Alexan Heights: Multifamily At 655 Yale St.

[infinite_jim]

The thing about ground floor retail is you are required to provide commercial parking and currently are not granted any parking credits from the potential customers above who would walk. You can use a limited ratio of off-site parking credits but good luck with getting an exception >20% anywhere outside of downtown or midtown, especially adjacent to a single family nab with inferior infrastructure. Likewise the fire ratings and security measures to keep tenants from committing inside jobs means that you're going to spend a lot of money over-engineering the ground floor envelope. This building is simply too small for such intricacies, unless you're just talking about a pocket dry cleaners storefront with 4 spaces out front.

Btw it got approved.

[s3mh]

The thing about ground floor retail is you are required to provide commercial parking and currently are not granted any parking credits from the potential customers above who would walk. You can use a limited ratio of off-site parking credits but good luck with getting an exception >20% anywhere outside of downtown or midtown, especially adjacent to a single family nab with inferior infrastructure. Likewise the fire ratings and security measures to keep tenants from committing inside jobs means that you're going to spend a lot of money over-engineering the ground floor envelope. This building is simply too small for such intricacies, unless you're just talking about a pocket dry cleaners storefront with 4 spaces out front.

Btw it got approved.

 

Certainly, if the City were to require ground floor retail, they would have to be more willing to bend on parking and look at using management districts to create some central parking facilities if an area really gets built up. 

 

The cost of constructing a concrete first floor has always been the main complaint against doing ground floor retail.  But a lot of the new complexes are building out with a concrete first floor in order to support private amenities like a coffee shop or health club.  And more and more are building tall enough that they have to do a concrete first floor anyway.  The apartments on Sawyer and Washington are retail ready on the ground floor, but they put in private amenities instead. 

 

The best reason I have heard from developers for not doing ground floor retail is that you shouldn't try to do ground floor retail where it would not succeed on its own without the apartments.  But while that is sound business judgment, it creates a chicken and egg issue where everyone keeps building more multifamily without ground floor retail and then we wake up and find that there is now density to support ground floor retail, but all the land is used up.

 

This spot development isn't small.  It is a full block long.  It is already a good spot for retail/restaurants with some galleries and furniture stores just to the north and Dry Creek just across the street.

[Ross]

If Trammell Crow thought ground floor retail would work, it would be in the plan. You can't force this sort of thing on developers without a plan for them to make money out of it.

[mako]

My brother and sister in law live in OR. It's beautiful but he's been without a job for years and effectively has given up looking. They are now a one income family, probably permanently. He is the parson that is artificially propping up our dismal wmployment figures. Not knocking you and your ideas, but there are positives and negatives to both schools of thought. They have some more vibrant street scenes and we have a more vibrant economic opportunities.

 

yes, I have to agree you have to really want it to live the Portland lifestyle...and yet, a lot of people choose to do so. I'm not just randomly visiting there - my son and his wife and our very beloved granddaughter live there. we're heading down to visit family and to plan for our future - we'll more than likely abandon Houston for this liberal bastion in a few more years. Does this make sense? Probably not from a purely economic sense. I've read some recent articles that rate Oregon dead-last as places to retire too - citing the high cost of living, income taxes, etc. And yet, the time I've spent there over the last few decades has been some of the most precious, highest value moments I've enjoyed in my 55 years of life on god's green earth. yes I have a degree in Chemistry and decades of experience in evaluating analytical equations and an MBA and years of instruction about the penultimate goal of any company - maximization of shareholder value. And yet...I keep returning to the seminal issues of the Christmas Carol & Scrooge - yes logically you can earn maximum profits by squeezing every last drop of work from your employees at minimum cost...but is this really the world I want to live in???? NO!!!!! America grew strong as a place where the common working man drew a fair wage while the USA rose in the world of commerce. The maximum shareholder value model would be considered antisocial in personal life - why should it be considered as acceptable behavior in business???? As per my son & his wife, he (after a couple years working for corporate America) has his own small struggling retail business selling Texas style Kolaches while his wife works for a traditional scientific enterprise.. As per my wife & I, yes we've yearned to move to Portland for decades but have remained in Houston because our salaries in Houston were far above what we could earn in Portland. So, yeah this argues that life in Houston is better than Portland, but yet...why are so many people willing to struggle in Portland who could be earning a handsome salary in Houston???

