mr. Wulfe has already looked at his maps and figured this out.)

i'm including mgmt changes. The businesses that know how to make it downtown have opened up other ideas. like the owners of St Pete's own El Centro as well. owners of mia bella own cava. owners of la carafe own warrens. owners of notsuoh bought Deans or Clarks, forget which one. Mercury and Boaka are the same. It is almost a little family. Bossa was a TGIFridays owned restaurant but now another company runs it.

Oh, I see we're using an evolving definition of the phrase "opened and closed". (Remember, you started this off by declaring flatly that "EVERy "new" place has open and closed except Mia Bella.") Heck, if we're including management changes, why not go ahead and include shift changes too. ;-)

that is the first I have heard of this project. Looking at the rendering it looks like a suburban campus. I would say somewhere along 610 or BW8. It looks like a nice building. where is the local feild office located now. I never thought about it, but they must have a location here considering the size of our city.

I believe there was something in the paper about it when they broke ground a while back. I don't recally exactly where it is, but IIRC, I think it is somwhere to the northwest...

The study is of cities, not metro areas.

I'm going to make a controversial statement here. After living in the city, off and on for the past 25 years, I don't find the statistic hard to believe.

How about Dallas' ranking at 35th. Do you find that statistic hard to believe?

yeah but many of these are already 2nd incarnations. will give you franks , st pete's and cava though.

Which of the listed establishments are "2nd incarnations"? I think very few of them are.

Re-read my post. I am suggesting that if SW exercised those 16 gates to their capacity within the system they operate (they aim for a less than 30 minute turn), that those gates would still allow for them to expand operations by at almost 80% over what they currently fly from DAL. The 14 gates they use today are not maximized as to turns. Also, SW does not have/operate from all 20 of the gates at HOU today in that 2-3 of those facing pier C are not accessable and thus not yet open.

No need to re-read your post. I completely and thoroughly understood everything you said. I understand you are saying this plan allows them to grow. And clearly, since they will be gaining 2 gates above what they have now, that is the case.

My only point was that this plan limits how much they will ever be able to grow DAL. I also understand that SW does not yet use all 20 of their gates at HOU. (And if your flights/gate/day numbers are anywhere near accurate, SW won't need those other 3 gates for many many years. I am skeptical of the reality of your numbers. I know SW aims for a 30 minute turnaround, but they don't always make it, and as I mentioned before, flights are not evenly spaced throughout the day, so there is going to be SOME dead time at gates. If they were achieving anything close to those numbers, I doubt they would be building all of those 20-and more-gate terminals at their "hubs" around the country. As you know, lean mean Southwest does not tend to invest capital in facilities they don't need.)

But regardless of the numbers the bottom line is: whatever number of flights they can handle per gate per day, SW is permanently limiting their operations at DAL to a number that is 20% smaller than what they will be able to handle at HOU as soon as those remaining 3 gates are available, and much smaller than they can handle with current gates at Midway, Phoenix, BWI, Las Vegas, and even St. Louis. (And they are not restricted from further expansions of their facilities at any of those airports.) So it appears to me that they do not have huge growth in mind for DAL, at least relative to their other "hub" airports.

It would be nice if the parking lot area between the Reliant Center entrance and the Holly Hall entrance- off Fannin St.- were to be converted into a park. Of course 2 or 3 levels of parking could be below ground- similar to the new downtown park.

It would be great to see a formal gate and plaza- beginning at the MetroRail platform- leading into the park. From the plaza, there could be covered paths going throughout the park and also leading to Reliant Stadium and Reliant Center.

Within the park there could be fountains, a pond, an amphitheater, restaurants, cafes, maybe a waterway that could course through the park- even into the Dome- particularly if a hotel is built within. This would be phase I.

Phase II would be to extend the park- from the Holly Hall entrance to the Naomi entrance.

Any thoughts?

I like it. At the very least, they need to landscape and shade that walk from the MetroRail station, with fountains, artwork etc. along the way. They could even incorporate promotions of upcoming Reliant Park events.

Does anybody know if the Chronicle intends to hire another reporter to cover the real estate scene?

Do they really need a reporter to process the press releases they receive from developers? ;-)

EVERy "new" place has open and closed except Mia Bella.

True, unless you consider

Bossa

and Cabo

and Cafe Express

and Cava Bistro

and El Rey

and the Flying Saucer

and Frank's Pizzeria

and Live Sports Cafe

and Sambuca

and St. Pete's Dancing Marlin

and Zula

and Mantra

and Slainte Irish Pub

and Boaka Bar

and Mercury Room . . .

What about Alabama? Is there something about Alabama that makes it impossible?

From say 6:30 am every morning to 11:30 pm every night, each gate will be able to cycle roughly 35 operations per day. Take out 20% for realism due to a whole host of factors and you are left with about 28 turns for each gate per day. That times 16 gives you 448 turns per day (or 224 flight ops). That allows for Southwest to potentially increase it daily ops out of DAL by almost 80%, if utilized to its maximum potential, from where it stands today (about 125 flight ops/day).

Of course the flights are probably not evenly spaced from 6:30 to 11:30 pm. And whatever number of flights Southwest might be able to theoretically handle with 16 gates at DAL (and their actual gate usage at other airports suggests you are exaggerating the possibilities... as someone mentioned earlier, they run a lean mean machine. So I'm thinking they are not likely to pay for a lot of gates they don't need or anticipate needing).

My point is, they are agreeing to a limitation at DAL that they do NOT have at their other major airports, and they have already built quite a few airport terminals to have a good deal more capacity than they will ever have at DAL under this agreement. To me, that suggests they don't plan a great amount of growth of their DAL service.

They have recently completed a 20 gate terminal at HOU from which they operate 137 flights a day. Thay have 19 gates at BWI from which they operate 166 flights a day. 29 gates at Chicago Midway - 203 flights. 21 gates in Las Vegas - 219 flights. 24 gates in Phoenix - 201 flights. (According to your calculations, Southwest has built themselves sufficient capacity at HOU, just to take one example, to more than double their service. I'm not seeing any airline do that, let alone lean mean Southwest.)

Operating a large scale operation with fewer gates is not a problem for them. They are a very efficient lean well oiled machine :):)

Yes, but even SW has limits on how many flights they can handle per day per gate. The fact they are willing to settle for 16 gates at DAL while having just built themselves a 20-gate concourse at HOU suggests they envision a bigger operation at HOU for the long term than they have or will ever have at DAL, as much as 25% bigger (and with no contractual limit on expanding even more at HOU).

I was surprised SW was willing to settle for 16 gates at DAL. Don't they have 20 at HOU?

Don't most downtowns have more than one movie complex? Lets see, Portland, San Francisco, San Diego, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, New York, New Orleans, D.C., Boston, Columbus, Pittsburgh and so on. Lord, why on earth does big sprawling downtown Houston have just one place for movies? Some of the places I mentioned the movie houses are across the street from each other, a block away from each other, 2 blocks away. It makes absolutely no difference, the people come. Megaplex, multiplex, bring it on. They will work. If cities across America can do it, why can't Houston. Make no excuses about Houston not being a tourist town. Many non-touristy cities have them. More movie theaters would change the face of downtown Houston forever.

Are you suggesting that all of those cities have multiple movie complexes in their downtowns? Color me skeptical. I cannot think of any movie complexes in downtown DC, let alone multiple.

What's the story on that Nashville 'scraper? Is it really being built? Who is building it? Who is going to occupy it? It looks beautiful. I agree, it would look awesome in downtown Houston.