Full Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


kylejack last won the day on May 23 2013

kylejack had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

843 Excellent

About kylejack

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. This thread came up on the Looped In real estate podcast from Chron.
  2. You're not going to convince me of what "no one" will do when I've been relying on bicycle and bus alone for over ten years now. My work commute is about an hour and a half every day per way on transit. I spend the time listening to a podcast or catching up on news. Car reliance is going to become less and less common in the coming years. Parking garage structures that an area can share would be great to reduce the amount of surface lots. Unfortunately the City's barbaric parking laws do not allow for this except in special cases and each business must meet its parking requirement with on-site parking within a very short distance of their entrances. The City has been toying with some special parking areas that will allow for solutions like this, but unfortunately this highly walkable development's location is outside the zone.
  3. Thanks for posting, DCRE. My ire was 100% directed at the City's backward policies, not at the development, which looks nice.
  4. I've been taking buses to Montrose for years. The 82 Westheimer runs every 6 minutes during the day now. My problem is with minimum parking, not with a private business deciding to build some parking. Businesses should build however much parking they think they need, and if it's not enough, their business will suffer and they'll have to build more.
  5. Yet somehow Brasil manages, year after year. Why not let the free market decide? If a place doesn't have sufficient parking then it will go out of business and something else will take its place.
  6. Hopefully Pride and Joy Antiques are relocating somewhere else. They do some beautiful restorations of old antique bars.
  7. Yeah, imagine if the big building had been allowed to turn into something else, like a big food hall with a few retail stores inside, and indoor bicycle parking. But no, the City makes us pave paradise to put up a parking lot.
  8. I'm not complaining about what the developer is doing, I'm complaining about the amount of parking that the City requires in the walkable urban core. Also, while the facade is saved, 60% of the building has to be torn down to make way for the parking lot.
  9. The whole thing was a fraudulent scheme, according to a jury today.
  10. Agreed. Brasil never seems to struggle for customers, despite zero parking. Plenty arrive on foot, by bus, or bicycle.
  11. Yeah, they're lopping off 60% of the old King antiques building to meet the parking requirement, plus demolishing Pride & Joy antiques next door.
  12. Yes, very clear. They have to destroy half the building, plus two others, to meet a parking requirement. Why do we subsidize motorists so brazenly? Why does each car need hundreds of spaces around the city just sitting waiting for it, in case its owner decides to come there? What could we be doing with all this space if it wasn't sitting empty waiting for a car that might come?
  13. Gross. Parking requirements are tearing apart this city.
  14. Because I get to opt out of paying for roads that I don't use.
  15. Toll roads are good. That way I don't have to pay for roads I don't use. The people who actually use those roads can pay for them.