[Porchman]

I previously posted a query about this on the Kaplan's Ben Hur thread when I saw that the old building was being demo'd. A representative of Allied Realty Services has reported the following to the Houston Heights Association Land Use Chair:

• 195 apartments. (on two acres)
  
• 4 stories of apartments, 1-1/2 stories of parking underneath
  
• No renderings available at this time. They may make a presentation to the Land Use Committee in October.
  
• Allied is working with the association of homeowners who are on the north side of W 22nd

This post has been edited by Porchman: Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 2:23 PM

[tanith27]

Sounds pretty gross to me. How un-Heights.

[houstonray]

At one point during my youth, my parents had a home on 2 acres. It boggles my mind to have 195 families living in that same space. I realize it's 4 stories up but still, it seems, as was said, so "un-Heights"....

[heights_yankee]

houstonray, on Thursday, August 2nd, 2007 @ 7:25pm, said:

At one point during my youth, my parents had a home on 2 acres. It boggles my mind to have 195 families living in that same space. I realize it's 4 stories up but still, it seems, as was said, so "un-Heights"....

well, i doubt it's going to be "families" in these units. i guess the silver lining is more d.i.n.k. cash for the 19th st businesses.

[PureAuteur]

That's really sad that they would want to demolish the building. It is a unique, classic design, and just another example of how money is destroying the character of Houston and all its history and landmark structures. I don't even see how 195 units of apartments could fit into that space. There shouldn't be any traffic problems though, since the Heights has a grid system of streets.

[TheNiche]

PureAuteur, on Sunday, August 5th, 2007 @ 10:38pm, said:

just another example of how money is destroying the character of Houston and all its history and landmark structures.

What do you think built all its history and landmark structures? A widespread warm and fuzzy sense of civic pride?

[lockmat]

Developers are building these multi-family units in the Heights, why? Because they like the neighborhood feel? Well, won't it all be gone by the time they're done building these dense places? Why not build somewhere else like the east end?

[TheNiche]

lockmat, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 1:02pm, said:

Developers are building these multi-family units in the Heights, why? Because they like the neighborhood feel? Well, won't it all be gone by the time they're done building these dense places? Why not build somewhere else like the east end?

Developers don't build somewhere because they like the neighborhood. They build because customers like it. Densification allows a greater number of people to enjoy it. I'd think that this arrangement would be preferable to an approach of keeping people away from the neighborhoods that they like most.

[PureAuteur]

TheNiche, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 12:55pm, said:

What do you think built all its history and landmark structures? A widespread warm and fuzzy sense of civic pride?

A combination of money and community vision. Now it's just money. Developers don't care about whether they put too many people in a certain amount of space. Remember when they used to make 1 and 2 story apartment complexes and small quaint little neighborhood apartments? Those days are over. Everything is at least 3 stories now, because you can get more money on the same amount of land. If you want to invest in 4 + stories, then you have to invest in an elevator, but you'd still be making enough to cover that cost.

lockmat, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 1:02pm, said:

Developers are building these multi-family units in the Heights, why? Because they like the neighborhood feel? Well, won't it all be gone by the time they're done building these dense places? Why not build somewhere else like the east end?

I concur. That kind of development works on the East End, because that area is turning into a near downtown neighborhood for young couples, and single professionals. The Heights has those demographics too, but is more of a family neighborhood.

[TheNiche]

PureAuteur, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 2:01pm, said:

A combination of money and community vision. Now it's just money. Developers don't care about whether they put too many people in a certain amount of space. Remember when they used to make 1 and 2 story apartment complexes and small quaint little neighborhood apartments? Those days are over. Everything is at least 3 stories now, because you can get more money on the same amount of land. If you want to invest in 4 + stories, then you have to invest in an elevator, but you'd still be making enough to cover that cost.

Actually, that kind of development rarely works in the East End. The Lofts at the Ballpark took nearly two years to stabilize and the Alexan developed in the old Mercado del Sol got so bad at one point that it was offering three months of free rent and a free plasma TV to tenants taking a 13-month lease. Likewise, the various low-rise condo conversions from old warehouses haven't fared very well. The problem: the East End isn't there yet. Not enough people see it as being as desireable as the Heights...and people want to live in desireable places. ...so it follows that developers will build apartments where people want to live.