[Ross]

People move to find "home". That doesn't always coincide with the best chance to make a living. I feel fortunate that Houston is home, and a place where I can have a great job. I've been here since 1976, occasionally living overseas for relatively short periods, plus a stint in Bakersfield. In every one of those places, I always felt Houston was home, the place I belonged. I always enjoyed my time in other places, but always knew I would be returning to Houston. I've been fortunate to visit, and live in, many great cities - London, Paris, Istanbul, Cairo, Sydney, Auckland, Bangkok, etc., but I always return to Houston. There's no place like it, and it's home.

[mako]

If Trammell Crow thought ground floor retail would work, it would be in the plan. You can't force this sort of thing on developers without a plan for them to make money out of it.

 

Yes , very true. The problem is there is a strong tie to groupthink in large corporations like TC. Just because ground floor retail might not work or didn't seem optimal for one particular project doesn't mean it isn't a good decision. Beyond this is the question of what is best for the community. Yeah, it seems at face value that an individual investor shouldn't have to pay for costs borne by the whole  community but that is the typical path and it is definitely not fair for the existing infrastructure - the developer is getting a true  economic advantage at the expense of local landowners. Okay, let me provide a real world example. The landowner across the street decides to divide their home into a dozen apartments and develops their ditch into exclusive parking for their residents. Okay, now out of the blue the public parking demands of any visitors to these expanded living areas are squeezed into a tiny area of available parking that is in no way constricted by the property holding of the rental landholders - they've transferred their personal  liability to the public.

[RedScare]

yes, I have to agree you have to really want it to live the Portland lifestyle...and yet, a lot of people choose to do so. I'm not just randomly visiting there - my So, yeah this argues that life in Houston is better than Portland, but yet...why are so many people willing to struggle in Portland who could be earning a handsome salary in Houston???

 

Perhaps a better question to ask is, if Houston sucks so bad, why have nearly triple the number of people moved here (6.3 million) as choose Portland (2.2 million)?

[fwki]

Like so many others, I came to Houston to make a career but I screwed up and made a life instead.  When I realized what I had done it was too late.  My kids are Houstonians, my closest friends, business contacts...all Houstonians.  I appreciate folks wanting to go home or retire in a mountain valley or on a beach, but that tells me more about them than it does about Houston.  Me, I'm retiring CLOSER to the med center.  And at the end of it all, I'm going to be planted near the banks of Buffalo Bayou in the shadow of American General, with "Houstonian" inscribed on my rock.

[crunchtastic]

I love the Houston v. Portland turn this thread has taken!

Hmm: lash my dead body to a raft made of unrecyclable #6 plastics,   set on fire and let drift down Buffalo bayou, or.....

put a bird on it??

 

Houston FTW!

[RedScare]

Isn't it great to read these posts from people who went somewhere on vacation, liked it, only to return home and trash the town that made them enough money to go on vacation in the first place? And, we all know that they would be gone in a heartbeat if they could find a job that paid as well, or even find a job at all! Do I feel sorry for these people? Not a chance! All these posts reveal is inability of these people to lead fulfilling lives, instead needing a "vibrant cityscape", or a mountain, or a coast, or even a river or lake to fulfill their lives.

 

I could taunt these unfulfilled posters with the fact that I can get on my bike and ride the bayou trails, or kayak the bayou, or take a day trip to the coast or lake. They would then respond that our bayou is ugly, our beach sand is ugly, our lakes suck, we have no mountains, or some other remark that proves how unfulfilling their lives are. And because they cannot admit this, they would then accuse me of being a "homer". Well, you know what? I AM a homer! And, I am a much happier Houston homer than you Houston whiners, who spend your days whining about trains, cars, highways, Walmarts, historic preservation, apartment buildings, walkability and, of course, ground floor retail! What can I say? Sucks to be you!    

 

 

 

Oh, to bring this back on topic, ground floor retail at this location is a TERRIBLE idea! People complain about the 4 lane traffic ruining the ability to cross Yale, then claim we need ground floor retail on Yale? That is pretty much the definition of new urbanist groupthink, not Trammel Crow. Ground floor retail could work in Rice Village, Midtown, or even 19th Street. But, Yale and 7th Street? Please.

