Houston19514

Ditto on wishing it could be closer to the core of downtown, so a good portion of arriving passengers could walk away from the station, rather than transferring to another mode. But I guess the increased costs (higher land costs and no doubt sky-high costs of getting all of the rail lines to converge somewhere near the middle of downtown, probably requiring they be in tunnels) probably make such a location totally infeasible.

The fact that they are hiring a top-tier architecture/planning firm, indicates they are aiming to build a landmark structure, not just a glorified Greyhound station. I think they are going in the right direction here.

Mark me down as a ,

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" up

Continental does not have the aircraft to even think about flying to Seoul from Houston at this time, sorry.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,

Capt-AWACS, Watching you from 30,000 feet

Terminal A's "banjos" were removed several years ago, new concourses were built and the whole terminal was remodeled.

The remaining banjoes are in Terminal B, the interior of which has also been completely remodeled.

The airport system is developing a 20-year master plan for the airfield and terminals at George Bush Intercontinental, in order to handle double the current traffic. The plan will remove the central terminal buildings of Terminals A, B, and C, build a new consolidated central terminal building and new concourses, and connect them all via an a new high-speed underground train (similar to Atlanta's I suppose). It will be done in phases as needed.

Go here to see more:

http://web.houstonairportsystem.org/iahmasterplan/frame.htm

Uuuuh........Dallas started the repavement of DTD streets,rebricking the sidewalks ect.ect.ect. last year...it's already in progress.So the answer is yes, it is effecting downtown in a very positive way..............along with the Mosaic Towers,.....and the Mercantile project(similar to Houston Pavillons),and The Hunt Entertainment District (Reuinion Arena Area). So to sum everything up you are simply a hater. And I hate to label people but judging by all of your post......you love to HATE Dallas. And Just for the record everyone I am not falsely accusing red scare, Go read all of his Posts..... oh well!!!!!

I'm not seeing any hate from RedScare in this thread. Far from it.

Downtown malls are hell or should I say malls in general. The day of the mall is definitely dead and there has not been one constructed in Americaf for years, except for the one in Orlando and I guess the one at AOL Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle in NYC.

I think you've overstated it more than a little.

Here's another: Detroit's Campus Martius Park. Only 2 acres! Its amenities include:

major fountains and waterwalls

ice rink

cafe

major monuments

Lawn light and vine towers

two lawn areas

sitting gardens

two stages

all on only 2 acres. and it's surrounded by apparently pretty high-traffic streets. (It actually is making me think more of the possibilities for Holcombe Square.)

And they gave it a name! The horror of it all. Those Detroiters are sooo pretentious. ;-)

Sorry guys, you can't shame me into being on board with this park design. Many of you are architects, you know that it's possible to stuff an oversized L-shaped couch, wet bar, and a 50 in plasma TV into a 10x10 room, but why would you do that? An 8.5 acre downtown park is the public space equivalent to the 10x10 room.

The only, and I mean only, point I am making is that there is too much going on. Less is more, that's all I'm saying.

What if we expanded the site by almost 50%, to 12 acres? Would you be happy then?

In any event, keep in mind that what we have seen is not the final design of the park. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere recently that the final design may not include all of the elements that are in the Site Activity Plan.

Earlier you said your biggest beef was that there will be less greenspace than there is now. Unless you've seen some plans that are not on the Park's website, I don't know where you came up with that. According to the Site Activity Plan on the website, pretty much all of what is currently greenspace will remain greenspace, plus a good chunk of what is now parking in front of the Hilton Americas will become greenspace, plus a good chunk (actually a majority) of what is now parking to the north of the current greenspace. (I recognize that the pond may not be technically "green," but I'm counting it and the area around it as greenspace anyway. )

And here's some more food for thought. The widely-acclaimed Bryant Park in NYC is 4 acres and its amenities/activies include:

Bryant Park Grille

Bryant Park Cafe

a Coffee kiosk

a "Creamery" kiosk

a Soups & Salads kiosk

a Sandwiches kiosk

chess & Backgammon areas

Boule ball area

a pond with skat rental facilities and warming pavilion

Ice Cafe

Pond Snack Bar

Music at the Pond

Carousel

Flower kiosk

The Bryant Park Reading Room

Wireless network

Apparently, New Yorkers didn't get the "less is more" memo and yet the park is wildly successful.

