[UrbaNerd]

http://www.chron.com...ff/3956173.html

"A lot of the transformation so far has taken place in Midtown, where a prime block of land just sold at the corner of Main and Elgin.

A CVS Pharmacy will be built on the southeast corner, according to Marshall Davidson of Cushman & Wakefield,
who was involved in the land sale."



This can go two ways. They can either make a pedestrian friendly design, or plop another suburban CVS there. Now, tell me which one is more likely.
*beats head into table repeatedly*

[GovernorAggie]

UrbaNerd, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 12:54am, said:

http://www.chron.com...ff/3956173.html

"A lot of the transformation so far has taken place in Midtown, where a prime block of land just sold at the corner of Main and Elgin.

A CVS Pharmacy will be built on the southeast corner, according to Marshall Davidson of Cushman & Wakefield,
who was involved in the land sale."



This can go two ways. They can either make a pedestrian friendly design, or plop another suburban CVS there. Now, tell me which one is more likely.
*beats head into table repeatedly*

lol, well I guess the bright side could be that it'll be the CVS with the best hours along the rail line. But I will agree that the chances of this thing being pedestrian-oriented are.....is there anything less than nil?? I think the extent of "pedestrian" access will be a painted path through the parking lot.

What does this mean when a CVS--one where the parking lot will be bigger than the building--can be put in an area with supposedly rising land values?

This post has been edited by GovernorAggie: Sunday, June 11, 2006 at 1:04 AM

[JGraspo]

Great another one on the rail...just what we need

[TheNiche]

GovernorAggie, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 1:01am, said:

What does this mean when a CVS--one where the parking lot will be bigger than the building--can be put in an area with supposedly rising land values?

It means that the land value is based upon demand from non-residential uses, which are apparently the higher and better uses of the site from a financial position. Despite all the hype devoted to new residential construction in the area, Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction. So its short-run growth prospectives are weak in comparison with the East End, where cheap land and less fractured ownership allows for the rapid proliferation of relatively-inexpensive townhomes.

[nmainguy]

TheNiche, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 3:30am, said:

It means that the land value is based upon demand from non-residential uses, which are apparently the higher and better uses of the site from a financial position. Despite all the hype devoted to new residential construction in the area, Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction. So its short-run growth prospectives are weak in comparison with the East End, where cheap land and less fractured ownership allows for the rapid proliferation of relatively-inexpensive townhomes.

[TheNiche]

nmainguy, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 6:14am, said:

It'd perhaps be more effective if you'd provide a cogent argument against my assertion...

[nmainguy]

UrbaNerd, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 12:54am, said:

This can go two ways. They can either make a pedestrian friendly design, or plop another suburban CVS there. Now, tell me which one is more likely.

It's about a 3 block walk to the nearest station and a couple of blocks from HCC but I'm guessing it will be another run of the mill CVS facing Fannin.

[dalparadise]

This will most certainly be a suburban-style location. If CVS had wanted to open a pedestrian store in that location, they would have put it in the ground-floor of that newly remodeled parking garage for HCC that's there. That would have been a welcomed and much needed addition, in my estimation.

[KinkaidAlum]

"It means that the land value is based upon demand from non-residential uses, which are apparently the higher and better uses of the site from a financial position. Despite all the hype devoted to new residential construction in the area, Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction. So its short-run growth prospectives are weak in comparison with the East End, where cheap land and less fractured ownership allows for the rapid proliferation of relatively-inexpensive townhomes"


No.

It means Houston is still unzoned and that anything can be built anywhere and at any price to the community as long as the developers think they can make a buck.

Sure, it's capitalism at work and sure it may be the market doing its thing, but it isn't the best thing for the city at large and Midtown in particular.

As for only the Upper classes being able to afford anything in Midtown, that's a joke. Yes, there are some $400,000 town homes, but there are MANY more priced under $200,000 and there are thousands of rental apartments in new developments as well as older properties in the area.

CVS will likely build a suburban style site with a front parking lot and a drive-thru pharmacy lane because they can and because it is CHEAPER. That's all this decision means.

[zebra]

i agre it wil more like be a suburbin stile CVS i find it depresing that Houston cant get the urbin/pedistrian consept down they need to increse residnt pop and then things like pedistrian stiles will come. the mistake houston make was jacking up the price in midtown before it had the strong residint base to suport. now we have a lifeliss downtown. i'm still afrade the houston pavilion wont go becus its not showin good signs.

This post has been edited by zebra: Sunday, June 11, 2006 at 3:39 PM

[MidtownCoog]

This one may be more "urban" than you think.

The parking will most likely be in back or on the side just like the old Vietnam Restaurant. Does this also include the block with the old Hardware Store?

Anyway, seems like a bad location. One of those "one-way-in, one-way-out kinda places". Which is why I think it has to be more "urban" than "suburban".

I don't shop at CVS becuase they have terrible customer service. They could learn a thing or two from Walgreens.

[groovehouse]

Walgreens 4 Life!

This post has been edited by groovehouse: Sunday, June 11, 2006 at 11:48 PM

[GovernorAggie]

Agreed on Walgreen's vs. CVS. I also forgot about the drive thru.

[nmainguy]

KinkaidAlum, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 10:14am, said:

"It means that the land value is based upon demand from non-residential uses, which are apparently the higher and better uses of the site from a financial position. Despite all the hype devoted to new residential construction in the area, Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction. So its short-run growth prospectives are weak in comparison with the East End, where cheap land and less fractured ownership allows for the rapid proliferation of relatively-inexpensive townhomes"
No.

