Houston19514
-
Posts
8,893 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Houston19514
-
-
FedEx DID consider DFW for a hub ops base. Ross Jr. offered a better deal. And cargo routed through AFW DOES NOT terminate in the DFW area (all FedEx cargo terminating in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex is off-loaded at DFW).
Wow, Jason sure shot a hole through the heart of his credibility with these posts about the Wright Amendment, didn't he?
-
You will find no such text in the amendment. Alliance fully qualifies as "competition" to DFW. In fact that part has even been admitted, but the excuse to get around it was that Fedex wouldn't have considered DFW for a hub so its not really competition. That wouldn't stand up in court.
If that were a valid excuse Southwest would be free to fly anywhere from Love because they've said the same thing.
Jason
But you will find these words "...to provide the transportation of individuals, by air, as a common carrier for compensation or hire between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside the State of Texas,"
So, for two reasons, your statement that Dallas' building of an Alliance-type airport would be illegal was incorrect.
(1) a new Alliance-type airport would not be Love Field, and
(2) a new Alliance-type airport would not involve the "transportation of individuals, by air, as a common carrier"
And of course the Wright Amendment is irrelevant to all of the business about FedEx not really being competition to DFW. The Wright Amendment does not apply anywhere but Love Field and does not apply to cargo carriers (event though the word "cargo" indeed does not appear in the language of the Wright Amendment.)
-
I'm not sure that's what he meant, but I can see how you'd come to that conclusion and now I see what the previous "don't bite the hand" comment was about. If that is what he meant, I rather doubt it anytime this century. I think if you were even going to try to compare that in say 25 years he'd have to do a better job at laying out criteria for successfulness.
On the question of what the whole thing is (which is much more than a warehouse) I'd recommend studying Alliance and its wide ranging effects. In the past it would have been illegal for Dallas to build an airport like that, (violation of Wright) but now that its been done and wright will be gone soon anyway, it looks much more likely.
Jason
The Wright Amendment has no application to cargo carriers, and thus no relevance or application to an airport like Alliance.
-
But it is taller with the spire. And the Spire is considered part of the building. (As an ornament, not as a radio or telecommunications). So techinically speaking, it is the tallest Residential Building in Texas.
Where is it written that a spire is considered part of the building. Were some of the verses of my book of Genesis left out? "And on the eighth day God decreed that spires shall be considered part of buildings when calculating heights, but only if they are ornaments, not if they are radio or telecommunications." But what if they are ornamental radio or telecommunications? Or telecommunicating ornaments? ;-)
In fact, On July 10, 1997, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat met in Chicago to announce new standards with four categories for measuring tall buildings. These categories are:
1. Height to the structural or architectural top.
2. Height to the highest occupied floor.
3. Height to the top of the roof.
4. Height to the top of antenna.
Three thoughts:
(1)This topic was about the tallest Condo tower, not tallest residential tower. The building in Dallas will be rental, so does not even fit in the category being asked about.
(2) The building in Dallas is under construction and has no one living in it, so as of today, the Huntingdon is still the tallest residential building in Texas, no matter how loose of a definition you want to use in measuring heights of buildings.
(3) In my opinion, when judging what is the tallest condo building or the tallest residential building, the salient question is, which building has residences the farthest from the ground (highest occupied floor). Even after people start moving in to the building in Dalls, the Huntingdon (and probably several other buildings in Houston) will have several floors of residences that are higher in the sky than any residences in downtown Dallas, or elsewhere in the state.
A little more on the spire issue. When I look at a building to judge its height (and I think most people would do the same) I look at where the top of the main structure is, not to the top of any little ornamental spire sticking up like a flag pole. For this reason I think one has to include the ornamental structure on top of the Bank of America building in Atlanta, but it seems ridiculous to include the little flag-pole-like ornament on top of that building in Dallas. I question whether this particular ornament would even qualify as the "structural or architecural top" of the building; I would say not. I can imagine that if you showed a picture of the two buildings in that Dallas complex to any number of people and asked them which building is the taller. . . after they looked at you like you were out of your mind for even asking the question, and then pondered whether it was a trick question, about 99% would tell you that the 50 story building next door is taller than the 34 story building being converted to residential.
