Leaderboard

1st off, this is a trashy post which is why I gave you a neg. I generally appreciate your posts but I expect better from you. A.) Washington Ave is middle density and walkable, this is simply the midtown/4th ward CVS all over again. Yes, they have a legal right to develop as they are but it is short-sighted with an strong undercurrent of spiteful envy to develop a suburban site plan in context to mid-density residential. Further this is not in the Heights, don't try to decontextualize it. It's the equivalent to the deadening of downtown by parking lot zones, which is say Houston's foolish pride and flag waving for almighty individual freedom is a false justification for being a willfully ignorant neighbor. You get what you deserve. B.)Your sarcasm is not appreciated, if you look at the top of the page you will see it was written by a Rice Grad student representing the RDA.

I like how everyone ignores the issues brought up in this article, how very Houston. Perhaps 380 agreements could put some teeth to these issues.

New Renderings: Link

This isn't new, only reported as such. The DFW office doesn't have many people anyways. Would have been nice for the sake of reputation, but financially Houston still is the winner from XOM.

The parking lot at that center can be annoying, but I'm at that center (Borders) all the time and I love it. Let's face a few facts, the bitching about that Ainbender center at Kirby and Alabama lays one thing to rest once and for all. The fact that "Responsible Urban Development for Houston" is really just "Whiners Whining Against WalMart With Whatever Random Factoids They Can Come Up With" If these people were really interested in "responsible urban development" they would have to change their pants if Ainbender proposed something like what they have at Alabama and Kirby. I mean seriously? Whining about the parking lots? Here's a hint "urbanite" find another lot with an open spot, or heaven forbid, parallel park on one of the side streets. You're in the Upper Kirby district, its safe to walk half a block if you need to. The new group recommendations should add that "The surface parking is very important in front of the medium density, mixed use developments we prefer, even though that doesnt fit with all of our other ideas. Parking spots should be nice and wide, and there should be enough to guarantee that I do not have to park more than 40 yards from the door of any tenant space I wish to go into."

It shows a city government that doesn't care what the community thinks. It shows a city government that knew Walmart would be controversial with the community and wanted to do everything they could to help the developer weather the storm rather then represent the concerns of the community (almost to the point of misrepresenting the anchor of the development after the news leak about Walmart). It shows a city government that is bought by the developers. And if you think the city has been proactive, you are nuts. Even to this day, no one has said a word about how traffic will work. The developer claims that he can magically add a left turn lane to Yale St. for Koehler while putting in extra wide side walks, not moving the City's right of way a single inch and not backing up traffic onto the new feeder road. All of the noise, light pollution, crime issue were supposed to be addressed in an operating agreement with Walmart. Seen any sign of that agreement? But what do we, the silly people of the Heights, know. We are not a brilliant developer like Ainbinder. Just look at his amazing development on Kirby and W Alabama. You know, the one with the Borders and Pesce. You know, the one with the parking spaces that are so tight you can't open your door to get out of your car (much less to get back in if you manage the former). But we should just trust a guy that can't put parking spaces far enough apart to cram a Walmart Supercenter in the middle of a residential neighborhood with only a four lane road for access because developers are special human beings with magical powers. And we shouldn't expect our government to look out for us. Our taxes don't pay their salaries, developer's campaign contributions do. We should all just go back to the Heights and wait and see what marvelous faux victorian townhome cluster the developers try to cram into our neighborhood.

Whether walmart, or that article calls it urban won't make it so. it may serve some urban areas of town, if people are willing to drive to it, but urban it won't be.

Very interesting indeed. It shows that the City was very proactive concerning issues that people used as their scapegoats for why they didn't want the Walmart. And the article itself makes it hard to tell, but it seems that Ms. Reed was more unhappy that the city knew the development was going to be a Walmart in June, than the fact that there were plans for a development at all. Maybe I misread it. Is there some kind of controversy that those emails bring to light?

Nope. False bifurcation. It is indeed possible to think that the government decides right and wrong. She does. You are welcome to disagree with her for reasons that--to you and I--seem obvious, but you cannot deny the possibility that she thinks something that is quite plainly illogical.

Plans for an Exxon-Mobile campus in Houston have been scrapped.... http://www.bizjourna...ut_houston.html

bummer. now it looks like DFW's fortune 500 list is equal to or even may surpaass ours. We just lost Continential. It's looking like a dark time for Houston!