 

 

 

 

[TGM]

Oh, to bring this back on topic, ground floor retail at this location is a TERRIBLE idea! People complain about the 4 lane traffic ruining the ability to cross Yale, then claim we need ground floor retail on Yale? That is pretty much the definition of new urbanist groupthink, not Trammel Crow. Ground floor retail could work in Rice Village, Midtown, or even 19th Street. But, Yale and 7th Street? Please.

Uh-oh, you've trampled on the sacred cow of ground-level retail. You know this is going to escalate out of control when they hunt you down and force you to review the charrette they've created.

[RedScare]

Uh-oh, you've trampled on the sacred cow of ground-level retail. You know this is going to escalate out of control when they hunt you down and force you to review the charrette they've created.

 

No doubt. Kind of like a new urbanist Clockwork Orange. Here is what I find incredibly annoying. The same people who scream and whine that the Heights not be allowed to densify turn around and demand ground floor retail on major thoroughfares for "walkability". Really? Can you people be any more schizophrenic?

[mkultra25]

No doubt. Kind of like a new urbanist Clockwork Orange.

 

 

Alex: You needn't take it any further, sir. You've proved to me that all this glorification of sprawling suburbia, irrational hatred of light rail, and ceaseless pimping of unsustainable car culture by the GM/Big Oil Axis of Evil is wrong, wrong, and terribly wrong. I've learned me lesson, sir. I've seen now what I've never seen before. I'm cured! Praise god!

Dr. Brodsky: You're not cured yet, boy.

 

[s3mh]

Isn't it great to read these posts from people who went somewhere on vacation, liked it, only to return home and trash the town that made them enough money to go on vacation in the first place? And, we all know that they would be gone in a heartbeat if they could find a job that paid as well, or even find a job at all! Do I feel sorry for these people? Not a chance! All these posts reveal is inability of these people to lead fulfilling lives, instead needing a "vibrant cityscape", or a mountain, or a coast, or even a river or lake to fulfill their lives.

 

I could taunt these unfulfilled posters with the fact that I can get on my bike and ride the bayou trails, or kayak the bayou, or take a day trip to the coast or lake. They would then respond that our bayou is ugly, our beach sand is ugly, our lakes suck, we have no mountains, or some other remark that proves how unfulfilling their lives are. And because they cannot admit this, they would then accuse me of being a "homer". Well, you know what? I AM a homer! And, I am a much happier Houston homer than you Houston whiners, who spend your days whining about trains, cars, highways, Walmarts, historic preservation, apartment buildings, walkability and, of course, ground floor retail! What can I say? Sucks to be you!    

 

 

 

Oh, to bring this back on topic, ground floor retail at this location is a TERRIBLE idea! People complain about the 4 lane traffic ruining the ability to cross Yale, then claim we need ground floor retail on Yale? That is pretty much the definition of new urbanist groupthink, not Trammel Crow. Ground floor retail could work in Rice Village, Midtown, or even 19th Street. But, Yale and 7th Street? Please.

 

Nativist arguments sound great on the internet, but make for terrible policy.  Rejecting great ideas just because they come from outside of Houston and are not compatible with the narrow interests of local real estate developers is what keeps Houston a second class city to the major international world centers.  United Airlines did not even think twice when deciding whether to locate the merged operations in Chicago or Houston.  California and Massachussetts are a basket case of regulations and taxes.  But both vastly out perform Texas when it comes to venture capital funding (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/venture-capital-deals-and-investment-on-track-to-reach-record-levels_n_1018713.html#s418518&title=4_Texas_34  and http://www.rockiesventureclub.org/2013/05/venture-capital-bloggers/).  Why?  Because quality of life does matter.  If you want to attract the best companies who hire the best and brightest in the world, you have to provide more than half-assed urban planning.  Otherwise, Houston is as good as it will every get. 

 

And ground floor retail could definitely work on Yale St. The Trammell Crow development is probably going to be the first of several along that stretch of Yale St.  There are already two very popular restaurants right nearby (Revival and Dry Creek) and retail just north of 7th.  The area around Rutland/Allston south of 7th is seeing lots of construction with about two dozen townhomes and single family homes being built.  And, the bike path on 7th gives most of the Heights easy access on foot or bike to that section of Yale St. 