I think this one may be the new tallest condo tower in Texas. I am not for sure. Its in Fort Worth.
This building in Fort Worth (now called The Tower) is 488 feet tall. So, no, it is not the tallest condo tower or the tallest residential tower in Texas, no matter how you measure.
-
I'm relieved to see someone is still awake. For a minute there (actually 54 minutes) I thought Posts #89 and 90 had put everyone to sleep. ;-)
-
post#65
Oh, you mean the off-topic blather about the D-FW website (that was in fact responded to by several Houston members in Posts #66, 71, and 76). What was your point again?
-
And another thing I've noticed is houstonians will argue a point all the way until they run into a post that speaks the truth like 713to214's,and then they become silenced with no rebuttal so they then harp on how serious the thread is getting and the forum is supposed to be fun crap,when in accuallity it's because some realistic thinking poster shuts them up. In other words,The"SERIOUS"rant is merely an excuse to change the subject because they can't reply to the post that shut them up......face it!!!!!it's True!!!!!!
What in the world are you talking about?
-
Please, point out a post where I was defensive of Dallas. It's been quite the contrary. I sit back and read (with much laughter, I might add) while many posters, here, make VERY defensive statements about Houston, and make MANY unsolicited, nasty comments about Dallas. It doesn't bother me. . .and why would it? It's just a bunch of ranting from people who, arguably, spend too much time in front of their computer, and probably can't/won't do anything to solve the perceived problems, anyway.
Dallas is Dallas. Houston is Houston. The funny thing that most here can't seem to figure out for the life of me is, most Dallasites don't care about what's going on in Houston, until your next All-Star Weekend, Superbowl, etc. However, the cross section of Houstonians on this board would give the impression that most Houstonians worry, obsessively, about whether they will wake up tomorrow and the people of Big D have done 'something else' to steal Houstonian's thunder. My advice: "Get rid of the chip on your shoulder, and think pleasant, happy thoughts."
See my response to JasonDFW (that apparently crossed paths with your question to me)
The really funny thing is all of you Dallas guys coming onto a Houston board pondering why Houstonians care so much about what is going on in Dallas, why Houstonians care so much about what Dallasites think of them, and declaring that Dallasites don't care anything about Houston. Ironic, no?
IMHO, forum.Dallasmetropolis.com is a nice website. It has become an "institution" where City Council members, developers, investors, industry insiders actively participate in the discussions, newspaper columnists, and TV. reporters come to find news stories, and where lurkers can come and find information on just about anything going on in the metroplex. If you've been lurking there for a while, you'll notice a stark contrast between the two sites. . .on the Dallas forum, threads about Houston are rarely brought up, unless someone from Houston brings them up. When topics regarding Houston are brought up, 90% of the time it's a thoughtful discussion, with no bashing. Those forumers don't really seem to care too much about what's going on in Houston, and when something good happens for Houston, kudos are usually plentiful. Maybe it's the average age of the forum participants or something, I don't know, but the discussions are more thoughtful and productive, as opposed to much of this "they got it, so we should have one too." Some of the posters here could learn a thing or two from lurking/participating over there. However, I suspect that a few of you already have.
I took you up on your invitation and went to the Dallas website and looked around. In my brief perusal, the main difference I noted was the lack of interjections by defensive and humorless people from outside the subject city (people who, one might say, seem to have chips on their shoulders).
-
Could you point out lines specifically where I was defensive about Dallas? Very curious.
Jason
You're joking, right? How about every one of your posts on this thread? How about the fact that you felt compelled to come onto a Houston board to "defend" Dallas's "port" against nothing but some light-hearted ribbing? Lighten up, man.
