$70M Boost for Memorial Park Master Plan; Tracking Harvey’s Health Impact

Photo underneath Murdochs souvenir store, 2215 Seawall Blvd., Galveston: Russell Hancock via Swamplot Flickr Pool


15 Comment

  • It will be a sad day when they have those tunnels at memorial park. That was some great people watching as i drove by.

  • $70MM to Memorial the same day that the Golf Club of Houston decides to no longer take part in the PGA. Look for big improvements to the golf course. Also, no news about the IKEA deal….

  • So the Seattle millennials can’t afford the restored Craftsman homes in desirable nabes so they want to change the zoning to allow sacred density in them and destroying the historic integrity of them. Sounds like they want Seattle to be Houston.
    These people are Socialists only up to the point where it affects them trying to get materially what they want.

  • re: Seattle
    I suggest that the young man leading the effort to demolish an historic neighborhood turn his efforts towards his employer (Groupon) to move some of its operations to a city that doesn’t lack affordable housing.

  • @Mr.CLean19 – Ikea was yesterdays news. Literally.

  • Re: Seattle
    Would be nice living in the PNW. The Bible wouldn’t interfere with people’s American rights. For the people, rather than “for the book”.

  • The first problem with the Seattle article is that it does not explain nor can anyone explain why so many people are willing to pay so much money to live in a city where it is always 53 degrees and raining. The second problem is that the article is pretty blind to how the YIMBY movement is really an astroturf campaign by developers to strike down zoning laws to do nothing more than increase the density of high end housing. When YIMBYs have prevailed, you do not see a single family lot transformed into a 12 unit multifamily complex with affordable rents. It always ends up with four large town homes that go on the market for more than the original bungalows get.
    If you really want to get serious about housing, you need to restrict foreign investment in these markets that just buy up units to either speculate or stash cash. You also need to stop spending millions trying to squeeze a small number of affordable housing into extremely expensive neighborhoods. It doesn’t make a difference. Instead, push development hard in the “ew, I would never live in ____” area. In Seattle, everyone holds their nose up to Renton. And for good reason. But if you pushed density in Renton with incentives and subsidies, no one would mind and everyone would flock to the community, bringing demand for bars and restaurants, etc.

  • Dana-X for tendentious comment of the day.

  • Dana-X must have a different definition of Socialist than the rest of us. As OldSchool points out, these people are (consciously or not) furthering the interests of real estate developers.
    Just an FYI – Socialism is typically defined as a political/economic system where “means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole”. If this guy in the article is trying to loosen zoning regulations to increase the number of projects built by private developers in the city, this does not fit the definition of socialism. You’d have an easier time arguing that homeowners who are trying to use the government to restrict development by private developers on their own private property in the homeowners’ neighborhood is more close to the definition of socialism (though still not the same thing as true socialism).
    You can’t just go around calling everything you don’t agree with “socialism”. For instance, a law that requires citizens who can afford it to purchase health care coverage from private insurance companies does not fit the definition of socialism.

  • What about Ikea?

  • Yes BigTex! though not all cities have the infrastructure, nor can extend the tax breaks, to lure these growing companies.
    Yes OldSchool! by demanding change, the ‘agitators’ will always benefit developers in the end.
    I will add that cities need to relax occupancy standards restricting properties to (1) nuclear family.
    Those who can afford the shaded bungalow neighborhoods fight over the privilege to live there, raising the prices. Young people, who desire the shaded bungalow neighborhoods, can be renters in garage apts and spare bedrooms, and thus EVOLVE the neighborhood while avoiding developer-driver cataclysm.

  • High rises, plus parks for detention and amenities. So simple. Build enough and prices will come down.

  • Yes, my socialism comment was biased and not particularly relevent to the main character in the article, which I knew after posting, since he actually became more socialist than free market by wanting govt zoning. My comment reflected a recent read that “millennials” pick socialism over capitalism.
    And I could comment on the posted definition of socialism but this would probably become a week-long political thread so I won’t.

  • Yeah these millennial techie “housing advocates” are hilarious. Just unbelievable. Just in that article, looking at where they originally are from, they’re obviously hypocritical too. How weird to start with the premise that oneself is the center of the universe and then build life “principles” around that.

  • “[Seattle,] a city where it is always 53 degrees and raining”

    Definitely don’t visit there during the summer. You’d hate it.