Jump to content

thedistrict84

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    593

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by thedistrict84

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. thedistrict84
    There is a new notice of reconsideration of requirement up on the property, for the purpose of “not dedicat[ing] 10’ R-O-W along Delano St.”
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.)
  11. thedistrict84
    That’s a fair request. I’m all for helping those individuals who find themselves involuntarily homeless in transitioning back into society. I will also throw my support behind efforts to assist the homeless who suffer from mental health issues in getting the mental health assistance they need. But I’m also a realist and understand that there is a subset of the homeless population who choose to remain homeless because they do not want to conform with the sobriety requirements of conventional shelters and homeless support services. I assume by “low level” you mean “low barrier.” The idea of “low barrier” shelters (like what was apparently proposed for the 419 Emancipation facility) is that this subset of the homeless population can get the benefits of a shelter environment without having to take the steps to be personally responsible for their decisions and actions. “Low barrier” is unfortunately not a real solution to get this segment of the homeless population off of the streets permanently. So, to the extent that you are referring to plans that fell through to create a “low barrier” shelter in EaDo, to relocate the least desirable portion of the homeless population to EaDo to get them out of Midtown, then I still stand behind my comment.
  12. thedistrict84
    Who is this “we” you keep referring to? Are you that plugged in with planning decisions in the area? If so, I guess I actually have reason for concern regarding your apparent glee with the prospect of treating EaDo as a dumping ground. Also, as HoustonIsHome pointed out, a huge reason the homeless population is concentrated in Midtown is because there are many groups that are based there that directly serve the homeless population. You’re not going to make a meaningful dent in the homeless population in and around Midtown unless and until those places decide to relocate.
  13. thedistrict84
    I was worried for a second that this was an actual industry buzzword, but fortunately Google doesn’t seem to agree. Yup, developers essentially lining up to buy lots in the current Pierce Elevated ROW from the state are one of the big reasons that EaDo is getting steamrolled in the reroute project. The affected businesses and individuals in EaDo don’t have the collective clout these developers do. This is basically the commercial real estate equivalent of a highway getting routed through the middle of a lower income neighborhood—think 59 splitting up the Fifth Ward, 288 knifing through Riverside Terrace, etc. Curious if this is really just quid pro quo to “repay” campaign contributions from certain developers by giving them cut rate deals on prime real estate.
  14. thedistrict84
    Idk the seedy Greyhound McDonald’s just a few blocks from here is east of Main . . . that counts, right?
  15. thedistrict84
    There is a notice of public hearing sign placed on the property regarding R.O.W. dedication on Delano St. Sounds like they’re placing a driveway for access to the property from Delano. There is currently a driveway just southeast of the intersection between Delano and Commerce. Not sure how accurate an inferrence from that regarding setback or layout could be, but it seems to me that this means the parking lot (or garage?) may be situated on the northwest portion of the property, fronting Delano.
  16. thedistrict84
    Agree. I really like the idea of keeping that little nook of downtown as a “warehouse district” with renovated and repurposed commercial buildings (Wagon Works building, Nabisco building, etc.).
  17. thedistrict84
    This is great news! I drive by that site every day and was worried the project was abandoned. It seemed like it had been relegated to a retention pond after heavy rains. It will be nice to see this get off the ground, although the Caydon tower got a nice head start.
  18. thedistrict84
    It would not have developed in the same fashion, I agree. But Lamar, in terms of the way it tracks, is a bit different than Pierce Street, which tracks as straight as an arrow and was ideal for an elevated freeway. My point was that the Pierce has not really hindered “nice development” in the immediate area, and even if it remains in place, Midtown and downtown will still continue to develop towards and converge at the Pierce. And, buildings like 2016 Main long ago demonstrated that the half blocks along the Pierce can still be developed to abut it. The real gain from removal of the Pierce would be approximately nine half blocks of real estate and removal of what amounts to predominately a visual barrier. Is that worth what would happen to the EaDo and the East End (given that the freeway cap park seems to be a pipe dream at this point)?
  19. thedistrict84
