Houston19514

...because if we don't, another city will.

Say for example, if Houston decided we didn't want to help finance or invest in a team's facility, but Louisville did, which would be the better investment for the owner? I know it sucks, and it's greedy, but the investments (according to the teams) is paid back to the community by having a team represent them, give media coveage, and create revenue for businesses throughout that location through tourism and local restaurants. The more people go crazy for a sports team, the more likely that the craze will draw revenue and recognition like never before. (case in point: The Seattle Seahawks' media coverage, Detroit's Super Bowl hosting).

... and agree or disagree, the stadium financings were put to a vote of, and approved by, the citizens of Houston.

The project sounds good but Boulder Creek? It's hard to find a pebble around there, let alone a boulder.

These suburban subdivision-type names are as bland and uncreative as the most of the homes themselves.

Bland, maybe, but uncreative? It seems someone is actually being quite creative to come up with a name like "Boulder Creek" for an area with nothing larger than a pebble... perhaps too creative.

;-)

Now let's just imagine the uproar on this board if they had named it "Pebble Creek"

CMSAs are just what they state, combinations of one metro with another metro or micropolitan area. That was my point, that Huntsville is not within the Houston metro. If you combine the Houston Metro with the Huntsville micro area, you get the combined MSA that you mention.

You're right that its not correct to say "Fort Worth" meets the criteria for a suburb, is it actually Tarrant county that meets the suburb threshold and Fort Worth proper does not have enough employment/population in the western half of Tarrant county to reverse this commuting trend that occurs to Dallas county. This may change one day but the entire metroplex is becoming more cohesive and infilled at a faster rate than that.

The metropolitan divisions are used when there are different cultural, economic, and social areas within a metro area, and don't relate to the commute patterns that are used to classify areas of a metropolitan area. An example is the median price for a house. Having a Fort Worth Arlington division allows them to measure and show that the these areas have cheaper (often more suburban) housing than the Dallas division.

My "other source" for the 2004 Metropolitan Areas was listed in post 27 and its worth noting it matches your numbers for the Houston metro count:

http://proximityone.com/msarank04.htm (you can change the order by clicking on the tabs at the top)

Jason

Thank you for the info on your "other source". I'm sorry I had overlooked that link. I see they came up with their metro estimates by adding up the Census Bureau estimates for the component counties. I do not understand why it takes the Census Bureau many months to perform that mathematical exercise. ;-)

As to the CSA's, you are quite right that they are officially termed "Combined Statistical Areas". Nevertheless, they are often, one could say, routinely, referred to as metropolitan areas (perhaps not with a capital "m" and capital "a") and a reference to a CSA as a metropolitan area did not justify the hostile reaction it received earlier in this thread.

As to Fort Worth or Tarrant County meeting the "official classification of a 'suburb'": Of course, it seems rather obvious that parts of Tarrant County would be considered suburban (whatever that "official classification" might be; I'm not actually aware of any offiical definition of "suburb"), but it is equally obvious that not all of Tarrant County would be considered suburban. On what are you basing your conclusion?

Your understanding of Metropolitan Divisions appears to be incorrect. The definition of "Metropolitan Division" is: "one or more main/secondary counties that represent an employment center or centers, plus adjacent counties associated with the main county or counties through commuting ties." A county qualifies as a "main county" of a metropolitan division if 65% or more of its employed residents work within the county and the ratio of the number of jobs located in the county to the number of employed residents of the county is at least .75. A "main county" automatically serves as the basis for a Metropolitan Division. There is also a "secondary county" category. Then all other counties in the MSA are grouped with the Main County or Secondary County groupings with which they have the highest employment interchange measure. Sounds like commute patterns to me... As someone said earlier in this thread, "Please educate yourself on the topic." ;-)

2000 Census:

Chicago - 2,896,016

Houston - 1,953,631

Chicago Metro - 9,098,316

Houston Metro - 4,715,407

2004 Estimate:

Chicago - 2,719,290

Houston - 1,946,484

I couldn't find metro estimates for 2004 from the Census Bureau.