It means Houston is still unzoned and that anything can be built anywhere and at any price to the community as long as the developers think they can make a buck.

Sure, it's capitalism at work and sure it may be the market doing its thing, but it isn't the best thing for the city at large and Midtown in particular.

As for only the Upper classes being able to afford anything in Midtown, that's a joke. Yes, there are some $400,000 town homes, but there are MANY more priced under $200,000 and there are thousands of rental apartments in new developments as well as older properties in the area.

CVS will likely build a suburban style site with a front parking lot and a drive-thru pharmacy lane because they can and because it is CHEAPER. That's all this decision means.

You pretty much nailed it. No zoning so build what you want. Capitalism at it's nastiness. Screw the neighborhood and throw up that drugstore.
My goonie-face reply to niches absurd delusion that mid-town is only for Upper classes made me laugh into my coffee cup. I "fractured."

BTW, Kinkade, are you in Boston still?
BTW part two: Walgreens is no better. If they had their way you would have been looking at dumpsters from the rose garden on Heights Blvd. At least CVS worked with the neighborhood on that one. Check it out at 20th and Heights. Even our sometimes overbearing HHA gave them an award.

[KinkaidAlum]

Actually, not still in Boston. I am back in Boston.

Moved to Houston last summer. Found a great place in Cherryhurst. About a month later, an opportunity arose here that was just too good to pass up. Was lucky enough to be able to sell my Cherryhurst digs after one day on the market and I moved back here full time this past fall.

I missed Houston all winter. Now, not so much. It was 73 and sunny today with a nice breeze off the Bay.

[nmainguy]

KinkaidAlum, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 7:03pm, said:

Actually, not still in Boston. I am back in Boston.

Moved to Houston last summer. Found a great place in Cherryhurst. About a month later, an opportunity arose here that was just too good to pass up. Was lucky enough to be able to sell my Cherryhurst digs after one day on the market and I moved back here full time this past fall.

I missed Houston all winter. Now, not so much. It was 73 and sunny today with a nice breeze off the Bay.

Good for you. My dad grew up in Brookline and I have 3 aunts, an uncle and almost 40 cousins still in the Boston area. A great place.

[BTW, a balmy 93 degrees here this afternoon on my back porch ]

[H-Town Man]

nmainguy, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 7:24pm, said:

You pretty much nailed it. No zoning so build what you want. Capitalism at it's nastiness. Screw the neighborhood and throw up that drugstore.
My goonie-face reply to niches absurd delusion that mid-town is only for Upper classes made me laugh into my coffee cup. I "fractured."

BTW, Kinkade, are you in Boston still?
BTW part two: Walgreens is no better. If they had their way you would have been looking at dumpsters from the rose garden on Heights Blvd. At least CVS worked with the neighborhood on that one. Check it out at 20th and Heights. Even our sometimes overbearing HHA gave them an award.

I don't think he said that Midtown is only for upper classes. I think what he was trying to say is that the only people that could afford new construction with those land prices are the upper class, and since the upper class for the most part is not interested in Midtown, we are not going to see anything along the rail line for awhile except the occasional drug store.

[nmainguy]

H-Town Man, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 10:39pm, said:

I don't think he said that Midtown is only for upper classes. I think what he was trying to say is that the only people that could afford new construction with those land prices are the upper class, and since the upper class for the most part is not interested in Midtown, we are not going to see anything along the rail line for awhile except the occasional drug store.

He/she said:

Quote

Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction.

Kinkaid pointed out-rightly so-

Quote

As for only the Upper classes being able to afford anything in Midtown, that's a joke. Yes, there are some $400,000 town homes, but there are MANY more priced under $200,000 and there are thousands of rental apartments in new developments as well as older properties in the area.

You clearly don't need the "upper class" for redevelopment in Midtown. If CVS, Walgreens and Randals thought so, they never would have built there. When was the last time you saw Ken Lay or Mrs. Oscar "Oil for Food" Lynn Wyatt slumming in a CVS? CVS isn't catering to that ilk. They are catering to the average Joe. That's why they are building a drive up store on Fannin. The "upper class" has nothing to do with it-as you so aptly implyed.

[TheNiche]

KinkaidAlum, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 10:14am, said:

"It means that the land value is based upon demand from non-residential uses, which are apparently the higher and better uses of the site from a financial position. Despite all the hype devoted to new residential construction in the area, Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction. So its short-run growth prospectives are weak in comparison with the East End, where cheap land and less fractured ownership allows for the rapid proliferation of relatively-inexpensive townhomes"
No.

It means Houston is still unzoned and that anything can be built anywhere and at any price to the community as long as the developers think they can make a buck.

Sure, it's capitalism at work and sure it may be the market doing its thing, but it isn't the best thing for the city at large and Midtown in particular.

As for only the Upper classes being able to afford anything in Midtown, that's a joke. Yes, there are some $400,000 town homes, but there are MANY more priced under $200,000 and there are thousands of rental apartments in new developments as well as older properties in the area.

CVS will likely build a suburban style site with a front parking lot and a drive-thru pharmacy lane because they can and because it is CHEAPER. That's all this decision means.

Perhaps I should have more precisely defined "upper class". See, in my estimation, "upper class" means any household that has a combined gross income (inclusive of benefits) at or above approximately $100,000, which (depending upon a number of factors) typically translates to residences in the mid-200's and higher. I'm not talking about millionaires, here. Many of them have many tens of thousands of dollars of outstanding student loans or other debt obligations.