[Angostura]

Requiring ground floor retail is just good urban planning to maximize the benefits of density.  Inside the loop, especially just south of the bayou between Shepherd and Studemont, along Dallas and W. Gray, there are just over 1,000 new multifamily units on the way.  Probably over another thousand on the other side of the bayou and south of I-10 between TC Jester and Sawyer.  None of those developments will put in any ground floor retail.  The increased demand for restaurants and shops will result in trying to cram new development into existing retail space, basically doubling down on car dependency and traffic/parking problems.  With ground floor retail, you spread out some of the traffic and give people the option to walk to stores/restaurants. 

 

Word on the street is that Alexan might be the first of several multi-family developments on that stretch of Yale.  Had they put in some ground floor retail, you would have a nice corridor of restaurants and shops from where Coltivare is going to be to where Dry Creek is. 

 

 

I would trade a requirement for ground floor retail on multi-family developments over, say, 100 units in select districts (Heights, Midtown, Montrose, R.O., Washington corridor) in exchange for a blanket waiver of parking minimums and building setbacks for retail developments under, say, 50,000 s.f. in those same districts.

[SilverJK]

No doubt. Kind of like a new urbanist Clockwork Orange. Here is what I find incredibly annoying. The same people who scream and whine that the Heights not be allowed to densify turn around and demand ground floor retail on major thoroughfares for "walkability". Really? Can you people be any more schizophrenic?

 

 

These same people also scream and whine about 5 story mixed use with ground floor retail!  See 11.5th and Studwood building  (which they said was ugly, yet I find attractive). 

[Marksmu]

These same people also scream and whine about 5 story mixed use with ground floor retail!  See 11.5th and Studwood building  (which they said was ugly, yet I find attractive). 

 

You can't please these people.  You are gosh darned if you, gosh darned if you dont.  The only thing that will make them happy is if we literally freeze time and stop allowing development of any kind.  I'm surprised they even allow us to live in these historic museums we call home.  Just think of all the day to day wear/tear we cause these places!

[Angostura]

These same people also scream and whine about 5 story mixed use with ground floor retail!  See 11.5th and Studwood building  (which they said was ugly, yet I find attractive). 

 

 

 

...and look how quickly that retail space got snatched up by eager tenants!   Oh, wait...

[s3mh]

I would trade a requirement for ground floor retail on multi-family developments over, say, 100 units in select districts (Heights, Midtown, Montrose, R.O., Washington corridor) in exchange for a blanket waiver of parking minimums and building setbacks for retail developments under, say, 50,000 s.f. in those same districts.

We have a deal.  I would add some sort of TIRZ/managment district/380 to let developers pool together the taxes generated by the new development to build some centralized/shared structured parking in each of the districts. 

[s3mh]

These same people also scream and whine about 5 story mixed use with ground floor retail!  See 11.5th and Studwood building  (which they said was ugly, yet I find attractive). 

 

So what?  This is real estate, not solid-state electronics.  Each development presents different issues.  People who want to see mixed use are not required to approve of every mixed use development and ignore issues like scale and proximity to single family homes (or ghastly architecture).  I am glad that 1111 Studewood included ground floor retail, but think the building is out of scale for the surrounding neighborhood.  I think that Trammell Crow's development presents significant infrastructure issues, but is a more appropriate land use that 1111 Studewood given the existing conditions.  But using your circuitry logic, you are a hypocrite if you support 1111 Studewood, but don't think that Trammell Crow's development should have ground floor retail. 

[RedScare]

I'll tell you so what. In deciding whether a particular poster is worthy of reading, and whether the poster is intelligent, one looks to see if that poster is logical and consistent in his arguments. So, when we see a poster go ballistic about putting ground floor retail in an imminently walkable area such as 11 1/2 and Studewood, yet that same poster demands ground floor retail in a pedestrian desert like Yale, it severely impacts that poster's credibility. Further, when that same poster tries to claim that Houston is a second class city among some imaginary group of people who apparently decide these things, all because of a lack of ground floor retail on Yale, one gets the impression that the poster is trying too hard...and failing.

[livincinco]

Nativist arguments sound great on the internet, but make for terrible policy. Rejecting great ideas just because they come from outside of Houston and are not compatible with the narrow interests of local real estate developers is what keeps Houston a second class city to the major international world centers. United Airlines did not even think twice when deciding whether to locate the merged operations in Chicago or Houston. California and Massachussetts are a basket case of regulations and taxes. But both vastly out perform Texas when it comes to venture capital funding (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/venture-capital-deals-and-investment-on-track-to-reach-record-levels_n_1018713.html#s418518&title=4_Texas_34 and http://www.rockiesventureclub.org/2013/05/venture-capital-bloggers/). Why? Because quality of life does matter.

