TheNiche

Of course not. These are types of investments that our community needs to be making... not just to educate visitors residents alike about our past, but also to build for a better future. Like it or not, tourism is a very real and lucrative industry. Houston is making the right move by placing a keystone of opportunity in downtown.

I do not disagree with anything that you've said except that I do not know what a "keystone of opportunity" is. Does it have anything to do with the wholesale distribution of Keystone beer? I am in favor of the distribution of beer downtown. That would aid our efforts to attract tourists. Why Keystone, though? There is better beer to choose from.

In all seriousness, since a bunch of the money is coming from the hotel tax, I am not at all opposed to efforts that would enhance tourism. I just happen to think that these funds could be better spent on other projects, even on projects within the downtown area if that is what concerns you the most.

ALL the 380's are horrible. The HEB one is an undisguised giveaway.

Well, we agree on that much at least. Some actually are worse than others.

Just because the disguise of the Ainbinder 380 fools you, does not mean it is not a giveaway.

Just because you think Walmart can build without connecting to sewer doesn't make it true.

Red already dissected this issue. And even if you have a point or a partial point, it only comprises a relatively small portion of the total project cost.

The developer did not have to fix the bridge to get permits, but it should have. The traffic impact analysis should have considered truck routes. But the City has let that process become a welfare project for traffic engineers.

It was a bad move on both the part of the City and the developer to completely miss the issue. The developer is now going to have important access denied to the development in part and in whole for years. Tenants are going to lose business as a result. But the big losers are the folks that live north of the development. We went through lots of closures when they did the I-10 feeder. The bridge should have been reconstructed at that time. The City did there best to ignore the issue and the developer did nothing to move the process along. Now, the community will have to deal with lots of closures and restrictions until 2016, when the bridge is finally fixed.

Wouldn't a welfare project for traffic engineers entail lots of critical feedback so as to require revision after revision? If so, then that would cause the traffic engineering firms to bid out new projects at a higher fee and to have to hire more traffic engineers.

And besides, it isn't as though the development is located on an island with only one shoddy bridge across to it. There are lots of alternative routes. When I shop there, I'm going to drive across the bridge of despair in my deceptively-heavy passenger car. And I shall not care. When the bridge is tore up, I'll drive on down to Heights and turn right at the new intersection at Kohler. If a one-block detour ruins your day, then perhaps yours is such a charmed life that I should envy you; I shall not allow such a trifling nuisance to ruin my day however.

This 380 Agreement was not one of the better written ones. The City has virtually conceded this by radically updating the form they have been using to one that is more in line with other municipalities. The list of improvements on the 380 agreement could be and were changed only by agreement between the Mayor's office and the developer. Just imagine any other city contract where the scope of work could be completely changed without going back to council. There were no claw back provisions if the developer failed to meet its obligations after repayment began (standard in tax abatement/reimbursement agreements). And so on.

Yeah, it's wasn't well written. Okay, so go and read the one for the Gulfgate HEB. At least the scope of work in the case of Ainbinder was such that it would improve infrastructure that Ainbinder was not otherwise required to improve on their own. With Gulfgate...jeez, I'm not going to make a direct accusation, but I sense that it could've bordered on the criminal. The public got nothing.

The Ainbinder 380 was NOT one of the "better written" ones. Borrowing money at unknown and uncapped interest? Ridiculous. Nothing in the 380 is required, except for the Walmat to open. If the developer doesn't do an item, they simply don't get paid for that item. Case in point - thicker trees. There is no penalty on the developer for not planting thicker trees on Yale. They already maxed out the 380 (which the people got capped) so they simply don't care.

I am not disputing that this was poorly written, only that many of the other 380 Agreements are worse.

The City doesn't ADMINISTER 380's, they just pass them.

If all that a government ever did was to make paper agreements, then those agreements would be worthless. The threat or promise that those agreements shall be kept and enforced are what makes them valuable and worthwhile.

Bull. There was a lot of concern about the Target. The developer met with concerned residents and made lots of promises to appease the neighborhood. Many of those same residents are now the same people fighting for the issues surrounding the Walmart because they learned that you cannot just sit back and trust developers to look out for the interests of the community. The real people with the warped sense of quality of life are those who think that it is a good thing to drop a Walmart supercenter that no one wants and no one needs in the middle of an urban community that had a half decent chance to kick the shortsighted car-centric model of development that has been imposed on the community.