Good point about the dog run/picnic area. Nothing like getting a good Fido leg-humping while trying to eat your burger! Not to mention all of those little doggie mines that will be all over the place! Kinda reminds me of Cousin Eddie's dog under the table in Christmas Vacation!

The Site Activity Plan is a rather generalized conceptual plan. I think they are indicating a general area that include both a dog park and a picnic area, not necessarily combined into one. From the plan: "There will be fenced in 'dog runs' for downtown residents and their pets and nearby picnic tables and benches."

The Dog Run/Picnic combo is perhaps the worse idea I have EVER heard of. This is new to the plan since the last time I read it.

I love my toy poodle, but do we REALLY need to cram a dog run in the park, too.

And the POND? Good grief. That's almost as bad as having to use the consultants from NYC to build a simple park.

The dog run has been in the plan since the first Site Activity Plan was first released many months ago. I personally think it's one of the very best features of the park. If we want people living downtown, we have to expect some of them might have dogs.

The total relentless negativity on this board is getting quite tiresome. If projects are done with local architects/designers we attack because we're not drawing in fresh world-class talent. If projects are done in a low-key way, we attack because Houston is not doing anything flashy/attention-getting/cutting-edge. If projects are done by world-class designers from outside Houston (such as this park) and they try to make something world-class, we attack because we're trying to be too flashy. If projects are designed without public input, we attack because the powers that be are imposing their designs on us. If projects (such as this one) are designed with huge amounts of public input, we attack because they are trying to please everyone. If downtown parks are vacant green space used by nobody but homeless (which is exactly the current situation of the green portions of what will become this park), we attack. If the city proposes to develop a park that has great potential to actually be used by thousands of people in many different way, we attack. If restaurants/developments are built without adequate parking, we attack. If plans are made to include parking, we attack. For crying out loud, we even attack for the audacity of giving names to projects. I don't think they've named this park yet; I hope it won't be considered to pretentious for it to have a name.

So as to get off my soapbox and show you what we are potentially missing out on, here is an example of what another city decided to do when they had the chance to build a new downtown park. Seattle in the process of building a brand-new 8.5 acre downtown park along the waterfront. Notice the lack of restaurants and vendor booths in the plan, I know, shocking.....:

Seattle's Olympic Sculpture Park

So what. Different parks serve different purposes.

In any event, you might want to look a little more closely; From the website you linked us to:

The top of the park, at the city

So houston and houston, you think it's just a bunch of propaganda by 24 hour fitness to get the fatties through the door or what ?

No, it's just a bunch of propaganda to sell Men's Fitness magazines. Pure and simple.

And I can think of no better demonstration of how miserably lazy our news organizations are... they get this ridiculously flawed study from Mens Fitness every year and breathlessly report its results without the slightest bit of analysis, context, or criticism. The "study" may show some interesting things; what it does NOT show is which city has the fattest people.

Spend just 30 minutes at any Walmart in the metro area and it becomes very clear why were the Fat Champs multiple years running.

And then go spend 30 minutes at any Walmart in any other metro area and it will become very clear that Houston's "Fat Champs" title is completely bogus.

Seriously, I really like that idea. A group of vertical syringes squirting out the top. It would be pretty funny. I wonder if the Med Center has the wit to do something like that?

Yesterday I rode down to check out the vacant lot in question (next to the drive-in). It is not a very impressive location. It lacks the visibility for any major public function.

Who said anything about having "major public functions" at Holcombe Square?

I believe your imaginary friend is correct. I think the sound is an art installation. (Art may not be exactly the right word, but I think it's part of the plan of interesting and entertaining features. I believe there is also a button you can push somewhere along the trails that will cause a "bubble" of air to gurgle up from the bottom of the bayou.)