And just so you're aware, 3+ stories is the norm now not because you can make more money, but because you can make money. Apartment complexes compete among themselves, so if anyone tried to develop little ones like back in the day, they'd only lose money. And if there were some ban on the current form of apartment complexes, then the market rates would only go up, pricing people out of the neighborhood...away from where they would prefer to live.

[lockmat]

TheNiche, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 12:52pm, said:

Developers don't build somewhere because they like the neighborhood. They build because customers like it. Densification allows a greater number of people to enjoy it. I'd think that this arrangement would be preferable to an approach of keeping people away from the neighborhoods that they like most.

That's what I meant by "they" like the feel -- the people actually moving there; customers. The feel won't be there any longer once densification takes over.

[TheNiche]

lockmat, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 2:41pm, said:

That's what I meant by "they" like the feel -- the people actually moving there; customers. The feel won't be there any longer once densification takes over.

If a tree falls in a forest...

[PureAuteur]

Niche- then why didn't developers build gigantic cookie cutter apartment complexes with the standard 3 stories in the 60s, 70s, and 80s? Do you think we'll ever return to the days when one story apartment complexes with maybe 20-30 units will be built?

[TheNiche]

PureAuteur, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 3:12pm, said:

Niche- then why didn't developers build gigantic cookie cutter apartment complexes with the standard 3 stories in the 60s, 70s, and 80s? Do you think we'll ever return to the days when one story apartment complexes with maybe 20-30 units will be built?

Actually, those were the years when big garden-style apartment complexes first became practical in Houston as opposed to smaller apartment buildings that stood alone and were integrated with the neighborhood that had been built before. A big part of it was that population growth became sufficiently rapid that it became possible to fill up larger complexes in a reasonable period of time, whereas before that, too many units in a big complex would've sat vacant for too long to justify adding them to the plan. When population growth is sufficiently high, larger complexes become preferable to smaller complexes for a number of reasons:

• Larger sites can typically accomodate more efficient use of land, allowing for more units per acre. Smaller sites tend to be less flexible, especially if the City enforces setbacks.
  
• Economies of scale of construction--the greater the number of units, the lower the price per unit.
  
• Economies of scale of management. A management operation for a large complex is more efficient than for a small complex or a scattered portfolio of smaller complexes.
  
• Better quality of management. If a pipe breaks in the middle of the night, a live-in manager and maintenance person that gets a discount on his/her unit can respond in minutes. An apartment owner often couldn't afford to do this in a smaller complex.
  
• When the cost of amenities can be spread out among a larger number of units, more of them can be provided. It would be hell to provide and maintain 30 units with their own fitness center, swimming pool, media room, game room, business center, perimeter fencing and access control, and a security guard. But with 300 units, its not much of an issue.

So what it comes down to is better bang for the buck, and in a competitive market, developers that built smaller complexes just couldn't beat the pricing of larger ones. There are diminishing returns to scale, to there is a limit on the size of particular complexes. In fact, there does get to be a point at which too many units becomes a disamenity to tenants and cause a headache for management's attempts at marketing. This is why institutional investors look for an optimal complex size of about 250 to 350 units when looking to buy Class A complexes.

Lately, we've been seeing that it is difficult to build fewer than four stories in urban complexes. This is because land prices are high and need to be spread around to more people to make any sort of apartment development work. Bear in mind that when the original complexes in the inner loop area were built, land prices weren't nearly as high as they are today. If they'd been as high, and had been supported by demand, then we would've densified like cities on the east coast in the first place...but at the time, the Heights was a thought of as more of a suburb. Things change.

[RedScare]

In the grand scheme of things, knocking down Kaplan's to bring 400 residents next door to the 19th/20th Street shops doesn't sound too bad at all. All in all, Yale Street is a hellhole. If a developer is considerate enough to consult the Heights Association before building, I'm willing to wait until I at least see drawings before I complain. And, traffic? Please. They are BEGGING for more traffic in the 19th Street area.

