People Say Houston's ugly but not cities like Chicago, NYC, etc? (Dallas: appointed, buyer)

[Zhang Fei]

Originally Posted by jd2008

The building is right in downtown! Other cities would have declared that a public blight years ago and taken care of it.

There are plenty of abandoned buildings in New York City. Where the city has become the owner because of property tax liens.

[AK123]

Originally Posted by austinguy2009

And now you see on full display how Houston boosters loooove to tear down other cities and make ridiculous claims about other cities to try to make Houton look better.

Is this not what you're doing with regards to Houston?

Originally Posted by austinguy2009

I'm leaving the Houston forum for now.

Great! Maybe you can go take some walks around the interesting parts of town, so that you can see more than just what's visible from driving on the freeways.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by jd2008

My point is that Houston doesn't seem to want to spend much money to clean the city up and mitigate some of the obvious blights on the city. That building on the southside of downtown that seems to have been abandoned for decades; the city is only now beginning the process of tearing down that eyesore. And the only reason they are going to tear it down is because the building is on the verge of falling down! The building is right in downtown! Other cities would have declared that a public blight years ago and taken care of it. There are several other buildings just south of 45 in midtown that are also abandoned eyesores and the city seemingly does nothing.

Problem is these properties do not belong to the city, and a lot of legal hoops are being jumped through just to get this demolition done. The old Savoy is just like those properties you see in the NYC pics - whoever owns them is sitting on them, waiting for values to go up to turn around and sell it for a lot of money.

What's your solution? Do we raise taxes so the city can buy derelict properties and resell them?

Other cities bury their overhead lines. In Houston its like India with the jumbled lines going everywhere.

http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog_im...es_sf_520c.jpg

Or like this?

[jd2008]

Originally Posted by Zhang Fei

Every locality has its own priorities. Like it or not, the majority of Houstonians think your priorities are misguided. NYC's power lines might be buried, but the subways are probably the dirtiest I have ever encountered out of six or seven subway systems in the world, and the roads are the most rutted and potholed I have ever encountered in a major city (this list includes places ranging from Hangzhou to Jakarta in the Third World to London to Sydney in the First World).

Fair enough. Houston may have other priorities. I totally get that but that's also part of the reason this city is so ugly.

The NYC subway is dirty but, given its age, its not bad and has some interesting architecture and tile work.

And as far as abandoned buildings in New York, you don't see any in the middle of the central business district or in one of the nicer, more urban neighborhoods with some of the most expensive rents in the city.


Moderator cut: personal attack

[jd2008]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Problem is these properties do not belong to the city, and a lot of legal hoops are being jumped through just to get this demolition done. The old Savoy is just like those properties you see in the NYC pics - whoever owns them is sitting on them, waiting for values to go up to turn around and sell it for a lot of money.

They are eyesores. If they have to jump through a lot of legal loop holes then the laws need to be changed. They may have been waiting for values to go up but they also weren't carrying out basic maintenance on the building. That creates as eyesore which damages the entire neighborhood.

And the Savoy is not just like those properties in NYC. The Savoy is in the central business district of Houston. It would be like seeing abandoned buildings on Wall Street or on Broadway.

Originally Posted by jfre81

What's your solution? Do we raise taxes so the city can buy derelict properties and resell them?

My solution? Pass new laws that give the city greater power to condemn abandoned properties that are in disrepair and a blight on the neighborhood. Give the city more power to regulate development. Raise the gas tax to discourage sprawl, increase density and then take the extra money and pump it into more mass transit and to clean up the city.

Originally Posted by jfre81

http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog_im...es_sf_520c.jpg

Or like this?

Many parts of San Francisco (and LA for that matter) are not that nice. They are hardly model cities. Frankly...I despise LA.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by jd2008

And as far as abandoned buildings in New York, you don't see any in the middle of the central business district or in one of the nicer, more urban neighborhoods with some of the most expensive rents in the city.

Actually, none of those buildings are really in the central business district of Houston, which has moved around what we call "downtown" over the decades. What happened, most of all, is that the Pierce Elevated got built and altered traffic patterns so properties like that had their value killed as commercial lots, and not many want to live right next to a freeway. So you have the abandoned Savoy and Central Square, as well as the old Days Inn.