Is it just me or is it impossible to satisfy some people on this board?

We often see complaints here that the city does do enough planning, or that when it does do planning, it doesn't follow through. The concept of Holcombe Square is part of the Main Street Master Plan, and of course it's trying to follow through on that plan here.

We often see complaints here that the city does not include citizens in its planning. Here it is having public meetings and seeking a great deal of input from all the stakeholders.

We often see complaints here that the city makes no effort towards a more walkable, more liveable city. That is the main goal of this project.

And the reaction from members of this board? "it's in the wrong place; they should spend money spiffing up other areas of town" "It should not be given a name" "there's too much traffic nearby" . . .

Off topic, but taken from your hotel, right? I've stayed there before.

... speaking of pretentious . . . ;-)

I have no clue. but i know some of the NO people moved in other cities in Texas besides Houston and other states that I know of Ill say that maybe there's only at least 60,000 to 70,000 of NO people live in Houston 20 to 30,000 in Dallas-Ft Worth area and over about half of the rest in other parts of the U.S. .

Quite a bit of cities has increased their area in population because of the Katrina that happened in New Orleans many most of New Orleans moved futher up to live in northern cities to be away from the disaters in the Gulf. Like when Rita was closly to harm Houston in that time.

and thank you for sharing your cluelessness ;-)

OK, now why are they calling that intersection "Holcombe Square"? It's basically an intersection, right? Strikes me as another misleading name dreamed up for marketing purposes.

Well, maybe you should read the article again. The plan includes development of a park or plaza on adjacent property. And with that, what is wrong with giving a name to an area that is a gateway to one of Houston's biggest assets? IMO good names for areas can add some "romance" (for lack of a better word) to city life. It has seemed to me that, for whatever reason, Houston has seemed to be averse to the naming of areas. I recall when the Metro Rail was being laid out and they were naming the stations... there was a move to name what is now called the downtown transit center station "Cathedral Square Station". I liked that name and thought it would have added some "romance" (again, for lack of a better word), but Houston would have none of it.

So its no longer considered "5 Houston Center" ?

(I mean) apart of the Houston Center Complex anymore?

I suspect nothing will change. Crescent will stay manage the property, so I'm sure it will still be part of the Houston Center complex.

Are you sure about the Pasadena location? The website gives an El Lago address.

actually they sold out to Gart Sports in 2001, but Gart let them keep their name. then Gart merged with Sports Authority (which i thought was from Colorado??), who wants to create a national name.

so bye bye Oshman's, a little sad since i used to work there in high school.

Gart's was from Colorado. Sports Authority is from Fort Lauderdale.

Sad, but true.

Let the Yankeefication begin!

Yankees? From Fort Lauderdale?

hi and welcome!

re: driving:

- don't expect any driver to know what the concept of "merging" is

I am always surprised by comments like this on these boards. My experience in Houston has generally been quite the opposite. Generally, I have found that if I signal, Houston drivers are quite courteous and will let me in, expecting nothing more than a friendly Texas thank-you wave. Quite contrary to my experience in certain other cities.

It sure is true the yearly net population increase comparisons I made between Atlanta and Houston were inaccurate. I should have taken the time to be more precise with my comments and figures; I know how easily discussion forum comments can be wrong or misread. I didnt double check the number of counties Houston19514 said comprise the Atlanta MSA or CSA, I'm trusting him/her with that one.

Here are the US Census estimates:

"Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL",Combined Statistical Statistical Area

4,929,880 - July 1, 2003 - 105,622

4,824,258 - July 1, 2002 - 109,961

4,714,607 - July 1, 2001 - 130,373

4,584,234 - July 1, 2000

"Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX",Combined Statistical Area,

5,176,061 - July 1, 2003 - 107,530

5,068,531 - July 1, 2002 - 123,168

4,945,363 - July 1, 2001 - 104,444

4,840,919 - July 1, 2000

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX",Combined Statistical Area,

5,784,645 - July 1, 2003 - 117,502

5,667,143 - July 1, 2002 - 129,874

5,537,269 - July 1, 2001 - 155,585

5,381,684 - July 1, 2000

I'm disappointed that I let my accuracy regarding Houston's population slip.