    There will still be a freeway-like presence between downtown and Buffalo Bayou Park. Latest maps from last week still show several elevated connectors starting south of W Dallas originating at Bagby, Jefferson, etc. to connect to I-10 west and I-45 north. The Bayou will still have multiple, multi-lane bridges crossing it at the same point I-45 does now. I agree with your concern about “creat[ing] unfortunate physical . . . barriers.” Unfortunately, the same plan that will (eventually) bring down part of the Pierce requires a rerouting of I-45 to the southeast of downtown that will actually create a physical barrier . . . for EaDo and the East End. More than a dozen vibrant city blocks eliminated, several streets that currently provide access to downtown cut off—a sizable physical barrier that will unequivocally have a detrimental impact to the neighborhood, more harm than the Pierce could ever be credited with. I wish we could follow Vancouver’s example, but we passed the point of no return to do away with freeways near the CBD long ago.
  20. thedistrict84
    I don’t understand the need for downtown and Midtown to “integrate.” The presence of the Pierce Elevated has hardly stunted development in Midtown. Further, light rail passes through uninhibited, and all streets maintain a clean connection despite the half-block wide Pierce Elevated. There is still room for development on the southwest side of downtown and the northeast side of Midtown, with new projects announced in these areas recently. The only “barrier” that the Pierce Elevated seems to constitute is a visual barrier between the two districts. As I’m sure you’re aware, the Pierce Elevated coming down would be the last step in the I-45 reroute project. Best case scenario, and assuming no delays with this ambitious project, you’re probably looking at least 10 years before that happens. Hope you don’t develop a cramp keeping your fingers crossed for that long.
  21. thedistrict84
    Document shows 120 units, which sounds about right if it’s a two to three story complex like the one a block away on Canal at N Paige. I’m interested to see a site plan to determine the layout, setback, etc.
  22. thedistrict84
    I agree with you completely regarding a "suburban style strip mall." Definitely do not want that (although if the Ross is still part of the plan, we're partially there already). The renderings I have seen here and elsewhere do look good, and the prospect of a nice restaurant and other retail here is very welcoming. I too am both a supporter of higher density developments and a big proponent of walkability, and this development seems to check those boxes. And, I'm one light rail stop away from this anyway, so an increase in vehicular traffic won't even directly affect me. My only point was that this is an intersection that is already problematic due to a confluence of factors: (1) the train crossings at Lockwood and Eastwood; (2) light rail on Harrisburg; and (3) Harrisburg being one lane due to light rail. The train brings traffic to a standstill. Traffic lights near light rail can be buggy and take forever to cycle. Have you ever tried to turn left onto Lockwood from Harrisburg there? I have, and sometimes it takes more than five minutes for the light to cycle when there is virtually no traffic. An exponential increase in traffic at this intersection could create a perfect traffic storm (a trafficane, if you will) under the right conditions. That's my concern. What else can be done with a lot that size that wouldn't bring the amount of traffic this likely will? Probably nothing. Unfortunately I don't have a solution, and even if I did, no one should listen to me anyway. I'm just making an observation about a potential issue that the developers have (hopefully) taken into account.
  23. thedistrict84
    Based on the number of parking spots in the site plan on the Lovett website and the size of the parking garage (which seems excessive in the first place, given the proximity to light rail), I’m concerned that this is going to create a trafficalypse. Harrisburg is one lane through here due to light rail, which is obviously problematic. Throw a train into the mix, crossing Lockwood and Eastwood immediately southwest of this site, blocking those streets for 8 to 10 minutes at a time, multiple times a day? Yikes. And yes, I realize that the garage will possibly be used much like a “park and ride” for light rail commuters, but again, that will create peak times for vehicular traffic and contribute further to the problem.
  24. thedistrict84
    The only thing that has come up in Google is something called “Campanile on Commerce” mentioned in minutes from a HCAC meeting on 1/31/2018. Sounds like a small apartment complex, but it’s not clear.
  25. thedistrict84
    Noticed yesterday that there were surveyors out at this large, eternally empty lot (since at least 1952, based on historical aerial photography that I’ve found). Looked to be marking property boundaries along with the location of storm/sewer drains. HCAD shows that it is currently owned by Glaven Investments, LLC., and was acquired early last year from the Estate of Yolanda Black-Navarro. Any insight as to what may be planned, if anything?
×
×
  • Create New...