Jump to content

thedistrict84

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    593

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by thedistrict84

  1. thedistrict84
    Redevelopment planned for the old Rex Supply building on Harrisburg at Milby. This is near the Second Ward/Coffee Plant stop on METRO Green Line light rail. Looks to be mixed-use retail with plans for a three story garage. Definitely would be a welcome addition near the Sampson/York corridor. http://swamplot.com/what-rex-supplys-harrisburg-complex-would-look-like-with-restaurants-throngs-of-pedestrians-taking-over-its-thru-street/2018-09-20/ https://www.hpiproperties.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/milby-junction-1.pdf Special thanks to Swamplot for finding this (or at least making me aware of it lol)
  2. thedistrict84
    RISE Lofts just a few blocks away is of a similar height, and it seems as though the developers are addressing any traffic flow/accessibility concerns, so I don’t see how any opposition to this will be remotely successful. On a related note, is “pedestrian realm” a legitimate industry term, or is the developer trying to be “hip” and “cool” by pushing a new buzzword?
  3. thedistrict84
    2800 Commerce. It’s the large vacant lot at Commerce and Delano. I created a post about it a while back, it was moved over to the “Going Up!” section. https://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/39132-campanile-on-commerce-2800-commerce-new-senior-living-apartments-in-second-ward/
  4. thedistrict84
    I think I would trade less development overall for a more cohesive approach to developing inner-loop areas.
  5. thedistrict84
    Do you know exactly where that development would be located? There are quite a few vacant lots in the immediate few blocks, so it would be nice for something to be done with at least some of those. The Sampson/York corridor is going to be interesting in a year or two with all of this new town home construction and new restaurants/bars such as Victorian’s BBQ and The Plant at Harrisburg in the works.
  6. thedistrict84
    I know. My response was a playful jab at those people who do. And valets are universally awful. I’ll stand by that comment.
  7. thedistrict84
    I might be underestimating the number of people that will be “cross-shopping” 1930s bungalows and a condo in a new high-rise tower. Those are near opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of property type. I would think that if someone cannot afford the type of housing they would prefer in a certain neighborhood, they would look at other nearby neighborhoods instead of completely changing the criteria on the type of property they want to purchase. I get that. Economics 101. Supply and demand. However, if the goal is to provide more affordable property for the area, this particular high rise tower with what will almost invariably be “luxury” condos with a high sale price and the added bonus of an insane monthly maintenance fee (if it’s anything like other towers in Montrose) is probably not the best way to go about it.
  8. thedistrict84
    I mean I certainly don’t. Certain areas, sure, but not the whole inner loop area. I like having a yard. And a garage. And valets are the worst. How on earth is wanting to retain historic bungalows in Montrose, or keeping a single family neighborhood single family, an “elitist” idea? Now if you’re talking about pricing people out of the neighborhood, then you’re just wrong. High rise apartments/condos are very expensive. How cheap do you think the condos are going to be in this particular tower?
  9. thedistrict84
    That’s fair. I was just thinking that if it’s meant to be a gateway to the East End, then it would be silly for one of the streets off of the roundabout to be a short dead end street. Also, I would guess that blocking off Runnels would have an effect on traffic flow and would mean whatever traffic analysis was used to justify this change to the intersection (which I assume was based in part on an increase in traffic volume) may no longer be applicable.
  10. thedistrict84
    Does the fact that this is moving forward suggest that the connectivity of Runnels to McKee will be retained as part of the I-45 reroute project?
  11. thedistrict84
    This is a very good point. Going vertical is definitely necessary in this city, and I’m sure many of us welcome higher density and more retail, restaurant, and entertainment options which higher density brings. But not every part of town (or, as you point out, even every part of a neighborhood) needs to go vertical. Pockets of high-density towers and other vertical developments (in Midtown, downtown, along Allen Parkway, Upper Kirby, Museum District, Med Center, etc.) connected by light rail and other transportation systems should provide for all of the increased capacity inside the loop that we as a city should need in the next 30-40 years, if not longer. There is still going to be a strong need (and desire) for single-family homes inside the loop. Many people (myself included) have no interest in living in high-rise towers, but still want to be close to these neighborhoods.
  12. thedistrict84
    That’s a fairly low bar to set. There will always be somebody to oppose virtually any new development, no matter what the justification of their opposition may be. I’m not sure such people should be deemed “truly evil” though.
  13. thedistrict84
    Although I agree with you in principle, I’m afraid the Venn diagram between people considering a house in Katy and those who would live in a high-rise apartment in Montrose would basically be two perfect circles directly next to each other. I personally have zero interest in living in a high rise, but also zero interest in living anywhere outside the loop, so maybe I’m not the best person to opine on such a choice.
  14. thedistrict84
    I’m getting a “Sears store renovated in the 1980s” vibe from this render. Agreed. This lot has a relatively narrow footprint for the size of the building, so when you combine that with the asinine minimum parking requirements, this is what you get.
  15. thedistrict84