Interesting that you are so offended when the City "sneaks" a Walmart into the neighborhood, but wholeheartedly support the same mayor's attempt to "sneak" a severely restrictive historic district ordinance into the very same neighborhood. Pardon me for not sharing your outrage, as I am too busy fighting other battles to worry about your Walmart.

Guess it is easy to read things differently depending on whether you want a walmart close to your house or not. I read that the city wanted to ensure that things were done correctly so that when the inevitable few people who are against walmart wouldn't have much to argue against. It should be rather obvious to you that the city is not a fan of representing the general community, or they would not be pushing as hard for the historic districts as they are. I can't remember ever having a city government that hasn't been ruled by special interests, and not the community. It just so happens, that in this case, they city has been wise in their actions, but you disagree, so oh well? I also deleted your second paragraph as I didn't see anything to show that it was indeed the case, so it's kind of pointless to even write it, and it would be even more pointless to respond to it. I have no problem parking at that location. how do you feel about other developments they've developed? are you saying that everything this developer has made has small parking spaces? or are you just using one example that fits your fears and ignoring everything else that the developer has done? The only thing I can say about the development on kirby and w. alabama is that I was disappointed when the pub that was on that corner closed to make room for the bank. they had some damn good food and a great atmosphere. but that's life, some things happen that I don't like, hell, there were a fair number of people that didn't like it. ultimately though, someone owns that property, and assuming they meet the rules and regulations set in place by the city, there is nothing I can do about it, cause they own it, and no matter how unhappy I am, or how much I whine, it ain't gonna change.

such as the obvious bias displayed by the writer? Calling the area the 'urban core' of the city is hardly accurate. in the article they call the walmart development the 'washington heights development' and it is represented above. So right away, by making it seem like that area is the urban core, it makes the reader feel like the area is high density living, walkable, and very urban, and that this development will bring it a step back towards suburbia. Anyone that knows the area knows that it is suburban (especially the area that houses the loudest opponents to the development). They want high density, mixed use, lets knock down some of those houses at heights and 11th and build a nice midrise with ground level retail, in fact, lets do that in multiple places in that area. so long as the facade looks like it is victorian, and it isn't walmart, it'll be alright, amirite? 'between several neighborhoods' heh, downtown is technically 'between several neighborhoods' as well. So's the target that was recently built a few years ago, just down the street. 'it serves as the primary thoroughfare' yale is hardly used as a primary thoroughfare, except maybe by 300 people a day. quiet residents and to the west and light industry, what about the railroad track directly to the south, and the businesses to the east? Finally, the piece references there are 2 camps of people that want to have input (one by asking them to go somewhere else, and the other asking for input). There is a link to the FB page of the stop heights walmart, and a written link to the .org page, as well as an outline of the purpose of the page. Where's the same for the second group? All that's said is that the group consists of 'activists and design professionals' what's the name of the group, how can I contact them? There's plenty of contact notes for the first group, and nothing for the second? what if I want to become an active participant? You'll show me how to fight it directly, but not how to work with it? I'm sure I have better ideas of better fitting in with that area than 'vertical parking'! From that point on, it seems to focus in on the fact that for a specific visionary site plan they didn't spend time accurately representing the surrounding area (like anyone wants to have railroad tracks and old industrial complexes in their renderings). Anyway, I certainly wasn't ignoring the issues brought up by the article, I just had a hard time seeing through the obvious propaganda to see the issues that are presented.

Trashy? Sorry if I offended you, I imagine the only person that would be offended by that would be the author of the article. I should give you a neg because you gave me a neg, but then where would it end? The article was very obviously biased and misleading, doesn't matter who wrote it. A .) Washington avenue may be closer to middle density than most areas of town, but it is absolutely not the 'urban core' that the article makes it out to be. Heights is not urban in any way, in fact, as the first suburb of Houston, I'd say it is downright suburban despite the close proximity to downtown. if you want to argue that, I suggest going back a few pages and find notes from others regarding the population density of the area vs other areas of town. B .) While I can say I would not join the second group, is it possible that others that read the article were genuinely interested in joining the second group to have positive input? While I may have been somewhat sarcastic in suggesting that I wanted to join the group, it is a very fair statement to say that others may be interested, and that the article doesn't afford the same contact information for the second group as it does for the first, one has very limited means from that article to make contact. If you're trying to say that the RDA is the second group, that is a really hard dot to connect based on the article itself, and I don't doubt I'm the only one who is very confused. edited to change B .) from a smiley back to a B...