There used to be a small collection of perhaps a half-dozen houses mixed in with mostly commercial properties. The developer of the Target dealt with the discontented neighborhood by literally blockbusting it into oblivion. There was even one holdout that absolutely refused to sell out, and so the developer surrounded and beseiged that house by the pavement for the Target store's parking lot. (You can see it in the April 2006 imagery on Google Earth. It's almost comical.) Eventually even the holdout gave up and sold out. So there is no neighborhood to be adversely impacted. I vaguely recall that Woodland Heights was concerned about traffic going up Watson, but obviously that concern was unwarranted.

By comparison, Ainbinder and Wal-Mart have been good corporate citizens. They worked alongside City officials to transform overgrown brownfield sites into a viable shopping center alongside dense new housing with improved civic infrastructure whereas no other proposal could have been brought to fruition within any forseeable time horizon. And now, in only a few weeks time, I will be showing my appreciation for their presence in my urban community by shopping there regularly. Unless of course, I am "no one" persuant to your statement. Am I "no one" to you? Am I less than human, perhaps even verging on the non-sentient on account of my desire to purchase and consume pre-cooked sliced chorizo in deli meat form from the 'Not-Quite-Heights Wal-Mart'?

No one is fighting the Walmart anymore. It has been built and will open in a few weeks. What people are doing now is making sure that the City keep its word that they will "hold the developer's feet to the fire" on all the negative impacts that the development will bring to the area (crime, traffic, flooding, etc.). The Yale St. bridge must be fixed. The truck route on Heights/Koehler does not work and plenty of truckers will ignore the restrictions and take the bridge anyway. There are a whole boat load of other road improvement projects in the West End neighborhood that are needed once the Walmart starts sending cut through traffic down 18' wide streets with on street parking. There may also be other traffic mitigation measures needed considering just how bad the new feeders have made N/S traffic.

Presuming that the developer abides by the improvements specified in the 380 Agreement, they will be reimbursed by the City. The City knew what was being proposed by the developer and agreed to it, and even if the City was unaware of the condition of its own bridge at the time, that is their problem...not the developer's. Both parties to the deal should have done due diligence. You seem to have a beef with the City. That's fantastic. I'm not pleased with the way that they've administered 380 Agreements either, and this instance was one of the better-written ones if you can believe it.

Send them a message by voting Republican in 2012.

I realize how hard it is for you to be in favor of something, but... there are already lots of parks downtown. Market Square, Discovery Green, that park by Toyota Center (don't remember the name). What is the Parks Board gonna do? They would have to raise money, and that could take many years for such a large project. Unless I'm mistaken (?).

Anyway, Discovery Green isn't that big. How many surface lots would that take out? I for one am happy about any development replacing surface lots/abandoned buildings so it's really hard for me to be against something like this.

Fine, then the land could be bought and then given away to developers in return for them building something that people want more of. Whatever. I'm just giving a bunch of alternatives, of which all of the alternatives are better than a fuddy duddy cultural center.

This is exactly what I've been hoping Houston would do... develop a center for Heritage Tourism!! This will be a cornerstone for downtown and the region, just like George R. Brown and Discovery Green have become. Look at all of the economic indicators... heritage tourism is a rapidly growing field. Good for Houston that they are being proactive to take advantage of this coming opportunity. Kudos to Mayor Parker and the business leaders on this one!

$55 million is a big investment, and I hope they don't skimp.

I think I'm going to call them and ask about patents for the gift shop. I already have some ideas!!

Is that sarcasm? I can't tell.

In my eyes, any development replacing crappy surface lots in east downtown is a good one. Judging by the renderings, it looks pretty cool. So, along with the new hotel, and the Finger apartments next ot Minute Maid, thats 6(!) surface lots gone.

With $32 million, someone could buy up just about as much acreage as is comprised in Discovery Green, all over the south, southeast, and east part of downtown where there are so many surface lots, and donate them to the Parks Board. I'd rather they do that.

No contract needed, just collect what you can and forward 95% to the city.

Or hell, just use the 95% to start a non-profit, buy the land, and hire a contractor to build the parks.

Uh yeah, actually I would need a contract in order to take on that kind of a project myself. Someone willing to pay compensate me on a 5% match on total donations would be very much encouraged to step forward.