Houston19514, I do know a little about the ARC.

"...generally accepted 2004 population estimate for the 20 county Atlanta MSA" -- Should have been, "the generally accepted population estimate for Atlanta CSA on December 31, 2004." I'm sticking with it that the Atlanta CSA population was right about 5,100,000 at the end of 2004.

Now, we're getting somewhere... ;-) Now that you've let us know you are talking about the END of 2004 (and not July 1, 2004, which would be the effective date for any Census Bureau estimates) it is conceivable that the Atlanta CSA could be 5.1 million.

The Atlanta Regional Commission only considers 13 counties. The OMB includes 20 counties to define the statistical area for US Census head counters.

5.1 million is a generally accepted 2004 population estimate for the 20 county Atlanta MSA.

While Atlanta is hot, it would take quite a bit longer than five years for Atlanta MSA to tally more residents than Houston MSA. Before the New Orleans evacuation, I think Houston MSA was estimated to have around half a million more residents than Atlanta MSA; 2000-2004 yearly MSA net population increase in Atlanta has been greater than Houston, but only by 20-40,000 (??). Houston may or may not realize larger population growth in the future.

Incidentally, the net populatin growth from 2000-2004 in the Dallas MSA (aka DFW) is estimated to have exceed that of Atlanta and Houston.

I don't know anything about the "Atlanta Regional Commission" (and something tells me you don't either). But according to the US Census Bureau, the Atlanta Metropolitan Area has 28 counties, not 20. And the Atlanta Combined Statistical Area has at least 33 counties.

I have no idea what you mean by "generally accepted 2004 population estimate for the 20 county Atlanta MSA." As mentioned above, there is no such thing as a 20 county Atlanta MSA; the most recent estimate I can find is for 2003 and it shows the Atlanta MSA with 4,610,032. If you were attempting to refer to the Combined Statistical Area, the 2003 estimate is 4,929,880. The estimates have been showing the Atlanta area to be growing just a little over 100,000 per year, so unless their growth rate suddenly doubled, it is unlikely that even the Combined Statistical Area reached 5.1 million in 2004.

If, as you state, Atlanta had 5.1 million in 2004, and it was growing faster than Houston by 20-40,000 per year, why would you think it would take quite a bit longer than five years for Atlanta to be larger than Houston? Houston's CSA 2003 estimate was 5,176,061. (and I'm using CSA numbers here because that's the only way to get Atlanta even somewhat close to the 5.1 million number we've been talking about). Even the low end of your Atlanta numbers would surpass Houston in less than five years, if things were as you stated.

But of course nothing is as you stated.. As I said above, there is little reason to think that Atlanta suddenly jumped to 5.1 million in 2004. The Atlanta area's average growth since 2000 has exceeded Houston's by only 7,000 per year , not the 20-40,000 per year you stated (and in recent years, estimates show Houston growing faster). So, in spite of all of the incorrect numbers, you seem to have come to the correct conclusion, to-wit: Atlanta will not surpass Houston's population within five years.

The one other thing you got right is that the Dallas-Fort Worth is estimated to have grown more than either Houston or Atlanta metro areas (at least in raw numbers, I don't know about growth rates.)

Can Atlanta be a small city or a big city

Atlanta

Population

419,122 in city and 5,125,726 in metro

Area

341 km² (132 mi²)

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=101302

http://www.atlanta.com/Visit Atlanta

Have people been noticing that this metropoliation is growing more rapidly than before.

What makes or how did Atlanta become such a large city in size. This city is only ranked to be the top 30's by urban population. This city should have a larger square mileage to gain more people in urban to otta tell how large the city is.

Where did you get that 5,125,726 metro size? That does not match up with the latest Census numbers I've been able to find.