Houston19514

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.

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 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 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

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.

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.

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" . . .

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

and thank you for sharing your cluelessness ;-)

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.

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.

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

Yankees? From Fort Lauderdale?

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.

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.

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.)

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.

I've only been to Vic & Anthony's once, but it was one of the very best dining experiences of my life. Great steaks (and side dishes and desserts), outstanding service, and truly superb atmosphere.

Very interesting. Those would be the units that are currently rentals, and I'm guessing they are looking for a condo converter to buy the package. That does not really contradict the point being made by KincaidAlum. I do agree with you it is highly unlikely the Museum Tower will go condo.

Where do you get that information? They sure aren't showing up on HAR.

In the case of the TMC Transit Center development, Metro will lease "air rights" to the developer. The developer will then build, own, and operate the hotel, retail, residential and office structures above the transit center.

That article does not really tell us much. It says DOT will "explore a number of alternatives that will lead to a design that is less intrusive on nearby neighborhoods and will remain within the existing right of way." It does not tell us anything about what those alternatives might be. Is it possible tunnels are one of the alternatives that will be explored?