We'll give you 5% of whatever you collect, get to it!

Is that a contract? For 5% of the take, I'd quit my job today.

Hey, but you know this was only the first alternative idea for $32 million that come to mind. It took me maybe three minutes, and it's way better than this cultural center idea. I'm sure that there are even more and even better ideas. We need ideas. Ideas are the cure to dull fuddy-duddy expenditures such as are proposed.

No we couldn't, because we don't control the assets of this Silver Eagle benefactor and his rich friends.

We could, though. All it takes is an organized effort, coupled with the sale of naming rights to the pocket parks. Give them a little plaque and some bricks with donors' engraved names in them. Publicize it well. The program would easily make national news if done properly. Then turn around and solicit old people and their estates for donations of land; give naming rights there as well, where appropriate. Pick up some of the lots from out of tax auctions and constables' sales to stretch the budget.

The name of the game is organization. It would take the right person. Someone like myself, properly compensated.

This seems really cheesy. For $32 million to expound upon culture, we could've purchased...more culture.

Imagine if the funds were used to purchase a single lot in each inner city neighborhood for a pocket park built around a sculpture comprised of defunct oil & gas scrap metal, welded together (or some such other unifying theme). There you have it. Culture. Something worth exploring Houston's nooks and crannies to see. It'd be the sort of thing that can be sold in miniature at an airport gift shop. "Collect them all!"

Would a moderator please move the tangential comments starting with 'totheskies' post over to the University Line thread, since that was the subject of an old post that he was responding to? Thanks.

Ask anyone that ever has to park on UofH campus. They'd probably say it would help a hell of a lot.

Okay. A UH student lives in Cypress and schedules his classes to coincide with the availability of Park & Ride service. This means putting up with 8:30AM or 10:00AM classes. But never mind that those are unpopular.

The trip from Cypress P&R to the Northwest Transit Center takes 25 minutes.

Continuing into downtown takes another 10 minutes, and then the student can transfer (averaging, say, 4 minutes) to the Southeast Line and continue 3.4 miles to Scott Street or 4.0 miles to Wheeler Street (the student's choice, no transfer necessary). Light rail averages 19mph, so that'll be about another 12 minutes. The student's trip from the Northwest TC to the campus border took 26 minutes.

If they had attempted to use the Uptown and University lines from the Northwest TC, that would make for a 12-mile trip on light rail. So that's 4 minutes for the transfer plus 38 minutes for the light rail ride: 42 minutes.

Upon approach to the UH campus you can anticipate some combination of transfers and/or walking the remaining one, two, or three quarters of a mile to your classroom. That can vary a great deal, but let's just call it 8 minutes.

A commute can be done in either 59 minutes on the Southeast Line or 75 minutes on the University Line at the same cost to the individual. Choose one.

I think so too, but unfortunately the city simply refuses to spend money to fix sidewalks. Montrose area has some really awful ones.

METRO is bound to abide by the City's codified standards for sidewalk widths. That means that METRO should have paid for them. The City of Houston waived that requirement.

Trees are great things. I love tree-lined streets.

But in a city like Houston where we have a government that just washes their hands of busted up sidewalks, we can't afford to be planting trees. Functional sidewalks are more important than aesthetics, and if the city or some other entity won't take responsibility to maintain them, we can't have roots busting them up.

Trees spaced out ever so often can provide a psychological barrier between pedestrians and vehicles as well as provide shade, with their roots being accommodated by the extra width of an appropriately-large sidewalk zone as they mature. These are functional enhancements that promote walking and transit use.

Those sidewalks do suck. However, they are perfectly fine for a normal pedestrian. 100% better than what was there before. I wish all sidewalks in Houston were that good.

I do agree that the electric lines need to be buried though. Not only are they obstructing the sidewalk for disabled pedestrians, they are an eyesore.

I'm not advocating for buried power lines. That gets to be really expensive, and only affects the aesthetic environment. If its that big of a deal to some people, then I'd sooner have the power lines moved to sacrificial side streets (like Uptown did) than pay for burying them.

