thedistrict84

I believe there was an old TABC notice in the window of that building (before the renovations started) from maybe 2017 that alluded to White Rhino. Whatever that was intended to be, I imagine it was canceled and this construction is for something different.

Thanks, I searched in the East End neighborhood sub forum for the post on East Village prior to my post, as I didn’t realize the East Village thread was still in “Going Up.”

Just came across this article regarding Conservatory and Prohibition moving to the former Chapman and Kirby spot as part of the East Village development in EaDo, on St. Emanuel. More good news for EaDo! https://m.chron.com/entertainment/restaurants-bars/article/Ambitious-new-food-hall-projects-slated-for-EaDo-14937598.php

Right, I was just clarifying whether it was required or not. @Luminare suggested it might be required, and I was just pointing out that it might be inside the zone in EaDo that has had parking requirements lifted. In my earlier comment just a few minutes prior to the one that you quoted, I acknowledged that parking was necessary for the Lovett redevelopment of the Post building, and that the indication of retail parking on the Alliance Broadstone site plan—which otherwise doesn’t seem to include GFR—indicates that the two developers have apparently come to an agreement regarding providing parking for the Post building.

I think you beat me to this point by about 15 seconds lol I would agree about the move to have this parking count towards the required parking for the Lovett redevelopment of the Houston Post building, but isn’t this property within the area of EaDo recently excluded from parking minimums? Or does that end at Emancipation?

My guess is that they will have an arrangement with Lovett to have that part of the Alliance Broadstone parking garage used for Lovett’s redeveloped Houston Post building immediately next door.

This Alliance Broadstone project is only utilizing the southern half of the lot. The northern half of the lot where the old Houston Post building remains will presumably still be redeveloped separately by Lovett. A site plan for Alliance Broadstone posted in the neighborhood forum excludes the northern part of the lot.

At this stage in the project I would assume they are structural. They’ve been steadily banging the pillars further into the ground over the last few weeks, probably to help reinforce the land at the edge of the bayou to help protect against subsidence or washout. I can hear the sound fairly clearly about 0.75 miles away, it was kind of creepy until I found out what it was.

Honestly, I feel like this project should be kept here in Going Up since it includes the additional lot fronting Leeland. Save the other post in the neighborhood forum for Lovett’s half-baked, constantly in flux “plans” for the Houston Post building.

“Amazing” is a bit of an overstatement, it could certainly be better than this. Angled parking definitely has its place and is useful when used on one-way streets, but is less than ideal on a two-way street such as this. I take it you don’t spend much time trying to park on W 19th between Ashland and Rutland in The Heights? Between the dumb drivers blocking traffic while waiting for someone to back out of a spot and others pulling across traffic to park in spots angled away from their direction of travel, it’s an exercise in frustration. Granted, the volume of traffic won’t be as bad here for the reasons you state, but it doesn’t mean we should welcome a subpar site plan and parking arrangement with open arms. As far as I am concerned nothing benefits walkability (or “activates the pedestrian realm” *eye roll*) as well as buildings fronting the street and parking in the back.

The site plan shown in the brochure is horrible, and not very pedestrian friendly. People walking will not only have to dodge two driveways but also parked cars that hang over into the sidewalk (such as large trucks with trailer hitches backed into parking spots). Also, angled parking spots fronting a two-way road is sure to make for bad parking jobs and blocked traffic as people engage in the dumb and nonsensical parking maneuver of pulling across opposite lanes of traffic to pull into a parking spot angled away from their direction of travel. New retail in this area is welcome of course, but they need to think through the details better than this half-baked site plan.

It’s technically providing housing for those “at or below” the 80% AMI figure. There is an income ceiling, but some leeway in terms of allowing for people with lower incomes.

Exactly this. These types of developments need to be established all throughout the city instead of just concentrated in one area. It’s also important to note that this isn’t just housing for “the poor.” This is intended to be affordable housing for people such as teachers and first year HPD and HFD cadets, and people working other similar jobs that otherwise meet the income limits. Those jobs exist all throughout the city and it makes sense to allow the opportunity for people to live close to where they work.

It’s about 19 or 20 blocks total, all the way to the historic Ford dealership where Tout Suite is. The entire area of EaDo is around 270 blocks, so it’s about 7% of the total land area. My estimate was a bit high, but the blocks being taken are either developed or more prime for future development due to the proximity to downtown. There are only about three or four blocks of surface parking near MMP—certainly not half of the total lots though. I believe there are only two HOV-type lanes being added to I-45 as an increase from current capacity. One of the main reasons for the reroute given by those that have developed the plans is not the addition of outright capacity but to streamline the exits and other ramps and have traffic flow more smoothly and require less lane changes through that section.