I know that there are cheaper housing products in certain parts of Midtown, particularly the eastern and southern fringe, where land can sometimes be acquired for about $20psf, but the issue at hand pertains to development near the light rail line, where land is typically about $40+ psf and new construction is typically necessary. In these high-value locations, the economics of development dictate luxury housing products...but if the greater demand for land is originating from commercial non-residential uses, then that's what will be built, and I think that that's pretty self-evident.

By the way, CVS does not simply "build a suburban style site with a front parking lot and a drive-thru pharmacy lane because they can"...they do so because it is more convenient format for drivers and has been statistically shown to boost sales. There is no arbitrariness about it. Everything is completely planned and very little is ever left to chance. Also, it is no more or less expensive to build a store with parking in front or in back of the structure...how on earth would the position of the structure within an entirely-concrete pad change the cost of construction?

I'd be appreciative if you could explain how "it isn't the best thing for the city at large and Midtown in particular." Aside from the petty semantic conundrums that I might pick at if I were so inclined, it would seem that the proportion of foot traffic into the store will originate considerably more from private vehicles rather than public transportation or other alternative forms regardless of the physical form of this single CVS store. So it seems as though they are serving their customer base to the greatest extent possible...even if they certainly cannot please everyone.

[nmainguy]

MidtownCoog, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 3:16pm, said:

This one may be more "urban" than you think.

The parking will most likely be in back or on the side just like the old Vietnam Restaurant. Does this also include the block with the old Hardware Store?

Anyway, seems like a bad location. One of those "one-way-in, one-way-out kinda places". Which is why I think it has to be more "urban" than "suburban".

I don't shop at CVS becuase they have terrible customer service. They could learn a thing or two from Walgreens.

I get where you are coming from but my educated guess is it won't be much different than the Montrose/Richmond store. It will probably face Fannin and/or maybe Elgin with the drive-thru behind or to the side. I don't know if they bought the entire block so I can't tell you if the former hardware store will go.
Buildings like this are somewhat disposable in other cities. You build them knowing you'll pocket the bucks when RE values pick up. In the meantime you expand your brand and sell all the NyQuil you can.

BTW, I avoid dealing with the help at CVS or Walgreens...or anywhere for that matter. I'm more of an in-and-out kinda guy who trys to do his research upfront.

[GovernorAggie]

I can say that there is a young lady at the Walgreens at Smith and Elgin who is very attentive and very good. She's likely 18-20, but seems to care pretty good about her job--at least in my dealings with her.

[KinkaidAlum]

Can you really not figure that out on your own? Do you really have trouble understanding why most folks would find suburban development right outside of downtown and on the region's first light rail line a bad thing?

As for serving their customer base, give me a break. CVS is worried about one thing and one thing only; market saturation. There is no local need for this CVS considering there is one just a couple blocks away and a new Walgreens even closer. This is about capturing whatever commuter traffic they can, especially the east-west Elgin traffic. If they capture some foot traffic or the occasional office worker at HCC's Comtech Center, that's just gravy.

I never said it cost more to hide parking in the rear of a facility. It would however cost more to NOT build their prototypical suburban crap box complete with drive thru lanes. They might also save time avoiding the City of Houston's permitting process by having to petition to go against the stupid set-back rules that almost mandate the type of crappy development our city sees.

I am not sure how even you can think that encouraging more vehicular traffic along Main Street can be a good thing? It truly boggles my mind. It's not as if there aren't hundreds of other CVS Pharmacies that can cater to the Chevy Tahoe driving crowd that are "too busy" to get out of their damn cars and deal with a person face-to-face.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

groovehouse, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 3:28pm, said:

Walgreens 4 Life!

EFIL4SNEERGLAW!

[RedScare]

TheNiche, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 12:02am, said:

Perhaps I should have more precisely defined "upper class". See, in my estimation, "upper class" means any household that has a combined gross income (inclusive of benefits) at or above approximately $100,000, which (depending upon a number of factors) typically translates to residences in the mid-200's and higher. I'm not talking about millionaires, here. Many of them have many tens of thousands of dollars of outstanding student loans or other debt obligations.

I know that there are cheaper housing products in certain parts of Midtown, particularly the eastern and southern fringe, where land can sometimes be acquired for about $20psf, but the issue at hand pertains to development near the light rail line, where land is typically about $40+ psf and new construction is typically necessary. In these high-value locations, the economics of development dictate luxury housing products...but if the greater demand for land is originating from commercial non-residential uses, then that's what will be built, and I think that that's pretty self-evident.

I'd be appreciative if you could explain how "it isn't the best thing for the city at large and Midtown in particular." Aside from the petty semantic conundrums that I might pick at if I were so inclined, it would seem that the proportion of foot traffic into the store will originate considerably more from private vehicles rather than public transportation or other alternative forms regardless of the physical form of this single CVS store. So it seems as though they are serving their customer base to the greatest extent possible...even if they certainly cannot please everyone.

$100K is not upper class. It is upper middle class. $100K households still have to budget, and still have to concern themselves with outspending their means.

As to your blind insistence that the layout of a commercial outlet doesn't affect the neighborhood, you are incorrect. While adding 75 feet to the walk to get in the front door of THIS store is insignificant, as each store adds 75 feet, it deadens the walkable effect desired. Eventually, nothing is close enough to encourage walking. In fact, it is interesting that you feel that a parking lot behind a store is such an inconvenience to DRIVERS, who must now drive an extra 75 feet, but a lot in front of a store is not an inconvenience to pedestrians, who must navigate the parking lot to get to the front door.