Not all development is bad, people. Not all apartments are bad. An apartment building next to a retail center brings walk-in traffic to the merchants. That actually reduces traffic relative to sales. And Yale Street is decidedly NOT Heights Boulevard. It is EXACTLY where we want the apartments to go. And, Heights merchants cannot stay in business in a neighborhood full of singles and couples in single family homes. We NEED that densification. Remember, back in the old days, all of our bungalows had 5 or 6 people in them, not 1 or 2.

So, think before you gripe. This may be good for the hood.

[tanith27]

I've thought about it, and I still want to gripe. I agree this is a great way to get new blood into the neighborhood and I guess if things like this were to happen I would prefer a condo since an owner takes more pride in their home than renters which tend to be more transient. I'm still not convinced this is a good thing, after all the Skylane apts over on Taylor/I-10 in the Woodland Heights is a peach of a dwelling. What a lovely monument to urban decay that place is.
Point is, the Heights is a neighborhood built with a vision of single family homes. I support that vision.

[sevfiv]

danax, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 6:53pm, said:

I do fear that the charm of those old retail blocks around 19th will get turned upside down as the profit potential to tear down and build something bigger becomes irresistible. Does anyone know if any of those buildings are protected landmarks? Maybe the Heights Theater?

it doesn't appear that anything along 19th is a protected landmark:
http://www.houstontx...ndmarksites.pdf

[RedScare]

tanith27, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 6:35pm, said:

I've thought about it, and I still want to gripe. I agree this is a great way to get new blood into the neighborhood and I guess if things like this were to happen I would prefer a condo since an owner takes more pride in their home than renters which tend to be more transient. I'm still not convinced this is a good thing, after all the Skylane apts over on Taylor/I-10 in the Woodland Heights is a peach of a dwelling. What a lovely monument to urban decay that place is.
Point is, the Heights is a neighborhood built with a vision of single family homes. I support that vision.

So, by your logic, I suppose it is safe to assume that you would oppose tearing down the Skylane for a new 4 storey apartment building, since it would just be twice as many transients as currently live there? Do you really expect us to believe that the quality of resident occupying a $1000 per month (or more) apartment is the same as that occupying a $300 per month apartment?

And just how many single family visions are on Yale Street anyway?

[tanith27]

All I'm saying is that at some point we have to draw the line and accept some level of identity for the neighborhood. In my opinion, the identity of the Heights should be defined by an abundance of historical homes, not a plethora of apartment complexes that may or may not be architecturally stimulating. There are plenty of places for apartment complexes along the perimeter of the Heights, but I think its a near sighted solution to support their occupation on any block or corner that has been neglected just as a quick fix to a blighted corner. Driving down Heights Blvd it amazes me to see so many gorgeous historical homes and right next door is an apartment complex that is so completely out of character for the area. Is there a single person here that wouldn't like to jog or bike down Heights Blvd and see nothing but classic victorians one after another? I have yet to utter the words 'oh thats a beautiful apartment complex' anywhere in the Heights, whether it charges $1000 per month or $300, but hardly a day goes by that I don't say that about a house somewhere in the area. For those that appreciate the French Quarter and all of its historical glory, how enticing would it be to have a 6 or 7 story apartment complex jutting out of the middle of it just because a developer deemed it economically advantageous? If a few developers all decided to do that same thing, then what does the French Quarter become? Okay, its extreme but the point is still there. I just think the Heights with its historical significance deserves to be unique in the city, and there's nothing unique about apartment buildings.

[RedScare]

tanith27, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 9:22pm, said:

There are plenty of places for apartment complexes along the perimeter of the Heights, but I think its a near sighted solution to support their occupation on any block or corner that has been neglected just as a quick fix to a blighted corner.

I do not see this as a quick fix. Rather than knee-jerkedly oppose any structure that is not a single family faux Victorian (there are precious few actual Victorians, new or old, in the Heights), I take a pragmatic approach to development. Commercial areas in general, and Yale Street in particular, are not conducive to single family housing. If we take a less antagonistic stance on development of Yale, and the freeway feeder roads, while saving that famous Heights venom for the inner Heights street grid, we can accomplish several things, all good. We can attract well paid, professional renters to the new construction apartments. We can clean up a dilapidated streetscape with well designed buildings, similar to the CVS nearby, that are in keeping with the architecture of the area. We encourage multi-family development on the commercial strips, while encouraging single family in the residential areas. We signal to the Houston community that we are accepting and inviting to responsible development, while opposed to irresponsible development. We signal to restaurantuers and retailers that there is growth and disposable income in the Heights.