I was just looking through this thread and noticed the dispute over the 2004 estimates. The problem is that your 2004 numbers are taken from the "American Community Survey" which "is limited to the household population and excludes the population living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters." Thus it is not really comparable to the "census" numbers or census estimates.

The 2004 Census estimates are:

Chicago: 2,862,244

Houston: 2,012,626

The Census Bureau has now released the 2004 estimates for metropolitan areas:

Houston Metropolitan Area: 5,180,443

Houston Combined Statistical Area: 5,280,752

If I understand most of his "out-of-town" properties, other developers put together the deal and Trump does little more than lend his name to the development. Maybe Houston developers haven't realized the value of the Trump cache. Or maybe they don't think Houstonians would be impressed. Or, more likely, condo highrises haven't caught on here like they have in some other cities, Dallas included.

Have condo highrises really caught on more in Dallas than in Houston? Are there really that many more of them in Dallas?

I had to put down my drink down to reply to this. The man does have an ego problem and he is hardly at the top of his game. Just looking at some of the stuff he has annouinced lately such as towers in Tampa, Las Vegas, and to an extent New Orleans, the projects aren't that much greater than any other architect or developer. Sometimes his buildings are just single use buildings or towers in the park, making his buildings just something to look at and lately some designs have not been to flattering except Chicago. He is really just becoming a brand which probably has to do with the "original" names for his projects.

I guess I have not seen the Chicago design. I don't recall ever seeing a Trump Building anywhere that was noteworthy for its architecture, design, decorating, or any other category (other than the all-important category of massaging the ego, and filling the bank account, of The Donald).

isn't club quarters membership-driven? (organization/business memberships, that is)

Yes, that is correct. From their website: Club Quarters are private, full service hotels for member organizations designed for the business traveler

Go to www.clubquarters.com for more information

The Houston Club Quarters also has furnished apartments for lease, IIRC

Great news! The Intermodal Center location is looking better and better.

While Houston has changed incredibly over the past 5-10 years, it is looking like the changes over the coming 5-10 years will be even more amazing.

As an aside, I've always wondered why so many Houstonians seem so averse to attaching names to areas/neighborhoods. Names can help provide the much-sought-after "sense of place" and help to add a little bit of soul to a city.

Great Hizzy, I think you are exactly correct.

I didn't realize how much was missing downtown until I came on HAIF. Never even thought of the fact that there's no movie theatre or Randalls downtown.

But, there IS a movie theater downtown.

Well sweatheart as you say let us look at some of posts here-

-""well "teh" spell man...""-

Funny, your mistyping of teh was not in a quote, but how exactly is that a personal attack, explain to all our readers

-"You have shown nothing but a lack of understanding which does not suprise me after reading all of your posts here. "-

All of your posts did show a lack of understanding, you even noted it yourself if your "obtuse" ref. How is a lack of understanding a personal attack? I do not understand heart surgery, but I would not see it as a personal attack if the doc told me so.

-"constant use of you favorites "kiddo" and "kid""-

Kid, I call everyone kid, and have for years, it has long been a favourite of mine, since college.

While you might find something patronising, doing such does not make a personal attack

-""people like you, simpletons if you will,""-

Being a simpleton is not really a pejoritive[sic] but a ephamism for uneducated, which you are on the subject.

-""look out from your RJ window (that is the round thing made of glass and plastic""-

Ditto, where is the profanity or personal attack?????

-""I would type slower if I could HAHA.""-

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the response I gave some moments ago. Many times when speaking in technically jargon people speak too fast, have you never heard of such things?

-""Sorry kiddo. I am just curious as too why it bugs you? Do you have airport issues?""-

And the question stands, why do the unfinshed construction issues at Terminal A bother you, do you have airport issues?