I think that it's interesting that the discussion about "quality of life" always seems to be so single threaded. I think that if you talk to individual people in this forum, you'll find that there's a pretty wide definition of what they would like to have in their life. The same is true for the general populous as well.

I like Portland. It's a nice place and it has aspects that I like better than Houston. Doesn't mean that I want Houston to be Portland, because the opposite is true too. There are things about Houston that I like better than Portland.

This isn't a winner takes all situation. Houston and Portland can both succeed with reasonably different visions of how a city should function.

[s3mh]

I'll tell you so what. In deciding whether a particular poster is worthy of reading, and whether the poster is intelligent, one looks to see if that poster is logical and consistent in his arguments. So, when we see a poster go ballistic about putting ground floor retail in an imminently walkable area such as 11 1/2 and Studewood, yet that same poster demands ground floor retail in a pedestrian desert like Yale, it severely impacts that poster's credibility. Further, when that same poster tries to claim that Houston is a second class city among some imaginary group of people who apparently decide these things, all because of a lack of ground floor retail on Yale, one gets the impression that the poster is trying too hard...and failing.

 

And when a poster demands some sort of all or nothing logic, thinks that nuance is hypocrisy, and makes every argument into a personal attack with a bunch of junk about how people arguing X are all tax and spend liberals, etc., and always takes a very clear point and retools it to show the poster's agenda (i.e. Houston not being competitive with world class cities like Chicago, Paris, NY, London, etc. means that Houston is "second class" and on par with Flint, Michigan), it shows that the poster had no credibility to begin with. 

[s3mh]

I think that it's interesting that the discussion about "quality of life" always seems to be so single threaded. I think that if you talk to individual people in this forum, you'll find that there's a pretty wide definition of what they would like to have in their life. The same is true for the general populous as well.

I like Portland. It's a nice place and it has aspects that I like better than Houston. Doesn't mean that I want Houston to be Portland, because the opposite is true too. There are things about Houston that I like better than Portland.

This isn't a winner takes all situation. Houston and Portland can both succeed with reasonably different visions of how a city should function.

The argument that quality of life is completely subjective is just a way of conceding that Houston doesn't have what it takes to be on par with the great metropolitan areas of the world without having to admit failure.  It is a defeatist agrument.  I think Houston could be on par with many of the great cities of the world, if not better in terms of quality of life (we will never have to deal with all the issues that come with tourism).  Development and density that improves quality of life can put Houston ahead of many other cities when it comes to attracting new investment and industries.  Development that only meets the immediate demands of the day without thinking about the impacts on quality of life will just doom Houston to more boom and bust cycles with the energy industry and potentially a Detroit-esque future should the energy industry decide to move on the way the auto industry did in Detroit.

[RedScare]

And when a poster demands some sort of all or nothing logic, thinks that nuance is hypocrisy, and makes every argument into a personal attack with a bunch of junk about how people arguing X are all tax and spend liberals, etc., and always takes a very clear point and retools it to show the poster's agenda (i.e. Houston not being competitive with world class cities like Chicago, Paris, NY, London, etc. means that Houston is "second class" and on par with Flint, Michigan), it shows that the poster had no credibility to begin with. 

 

Man, you're all over the map with this post. Clearly, I nailed you between the eyes, as you never even addressed my point.

 

Oh, and Houston is not in Chicago's shadow. They lead the nation in murders, are losing population, and is a generally unpleasant place to live for much of the year. This is a new century, and Houston is on top of it. I do have a question for you and a couple of other haters, though. If Houston's QoL is so bad, how miserable is your life that you feel that you must stay and suffer in it. At least I am where I want to be. You are clearly sentenced to hell. Do you blame your parents?

[livincinco]

The argument that quality of life is completely subjective is just a way of conceding that Houston doesn't have what it takes to be on par with the great metropolitan areas of the world without having to admit failure. It is a defeatist agrument. I think Houston could be on par with many of the great cities of the world, if not better in terms of quality of life (we will never have to deal with all the issues that come with tourism). Development and density that improves quality of life can put Houston ahead of many other cities when it comes to attracting new investment and industries. Development that only meets the immediate demands of the day without thinking about the impacts on quality of life will just doom Houston to more boom and bust cycles with the energy industry and potentially a Detroit-esque future should the energy industry decide to move on the way the auto industry did in Detroit.