As for why it is good for the city at large, and Midtown in particular? If Midtown is successful, the city benefits from increased taxes. Midtown is attempting to provide a unique living environment, one that allows a denser, walkable neighborhood. Stores built at the back of a parking lot make that objective harder to achieve. Doing its small part to contribute to the neighborhood is in CVS' interest as well. If the neighbors appreciate the attempt to fit in, they will patronize the store. If they do not, they will avoid it. This is the part of unrestricted development that you do not understand. Just because the government does not outlaw it, doesn't mean it is the best use of the property. And the developer's right to build does not take away the neighborhood's right to punish the developer economically for ignoring the neighbors.

[H-Town Man]

nmainguy, on Sunday, June 11th, 2006 @ 11:59pm, said:

He/she said:
Kinkaid pointed out-rightly so-
You clearly don't need the "upper class" for redevelopment in Midtown. If CVS, Walgreens and Randals thought so, they never would have built there. When was the last time you saw Ken Lay or Mrs. Oscar "Oil for Food" Lynn Wyatt slumming in a CVS? CVS isn't catering to that ilk. They are catering to the average Joe. That's why they are building a drive up store on Fannin. The "upper class" has nothing to do with it-as you so aptly implyed.

If it's a matter of he said/she said, and you're not sure what the original poster actually meant, why would you have referred to his "absurd delusions" that Midtown is only for the upper class? I get so sick of the way people look for fights on this forum, about something as innocuous as real estate, no less.

Also, who says that CVS is catering solely to people who live in Midtown? They might just be catering to the hundreds of thousands of cars that pass through every day. As for Randall's, that was built to cater to the upper class - all those nice apartments and townhomes near West Gray.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always heard that for new construction to happen in Midtown, it will have to serve a higher income bracket.

[houston-development]

TheNiche, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 12:02am, said:

Perhaps I should have more precisely defined "upper class". See, in my estimation, "upper class" means any household that has a combined gross income (inclusive of benefits) at or above approximately $100,000, which (depending upon a number of factors) typically translates to residences in the mid-200's and higher. I'm not talking about millionaires, here. Many of them have many tens of thousands of dollars of outstanding student loans or other debt obligations.

$100k is not upper class, it's middle to upper middle class. over $250k, you are looking more at upper class.

Quote

I know that there are cheaper housing products in certain parts of Midtown, particularly the eastern and southern fringe, where land can sometimes be acquired for about $20psf, but the issue at hand pertains to development near the light rail line, where land is typically about $40+ psf and new construction is typically necessary. In these high-value locations, the economics of development dictate luxury housing products...but if the greater demand for land is originating from commercial non-residential uses, then that's what will be built, and I think that that's pretty self-evident.

HUH? i will personally buy $40 psf midtown dirt on the rail all day long; you can't find anything under $50. on the east side, you are looking at a minimum of $30 and depending on the location, as much as $58.

[Houston19514]

KinkaidAlum, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 12:37am, said:

As for serving their customer base, give me a break. CVS is worried about one thing and one thing only; market saturation.

They might also save time avoiding the City of Houston's permitting process by having to petition to go against the stupid set-back rules that almost mandate the type of crappy development our city sees.

I think CVS is actually more "worried" about making a profit than they are about "market saturation." Market saturation is merely a means to an end. And a far more important means to that end is "serving (and growing) their customer base".

Having said that, you hit the nail on the head re: the "stupid set-back rules." Why in the world do they still have those set-back rules in mid-town and the TMC areas? Query: Is anyone on this board active in the midtown organizations or any other organization that might work with the city to get rid of regulations that encourage inappropriate development for Midtown?

NMainguy blames it on the lack of zoning. This case appears to have nothing to do with zoning or lack thereof. (Houston's lack of zoning gets the blame for an amazing amount of negative development that it would do nothing to stop or change.) In this case, I don't see or hear anyone objecting to a drug store locating on this site, which is all that a zoning code would do (either allow or disallow commercial usage). Houston already as other land-use regulations (such as set-back requirements, parking requirements, etc.), and as in so many cases, here those regulations hurt more than help.

This post has been edited by Houston19514: Monday, June 12, 2006 at 11:23 AM

[westguy76]

oooohhh, those evil suburban drive-thru lanes that made me laugh.

are the bank drive thru lines evil too???

or are they not suburban enough, what the hell is that all about.

"...CVS Pharmacies that can cater to the Chevy Tahoe driving crowd that are "too busy" to get out of their damn cars and deal with a person face-to-face"

that ones funny too, those evil club footed tahoe drivers they are just killing you're dream aren't they...

funny stuff

This post has been edited by westguy76: Monday, June 12, 2006 at 2:14 PM

[wendyps]

I just don't get how all of these CVSs can be profitable. There are SO MANY of them, and they always seem to be void of customers...how is it that the Heights can't get a grocery store, but midtown can get two pharmacies???

Any one with the right type of business experience to explain it? Should we just start now prophesying what will go into all these boxes when they go bankrupt? (yes trophy, strip club, we know )

This post has been edited by wendyps: Monday, June 12, 2006 at 2:25 PM

[nmainguy]

Houston19514, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 10:55am, said:

"stupid set-back rules."

Set-backs on Main, Fannin and Elgin are 10' in that area.

[WesternGulf]

westguy76, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 2:12pm, said:

oooohhh, those evil suburban drive-thru lanes that made me laugh.

are the bank drive thru lines evil too???

or are they not suburban enough, what the hell is that all about.

"...CVS Pharmacies that can cater to the Chevy Tahoe driving crowd that are "too busy" to get out of their damn cars and deal with a person face-to-face"

that ones funny too, those evil club footed tahoe drivers they are just killing you're dream aren't they...

funny stuff

The design kind of defeats the purpose of the light rail. I am not sure what the design will look like but what is the purpose of having car oriented strip centers lining a light rail line that is suppose to take more vehicles off the road?