By fighting everything, even that development that would occur in non-residential areas, we signal that the Heights does not want prosperity, only the old, decaying structures symbolized by Skylane. We further signal that since we oppose even well thought out and appropriate development, developers should practice stealth development to evade the angry Heights mobs. The thoughtful and considerate developer will avoid the Heights, leaving the scorched earth group to put crap wherever they can sneak it in.

If this structure were proposed on Heights Boulevard, I would be inclined to agree with you. It is not. It is a proposal to build on the perimeter of the Heights, a scenario that you yourself said was acceptable...and I agree with you that it is, especially if the design compliments the vibrant 19th/20th Street commercial area. It certainly can't be any worse than the Kroger shopping center next door, a blight that we would all applaud removing.

[TheNiche]

tanith27, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 9:22pm, said:

I just think the Heights with its historical significance deserves to be unique in the city, and there's nothing unique about apartment buildings.

This may sound like a dumb question, but what is the historical significance of the Heights?

What makes it deserve to be unique? And what is so unique about single family homes as opposed to apartment buildings? I know a lot of urbanists that would disagree with you. ...and in this case, at least, I'm inclined to agree with them. Honestly, anything can be and frequently is mediocre. And that it is old does not make it special or significant.

[PureAuteur]

The Heights has a more intimate character, and the large apartment complexes might detract from this. If the apartment buildings are smaller and more nestled into the neighborhood, then they are just as acceptable as homes. This is pretty much how the Heights has always been over the last few decades. Just about everywhere you turn, you see a small apartment community, a single apartment building with a few units, or garage apartments/efficiencies for lease.

[TheNiche]

PureAuteur, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 11:02pm, said:

The Heights has a more intimate character, and the large apartment complexes might detract from this. If the apartment buildings are smaller and more nestled into the neighborhood, then they are just as acceptable as homes. This is pretty much how the Heights has always been over the last few decades. Just about everywhere you turn, you see a small apartment community, a single apartment building with a few units, or garage apartments/efficiencies for lease.

How things have been is evident. That bears no relation to how things should or should not be.

[tanith27]

TheNiche, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 10:40pm, said:

This may sound like a dumb question, but what is the historical significance of the Heights?

This spring I went on one of those home tours and got to see an original home from the 1800's with a live oak tree in the backyard they said was estimated to be 400 years old. In a city that has grown so large, and so quick, with a preponderance of builder attitudes of 'out with the old, in with the new', I'm curious where else in the city homes like this exist? And I'm not talking one or two homes here or there, but a good part of the Heights contains century plus homes that are well kept and in good shape. Given the quickness to which Houston as a city has decimated its own history, if there are other neighborhoods like this, let me know as I'd love to see them.

[Tiko]

TheNiche, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 11:04pm, said:

How things have been is evident. That bears no relation to how things should or should not be.

How should they be?

[TheNiche]

tanith27, on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 @ 6:37am, said:

This spring I went on one of those home tours and got to see an original home from the 1800's with a live oak tree in the backyard they said was estimated to be 400 years old. In a city that has grown so large, and so quick, with a preponderance of builder attitudes of 'out with the old, in with the new', I'm curious where else in the city homes like this exist? And I'm not talking one or two homes here or there, but a good part of the Heights contains century plus homes that are well kept and in good shape. Given the quickness to which Houston as a city has decimated its own history, if there are other neighborhoods like this, let me know as I'd love to see them.

Single family homes are commonplace. So some of those in the Heights are old...what of it? So they have endured in excess of a hundred revolutions around the sun. Your point? Is it that the number you chose as a threshold has three digits?

Also, if you are interested in historical preservation, then why not embrace and preserve the very spirit of willful change that made the Heights possible in the first place? Every new build is just history in the making.

Tiko, on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 @ 10:57am, said:

How should they be?

It is not necessary to answer the question in order to effectively counter PureAuteur's argument.

This post has been edited by TheNiche: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 11:20 AM

[RedScare]

Tanith, it should be understood that I am not riding on Niche's bulldozer. I DO recognize the value of the old homes in the Heights. I spend every weekend bringing one back to life. However, I find some of the tactics used to protect the Heights actually contribute to destroying it. I also believe in encouraging development in those areas that need it. Yale at 21st is one of them.