But let's take a step back from that debate because we can both agree that wherever the power lines go, there will be vertical obstructions in a sidewalk that abuts the curb of a street. Between trees (which will mature), signage, light poles, power/telephone poles, garbage cans, and other pedestrians, a narrow sidewalk abutting a major thoroughfare with light rail is a busy place. Abutting means that it starts at the edge of the pavement, where the cars go past at high speed. The extra width in a configuration like this is a mechanism toward safety and the comfort of use. It is not perfectly fine for a normal pedestrian.

I noted a comment on the Swamplot post about the botched sidewalks along the Green Line (fmrly. Brown and/or East) from user Local Planner. It follows:

Please know that the City government had the power, through its consent agreement, to require wider sidewalks. Put another foot or two on a sidewalk and suddenly an intrusive fixture, like a power pole, become less of an obstacle. However, elected officials at that time were freaked out about right-of-way takes. Also, the mayoral administration at that time decided that the City should not burden METRO with more costs, a position with which of course METRO heartily agreed. There was no other funding mechanism (like the recently created East End TIRZ) to fill the cost gap. There were those of us who tried very hard to express our concern, but it was decided otherwise. So when you are dismayed at the photos above, rest assured that when the City officials made their choice, they knew full well that we would end up with those results.

October 1, 2012 at 10:11 pm

That the city would pay for the sage advice of constituents as mediated through professional planners, and then deliberately ignored it by cutting METRO a break, has managed to piss me off immensely. What is the point of transit without adequate pedestrian infrastructure? How can we fund an underpass and ignore sidewalks? How is it that now that there's a revenue source, we're hearing about streetcars, the most expensive fix to the 'last mile' problem that could possibly be conceived? This is just pitiful.

Where is the accountability?

And Niche, to keep your own "logic", I hope that you are expending as much effort on every other anti walmart effort that currently exists, has ever existed or will exist as you do on this one.

Up until today, I hadn't posted on this thread in many weeks, probably months. And I think that the last time that I had posted, I mostly just wanted to know when the opening date was.

If there is a "worst bridges" ranking, I missed it. That's how involved I am in this subject. Would you mind re-posting it?

BS. Show me one thing Walmart actually did to raise awareness on this issue.

Look in the mirror. You wouldn't know about the bridge or be vocal about the bridge unless Wal-Mart had prompted you to give a damn. There are lots of bridges in poor condition, but you don't care about those. You care about this one. Why? Wal-Mart. That's why.

And I do not buy into the argument that Walmart doesn't enter into it. They are the ones that need to use the bridge for their 18 wheeler traffic. They bought the land and own it, not Ainbinder. They should have been raising this issue years ago but tried to just let it go so the bridge closure would be put off as long as possible as to not interfere with the critical first few years their store is open.

Wal-Mart trucks have several approaches to their store available to them. They don't need the Yale Street bridge except for the traffic count of passenger vehicles.

Agreed about the orientation. The effect would be much better with buildings encircling Discovery Green. Do you suppose they even gave that a thought?

I know that I wouldn't want highrises all rising right along the boundaries of Discovery Green. A few gaps above lowrise buildings will let through some light and prevent a sense of claustrophobia. It also opens up view corridors to existing or future development, just so as though one can still see the forest from the trees.

In response to your question, though, I doubt that they've given this any thought. They're surely more interested in the experience of people inside the building than outside it.

I like this rendering. I hope that it gets built as such.

But even if you can't, the more options we have on/near UH Campus, the better. It has swelled now to over 40,000 students, and when you throw in faculy and staff, our daytime population is right around 50k people. Congrats on the bold venture!!

Does the idea of 'daytime population' as it is applied to urban areas and business districts apply with validity to a university campus? Many students and professors are only there some of the day for twice a week. Many of the staff are part-time, too.

I'm impressed. Finally someone on here doing something and not just moaning about how horrible Houston is. Good Luck.

I'm running on the assumption that renovating an old abandoned structure is much cheaper than new, keeping costs and rents down.

It depends partly on the extent of repairs that are necessary. Also, if you wouldn't build it the way that it's currently configured in the first place, then there will either be some rent loss or additional operating expenses that reflect functional obsolescence. Sometimes that is curable, other times not.

Other considerations in the outcome of buildings like these that can determine whether they're saved or demolished will be the price of underlying dirt, its configuration, and demolition cost of the structure. So for instance, if it's a tall building on a small parcel of land that is six inches away from another structure, then it probably won't get torn down because the cost of doing so would be prohibitive. (There are exceptions, of course.)