[KinkaidAlum]

West guy-

Please explain to me why drive-thru lanes are good.

From what I see, they encourage driving which from a health standpoint isn't a good thing. From what I hear, Houstonians could use the extra steps it would take to walk from a parking spot to the teller or pharmacist.

They also encourage idling which is a total waste of resources and increases our dependence upon foreign oil. This also doesn't mention that Houston has a pollution problem that vehicular traffic contributes too.

They discourage actual face-to-face interaction. When I was little, we knew our pharmacist and actually looked forward to a brief visit. Now, we all act like our blank doesn't stink and our time is too darn important to waste on small things like being patient and kind and knowing the people who make up our community.

The funny thing is, you don't see these types of places in central Boston. Yet, we all somehow manage to survive despite not having access to a drive thru Wendy's, a fly-by ATM machine, or a 24 hour CVS pharmacy that you don't have to step foot in.

What you do see are your neighbors walking. Mothers pushing strollers to run their errands rather than ignoring their kids while they watch a DVD in the SUV. You see sidewalk cafes filled with life instead of massive parking lots. You see flower shops displaying their goods on the wide sidewalks. Dog walkers. Coffee shops with people interacting instead of barking orders into the Starbucks' drive-thru microphone.

Midtown could offer this type of environment. Houstonians should have that option.

[MidtownCoog]

Quote

The funny thing is, you don't see these types of places in central Boston. Yet, we all somehow manage to survive despite not having access to a drive thru Wendy's, a fly-by ATM machine, or a 24 hour CVS pharmacy that you don't have to step foot in.

OK. Time to get off that high-horse.

You and I both know why you don't see those places in central Boston. Same reason you don't see them in central London.

And considering Boston is home to one of the biggest boondoogles known to man-kind (Big Dig), I'd think hard before crowing Boston as the world's model city.

[WesternGulf]

KinkaidAlum, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 2:53pm, said:

West guy-

Please explain to me why drive-thru lanes are good.

From what I see, they encourage driving which from a health standpoint isn't a good thing. From what I hear, Houstonians could use the extra steps it would take to walk from a parking spot to the teller or pharmacist.

They also encourage idling which is a total waste of resources and increases our dependence upon foreign oil. This also doesn't mention that Houston has a pollution problem that vehicular traffic contributes too.

They discourage actual face-to-face interaction. When I was little, we knew our pharmacist and actually looked forward to a brief visit. Now, we all act like our blank doesn't stink and our time is too darn important to waste on small things like being patient and kind and knowing the people who make up our community.

The funny thing is, you don't see these types of places in central Boston. Yet, we all somehow manage to survive despite not having access to a drive thru Wendy's, a fly-by ATM machine, or a 24 hour CVS pharmacy that you don't have to step foot in.

What you do see are your neighbors walking. Mothers pushing strollers to run their errands rather than ignoring their kids while they watch a DVD in the SUV. You see sidewalk cafes filled with life instead of massive parking lots. You see flower shops displaying their goods on the wide sidewalks. Dog walkers. Coffee shops with people interacting instead of barking orders into the Starbucks' drive-thru microphone.

Midtown could offer this type of environment. Houstonians should have that option.

Thank you. It is obvious that Midtown is looking for an ideal urban environment and it amazes me that people cannot see that simple things such as controlling land use can lead to greater things. It's all a cycle. Controlling land use can lead to increased land value. When you have increased land value, it usually leads to smaller lots and mixed uses. Smaller lots and mixed uses lead to higher density. Higher density increases vehicular traffic and more congestion. When there is higher congestion there is a need for more transit use. More transit use lowers car ownership and that leads to more walking. All of this leads to an ideal urban environment. Too bad this city cannot sacrifice some things to build the environments that we cry about that we can use in Houston.

[MidtownCoog]

Quote

Smaller lots and mixed uses lead to higher density.

This is Texas. Home of wide open spaces.

I'm all for better land use, but I don't care to live all Yankeefied like a cat in a cage.

And I especially don't care for East Coast government telling me what I can and can't do.

Those who do should rent a U-Haul. Or maybe you could walk your belongings back East.

[WesternGulf]

MidtownCoog, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 3:06pm, said:

This is Texas. Home of wide open spaces.

I'm all for better land use, but I don't care to live all Yankeefied like a cat in a cage.

And I especially don't care for East Coast government telling me what I can and can't do.

Those who do should rent a U-Haul. Or maybe you could walk your belongings back East.

OK, but you have options.

[MidtownCoog]

Houston needs to find a solution, for sure.

But I don't think there is a single city out there when can use as a model for what we should do.

Try selling flowers or fruit outside today. Or dining al fresco at 3:00.

It just does not work here.

I don't care for drive thru service either, but try getting a newborn and three year old out of car seats so you can drop off your script when it's 95.

That is why we have them. I try to avoid them, but sometimes you have to.

[groovehouse]

CVS is the new nail salon/cell phone store/dry cleaners of Houston... they're putting them up everywhere! ENOUGH!

oh, we got a mention on the Houstonist!

[TheNiche]

Honestly, this thread has become hilariously funny as far as I'm concerned...some folks on this board have clearly drank the kool-aide.

Quote

Do you really have trouble understanding why most folks would find suburban development right outside of downtown and on the region's first light rail line a bad thing?

