Houston19514

That sucks, 2112. :-(

Hopefully, you'll get on with Jacobs Sverdrup.

Wingate Inn

Is this the hotel you are talking about or has another one been proposed?

I'm just curious... was this building ever really renamed ChevronTexaco Tower? I was under the impression they had never bothered with renaming it since ChevronTexaco pretty much moved out when the merger occurred.

Editor, since there is almost nothing correct in the entire quoted post, could you please just go ahead and delete it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, alright then, let's start with the first paragraph.

The Harris County Sports Authority, presuming you are referring to the Harris County Houston Sports Authority never was in charge of the Dome, NEVER, let alone for three decades. The owner of the Astros had control of the Dome until the Astros moved to MinuteMaid Park.

Second Paragraph:

Reliant Stadium was not built in any hurry-up fashion for the SuperBowl, that was just icing on the cake. That should be fairly obvious to anyone "familiar" with the area, given that the stadium opened in 2002 but the SuperBowl was not until 2004. Regardless, Reliant had little, if anything, to do with any supposed "fast development" and they certainly had NOTHING to do with the site selection or architecture of the stadium. Reliant just has a naming-rights agreement, that's all; they do not in any way control the development or operations of Reliant Park. They did not even come into the picture until well after the stadium was under construction... a little late for them to be responsible for the location of the stadium, don't you think? Likewise with regard to Reliant Center... that was already well under construction before Reliant entered the picture. With regard to buying out the people to the west, I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of that land was vacant, and again, Reliant had nothing to do with it. The dome and all of Reliant Park are controlled now by the Harris County Sports and Convention Corporation, with large influence, obviously, from the Houston Texans and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo organization. In any event, the purchases and sales were voluntary. I don't believe they used the power of eminent domain. Yes, further up Main Street, some other properties have been cleaned up, but I don't know that any of that was done through the power of eminent domain either. So the city and the all-powerful powers-that-be wanted to clean up Main Street downtown and Reliant Park... what is wrong with that?

Third paragraph:

Again, Reliant had nothing whatsoever to do with the location or development of any of the facilities at Reliant Park, nor do they now own, control, or operate Reliant Park. That is plainly and simply a matter of historical record. You seem to be making some assumptions about these "family-owned businesses" who were "driven from the land". Do you actually know that was the case? In any event, you say that it is somehow "wrong" for one person to buy another person's property in a free and open exchange when the seller has a family-owned business on his property? I'm not sure what kind of economic system you have in mind to impose down there in Houston, but in most of America and in most free-market economies, a person who leases a property only has the right to stay there until the lease expires. They have no rights or reasonable expectations beyond that. You are absolutely right, the economic development folks in Houston wanted to get rid of a lot of the rather-shady businesses and motels that were operating on South Main. It's kind of cute to see someone wave the flag of "family-owned businesses" in honor of by-the-hour motels, massage parlors, modeling studios and such. And again, as far as I know, all of this was done without invoking the power of the state (in other words without using eminent domain or condemnation); it was all done in free market transactions.

Fourth paragraph:

The age of Bob McNair is largely, if not completely irrelevant. The deals are with his corporation, not with him personally. The corporation will survive him. The Texans have thirty-year stadium lease and non-relocation agreement with the Harris County Sports and Convention Corporation (note, the agreement is NOT with Reliant because of course Reliant has no control over the facility).

Fifth and Sixth paragraphs:

I have no argument with your proposal to turn the dome into a museum. The more ideas for the dome the better.

Seventh paragraph:

The city is not currently involved in the dome property at all and never has been, and the last thing I would think we need is another government entity to get involved. And again, Reliant has no "claim to the dome," other than the right to have their name on it, so we call your proposal the Reliant Astrodome Museum of Everyting Related to Houston ;-)

Eighth paragraph:

I have no clue. I'll presume you're right about the Ryan O'Neil movie.

P.S. No, I do not now and never have worked for Reliant or any of its current or former affiliated companies. I have no connection to Reliant whatsoever. Just call me a stickler for accuracy.

The fundamental problem with the Dome area has to do with corporate sponsorship and the influence Reliant has on what is done with what should be public buildings 100% free of corporate influence.  Prior to the area being renamed Reliant Park the Harris County Sports Authority used to maintain the Dome and did so for over 3 decades.

