musicman Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 (edited) Edited March 7, 2008 by musicman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pestofan Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 The People's Court would title this case, "Palm Reader vs. Palm Greaser?!" (Couldn't find a Judge Wapner smilee) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banking214 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 This use of eminent domain so wrong it makes me sick. Why doesn't the COH tell the Pavillions to budget space WITH the compound, instead of taking someone's house/private property. Oh, yeah I forgot about greasing the palms..........I totally agree with you on this. Attached is a nice little piece by CBS.www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml - 95k - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 The purpose of eminent domain is to get rid of blight for a public purposeReally? Is that what it is for? Getting rid of blight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 What? It's just an honest evaluation. Nothing against the men. But are they being greedy or just need to maintain an extravagent lifestyle? Seriously, they look at least 80. If I were them, I wouldn't be thinking I have a ton of time left on this earth. I'd say 1.4 should be plenty. Another half a mil won't buy them more life.Different people have different priorities. We don't know anything at all about these guys' financial position, so it is hard to say what their specific motivation may be for wanting to capture the true market value of their investment.Perhaps they've leveraged the asset to support other investments. Perhaps those investments haven't gone over very well, they're upside down on a note, and a forced sale would put them into bankruptcy.Or perhaps they're doing their best to preserve their assets so as to allow for a larger distribution to their heirs...some people value their children/grandchildren's well-being more than their own. That's my grandfather's motivation for being a cheapskate millionaire.When it comes down to it, their motive and circumstances are irrelevant. They purchased the rights to that parcel of land, and eminent domain under such circumstances undermines the core concept of those rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Different people have different priorities. We don't know anything at all about these guys' financial position, so it is hard to say what their specific motivation may be for wanting to capture the true market value of their investment.Perhaps they've leveraged the asset to support other investments. Perhaps those investments haven't gone over very well, they're upside down on a note, and a forced sale would put them into bankruptcy.Or perhaps they're doing their best to preserve their assets so as to allow for a larger distribution to their heirs...some people value their children/grandchildren's well-being more than their own. That's my grandfather's motivation for being a cheapskate millionaire.When it comes down to it, their motive and circumstances are irrelevant. They purchased the rights to that parcel of land, and eminent domain under such circumstances undermines the core concept of those rights.Yeah, I agree with all that. I wasn't trying to justify what the city did. I'm just wondering why they didn't take that nice chunk of change in the first place. But then I got to thinking about what you just mentioned. I have no idea what their intentions were. Just thinkin', that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 I'm just wondering why they didn't take that nice chunk of change in the first place.people don't always do things for money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 people don't always do things for money.That's true, and I'm not trying to say they were. I just assumed since they said they got the property for investment purposes.Anywho... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Really? Is that what it is for? Getting rid of blight?Actually, I thought it was. At least in terms of legal precedent, anyway. Weren't a number of high-profile cases argued that way? 'The greater good' blah blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Hizzy! Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 This whole story reeks. Unless there's more to it than what's being reported, the city looks flimsy in this deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Actually, I thought it was. At least in terms of legal precedent, anyway. Weren't a number of high-profile cases argued that way? 'The greater good' blah blah.The Kelo vs. New London case set a dangerous precedent regarding the utilization of eminent domain for economic development purposes, which would seem to include the elimination of what is perceived to be 'blight'. However, the Texas state legislature was quick to ban such practices.If I'm not mistaken, the City of Freeport was the only Texas municipality able to take advantage of the brief window of opportunity, but the land owners (the Gore family) is fighting it tooth and nail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dream Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 Wulfe ripped the old guys off, and the City and Uptown is in on it. I hope they win their lawsuit.Dream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMND Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 eminent domain, blah blah blah. What I really care about is could the 66-story tower really turn into 2 30-story towers? They already made a rendering for the 66-story tower. I was looking forward to something tall. Not sure how it really affects my life though, except to have something new to look at while on the west loop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolie Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 So, do you think the city will just settle for something close to Wulfe's offer? Would that offer be a valid basis for determining fair market value? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 (edited) I'm learning that the preliminary plans for height should be cut in half and reduce the square footage by half as well. A 66 story tower was WAY too good to be true. Anything over 30 stories you can pretty much ax. Look at Discovery Tower...the preliminary word was a 30 story tower likely to be taller. It's not. Turnberry Tower: Preliminary word was a 42 story tower. I think we are down to 32 or something. It seems that 30 stories is the magic floor count. Everything going up seems to have 30 floors. All the buildings going up in the Med center all have under 30 stories except for the newest completion which is 30 stories. 2727 Kirby: 30 stories. The Mosaic: 29 stories. The Endeavors: 30 stories. Anadarko Tower: 30 stories. 