Yes. Would you prefer that what's there remain there and the land be underutilized? Seems to me that relatively cheap improvements aren't worth the hissyfit. Why worry? When demand warrants residential uses, they'll just bulldoze the store and build it into the base of the new building.

Quote

As for serving their customer base, give me a break. CVS is worried about one thing and one thing only; market saturation. There is no local need for this CVS considering there is one just a couple blocks away and a new Walgreens even closer.

CVS cares about profit. Market saturation is a means to an ends, but market saturation has nothing at all to do with architectural form. There's nothing at all wrong with having a whole lot of drug stores, either. They provide jobs and a convenient place for many grocery items. The more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote

This is about capturing whatever commuter traffic they can, especially the east-west Elgin traffic. If they capture some foot traffic or the occasional office worker at HCC's Comtech Center, that's just gravy.

True.

Parking lots are set in front of the store in order to indicate to drivers that there are open and accessible parking spaces. Although it is profoundly rare that parking spaces are all full up at a drug store, there is a psychological barrier in the vehicle-driving consumer's mind against taking the chance that there won't be any...and the fact is that in my experience, it is not uncommon to encounter rear parking lots in which turning around and getting out is a considerable pain in the backside. Consider that, in combination with Texans' propensity for trucks...bad idea.

As CVS is profit-oriented, it really doesn't care about anything other than effectively serving its customer base to the store, which, as the store is located in an area that is more of an employment center than a neighborhood, is originating from a very broad portion of the region, much of which has relatively limited access to mass transit.

Quote

I am not sure how even you can think that encouraging more vehicular traffic along Main Street can be a good thing? It truly boggles my mind.

Since when does a CVS create traffic congestion? The marginal effect has got to be just about nil...especially considering that a lot of its customers are just stopping by on their way to another place...and its not like the traffic in Midtown is that painful to begin with. If this "boggles your mind", then that is just sad...I really don't know what else to tell you.

Quote

They might also save time avoiding the City of Houston's permitting process by having to petition to go against the stupid set-back rules that almost mandate the type of crappy development our city sees.

I will agree with you completely on this one. Setback restrictions are as assinine as land use controls in my mind.

Quote

you don't see these types of places in central Boston. Yet, we all somehow manage to survive despite not having access to a drive thru Wendy's, a fly-by ATM machine, or a 24 hour CVS pharmacy that you don't have to step foot in.

Jeez, that must suck. Glad I don't live there, having to conform to a realm without the choice of being an easygoing drive-thru motorist. I like having choices, too. Choices are good. That's one reason I like Houston, actually. We have the choice of driving through OR of parking and walking in. Seems like a lot of folks opt to use the drive-through anyway...I guess that they made their choice. As an introvert who generally prefers to keep to myself, I know I have.

This post has been edited by TheNiche: Monday, June 12, 2006 at 7:25 PM

[TheNiche]

Quote

$100K is not upper class.

The notion of 'upper class' is entirely subjective. I defined it for the purposes of my argument, and based the figure upon the kind of households that developers most frequently target for upscale new construction. FYI, less than 17% of all households in the United States fall within my definition. I could have simply divided the total number of households into thirds, in which case, the upper third of the population would start in the low $70's per year.

In any case, this discussion is nearly pointless. All that matters is that this "upper sixth" of households hasn't committed themselves to Midtown to any significant degree. In fact, there is a sort of prevailing attitude that they tend to like the idea of an urban residential Midtown, but would rather that someone else live there...not them and certainly not their children.

Quote

In fact, it is interesting that you feel that a parking lot behind a store is such an inconvenience to DRIVERS, who must now drive an extra 75 feet

How are drivers needing to drive further? Seems like parking in the back of the lot requires them to drive all the way behind the store and THEN walk around the store to the front entrance. If drivers comprise the perponderance of the customer base, which they will one way or the other, then CVS should cater to drivers.

Quote

If Midtown is successful, the city benefits from increased taxes.

Don't you think that CVS will improve the site, carry inventory, and induce taxable retail sales? Is it not better than what is there now?

Quote

Midtown is attempting to provide a unique living environment, one that allows a denser, walkable neighborhood. Stores built at the back of a parking lot make that objective harder to achieve.

Stores built in the neighborhood make that easier to achieve, regardless of a 75-foot setback. Again, is it not better than what is there now?

Quote

Just because the government does not outlaw it, doesn't mean it is the best use of the property. And the developer's right to build does not take away the neighborhood's right to punish the developer economically for ignoring the neighbors.

No kidding. The best use of finite supply of land (or capital) is that which can generate the greatest profit margins. As competing interests wishing to make a profit bid up the price of land, the landowners will capture almost all economic rents associated with its utility until there is only one prospective buyer of land left. That last remaining bidder left will still likely make money (or else wouldn't do the deal) but at the price agreed upon that would prohibit less profitable businesses from operating with any substantial gain.

CVS doesn't need to worry so much about its neighbors because its primary customer base originates from all over the region.

houston-development, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 9:39am, said:

$100k is not upper class, it's middle to upper middle class. over $250k, you are looking more at upper class.
HUH? i will personally buy $40 psf midtown dirt on the rail all day long; you can't find anything under $50. on the east side, you are looking at a minimum of $30 and depending on the location, as much as $58.

Yeah, the last time I took a good solid look at sales comps in Midtown was about 1 1/2 years ago...I know the values have gone up since then, hence the plus sign after the "$40".

[RedScare]

TheNiche, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 7:11pm, said:

The notion of 'upper class' is entirely subjective. I defined it for the purposes of my argument, and based the figure upon the kind of households that developers most frequently target for upscale new construction. FYI, less than 17% of all households in the United States fall within my definition. I could have simply divided the total number of households into thirds, in which case, the upper third of the population would start in the low $70's per year.