Once Reliant came in things got bad because the area was developed fast to get that super bowl in.  Sure that one weekend pumped money into Houston but look at the after effects.  It just looks plain stupid to have 2 giant stadiums next to e/o.  The beauty and futuristic look of the free standing dome is forever gone.  I can recall going to the dome as a kid in the 90s and parking wayyyy far from the building cause there were too many cars in the lot.  Now they have added a bigger stadium as well as Reliant Center which reduced parking spaces in that complex.  The did buy out the people in the block west of the park to make additional parking but what good did that do?

I would speculate they wanted to get rid of the lower income businesses and motels that used to be on South Main.  It was gentrification plain and simple.  I'm all for progress but driving family owned business from the land by buying out the lardlord's building and lease is wrong even though it is legal.  If Reliant wanted a squeeky clean new looking park developed they should have broken ground in some other area.  There are acres upon acres of undeveloped lands south of loop 610 on hwy 288.  Metro could have added a rail line with ease and it would be a 10-15 minute drive from downtown. 

Reliant stadium is a very risky build simply because Bob McNair is no spring chicken.  I don't follow sports deals much so I can't say if he signed some agreement to keep the Texans here for decades but if he didn't who is to say his family won't sell and/or move the team after he dies.  Things are usually all about the bottom line in business.  When trying to get an NFL team McNair said what everyone wanted to hear bout loyality to the city and keeping the NFL in town.  After he is gone the future is a question.

As for the dome, it should be converted to a museum with all of the key moments in Houston history.  Each floor should have the seats gutted to make way for displays.  They should leave a strip of seats from the floor level to the upper decks as is to show people the famous Astros rainbow design in the seats at the top.  NASA is supposedly builiding a structure around the rockets it has on display outside.  A better idea would be to have them moved to the dome (at a high one time cost) and house them there permanently for climate controlled perservation. 

This museum should not be art or scinece but more of a sociological one with many atrifacts from people who shaped the town.  Jesse Jones and Howard Hughes should have entire floors dedicated to them.  They just need to cover important stuff like the medical center, the major universities, a bit on NASA as a tie in to what they can see out in Clear Lake, etc.  There are many possibilities. 

The city would have to somehow buy out Reliant's claim to the dome to do this and also have some sort of divide made in the parking lot to allow for low cost or free parking to go see this museum.  I'm sure the outragious rate out there would turn off everyone but tourists if museum goers had to pay what sports fans do.  If admission was reasonable I think it would be world class.  There is too much history in that building for it to do anything but be a preserved museum.

BTW, there is a movie Ryan O'Neil was in during  the 60's which was filmed entirely in Houston.  There is a shot of the dome in it during construction.  Around the dome is open grassland as far as you can see.  You would never recognize it if not for the done.  I highly recommend this film to anyone who is a history buff.  They have many great shot of homes in River Oaks, the museum district, the sidney sherman 610 ship channel bridge, etc. 

The movie is called "The Thief Who Came to Dinner"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Editor, since there is almost nothing correct in the entire quoted post, could you please just go ahead and delete it?

Subway construction would not necessarily be any more disruptive, and may in fact be less disruptive, than light rail construction on the surface. Most subway construction is not done by trenching, but rather by tunnelling, leaving the surface completely untouched and undisrupted. And enough already with the theory that subways could not be built in Houston. Just looking at the number of low-level cities around the world that have large subway systems should tell us that is nothing but urban myth... New York, Chicago, Washington DC, Amsterdam... And somehow, they manage to run subways, not to mention traffic tunnels UNDERNEATH rivers and bays; that seems to suggest that the technology exists to make them waterproof.

houstonsemipro --

I brought up The Potter's House (the name) of T.D. Jakes' church.

I'm with Glen. I like that waterfall (it's unfortunate that it is not consistently operating), and I like the whole building, especially considering that it is primarily a parking garage. I think it was a creative and splendid way to "hide" a parking garage.

At the Kirksey architectural firm website, they have something about a new Galleria Hotel...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that Kirksey design is a potential Landry's project on Post Oak Blvd, next to the Landry's corporate headquarters building.

I'm with you, 2112. I like the new courthouse, and the closer it gets to completion, the more I'm liking it.

Just to be clear, this is not in the museum district.

That was a great article. I thought it really captured Houston, like almost no travel writers ever manage to do. I thought this line really nailed it:

"most outsiders don't have the time to assemble the scattered pieces. Only with time does mishmash become mosaic."