FWIW, my house, like most in the Heights, is less than 100 years old, but I am trying to get it there.

[lockmat]

RedScare, on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 @ 10:51am, said:

However, I find some of the tactics used to protect the Heights actually contribute to destroying it.

For information sake, what tactics are you talking about?

[RedScare]

There are other threads that cover this in more detail, but two that bother me are the Lot Line ordinance, and the knee jerk opposition to anything that is not Victorian homes. The lot line ordinance encourages removing the very bungalows we want to save, and replacing them with oversized homes, due to land value. The knee jerk opposition to national retailers, for instance, scares away retail development that allows smaller retailers to thrive next door. A carrot and stick approach that encourages responsible development is preferable. Note, I am not advocating against that famous Heights vigilance, merely advocating for responsible and thoughtful use of the hammer. The law of unintended consequences can be a real delicate flower.

[west20th]

Some questions on this project, hopefully some can answer:

1. Anyone come accross any project renderings yet?
2. Is the building next to the old Ben-Hur site part of the project? It wouldn't break my heart to see those go.

If the project is done right it could be an asset to the area. Hopefully it will spur some retail additions. The only "wishes" I would have for the project would be that it would be condos instead of apartments. Some retail facing Yale would be nice but I'm doubtful that will happen. Also, it would be nice if developers would shift their focus to the Shepherd/Durham corridor, that really needs the redevelopment. There are parcels available but developers don't seem to know what to do there. One good project would probably do a lot to spur redevelopment on Shepherd.

This post has been edited by west20th: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 12:11 PM

[SaintCyr]

I live on 11th and Yale in a single family home and see nothing wrong with development at 19th and Yale... I don't see how this would disrupt the "feel" of the neighborhood. If it attracts anyone like the places in Midtown have, I would have to say that it might breathe fresh life into that area. I cannot however see anything such as this ever happening on heights or "in" the neighborhoods with such an active community. Just my .02 ....

D

[Porchman]

RedScare, on Monday, August 6th, 2007 @ 10:08pm, said:

By fighting everything, even that development that would occur in non-residential areas, we signal that the Heights does not want prosperity, only the old, decaying structures symbolized by Skylane. We further signal that since we oppose even well thought out and appropriate development, developers should practice stealth development to evade the angry Heights mobs. The thoughtful and considerate developer will avoid the Heights, leaving the scorched earth group to put crap wherever they can sneak it in.

If this structure were proposed on Heights Boulevard, I would be inclined to agree with you. It is not. It is a proposal to build on the perimeter of the Heights, a scenario that you yourself said was acceptable...and I agree with you that it is, especially if the design compliments the vibrant 19th/20th Street commercial area. It certainly can't be any worse than the Kroger shopping center next door, a blight that we would all applaud removing.

I agree. However, the only problem here is striking the balance. This is a 5.5 story building backing up to single-family neighborhood with well-maintained homes. Porchman is reserving judgement. He would like to see renderings and a plat.

RedScare, on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 @ 12:05pm, said:

There are other threads that cover this in more detail, but two that bother me are the Lot Line ordinance...

This is one issue with which I struggle. I've seen how more dense use of land has offered opportunity for restoration of some of the older homes in the Heights (eg. the Bungalow Revival homes on W14). With the highly appreciated land value of the area, this is a way to counter the tear-it-down-and-build-something-giant craze.

west20th, on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 @ 12:08pm, said:

Some questions on this project, hopefully some can answer:

1. Anyone come accross any project renderings yet?
2. Is the building next to the old Ben-Hur site part of the project? It wouldn't break my heart to see those go.

Some retail facing Yale would be nice but I'm doubtful that will happen.

They purportedly do not have renderings. They did this project in Denver.
http://www.bygroup.c...ery/allied.html. I would not be surprised if there was some resemblance in the Retreat project.

Not sure which old building you mean. They've stripped the whole property - 21st to 22nd.

There is no retail planned for the building. The lower level is parking structure.

[SaintCyr]

Looking at the maps off of Virtual Earth it looks like there would be minimal building backing up to the homes... Wouldn't be too hard to put in a "buffer"...