No profanity, attacks on you personally. No casting aspersions [sic]

LOL

I never said "sweatheart" I apologize if I forgot to use a quote mark on an occasion or two. Cutting and pasting does not automatically insert quote marks.

And once again, we see no response whatsoever to the facts and arguments presented in my post

It's been fun, but I have to get to bed to be well-rested as I am preparing to depart tomorrow on a trip to thirty-seven foreign countries on four continents and several sub-continents. Good night and God Bless.

well "teh" spell man I don't know, care to show me any personal attack-please share with the group?

You have shown nothing but a lack of understanding which does not suprise me after reading all of your posts here.

So let me get this straight, now your whole point is the terminal B future construction issue and not how airside ops works? Because you spent multiple threads explaining how there could be no underground ops at IAH (I used Atlanta as another exactly you have seemed to ignore), but when your point there is debunked you go back to Terminal B, which I also noted would be changed? Nice attempt at redirect, you still answered no points in my post, which of course addressed every point in you text, funny kiddo.

And I've been to more than all of you combined, what is your point? Maybe you can explain the baggage system at Atlanta to H-niner here.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,

Capt-AWACS, Forum Alpha Breeder Male

LOL I can't believe you are actually now attacking me for spelling... my misspellings of the words "teh" and "attackes" were direct quotes from your posts. I wanted to quote you precisely, so I did it by cutting and pasting.

My whole point, all along, has been that Terminal A is not the last terminal that is to be redone into "banks" of gates from the current "banjo" design," as you stated. The truth (the fact, if you will) is that Terminal A has already been redone into banks of gates from the former banjo design (you keep talking about underground systems, the existence of which I am well aware and you keep conveniently ignoring that the topic is "gates" which I have not yet seen in an underground configuration, even in Atlanta... the reason I ignored your comments about the underground portions of the Atlanta airport is that your comments were irrelevant. I had asked if you had ever seen underground gates and you responded by telling me that Atlanta has undergound baggage handling and passageways. Yes, and Seattle has a space needle... ), and Terminal B will be redone into banks of gates from their current banjo design, therefore, by simple deduction, we can see that Terminal B, not A is the last terminal that is to be redone into banks of gates from the current banjo design. Go back to the beginning of our discussion, you will see that was the point from the start. Go to the Master Plan, you will see that I am correct.

And by the way, I never said in any post that IAH has no underground ops.

Now, you are apparently trying to avoid admitting your error by stating that you had also noted Terminal B would be changed. Nice try. You earlier admitted that it would be changed, but in some mysterious "different" plan, which somehow didn't constitute redoing it into banks of gates. As I've stated repeatedly, the plan is there for all to see in the Master Plan. Sure looks like banks of gates to me.

I've been ignoring all of the other statements about the undergound systems, etc etc etc, because, as I said before, it's tangential to the issue of whether Terminal A is the last terminal that will be redone into banks of gates.... I don't see any way for either of us to prove what we believe to be the case regarding the details of the underground systems. I have gotten my information from people who have worked in Terminal A baggage handling, but I have no way to prove it. And you don't have any way to prove what you're saying either. If you do, I'd love to see it. I'm genuinely curious. But, as I said, it's irrelevant to the issue we were discussing

As for pointing out personal attacks, how about these:

"well "teh" spell man..."

"You have shown nothing but a lack of understanding which does not suprise me after reading all of your posts here. "

constant use of you favorites "kiddo" and "kid"

"people like you, simpletons if you will,"

"look out from your RJ window (that is the round thing made of glass and plastic"

"I would type slower if I could HAHA."

"Sorry kiddo. I am just curious as too why it bugs you? Do you have airport issues?"

Translation, you can't answer my post because you were wrong and put in your place. The defence rests HA.

