Houston19514

I think you exaggerate. Downtown Houston currently has 4,597 hotel rooms. Quadruple that number would be 18,388 rooms. According to the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, the entire Indianapolis Metropolitan Area has 21,500 hotel rooms. I doubt that more than 85% of the metro's hotel rooms are in downtown. According to the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission, the entire St. Louis area has 35,000 hotel rooms and there are 7,600 within one mile of their downtown convention complex. (Anything further than one mile would be stretching the definition of downtown St. Louis beyond reality) As you can see, both of these cities have well below 18,388 downtown hotel rooms. That being said, I agree with the overall point that downtown Houston still has a smaller number of hotel rooms than one could expect in a city of its size.

Only in the minds of Tulsans who are living in something of a time warp is Tulsa still known as the "Oil Capital of the World."

To review, you told us earlier in this thread that if we "study the Census numbers as they are now and the future projections, you can easily see that the population of people moving into this area will not moving further and further out into the suburbs." I asked where in the census numbers you were able to glean this prediction that population would NOT continue to move further and further out into the suburbs. I don't see it in the census numbers or projections. Since you did not bother to answer my question, but rather changed the subject, I'm guess you don't really seen any such thing in the census numbers and projections either. If you do, I'm eager for an explanation. Instead of answering my simple question of what in the census numbers you based your conclusion upon, you have promised to dig up some studies showing why we need to plan intelligently for the future. I'm all in favor of planning for the future, and hopefully intelligently. But we can't very well plan intelligently for the future if we base our projections on what we personally desire rather than on what the trends and projections really show. If we plan for a future based on your "easily seen" projection that the millions of people who will be moving to Houston will be moving into the inner city, but they in fact choose to live out in the outer suburbs, well, that doesn't strike me as very intelligent planning. You asked upon what I based my belief regarding where Houston's growth is occurring. My use of the word "belief" was intentional. It is merely my impression based on reading various news and information sources. I don't have a source at hand, but surely you are not going to suggest that is currently incorrect, are you? And I have not seen anything to suggest that it will change drastically in the future, neither for Houston or for any other city in the USA, your personal preferences notwithstanding. Also, please note, I did not make, and am not making, an argument in favor of the Grand Parkway. I am officialy agnostic on the Grand Parkway.

What is it in the "census numbers as they are now and the future projections" that supposedly tells us that "the population of people moving into this area will not be moving further and further out into the suburbs", but rather will be filling up the denser CBD... Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I see nothing at all that indicates that. Other studies and statistics may indicate a slightly greater tendency towards moving into the inner city than in the past (and the boom in housing in Houston's inner city supports that), but I believe the vast majority of Houston's growth remains in the suburbs, and outer suburbs at that. What in the census numbers and future projections gives any indication that that is about to change? If Houston is going to grow by 2 or 3 million over the coming 20 years, that will of course require the construction of a large number of new dwelling units and my guess is that a rather large majority of those will be outside the beltway.

The articles I've seen are not entirely clear on the point, but my impression was that the $80 million was the total projected cost for acquisition and development of the park. Do you have other information?

Underground levels of the GRB? That's news to me, and they don't appear on the GRB's floorplans on their website... what do they have on these underground levels?

Sorry, but there is nothing in the article we are all commenting on that gives the slightest hint that Mr. Delay is "indeed holding up the process."

largeTexas, where did you see renderings of the park? It seems a little surprising that there would be renderings when the article said that design work will being in 2005. But of course we all know how much faith we should put in a newspaper...

I have never before read anything about "express" trains from Northline to IAH. As far as I can tell from Metro's plan documents, there is no such plan. At the very least, they plan a stop at Greenspoint. I hope they will run both express trains and "local" service trains, like they do in Chicago. I would like to see them run "Express" trains all the way to downtown, perhaps stopping at Greenspoint and Northline on the way. Of course running both express and local trains on the same tracks requires additional trackage, so that the local service trains can be stopped at a station while the express train zips on by on the adjacent tracks. Re: Tom Delay. Some of you guys need to chill a bit. What is wrong with examining all the available technologies? Why should Houston NOT push the envelope a bit? While the light rail is not identical in every detail to 19th century streetcars, the technology is essentially the same - an electric-powered car riding on steel rails, sharing the street with other traffic. Yes, we now have level boarding; yes, we now have doors that open wide; yes, we now have air conditioning; yes, we no longer stop along the way like buses do. Many comfort and convenience improvements have been made in buses and cars over the last 100 years as well... Nevertheless, they are still buses and cars and we don't pretend they are not the same basic technology we were enjoying 100 years ago.

Flatline, it looks like you are correct about the location. Since my earlier post, I found the press release on the Mayor's website. It includes a little aerial view with the parkland colored in green, I guess. (It doesn't exactly explain the picture. For example, there is also some land marked in yellow... I don't know if that will also be part of the park or not... anyway, here is the link. Mayor's new downtown park

The park is a very exciting development. Any info on the exact boundaries of it? I hope they'll build a spectacular fountain there. Something around which people can gather just to watch the water and lights. It's amazing what a little water and some colored lights can do. Throw in some choreographed music and it's even better.

Yes, as a matter of fact, the ads were incorrect, as were the Chronicle's headlines both then and now. Houston does not have and never has had anything approaching the nation's "dirtiest air." Air pollution is comprised of a number of components (I think 5 or 6). The ozone count is only one of those 5 or six components, and the ozone count is the ONLY component for which Houston's air has an issue. Many other cities have issues with more than one component, and while it is very hard to come up with a conclusive answer to the question of which city has the nation's dirtiest air, I believe most experts agree that it is not Houston. Atlanta is a better candidate and I believe Dallas is at least as good of a candidate. quote=VelvetJ,Tuesday, October 5th, 2004 @ 10:52am] And how have Tom Delay, John Culberson, and the Republicans affected our air quality? Talk about writing the book on "Business and Profit Before ALL Things, Including People". If action had been taken earlier, maybe "a new one" wouldn't have had to be ripped for Brown and the Democrates to "let" happen. Besides, were the ads incorrect? Never ceases to amaze me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>