6 Houston Center: 29 stories (with parking garage). I know some of those are old, but come on. Can we build anything over 30 stories?? I know I know...Mainplace. Other than that and BLVD Place, I can't think of any other building slated to be taller than 30 stories. It's rather frustrating. Edited March 9, 2008 by wxman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 (edited) Discovery Tower is 31 stories. Six Houston Center is not being built on top of a parking garage either. Edited March 9, 2008 by Trae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 there must be a cost threshold at around 30 stories. that sux for us sim city fans who want taller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 there must be a cost threshold at around 30 stories. that sux for us sim city fans who want taller. Plop cheats and modds FTW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I'm learning that the preliminary plans for height should be cut in half and reduce the square footage by half as well. A 66 story tower was WAY too good to be true. Anything over 30 stories you can pretty much ax. Look at Discovery Tower...the preliminary word was a 30 story tower likely to be taller. It's not. Turnberry Tower: Preliminary word was a 42 story tower. I think we are down to 32 or something. It seems that 30 stories is the magic floor count. Everything going up seems to have 30 floors. All the buildings going up in the Med center all have under 30 stories except for the newest completion which is 30 stories. 2727 Kirby: 30 stories. The Mosaic: 29 stories. The Endeavors: 30 stories. Anadarko Tower: 30 stories. 6 Houston Center: 29 stories (with parking garage). I know some of those are old, but come on. Can we build anything over 30 stories?? I know I know...Mainplace. Other than that and BLVD Place, I can't think of any other building slated to be taller than 30 stories. It's rather frustrating.Anadarko Tower is 32. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChannelTwoNews Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Endeavour Parkside & Turnberry are both 34 stories. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Hey, 30-something stories is not much compared to 75, but 30 is still stinkin tall. I'm still kind of amazed at how tall anadarko is every time I drive by it. Plus, those super talls hardly ever come around. We've gotta be patient for those.Econ gooroos...do yall think since land downtown is becoming relatively more 'scarce.' that they'll eventually start getting taller as more are built? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I'm obviously in the minority, but I like the idea of two towers better than one supertall. It's all about density baby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMND Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I'm all for density also, but when it comes to Uptown, I don't really think it matters. There is no grid street pattern, so might as well be a cool looking tall tower. If this was downtown, then I'd be all for two towers at 30 story. I don't know how to explain what I'm saying, I just know my thought is that density isn't as important Uptown as inside the loop. This isn't going to make sense to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Econ gooroos...do yall think since land downtown is becoming relatively more 'scarce.' that they'll eventually start getting taller as more are built?Yes, ceteris paribus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Yes, ceteris paribus.Well, I guess the answer was fairly obvious. I guess I should have qualified it. I'm just wondering how long we'll have to wait for them to get higher. With each new land parcel that's built on, it quantitatively becomes more scarce, but would we really non-techinically say that the land downtown is 'scarce?' I mean, I could still see them being built at a moderated height of 30-40 floors for at least another ten buildings. How many parcels need to be left until it's a necessity to build at least 45-55+ high? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 (edited) Well, I guess the answer was fairly obvious. I guess I should have qualified it. I'm just wondering how long we'll have to wait for them to get higher. With each new land parcel that's built on, it quantitatively becomes more scarce, but would we really non-techinically say that the land downtown is 'scarce?' I mean, I could still see them being built at a moderated height of 30-40 floors for at least another ten buildings. How many parcels need to be left until it's a necessity to build at least 45-55+ high?South and Southeast Downtown have a ton of blocks open for development. I'm thinking after the east side starts filling up, we'll see the south end of Main St and southwest downtown start being developed. Then, I think land would start becoming scarce. I can't imagine this happening for another 3-5 decades, obviously depending on the city's economy. Edited March 10, 2008 by roadrunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 South and Southeast Downtown have a ton of blocks open for development. I'm thinking after the east side starts filling up, we'll see the south end of Main St and southwest downtown start being developed. Then, I think land would start becoming scarce. I can't imagine this happening for another 3-5 decades, obviously depending on the city's economy.Yeah. Just think if what you say is true...the last pieces of land to be developed will most likely be the southeast side of downtown where 59 and 45 converge. So if our theory holds up, we could have another 'skyline district' on the oppossite end of downtown. Or maybe the far north by the bayou will be the last to be developed. It's pretty slow over there too.I don't mean to hijack a thread, but what do yall think will be the last area of downtown to be developed? I say 45/59 corner area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I'm all for density also, but when it comes to Uptown, I don't really think it matters. There is no grid street pattern, so might as well be a cool looking tall tower. If this was downtown, then I'd be all for two towers at 30 story. I don't know how to explain what I'm saying, I just know my thought is that density isn't as important Uptown as inside the loop. This isn't going to make sense to anyone.Good point, but also consider that the area around Blvd Place is pretty sparce, so a couple of towers could fill those spots nicely. I still wouldn't mind a 66 story tower to kind of anchor that side of the skyline visually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Well, I guess the answer was fairly obvious. I guess I should have qualified it. I'm just wondering how long we'll have to wait for them to get higher. With each new land parcel that's built on, it quantitatively becomes more scarce, but would we really non-techinically say that the land downtown is 'scarce?'If downtown land were not scarce, it'd be used for agricultural purposes...or not at all.I mean, I could still see them being built at a moderated height of 30-40 floors for at least another ten buildings. How many parcels need to be left until it's a necessity to build at least 45-55+ high?That's basically impossible to say. It depends on land prices, rent growth, and regional economic vitality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyEvilTwin Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 South and Southeast Downtown have a ton of blocks open for development. I'm thinking after the east side starts filling up, we'll see the south end of Main St and southwest downtown start being developed. Then, I think land would start becoming scarce. I can't imagine this happening for another 3-5 decades, obviously depending on the city's economy. On that side of downtown I'm as much interested in buildings going down as up -- namely that rotting old Days Inn building. That's one block where a surface lot would be an improvement! (Though of course a renovation would be better) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.