The options, then, for dealing with these properties aren't too great. The city can't just show up with a demolition crew and blow it up. It's not theirs. Furthermore, these old buildings can't be demolished or renovated until the asbestos is removed, which is expensive. Then there is the cost of demolition or restoration, and either way you're looking at a lot more expense than the property is worth, even being where it is.

jd, you should've seen this place 15 years ago, you'd have been absolutely beside yourself. You should've seen what the part of downtown around the ballpark used to look like.

My solution? Pass new laws that give the city greater power to condemn abandoned properties that are in disrepair and a blight on the neighborhood.

You'd have to change laws at the state level first, and Texas as a general rule of thumb gives private property owners a wide berth as long as their property taxes are paid up. The city can pass laws all it wants but if they are counter to state law they are worthless.

There are actually a lot of ordinances on the books that aren't being enforced, mainly for lack of money. The city has some other priorities, like making sure its police force can cover 600+ square miles. That's not easy.

It sounds like I'm making excuses, and if it does, then so be it. You obviously want to know why some things are the way they are. You're free to leave if you decide it's not for you. I'm not going to begrudge anyone for it.

Many parts of San Francisco (and LA for that matter) are not that nice. They are hardly model cities.

What's your idea of a model city, and why?

Many parts of many cities aren't that nice.

[jd2008]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Actually, none of those buildings are really in the central business district of Houston, which has moved around what we call "downtown" over the decades. What happened, most of all, is that the Pierce Elevated got built and altered traffic patterns so properties like that had their value killed as commercial lots, and not many want to live right next to a freeway. So you have the abandoned Savoy and Central Square, as well as the old Days Inn.

The options, then, for dealing with these properties aren't too great. The city can't just show up with a demolition crew and blow it up. It's not theirs. Furthermore, these old buildings can't be demolished or renovated until the asbestos is removed, which is expensive. Then there is the cost of demolition or restoration, and either way you're looking at a lot more expense than the property is worth, even being where it is.

jd, you should've seen this place 15 years ago, you'd have been absolutely beside yourself. You should've seen what the part of downtown around the ballpark used to look like.

It's close enough to the core part of downtown to have a negative impact on the development of downtown. It also has creates a barrier for development between Midtown and Downtown. 45 certainly doesn't help either and that is a whole other animal entirely (it should be buried) but those derelict buildings are a problem. And the one's in Midtown hurt the east-west development of Midtown, which is one of the city's highest rent areas.

As far as options for dealing with these things, the city needs to strengthen the public nuisance laws. The city needs to have greater power to act against slum landlords who abandon their property and don't maintain the structure. They can fine them, force them to clean it up and, if needed, place a lien on the property, foreclose on the property and auction the property to pay off the lien. Other cities have tools to deal with these problems. So should Houston.

[Zhang Fei]

Originally Posted by jd2008

My solution? Pass new laws that give the city greater power to condemn abandoned properties that are in disrepair and a blight on the neighborhood. Give the city more power to regulate development. Raise the gas tax to discourage sprawl, increase density and then take the extra money and pump it into more mass transit and to clean up the city.

These are personal preferences, not solutions. Houstonians already have their own personal preferences, and they don't currently involve giving third parties more power to seize their personal property (in the form of land or taxes) to build monuments to themselves.

[C2H (ComingtoHouston)]

Originally Posted by jfre81

What's your solution? Do we raise taxes so the city can buy derelict properties and resell them?



http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog_im...es_sf_520c.jpg

Or like this?

Whoa!!! I've seen those pics of san fran. Is it like that all over SF or just in that area?

[Zhang Fei]

Originally Posted by rb4browns

I think the only thing sillier than two people having a little tiff on the internet is the third guy who jumps in to take sides. You go guy! OK, enough of this silliness, I left my car in the driveway and I need to go park it on my lawn.

What's worse is that we're the fourth or fifth guys. But you know how it is - debating on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics - even if you win, you're still a [developmentally-disabled person].