When Terminal B gets demolished and rebuilt come talk to us (it will be RJ focused and not like A), but that was not the point you made in your previous post. You tried to argue some odd semantics over the word basement and were wrong, sorry kid, maybe next time. I don't need personal attackes, I have facts and they are stubborn little things.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,

Capt-AWACS, Am I the only one who likes 70$ a barrel oil

<yawn>

If you don't need "personal attackes", why do your posts consist of little BUT peronsal attacks? Please, go look at the Master Plan, Terminal Development, Phase I. I just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that your initial statement (which is what this whole thread is about) was incorrect. Everything that followed is tangential (mostly me presenting my understanding of the facts and you throwing out personal attacks.)

Again, the simple fact, which is, indeed a stubbon thing: The plan for Terminal B is to remove the banjos and replace them with banks of gates. Please, go take a look at the master plan. The fact that they plan for it to be RJ focused is irrelevant. Terminal B is RJ focused now as well. The fact remains that the rj-focused banjos will be removed and replaced with rj-focused banks of gates. Again, please go look at the Master Plan, Terminal Development, Phase I. You will surely understand then that you are mistaken.

For your convenience, here's a link: http://web.houstonairportsystem.org/iahmasterplan/frame.htm

Then click on previous and future meetings:

Then click on Stakeholder Meeting #4:

Scroll down and click on "Terminal Boards"

Scroll down to "Terminal Development - Phase 1"

Actually kid I did, you must be blind if you can't see that- but then again I know several in Houston not a shock.

You are simply wrong. Again, I have been there (saturday as a matter of fact), and know how the airplanes are serviced. I guess the word basement confuses you, try not to go to "semantic" on us just to prove some odd point here.

Look, I understand that when people like you, simpletons if you will, do not understand how complicated things work, they try to put down or redirect, but your redirect will not work here. The burden of proof is on you if think the airside carts and belts do not load under that terminal and underground, because as I noted, they do at that location. At this point I don't think you have travelled or ever even been on an airplane if you can't understand (have you?). Do you have questions about aviation, I am always here to answer questions, lord knows I get enough odd ones at airshows and such.

You are wrong. Do me a favour, open your eyes if you ever go to the airport and fly to Tulsa to see the family, look out from your RJ window (that is the round thing made of glass and plastic). You can see what is still being constructed at Terminal A as the old banjos are fixed. And the plan for terminal B is different so I was correct, sorry. THe way HAS runs their plans lord knows it could change again

I know all that and never said otherwise. I flew in and out of all during those times, many times actually. I even taxied my own T-1 up to terminal A in 2000. All of that above I never contradicted, but thanks for writing it down for us.?!

No you simply did not understand and seem to still not understand, I am sorry my first statement confused you, I would type slower if I could HAHA. Terminal A is still being reconstructed into full banks and half of it has the new underground airside servicing while the rest is using the old system. Go read the newest issue of ""Airports" magazine and you can see some pics yourself. You seem to just be focused on what is above ground near the jetways. Well much of the cost of a terminal is actually below ground in the gate servicing and baggage system (some airports do elevate more than others depending on soil and other configuration issues)

Yes Atlanta- all of the servicing belts and people walkways are underground, just to name one of literally 100s.

There were 4, two are completely gone, half of another is gone, and one still exists in the old config

As a said above, two were dug up when the north side was razed in the late 90s, the south side is yet to be done. If you ever pull into the "70s" RJ gates in Terminal B you can see the construction on the A area to fix it (look west). You work the personal attacks, I just point out the facts. Just because you don't understand doesn't faze me. I've been there, done that and gotten the T-shirt more times than I would care to remember. I've flown more in the last 5 years than you will in your entire life, and that is just a fact- I've seen a few more airside terminals than you have. Next time you fly try and pay attention to it and you will see what I mean. Notice where the tugs park and bag belts, and the food trucks and the ____ trucks etc.