I just realized I left Dallasboi off my list of those who need to take themselves (and Dallas) less seriously; an inexcusable oversight on my part. ;-)
Zaphod, you are quite right; Tulsa does have a river port, just as do all of the cities along the Mississipi River and other rivers. And trust me, Tulsans think they have a port comparable to the Port of Houston or Port of New Orleans, handling ocean-going cargo, etc, etc. If one were to go onto the Tulsa board and merely point out that the Port of Tulsa is more comparable to, say, the Port of Memphis or the Port of Muscatine, Iowa, you'd set off a defensive flame-war like nothing you've ever seen.
-
ROFLMAO
This has to be the funniest thread ever on this board.
Jason, 713, and Banking, try not to take yourselves (and Dallas) so seriously. You'd have to go to the Tulsa board to find people as who are as defensive about their little burg as you guys.
And the fact that the local media illustrated the story of "The Port of Dalls receiving its first shipment" with photos of an ocean liner unloading was too precious for words.
Oh, and, by the way, Johnson Space Center is indeed in the City of Houston.
-
That can't be right, Metro doesn't runout of Harris COunty.
From the Metro website:
Cities within the METRO area include Houston, Bellaire, Bunker Hill Village, El Lago, Hedwig Village, Hilshire Village, Humble, Hunters Creek, Katy, Missouri City, Piney Point, Southside Place, Spring Valley, Taylor Lake Village and West University Place. Major portions of unincorporated Harris County are also included.
-
I agree this is really good news
-
1
-
-
Yes, those are correct. HOK and LaGuarda Low
-
Excellent pics! Made me "home"sick
-
The white building you see is 1301 Fannin. Assuming that is the one you are speaking of.
Also I just scanned through the last couple pages, but has groundbreaking occured? Or was that only for the House of Blues?
I don't believe ANY groundbreaking has occurred. When they announced the project/House of Blues, I believe they said groundbreaking would be in May.
-
I just ran across this website:
-
This project was supposed to b seven blocks before it was scaled down. If you visit and read the description of the project on the website for the architect firm that designed the project it is discribed as a much larger development.
That was actually a different project being worked on by Crescent Real Estate and Entertainment Development Group. It would have been called Pavilions at Houston Center. It would have been to the east of the Shops at Houston Center, on land that Crescent has since sold (at least they have sold most of it...) The proposal was very preliminary and (if I may state the obvious) never went any where. One of the renderings earlier in this thread was actually from that proposal, not the Houston Pavilions project which is actually coming to fruition. And Houston Pavilions has a totally different team of architects.
-
It goes through Ohklahoma.
No it does not. Interstate 45 ends in Dallas.
-
That color rendition, which I take is looking Southwest, shows the Hilton towards the east. But there also is a parking garage, right across the pavilions, on the next block on main. Is that garage allready there? Or is it to be built? I thought the whole pavilions takes up 3 blocks in a row east of main. The rendition also shows some pretty tall towers in the background, somewhere in the vicinity of St. Josephs but across the pierce elevated. I'm pretty sure those towers dont exist.
Also, those white towers right behind the pavilions...I dont remember those. I thought the only thing of that magnitude in that area is Houston House Apatments.
Maybe my bearings are all wrong here.
The parking garage already exists. The developers of the Houston Pavilions have leased it for use as part of the Houston Pavilions. As shown in the renderings, there will be a skywalk connecting it to the Pavilions. The tall tower across the street to the south also exists. I don't recall its name, but it is definitely there.
Okay, now I see the rendering you're talking about. They have definitely taken some liberties with the heights of those towers in the distance to the south.
-
So, for those keeping score at home...