[musicman]

Porchman, on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 @ 12:53pm, said:

This is one issue with which I struggle. I've seen how more dense use of land has offered opportunity for restoration of some of the older homes in the Heights (eg. the Bungalow Revival homes on W14). With the highly appreciated land value of the area, this is a way to counter the tear-it-down-and-build-something-giant craze.

how does this counter the tear-it down-and-build -something-giant craze? i can seeing them want to put multiple units on one lot instead.

This post has been edited by musicman: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 1:15 PM

[Porchman]

SaintCyr, on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 @ 1:12pm, said:

Looking at the maps off of Virtual Earth it looks like there would be minimal building backing up to the homes... Wouldn't be too hard to put in a "buffer"...

There is potential for a buffer. But they will need to use a substantial part of the parking area to the west in order to fit almost 50 units per floor.

musicman, on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 @ 1:15pm, said:

how does this counter the tear-it down-and-build -something-giant craze? i can seeing them want to put multiple units on one lot instead.

Well, that's true, and they're doing that, as well. What I was inidcating is that homes which would not have fit the economic model of maxing the land have found new life on smaller, tighter lots, instead of simply being torn down to make way for newer and bigger or, as you point out, newer and more plentiful. Even with the ordinances (and pending clarifications), much can still (and will) be torn down. So an economically viable alternative can be generated for preservation by allowing lot adjustments.

[RedScare]

They are pouring piers at the site today. Has anyone seen what the finished product will look like? From the looks of the dirt work, it appears that the garage will be under the apartments. I noticed that the ugliest building on the block, the beauty school, is still standing.

[jfre81]

This sounds cool. Any idea on what the rent will be like?

I like the Heights, so once this goes up I might be looking here...

[Porchman]

A representative from Allied Realty / Allied Construction will be making a presentation to the HHA Land Use Committee this evening regarding this project. All those interested are encouraged to attend.

• 6:30 PM, Heights Fire Station @ 12th and Yale.

[RedScare]

BrewsterMcCloud, on Thursday, September 13th, 2007 @ 1:49pm, said:

This sounds cool. Any idea on what the rent will be like?

I like the Heights, so once this goes up I might be looking here...

I'll try to swing by and find out for you. We can always use another troublemaker in the hood.

[Porchman]

Here it is...or atleast mostly...the big Y thang is apparently not going to be part of the design.



Project specs:

-$30M project
-Rendering lies - no retail on first level. Apparently they've talked to Weingarten about making the Kroger plaza a happier place to be. Although, Weingarten is pretty tied up right now .
-195 units - half 1 BR, Half 2 BR; 1.88 parking places per unit. Interesting point: They have created a 2-level parking garage (at least one level below grade). They made each level acessible from a different street - one Level from 21st and one level from 22nd. This should help abate a concentration of traffic.
-Average monthly rent $1500. Residents are puportedly expected to earn 3x rent (54K).
-They say there is primo deposit for doggies and kitties. They have a pet walking area. (Walking a cat doesn't work, trust me).
-Outdoor pool and fitness room.
-No clear answer on what's going to happen with the remaining retail property, which purportedly tied up in probate. Allied (the developer) has no control over this.
-Another developer is going to put 4 townhomes on the lot west of Long John Silvers, which is currently being currently being used as the construction lot. They're targeting the fried fish lovers market .
-As shown in the rendering, brick on the bottom, metal on the top.
-Issues raised:

• Metal on the top. Issue raised: Is the loft look passe?
  
• Traffic: No turn lanes on Yale to serve Northbound traffic. Yale is about to get torn up, now what?
  
• How ya gonna get the water out the garage? Answer: Sump pumps that feed into the storm sewer. 2nd question: How ya gonna deal with the over-taxed storm sewer? Not a problem...because the City of Houston says so.
  
• Make your construction people respect the 'hood. Answer: we'll work on it. Let us know.

Much thanks to the HHA Land Use Committee Chair for getting them to come speak with us.

Oh, someone might as well add this to the "Going Up" wiki.