I know when I first visited Houston I wasn't terribly impressed, other than being surprised and impressed by how green it was. But after living there for five years, it became my "home" forever.

What is that from? It's kind of cool. But it's a shame the very first "fact" listed is incorrect. The Bushes do not now and have never lived in River Oaks.

The EPA is nothing for anyone to be worried about. With their budgets and enforcement manpower slashed repeatedly till it's basically a shadow of their former selves, there is nothing to fear from the EPA, ever.

This made me curious, so I went to the EPA website and looked at their Annual Reports. Their fiscal year 2004 spending was $1 BILLION higher than their Fiscal Year 2000 spending (14.24% increase). I wish my personal budget could have been "slashed" by a similar percentage in that time period...

Uh. No. Bishop T.D Jakes Church in Dallas will still be larger, the guy out in San Antonio, two in LA and Dollars church hear in Atlanta will still be larger. Well I'm not 100% sure arout Dollar since his church looks huge from the outside. It's a Dome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know about any of the others you listed (and can't verify or dispute since you don't give us any names), but the TD Jakes Church in Dallas seats 8,000, barely bigger than Lakewood's CURRENT facility. As you can see on the Lakewood site, the new Lakewood worship center will seat more than 16,000.

I must say, one of the more tiresome and annoying things about this board is when people throw out "facts" without checking them out first.

Go to houstonfreeways.com to get a profile of the Town and Country mall,

the new construction of the Beltway interchange with I-10 is profiled along with the mall

Houston Freeways - I-10 @ Beltway 8

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cool pictures. But the building identified as once having housed Lord & Taylor, actually was originally Marshall Field and then was briefly Saks Fifth Avenue. (Saks took over this Marshall Field location at the same time as they bought the one at The Galleria.)

I still think that the rodeo can hold additional events there, different acts or whatever.  It just needs a bit of renovation on the inside.  hell, if The Garden in Boston has endured all these years, surely the Dome can still be used for a few more years.

Ricco

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you mean the Boston Garden that was demolished in 1997... is that the Boston Garden you are referring to? ;-)

Checked the Cordish site, and it really doesn't look like they have much involvement in highrise residential development.  Their focus is on mixed-use and entertainment complexes.  I'm still thinking this is more a tactic to extend their option to give them some time to come up with a viable plan for the location.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They have an entire residential division. . .

The residential division of the Cordish Company specializes in urban, mixed-use residential projects as well as "new urbanist" town centers.

In addition, The Cordish Company is developing a mixed-use project in downtown Richmond, VA that will include 200 luxury residential units coupled with a class A office tower and retail/entertainment.

As for the Location of the BoTSWT, it was to be built on the surface parking lot behind 1 Shell Plaza.

Here

Actually, thats not such an exact picture, but its the surface parking lot behind 1-Shell Plaza, Its surounded by Rusk, Milam, Louisiana, and Walker Street.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are one block off . . . The location of the BoTSWT was to have been the block bounded by Walker, McKinney, Louisiana and Milam. The block you referred to (Rusk, Walker, Louisiana, Milam) is the location of Two Shell Plaza.

A new condo building is popping up in Midtown when I conduct searches on the HAR site. It's called Rushmore Lofts. It's on Chenevert on the north end of Midtown. Does anyone know anything about this project? Is it under construction already? Will there be retail on the ground floor?

Understood, but an enterprising operation could still transfer them to DVD for sale/distribution in the 21st century

Excellent idea, Urbanerd! A mixed-use complex would be awesome there, especially, if it included another theater facility and street-front retail/restaurants etc. to add some more energy to the Theater District.

Those look pretty cool. But are they really available only in VHS format? Has PBS not heard of DVDs????

You mentioned Chicago and New York City. Let's start with Chicago. That city is pretty parallel to our beloved H-Town as far as size, suburbs and downtown goes. And believe it or not, it is just as alienating and unwelcoming as Houston is. Due mainly to the traffic downtown. There really isn't a downtown happening spot, ya know, all of that is up and around Wicker Park and Lincoln, where there is more parks and less traffic. Hmmmmm....

Okay, let's start with Chicago. Have you ever walked or driven down North Michigan Avenue? Wide streets full of cars and sidewalks packed with people. It apparently seems plenty welcoming for millions of people every year.