In any case, this discussion is nearly pointless. All that matters is that this "upper sixth" of households hasn't committed themselves to Midtown to any significant degree. In fact, there is a sort of prevailing attitude that they tend to like the idea of an urban residential Midtown, but would rather that someone else live there...not them and certainly not their children.
How are drivers needing to drive further? Seems like parking in the back of the lot requires them to drive all the way behind the store and THEN walk around the store to the front entrance. If drivers comprise the perponderance of the customer base, which they will one way or the other, then CVS should cater to drivers.
Don't you think that CVS will improve the site, carry inventory, and induce taxable retail sales? Is it not better than what is there now?
Stores built in the neighborhood make that easier to achieve, regardless of a 75-foot setback. Again, is it not better than what is there now?
No kidding. The best use of finite supply of land (or capital) is that which can generate the greatest profit margins. As competing interests wishing to make a profit bid up the price of land, the landowners will capture almost all economic rents associated with its utility until there is only one prospective buyer of land left. That last remaining bidder left will still likely make money (or else wouldn't do the deal) but at the price agreed upon that would prohibit less profitable businesses from operating with any substantial gain.

CVS doesn't need to worry so much about its neighbors because its primary customer base originates from all over the region.
Yeah, the last time I took a good solid look at sales comps in Midtown was about 1 1/2 years ago...I know the values have gone up since then, hence the plus sign after the "$40".

Your responses are borderline comical...no, actually, they ARE comical.

No realistic definition of upper class includes more than the top several percent of any population, except in perhaps Monte Carlo.

You have no basis to support the "prevailing attitude of the "upper sixth" of households or their children. You made it up.

Stores with rear parking also have rear entrances, in addition to street entrances. Further, you have little experience with rear parking, since there are few of them. There is nothing about a rear lot that makes ingress or egress harder than a front lot, if available space is the same. The exits merely enter a side street.

CVS does not need to worry about its neighbors? What "region" are its customers coming from? Upon completion, this will be the 16th CVS inside the Loop, including half a dozen within a mile or two of this location.

Your preference for unregulated development is well known. Houston's reputation for unregulated development is also well known. Your positing opinion or anecdote as fact does not make your argument.

BTW, CVS HAS been known to consider the preferences of the neighborhood. Drive by the Heights location for an example. No one on this board, including you, has any idea whether CVS will design a store that meets with the approval of Midtown supporters, or is just another suburban clone. The purpose of this thread is to debate what residents would LIKE to see.

[nmainguy]

Regardless of the niche's fantasy definition of "upper class", that has no relevancy here. As I stated before, they will build what they want where they want unless a group like the HHA puts enough pressure on them. Clearly no one in Midtown has stepped up to the plate. Most of the posters have given good arguments.
dalparadise suggests the ground floor space across the street in the HCC garage. Perhaps CVS could have cut a deal with HCC to include parking. Maybe they tried and failed-doubtful but maybe not.
WesternGulf makes too much sense:

Quote

The design kind of defeats the purpose of the light rail. I am not sure what the design will look like but what is the purpose of having car oriented strip centers lining a light rail line that is suppose to take more vehicles off the road?

In the end, CVS did not take the Red Line into consideration because they are going to build it blocks away from any station. Therefore expect a typical CVS just like the one a few blocks away: SUV oriented for lazy people who don't want to bother to take the few extra steps it would take to get to a real urban-style oriented retail outlet.
I won't boycott CVS as I use the one at Yale and 20th that the HHA influenced and because the people there are friendly.
I won't be using the Main CVS however. Leaves more room for the uber-growth at any cost crowd.

[TheNiche]

RedScare, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 8:16pm, said:

No realistic definition of upper class includes more than the top several percent of any population, except in perhaps Monte Carlo.

You have no basis to support the "prevailing attitude of the "upper sixth" of households or their children. You made it up.

That's right, I made it up. Why must I keep repeating myself, Red?

Quote

The notion of 'upper class' is entirely subjective. I defined it for the purposes of my argument, and based the figure upon the kind of households that developers most frequently target for upscale new construction.

Quote

Stores with rear parking also have rear entrances, in addition to street entrances. Further, you have little experience with rear parking, since there are few of them.

You are correct in that I have little experience with them. However, the few memorable experiences that I have had have not been pleasant, including one in Austin where the lot was too cramped, requiring me to back out a long distance before I could turn around, and two in Houston. One Houston experience was G&Z Coffee on Almeda, where, I had to squeeze past a couple of cars and then couldn't turn around within the lot and had to get someone's assistance in order not to scrape them when backing out. I got stuck in a similar situation near Rice Village. These events have formed in my mind a preconceived bias against parking lots that are configured in such a way that I cannot see what I'm getting myself into. I'm sure that I'm not alone in this regard. Moreover, there is simply a psychological barrier that exists when people in cars do not have the most convenient access to parking or are unsure of the proper entrances or exists and parking capacity/design...it is in fact perfectly comparable to the psychological barrier that a pedestrian faces at a parking lot fronting a grocery store or big box.

Quote

CVS does not need to worry about its neighbors? What "region" are its customers coming from? Upon completion, this will be the 16th CVS inside the Loop, including half a dozen within a mile or two of this location.