This post has been edited by Porchman: Monday, October 1, 2007 at 9:36 PM

[RedScare]

Thanks for the update, Porchman. I'm not too upset at no first floor retail. Putting a happy face on Kroger Plaza would be a MUCH more impressive feat. "Mixed use" is becoming an extraordinarily overused term anyway. There is retail on either side and across the street, as well as up and down 19th and 20th. The Republic will survive without it.

I like the brick on the bottom, neither impressed nor disgusted with the top. Isn't that pretty much what happens with passe architecture? Overall, I am glad to see the new blood coming to Yale. As I have stated before, Yale is exactly the street this type of development should occur on. Who knows, a $30 million shot to 22nd Street could boost interest in 23rd through 28th. How's that for a "half full" statement?

BTW, what was your impression, having been there and seen and listened to the presentation?

This post has been edited by RedScare: Monday, October 1, 2007 at 10:42 PM

[Porchman]

RedScare, on Monday, October 1st, 2007 @ 10:38pm, said:

Thanks for the update, Porchman. I'm not too upset at no first floor retail. Putting a happy face on Kroger Plaza would be a MUCH more impressive feat. "Mixed use" is becoming an extraordinarily overused term anyway. There is retail on either side and across the street, as well as up and down 19th and 20th. The Republic will survive without it.

Agreed. It also minimizes the impact on the residences in that area. I think Allied eschews managing anything other than residential. Probably a smart business plan.

RedScare, on Monday, October 1st, 2007 @ 10:38pm, said:

I like the brick on the bottom, neither impressed nor disgusted with the top. Isn't that pretty much what happens with passe architecture? Overall, I am glad to see the new blood coming to Yale. As I have stated before, Yale is exactly the street this type of development should occur on. Who knows, a $30 million shot to 22nd Street could boost interest in 23rd through 28th. How's that for a "half full" statement?

It will be interesting to see how much of an impact it will have. The pending reconstruction of Yale could delay any positive effects, however.

RedScare, on Monday, October 1st, 2007 @ 10:38pm, said:

BTW, what was your impression, having been there and seen and listened to the presentation?

I really don't do impressions except for maybe Ethel Merman.

Anyhoo, the Allied Realty folk gave solid answers to a barrage of questions. Some of the answers were not what some people wanted to hear. There is solid concern from those living near the project - the impact of construction being paramount right now. There was general concern over long-term impact issues like traffic. They got light applause at the end for braving the quick-fire queries. It was a fairly moderate turnout. No big harangue.

[RedScare]

I look forward to your Ethel Merman at the next HAIF get together.

You've mentioned the Yale reconstruction a couple of times. What are they planning? I would assume a Studewood style redo? Hopefully, without the mid-project delay? Do you know a timeframe?

[Porchman]

RedScare, on Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007 @ 9:10am, said:

You've mentioned the Yale reconstruction a couple of times. What are they planning? I would assume a Studewood style redo? Hopefully, without the mid-project delay? Do you know a timeframe?

It was mentioned last night that it's been pushed up to next year. Yes. it's my understaing that it's the whole thing - utilities, pavement, etc. I vaguely recall someone mentioning that COH would be overseeing this project, where TXDOT was in charge of Studewood.

[cwrm4]

Porchman - many thanks for the report on the meeting with the developer. Intelligent, well-written, factual posts such as yours are becoming increasingly rare on HAIF as the membership expands. While the architecture of the building reminds me of a budget-constrained project at your average second-tier university, at this stage, any new development would be good development for the area north of 19th -- as long as, of course, 19th Street retains its eclectic-for-Houston vibe.

I must admit I also had not heard of the pending reconstruction of Yale and am curious as well as to the scope of that project.

This post has been edited by cwrm4: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 10:17 PM

[Kroller]

The comments about what my family refers to as "little Kroger" are somewhat surprising because Kroger is planning to expand the 11th street store to make it more like the Kroger on West Gray. The work is supposed to take place in 2008. It's been rumored that "little Kroger" would be closed once the 11th street store is finished. The Allied reps mentioned something about having to compete with 24 Hour Fitness for the Kaplan's site. Perhaps the gym will go where "little Kroger" is.

[lockmat]

Is this a dupe?

http://www.multi-hou...9648443911a12e3

[west20th]

"brown metal siding will replicate wood". Yuuuck. Don't like the sound of that.