    The issue isn’t the location, it’s the size of this particular lot. Because the footprint is relatively narrow and small, they require 9 stories of parking (+2 underground!) to provide the number of parking spaces necessary to make this development workable. I’m all for walkability, but this city is still car-centric and will continue to be for the near future. Providing for parking, especially for a residential tower, is a necessary evil. I agree that light rail in the area would be a nice addition (maybe up the median down Montrose?), but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
  16. thedistrict84
    No, no, no, you’ve got it all wrong. Midtown is supposed to be developed into a mini-Manhattan, not Montrose. Get it right! /s Seriously though, not every inner loop area needs to go vertical. Building up Midtown, the undeveloped southwest portion of Downtown, Allen Parkway, Kirby, Museum District, etc. will provide more than enough density for the next 30+ years. Although, I guess a tower here would be a potential connector between Allen Parkway and The Hanover and the (future) Colombe d’Or towers near Westheimer. I guess I’m a bit conflicted.
  17. thedistrict84
    I was not aware that this particular lot was designated as “unrestricted reserve” (although, I’d assume that most lots up and down Montrose in this area carry that designation). That definitely changes things, as you mentioned. I understand that the planning commission in Houston has limited power—my comment was more regarding cities with no zoning in general. However, certain things are within their purview which could influence what gets built and where, such as the setback guidelines at issue with this particular variance request. I don’t disagree with this. Certain developers are definitely given wider latitude by the planning commission than others. I’m sure you can guess the reasons.
  18. thedistrict84
    There is also a significant difference between 8 stories and 20 stories as well. Based on the “nine floors of parking” bit (if true), it sounds like this developer is trying to shoehorn a tower in a place where it’s not a good fit. If I were you (and as concerned as you seem to be about this project), I’d do what I could to oppose the granting of the variance they are seeking. Given the limitations of the size of the lot, there is no way this gets off the ground if the variance isn’t granted. Like you, I’m not opposed to densification and “going vertical”, but there are definitely areas (and lots) where a development like this makes much more sense. This shouldn’t be the overriding factor. Even in a city with no zoning, the planning commission has a duty to make sure proposed uses are appropriate and fit the greater development scheme of the area.
  19. thedistrict84
    There are several “Notice of Variance Request” signs up near Sampson/York and Garrow St. covering all or part of five blocks (as indicated in my crudely marked map below). From my understanding, this is property owned by Lovett/InTown Homes, so I would assume that there are townhouses going in here. Anyone have any additional info on this?
  20. thedistrict84
    I agree with this general sentiment, but not every neighborhood/area inside the loop needs to or should go vertical. Something like this in Midtown, Downtown, Med Center, along Allen Parkway? Yes, definitely. But going “vertical” isn’t a fit for this part of The Heights. What really needs to happen, as others have mentioned, is for the city to do away with parking requirements. Current requirements will be more and more obsolete as ride sharing services and automated vehicles become more prevalent.
  21. thedistrict84
    I’d agree, it’s certainly the lesser of evils. I’ve seen too many videos of valets wrecking or abusing vehicles (revving, driving aggressively, etc.) to trust any of them. I am concerned about how this parking garage will fit into this area visually. Given the number of spaces they’ve stated it will provide and the dimensions of the lot on which it will be built, I imagine it will have to be a good bit taller than any neighboring buildings, right?
  22. thedistrict84
    That was a reference to the Stanley Park development near Timbergrove, from the same company responsible for the rather lackluster redevelopment of this property. https://abc13.com/neighbors-recovering-from-harvey-fight-new-development/3633572/ Agree about EaDo/the East End doing well in terms of flooding. It helps being close to where the Bayou opens up into the Ship Channel.
  23. thedistrict84
    Are you referring to the 4500 Gulf Fwy site, between Ernestine and S Lockwood, or the much larger warehouse complex northwest of Ernestine? I haven’t been by there recently, so I’m not sure which one has work being done. If it’s 4500 Gulf Fwy, I believe that’s a Lovett Commercial development: https://www.lovettcommercial.com/properties/houston/4500-gulf-fwy Their site plan shows all sorts of suburban retail mainstays (a Palais Royal?! How exciting! /s), but knowing them they haven’t inked a deal with any of these retailers. . . which I guess is a good thing. If it’s the other, I’m not sure.
  24. thedistrict84
    This is a very disappointing use of this lot. The amount of parking is overkill for the type of tenants they indicate may occupy the development. Maybe they should just stick to building townhouses in 100-year flood zones?
  25. thedistrict84
    I would agree that you have to start somewhere with an issue this complex. Providing shelter is of course the most logical first step in addressing this issue. However, the end goal with this subset of the homeless population has to be to address the substance abuse issue. It is more likely that these people are homeless because they have substance abuse issues and cannot reconcile the debilitation brought on by addiction with the day-to-day requirements of society. They are homeless because of their substance abuse, not engaging in substance abuse because they are homeless. My concern is that “low barrier” shelters enable this behavior, to an extent, with no obligation for the individual to address the issue that has caused (or at least significantly contributed) to their homelessness. (Sorry if I went a bit NIMBY-ish on you there with my previous posts. Nothing personal of course.)
×
×
  • Create New...