HeightsGuy, Terminal A is supposed to be like servicing all the none skyteam domestic airlines (and Air canada since you clear UScustoms in Canada). Co Connection should pull over to B and the remote stands to the North eventually to Keep CO, KLM, Delta, NW and the skyteam folks happy

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,

Capt-AWACS, Your humble teacher

Spin it, man, spin it.

Simple fact: The plan for Terminal B is to remove the banjos and replace them with banks of gates. (See the Master Plan, Terminal Development, Phase I) Thus, very clearly, Terminal B, and not Terminal A, is the "last one that is to be redone into "banks" of gates from teh current "banjo" design."

As to the rest of your rant, I'll let others (including the board moderator) read the thread and determine who has engaged in peronsal attacks.

Now there's some breaking news hot off the presses ;-)

Well Kid, I really could care less if you call BS or not-facts are facts.

Just for "shits and grins" as someone like you might say, I went down into the bowels of Term A Saturday after flying into IAH and meeting with some execs at Cotinental. DId a little tour and one full underground compartment is left and half of the other (one is partially in use due to diverted funds-mainly AA's). Construction was stopped due to some rain, but should be finished and linked into the new system as noted above.

You basically show you have no idea how any airside of an airport works. The fact you did not even know what ops means tells me that. Sorry kiddo. I am just curious as too why it bugs you? Do you have airport issues?

COntinental will not get those anytime soon. Terminal B's landside refurb is actually ahead of schedule (something rare in Aviation construction). edit /link

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,

Capt-AWACS, Seven Continents Down, None to Go

Yes, indeed, facts are facts. And I can't help but notice that you neither addressed nor contradicted a single one of the facts in my post, to-wit:

The inbound and outbound baggage belts were moved to the new bridges when the new north and south concourses were built. For another, the "basements" were never basements underneath the banjos and were never in the banjo configuration. They were merely tunnels (one to each of the north and south sides I believe). Virtually nothing of the original banjo configuration remains at Terminal A.

And BTW, sweetheart, I know what "ops" means. I was just trying to get you to move beyond the very generalized statements you were feeding us (and continue to feed us). Nothing you have posted in this thread indicates that you have ever been on the "ops" side of an airport or know anything about the "ops" side of Bush Intercontinental. To the contrary, your statements that the banjos had basements and that the basements of the banjos are still there indicate you have never been anywhere near the ops sid of Terminal A.

Just for S's and G's (as someone like you actually did say), let's review a few facts:

Fact: You stated that "Terminal A is the last one that is to be redone into "banks" of gates from teh current "banjo" design. "" (A statement that is clearly, demonstrably, visibly incorrect)

Fact: The city started a major renovation of that facility around 1997. During this time the southwest pod (or "banjo") was demolished and construction started on a new, modern south concourse. This concourse opened in 1999, and shortly after the old southeast pod was demolished. Construction then moved to the north side of the facility, and the new north concourse opened there around 2001/2002. (Terminal B, not Terminal A, still has the banjo design.)

Fact: When called on this misstatement, rather than admitting error, you tried to back and fill by saying that: "I mean Terminal A's servicing below ground is still in the banjo configuration, " which, of course is not anything at all like what you actually wrote, to-wit: "Terminal A is the last one that is to be redone into "banks" of gates from the current banjo design." Tell me, from your vast knowledge and experience of airport ops, have you ever seen "banks of gates" below ground? ;-)

Fact: Terminal A's "servicing below ground" was never in a "banjo configuration." There were no banjo-shaped basements as you suggested. (If you were correct that the underground system was in the banjo configuration, there would surely be four underground compartments, given that there were four banjos. In your latest response/personal attack, you state that "one full underground compartment is left and half of the other," strongly implying that there were only 2, not 4, underground compartments. What happened to the "basements" under the other two banjos, man?