And as far as New York City goes, have you ever driven there? I would think that only clueless tourists and taxi drivers would bother driving in that city. Cars do not have the right of way even when the light is green, the pedestrian is king of the road. As it is, as it should be, and look at the results. The most vibrant city in the world. Of course it's not all due to pedestrian friendly streets though, I'm not that dumb. But it plays a big part.

Yes, I have driven in New York City, any number of times. You kind of step on your point on this one... if cars and a "welcoming downtown center" are "mutually elmininative" how does New York City manage to be the most vibrant city in the world while having wide streets PACKED with cars. Thank you for making my point for me and proving beyond a doubt that, in fact, cars and a "welcoming downtown center" are NOT mutually exclusive.

It is misleading to say that cars do not have the right of way, even on green lights in Manhattan. That often appears to be the case, because the cars can't move through intersections because the traffic is backed up, then once the traffic clears the intersection, the pedestrians have taken over. If you really think cars in Manhattan don't have the right of way even on green, try stepping in the street in front of a taxicab at midnight or so, when the traffic is relatively free-flowing.

Someone mentioned streetmalls. I have yet to see one that WASN'T thriving.

Nicolette St. in Minneaopolis is doing so well, that the success has spilt over to Hennepin St, one block north.

And the 16th Street Mall in Denver. The only cars allowed on that street are the shuttle busses that run up and down all day long. And I think even that is too much. But the place is bustling day in and day out.

That's nice. You've come up with two successful pedestrian malls, both of which have buses running in them. Maybe you haven't seen one that wasn't thriving because many of the failed ones have been torn out. In the 1970s many downtowns closed major streets and converted them to pedestrian malls as a way to attract customers. The success of such conversions has been minimal, and twenty years later most have been converted back into traffic streets. "Of the roughly 200 pedestrian malls that once dotted the country, at least half are in some form of transformation..."1 The following excerpt from a research project by Carol Sullivan2 on the impact of pedestrian traffic on downtown health begins to explain the situation.

... most approaches to downtown revitalization include improvements to the pedestrian environment in an effort to approximate the environment of the shopping center.

...The United States is filled with beautifully designed pedestrian malls and streetscapes lined by empty buildings. "Attractive" pedestrian environments do not actually attract anyone. Conversely, many urban places which have not been provided with pedestrian "amenities" are crowded with people and thriving businesses. Grey, in his study of People and Downtown, concluded that:

"Malls and public spaces ...depend for their value upon their relationship to peoples' activity patterns. It must be understood why people are there and how they use the immediate environment."3

Others agree that pedestrian malls have been less than successful.

One of the biggest fads in the 70s and early 80s was the malling of downtown America. Cities all over the United States closed off streets to traffic and parking, planted trees, built fountains, installed benches, all to create pedestrian-friendly retail areas.

Many towns are ripping out those malls.

...no one realized how important auto traffic would be to the health of downtown retailers.

We've got traffic sailing by our cities instead of stopping in them...

Ann Arbor tried it differently. The city permits two-way traffic on its downtown Main Street. But parking is limited; sidewalks are extra-wide for outdoor cafes; and the city closes the street several days each summer for art fairs and other special events. The result is a bustling atmosphere all day and evening.4

1 Jennifer Steinhauer. 1996. "When Shoppers Walk Away From Pedestrian Malls." New York Times (5 November). p. C4.

2 Carol Sullivan. "Form and Function in Downtown Revitalization." Doctor of Architecture dissertation. The University of Michigan.

3 Grey. People and Downtown. 1970. p. xix.

4 John Gallagher. "Taking back the streets." Detroit Free Press. September 23, 1991. p. 6F.

Here is a link to a chart showing some details of pedestrian malls. Of the 72 listed, 56 have been at least partially reopened to automobile traffic. 9 are listed as successful and have remained closed to automobile traffic (3 of which allow bus traffic). An additional 7 are listed as "struggling" and in 5 of those, reopening to automobile traffic is proposed.

cars and a welcoming downtown center are mutually eliminative.

Huh?? The mind reels... When one thinks of the most thriving, exciting downtowns in America, certainly Chicago and New York City must be at the top of the list. It goes without saying that both are rather heavily infested with cars. One could go on at great length listing other successful downtowns filled with automobile traffic and also listing failed downtowns that tried to eliminate automobiles with pedestrian malls and such.