Terminal A is the last one that is to be redone into "banks" of gates from teh current "banjo" design. Term A is the one that all the "other" non-Continental airlines and partners fly into for domestic (andCanada) flights. It will eventually get "guccied" upCiao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Watching you from 30,000 feet
It is hard to read this any other way than to think that the Cap'n was saying that Terminal A was yet to be redone into banks of gates from the current banjo design. (The word current is key here). This is obviously wrong to anyone who has set foot on IAH property in the last seven years. So, we'll grant that he might have meant that Terminal A is the last, meaning, the final, one that is to be redone into banks of gates (i.e., that Terminal B will not be redone into banks of gates from the current banjo design. Still clearly wrong. Anyone can go to see the IAH Master Plan document, which was just completed within the last couple of months, and, contrary to the Cap'n's claim, is not currently being revised. The Master Plan (which by the way, had not even been thought of in 1997 when the Cap'n claims to have worked on it; he's apparently confused it with the Capital Improvement Program that included the reconfiguration of Terminal A.) clearly calls for redoing Terminal B into banks of gates from the current banjo design.
Stubborn facts: 1
The Cap'n: 0
allow me to clarify 19514- I mean Terminal A's servicing below ground is still in the banjo configuration, which is due to be dug up and reworked over the next ~two years.Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Watching you from 30,000 feet
According to the engineering department and manager of IAH, "When the south (and north) flight stations were demolished all of the structure and underground portions of the facilities were removed. There is no basement to the south or north concourse and the flight stations had no basement. Under the construction of the South & North Concourses we replaced all of the conveyor system. Everything got changed and inbound and outbound were relocated to feed from and to under the South and North concourses. None of the conveyors traveled thru the existing tug tunnel."
Stubborn facts: 2
The Cap'n: 0
When A was refurbed the serving docks that link underground were not all updated. It is projected another 4 million will complete A's transformation from Banjos, and 13 mil for B.Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Veni, Vidi, Bibi
"When the south (and north) flight stations were demolished all of the structure and underground portions of the facilities were removed. There is no basement to the south or north concourse and the flight stations had no basement. Under the construction of the South & North Concourses we replaced all of the conveyor system. Everything got changed and inbound and outbound were relocated to feed from and to under the South and North concourses. None of the conveyors traveled thru the existing tug tunnel."
Stubborn facts: 3
The Cap'n: 0
THe servicing network of hte airport is partially "buried", as Terminal A was partially reconstructed, funds were diverted away from rearranging all of Terminal A's ops. It is quite a sight, I have toured the entire ops side of IAH on several occasions.Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, No Honey I don't want to meet your parents
"When the south (and north) flight stations were demolished all of the structure and underground portions of the facilities were removed. There is no basement to the south or north concourse and the flight stations had no basement. Under the construction of the South & North Concourses we replaced all of the conveyor system. Everything got changed and inbound and outbound were relocated to feed from and to under the South and North concourses. None of the conveyors traveled thru the existing tug tunnel."
Stubborn facts: 4
The Cap'n: 0
well I don't know what else to say. Maybe you could think of it like a house having a basement. You move the house, the basement doesn't move unless you dig a new one. If your water heater was in your old basement you need to hook it up to the new location before it works, the same with the baggage loaders, belts, and servicing that was (and still is) in the old config under terminal A.Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Yankee Air Pirate
"There is no basement to the south or north concourse and the flight stations had no basement. Under the construction of the South & North Concourses we replaced all of the conveyor system. Everything got changed and inbound and outbound were relocated to feed from and to under the South and North concourses. None of the conveyors traveled thru the existing tug tunnel."
Stubborn facts: 5
The Cap'n: 0
Sorry those of us in the business know the jargon I guess LOLYes some of the baggage is run from the old loaders into the central system, which has not been completely refurbed yet, also several of the tug paths run from the old points in the A terminal banjos. Some of the money was redirected to the new 17/35 runway but it is now funded to complete the refurb. Ditto all of B and the full above ground terminal link connection (not to mention the old people mover refurb that will be done). You can kind of see it if you fly out of hte AA gates, you will see tugs drive "out" after servicing the aricraft airside. All of it should be finished "soon" thus getting A up to snuff, even though it si a forgotten terminal in relation to the other Continental babies and INternational ones.
Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, You better Belize it
"When the south (and north) flight stations were demolished all of the structure and underground portions of the facilities were removed. This included all electrical, plumbing and fuel systems. There is no basement to the south or north concourse and the flight stations had no basement. Under the construction of the South & North Concourses we replaced all of the conveyor system. Everything got changed and inbound and outbound were relocated to feed from and to under the South and North concourses. None of the conveyors traveled thru the existing tug tunnel."
and, from the manager of IAH:
"I will give a brief on current construction affecting Terminal A:
-
I think you are probably referring to the Republic Bank Tower conversion.
According to the World Almanac that building is 36 floors and 602 ft with the spire, meanwhile the Huntington is 503 ft (no spire) and 34 floors. I don't know how tall that spire is, but I imagine that these buildings are pretty similar.
The RepublicBank Building is a mere 452 feet without the spire.
-
the one in downtown dallas is the talles.
Only if you are willing to count the spire. . . (and I'm not). Besides which, "the one in downtown Dallas" is probably still nearly a year away from having any residents.
Oh, and one more thing: "the one in downtown Dallas" will not even be a condo tower. It will be rental apartments.
-
In further e-mails, IAH's manager and HAS engineering department have given me more information that, shall we say, "clarifies" some of the (mis)information posted earlier in this thread regarding the reconfiguration of Terminal A:
"When the south (and north) flight stations were demolished all of the structure and underground portions of the facilities were removed. This included all electrical, plumbing and fuel systems. There is no basement to the south or north concourse and the flight stations had no basement. Under the construction of the South & North Concourses we replaced all of the conveyor system. Everything got changed and inbound and outbound were relocated to feed from and to under the South and North concourses. None of the conveyors traveled thru the existing tug tunnel."
-
It seems like there should be an Interstate Highway connecting Texas' capitol with its largest city. And, after last year's hurricane season, it seems clear Houston needs it for evacuation purposes.
Port of Dallas Developments
in Dallas/Fort Worth/Metroplex
Posted
You just cannot admit to being wrong, can you? Simple facts, man: The Wright Amendment only restricts passenger carriers, NOT cargo carriers. The Wright Amendment only restricts operations at Love Field. It has no application whatever at ANY other airport. Period. It does not apply at Alliance. It would not apply at any new airport in the D-FW Airport. Therefore, as far as Wright Amendment restrictions are concerned, it could not matter less whether FedEx first considered or would have considered D-FW airport. I suggest you actually read the language of the Wright Amendment before pretending to know what it says.
Since you seem unable (or unwilling) to find it for yourself, here are the exact words of the Wright Amendment:
(a) Except as provided in subsection ©, notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the Secretary of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, nor any other officer or employee of the United States shall issue, reissue, amend, revise, or otherwise modify (either by action or inaction) any certificate or other authority to permit or otherwise authorize any person to provide the transportation of individuals, by air, as a common carrier for compensation or hire between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside the State of Texas, except (1) charter air transportation not to exceed ten flights per month, and (2) air transportation provided by commuter airlines operating aircraft with a passenger capacity of 56 passengers or less.
(
Except as provided in subsections (a) and ©, notwithstanding any other provision of law, or any certificate or other authority heretofore or hereafter issued thereunder, no person shall provide or offer to provide the transportation of individuals, by air, for compensation or hire as a common carrier between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside the State of Texas, except that a person providing service to a point outside of Texas from Love Field on November 1, 1979 may continue to provide service to such point.
© Subsections (a) and (
shall not apply with respect to, and it is found consistent with the public convenience and necessity to authorize, transportation of individuals, by air, on a flight between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points within the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas by an air carrier, if (1) such air carrier does not offer or provide any through service or ticketing with another air carrier or foreign air carrier, and (2) such air carrier does not offer for sale transportation to or from, and the flight or aircraft does not serve, any point which is outside any such State. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to give authority not otherwise provided by law to the Secretary of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, any other officer or employee of the United States, or any other person.
(d) This section shall not take effect if enacted after the enactment of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979.
And as to FedEx. You told us earlier that FedEx would NOT have considered DFW (see post #112), now you tell us "Of course Fedex considered DFW" (see first paragraph above), and then you tell us "they never considered DFW as an option..." (also first paragraph above). Which is it?