Sorry those of us in the business know the jargon I guess LOL

Yes 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

You tell a good story, but I'm calling BS on this one. For starters, the inbound and outbound baggage belts were moved to the new bridges when the new north and south concourses were built. For another, the "basements" were never basements underneath the banjos and were never in the banjo configuration. They were merely tunnels (one to each of the north and south sides I believe). Virtually nothing of the original banjo configuration remains at Terminal A.

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. The good news is, even though you don't get it, it will be fixed soon enough, allowing A (along with the new terminal link connection) to be fully integrated with the others terminals. The "banjos" were not suited for hub ops of todays airlines and will go the way of the dodo.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,

Capt-AWACS, Yankee Air Pirate

Well, now you've finally told me something... (I understand the concept of a basement; it's just that your previous responses told me nothing about what you believe is in these banjo-shaped basements.) So you're saying the baggage is still run from the airfield into the terminal on underground systems beneath where the "banjos" used to be?

I am in total agreement with the comments regarding comparing this to Grand Central Station. Once again the Chronicle does a disservice to the city of Houston. The frequent silly comarisons such as this and the lame comarison of the new park to Cenral Park just seem juvenile and insecure. Sometimes I think the best thing that could happen for the future of Houston is to replace the entire staff at the Chronicle.

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. American Airlines has been quite vocal in getting A up to full interline service. As for top side as noted above, all the banjos airport wide will be gone by 2010-2012.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,

Capt-AWACS, No Honey I don't want to meet your parents

I still don't get it. Surely you can explain it better than that. What "ops" are still buried in the banjo configuration?

Sure you can, if your destination is the UN or the Public Library. Anything else is going to be a pretty good hike. While a walk from the proposed Intermodal to Spaghetti Warehouse is a healthy .6 miles, so is Bryant Park from Grand Central. Times Square? Twice that. Want to see the site of the World Trade Center? Bring a lunch. It is over 5 miles away, akin to walking to The Medical Center.

There is this common myth that everything is a pleasant 2 block walk from everything else. In reality, it is 13.4 miles long and 1 to 2.3 miles wide. The reason it seems so accessible is its fortuitous shape (long and skinny), and it's well developed transit system, which had a 100 year head start on ours.

Any misguided belief that Grand Central is anywhere close to New York's Downtown is to completely ignore the realities of NYC. The proposed Intermodal is virtually IN Downtown Houston compared to Grand Central's location in Manhattan.

Don't be ridiculous. I (and I am sure others) are quite aware of the size of Manhattan Island. And any misguided belief that the only "destination" on Manhattan is in downtown or any misguided belief that there are no workplaces, offices, retail stores, residences, restaurants etc, etc, etc. within easy walking distance of GCS is also to completely ignore the realities of NYC. (and, trust me, there is a good deal more within a short walk from GCS than just the UN and the Public Library.) If there are almost no destinations in the GCS neighborhood, I wonder what all of those people rushing in and out of the building were doing every time I've been there. Are they just actors hired to make it look busy?

In short, no one even hinted that they believed that ALL of NYC or even all of Manhattan was a "pleasant 2 block walk from" GCS. This is quite contrary to the proposed Intermodal station in Houston, where almost NOTHING wold be a pleasant 2 block walk, and almost every arriving passenger would have to switch to another mode of transportation (other than walking). I think it's probably the best we can hope for, I totally support it, and hopefully, the area around it can grow into a good mixed-use area, so that there can be some pedestrian traffic coming and going from the facility.

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

I'm sorrry if I'm being obtuse, but I still don't know what that means. What is underground? and why would it be banjo-shaped? ;-)

I lived in NYC for a short time, but I don't ever remeber GCS being a destination unto itself. It's primary purpose is to be a major transportation hub.

I think the point really was that the area/neighborhood is a destination, not the building itself. Many people can get off the trains in GCS and walk to their ultimate destination.

Terminal A's servicing below ground is still in the banjo configuration,

What does that mean?

Hmm. Why does that sound familiar?

Maybe because the same tired line has been used regarding every war in history? ;-)