Oh please. The comparison started with Portland, so let's continue with that comparison. Houston is far superior to Portland in terms of theatre, arts, economy, cuisine, and diversity just to make a start. This is an extremely dynamic city and it is receiving the national attention that it deserves to match that development. It can and will continue to get better.

I'm not sure why you get the feeling that Houston isn't focused on improving quality of life. Have you noticed the amount of money that is being spent to improve the parks, the amount of improvements that are going on in the museums and arts community?

[RedScare]

I'm not sure why you get the feeling that Houston isn't focused on improving quality of life. Have you noticed the amount of money that is being spent to improve the parks, the amount of improvements that are going on in the museums and arts community?

 

He's still mad they wouldn't put a stoplight on the bike trail at the Yale and 11th crossings.

[livincinco]

He's still mad they wouldn't put a stoplight on the bike trail at the Yale and 11th crossings.

I guess I'm just strange because I've never really made the ground floor retail=quality of life connection that seems to be the focus of this thread.

[Marksmu]

And when a poster demands some sort of all or nothing logic, thinks that nuance is hypocrisy, and makes every argument into a personal attack with a bunch of junk about how people arguing X are all tax and spend liberals, etc., and always takes a very clear point and retools it to show the poster's agenda (i.e. Houston not being competitive with world class cities like Chicago, Paris, NY, London, etc. means that Houston is "second class" and on par with Flint, Michigan), it shows that the poster had no credibility to begin with. 

 

If there was even an ounce of credibility remaining in your posts, calling CHICAGO, a world class city went ahead and wiped that out.  Is Detroit also world class?   Chicago is a hell hole of a city that I will never go back to.

 

Houston is one of the most dynamic cities in the world.  It has so much more to offer than any of the awful places you mentioned....Paris??  Its beautiful but France is an awful place to live, NY?  Dirtiest place Ive ever been...London (havent been there yet)

Houston on the other hand is great!  The only city I have ever visited that I enjoyed as much as I have enjoyed Houston is Calgary - Calgary is Houston but, cleaner, and with a more pleasant summer.

[s3mh]

Man, you're all over the map with this post. Clearly, I nailed you between the eyes, as you never even addressed my point.

 

Oh, and Houston is not in Chicago's shadow. They lead the nation in murders, are losing population, and is a generally unpleasant place to live for much of the year. This is a new century, and Houston is on top of it. I do have a question for you and a couple of other haters, though. If Houston's QoL is so bad, how miserable is your life that you feel that you must stay and suffer in it. At least I am where I want to be. You are clearly sentenced to hell. Do you blame your parents?

 

So, if Chicago is such a hell hole, why did United drop Houston like a hot potato in favor of Chicago? It should have been the complete opposite result.  Why is so much more venture capital going to the extremely business unfriendly states like Massachussetts and California?  The answer is obvious to anyone who has any ability to look at Houston objectively without lazily falling into the small minded nativism that keeps Houston from becoming the world class city that is should be.  Houston is fortuitously located at the center of the US oil and gas industry.  Most of the major refining and production in the US is located in the Gulf Coast area.  Business comes to Houston because it has to, not because it wants too.  A friend of mine who is from the West Coast and working for Chevron on assignment considers Houston to be like an exotic assignment abroad.  When his time is up, he is headed back to the Bay area to work at Chevron's corporate head quarters.  He could probably jump ship and get a big bonus to work for another oil company in Houston, but will go back to California for high taxes, cost of living, etc. because the quality of life is better.  Californians realized that good planning means good quality of life, higher property values and the ability to attract top talent.  I want to see Houston grow by taking non-energy industry corporate headquarters away from Chicago, NY, San Fran, Boston, etc.  It should be a no brainer to relocated to Houston.  Even with the recent run up in real estate prices, Houston is a bargain in comparison.  But, it is well known that Houston cannot compete in terms of quality of life with the aforementioned cities because Houston has chosen to let developers do as they please instead of planning to enhance quality of life.  The current boom in multifamily will just give way to impossible traffic and over crowded retail areas.  With a little planning, areas inside the loop that are seeing growth could become highly desireable neighborhoods like the Back Bay, Greenwich Village, Lincoln Park or Pacific Heights.