That is correct. Its customers aren't its neighbors in much the same way that the customers (i.e. tenants) of a downtown office building typically do not reside in a neighboring area...they commute. For this reason, the Wedge Tower need not worry about its green neon light annoying people residing in 4th Ward whose bedroom windows face toward downtown. They do show concern for the complaints of such people, but they don't have to and certainly shouldn't be forced by governmental interference. There happen to be hundreds of large office buildings inside the loop...does that mean that the decision makers that pick which office building to lease from are typically "neighbors" or that such a building must show concern for its "neighbors"? No!

Quote

BTW, CVS HAS been known to consider the preferences of the neighborhood. Drive by the Heights location for an example.

The Heights is a predominantly residential area; the store's customer base will reflect that. In this case, CVS must(!) go along with the preferences of its neighbors.

So it all boils down to the reiteration of my basic point: for-profit retailers understand and serve their customer bases.

Quote

The purpose of this thread is to debate what residents would LIKE to see.

Ok. Well I am a resident of the City of Houston and further qualify myself as an "Inner Loopie". I would very much like to see a structure where form is adapted to the most efficient function of the retail establishment.

[nmainguy]

TheNiche, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 10:29pm, said:

That's right, I made it up.
...the Wedge Tower need not worry about its green neon light annoying people residing in 4th Ward whose bedroom windows face toward downtown. They do show concern for the complaints of such people, but they don't have to and certainly shouldn't be forced by governmental interference.
The Heights is a predominantly residential area; the store's customer base will reflect that. In this case, CVS must(!) go along with the preferences of its neighbors.

Maybe if you stopped making things up, posters would stop calling you on it.
There was no government interference with the neon on Wedge and there appears to be no government interference with a CVS on Main. What's your point?
CVS only goes along with the preferences of the neighborhood when pushed to the wall by existing restrictions. Clearly you and CVS win in this situation as I don't know of anyone in Houston pushing CVS to the wall the way HHA has.

This post has been edited by nmainguy: Monday, June 12, 2006 at 10:45 PM

[KinkaidAlum]

The same people who make fun of the Big Dig today are likely to have made fun of...

The Houston Ship Channel
The Texas Medical Center
NASA
IAH

There are some people that will NEVER support funding for the greater public good. There are also others who think the market should control EVERYTHING. Thankfully, I am not one of those people.

Trust me, while people here hated the Big Dig while it was being built, they are LOVING it now. It has made Boston 100% better and it was a pretty darn nice city to begin with.

Additionally, since when did Texans become such whimps?
I didn't realize the sun and humidty where so much to bare. Maybe you should hoof it on up to New England?

[TheNiche]

nmainguy, on Monday, June 12th, 2006 @ 10:44pm, said:

Maybe if you stopped making things up, posters would stop calling you on it.
There was no government interference with the neon on Wedge and there appears to be no government interference with a CVS on Main. What's your point?
CVS only goes along with the preferences of the neighborhood when pushed to the wall by existing restrictions. Clearly you and CVS win in this situation as I don't know of anyone in Houston pushing CVS to the wall the way HHA has.

There you go taking things out of context again. Its almost as though you just scan through my posts until you find some phrase with which you completely disagree, and then, without looking at anything surrounding that phrase, you rip it out and throw it back in my face.

Having used the word several times, I'd have hoped that you would have noticed it...but the word "SUBJECTIVE" is in play. In this context, it means that one person's interpretation of a word or phrase may vary from that of another person. The terms used to describe socioeconomic classes are inherently subjective unless they are defined by the user of the term. So back off, dude.

My point with Wedge is that it serves as an analogy of how interactions between a business and its non-customer neighbors may work out. In large part, Wedge tries to appease neighbors by turning the lights off whenever possible...but they don't have to. It is their perrogative and I'm just thankful that the lighting is not regulated by the City. That's my point.

KinkaidAlum, on Tuesday, June 13th, 2006 @ 12:56am, said:

There are some people that will NEVER support funding for the greater public good. There are also others who think the market should control EVERYTHING. Thankfully, I am not one of those people.

Perhaps they meant how Big Dig was overbudget, behind schedule, and had significant engineering problems that had to be reworked... Spending money isn't a problem. Spending it improperly can be a big problem.

Market regulation is also not inherently a problem. There are circumstances where regulation is necessary (i.e. natural monopolies, cartels, etc.) in order to maintain a functioning marketplace. The problem is when regulations are passed without consideration for the unintended consequences or concern for those affected. For instance, zoning would shut down hundreds (possibly thousands) of home-based businesses and have a particularly adverse impact upon poor businessowners who can't afford rents at commercial properties...it'd have benefits too...but people often don't realize the extent of the hidden costs of many forms of market regulation.

This post has been edited by TheNiche: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 at 2:13 AM

[MidtownCoog]

Quote

Perhaps they meant how Big Dig was overbudget, behind schedule, and had significant engineering problems that had to be reworked... Spending money isn't a problem. Spending it improperly can be a big problem.

My point exactly. Just think about how much money we have spent for rail on Main St.

And we are STILL in recovery mode. I'll take a Suburban stlye CVS vs. a deserted lot any day.

[Houston Retail]

I've heard that the store is planned to not only be suburban style, but to face Fannin and Elgin, with its back towards Main Street. I don’t personally think that is an improvement over what’s there now. If, however they were to bring the building to Main and Elgin and put the entrance at that corner, it would be better than a deserted lot. The CVS in the Heights did not start out looking the way it does, it was planned to be the suburban model, but the Heights Association had enough control, and the community went in such an uproar that they moved it as you see today.

[RedScare]

Seems to me, the Midtown Association should spend more time trying to influence the design and location of stores such as this, and less time promoting stupid acronyms for the neighborhood.

[MidtownCoog]

And what ever happend to Charles LeBlanc?