Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thedistrict84

  1. Correct. C&G probably posted the Eater article here because it was the best place for it since it is in the immediate vicinity of East Village.
  2. This brewery is actually caddy corner to Rodeo Goat and across from the Agricole spots, west of St. Emanuel (at 2012 Dallas St.). Unfortunately it will be affected, as pretty much everything between Chartres and St. Emanuel in that area is in the path of the reroute.
  3. It’s a shame that they put all of the time and effort into this beautiful facility, just to have it bulldozed in a few years due to the inevitable I-45 reroute project. I’ll definitely be checking it out soon though. Hopefully they can be successful and relocate to somewhere else in EaDo in a few years.
  4. Idk that Yale traffic typically moves that quickly, but it definitely moves more efficiently than Heights Blvd. Even if nothing is done with Yale, the speed limits for those two roads should be revisited and probably should be reversed.
  5. Idk about Yale. Heights Blvd. is already more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. No need to convert Yale too. I take Yale 90% of the time because it flows better for vehicle traffic. On Heights, I always get stuck behind someone going at least 10 MPH under the limit.
  6. I don’t see how implementing a completely new tax is plausible. There will be a TON of pushback. This is Texas, after all. Revisiting the gas tax at the federal level would be more feasible and accomplish the same goal—the heavier the vehicle, the more fuel you use (generally) and the more tax paid.
  7. Completely forgot about this development, even though I work very close by . . . thanks for reminding me?
  8. Thanks for sharing the CBRE link/brochure. I couldn’t find that for whatever reason (I was searching by address instead of development name). The difference between the building materials portrayed between the two renderings is staggering. Sure, you expect the initial one to be extra flashy and appealing to draw in tenants, but damn. . . that looks to be a huge drop off in quality/appearance. Very disappointing.
  9. I think your link is corrupted. I’ve copied it below for anyone interested: http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1118751441959&ca=b7ba0956-0f52-4801-97fc-57b56ca0e13a There are four proposed developments in close proximity to one another in the East End, including a 120 unit complex proposed for a lot next to Burnet Elementary. These are mixed income developments, with a majority of units intended for those between 40% and 60% AMI (with the exception of the New Hope development on Avenue J). These are intended to take advantage of the 9% TIRZ program or the similar 4% program; if the application is not approved or they are otherwise unable to qualify, these likely would not get built. These are NOT Section 8 housing developments/projects. There was a community meeting held regarding these projects last night, featuring a presentation and Q&A with representatives of the developers of two of the projects. Councilwoman Cisneros was also present. General issues expressed by the community included: •Increased crime/felons/sexual predators — developers stated that they perform criminal and financial/credit background checks for all residents; uncertainty about influx of unapproved residents and visitors contributing to any sort of criminal element. This was especially contentious regarding the development proposed for the lot next to Burnet Elementary. •Impact on property values — some residents present were concerned about a negative impact on property values •Developments being marketed to “outsiders” — residents were concerned that these would not be offered to those living in the community and would instead go to people being driven out of other nearby areas (namely Third Ward nearby). •Gentrification — others were concerned that this might speed up gentrification of the area (ironically, multi-tiered affordable housing of this nature is widely regarded as a mechanism to combat gentrification and give a housing option to those who may become displaced) •Turnover in ownership — other residents expressed concern that the initial developers/builders would turn over ownership of the projects in the near future; both developers present stated that they own their projects long-term (20+ years) •Increased traffic — developers noted that they are looking at access points on each respective lot to mitigate any increase in traffic •Increase in loitering/semi-transient behavior — two of the proposed developments are close to the Green Line stop where the New Hope SRO housing was built on Sampson. People were concerned about a possible increase in people loitering and otherwise impeding traffic/sidewalk use, which is already happening since the New Hope housing opened It’s a very contentious issue. Cisneros was supportive of the proposed projects, and the residents present were not too happy about it. Personally, I’m not too crazy about my home being about five blocks from one of the proposed developments, and to the extent that affordable housing (versus market-rate apartment housing, new single-family construction, etc.) might discourage future growth or development in the immediate area, I would be against it.
  10. A blue construction fence was put up around this site yesterday. Previous commercial building was demo’d back in October. They’ve been moving dirt off and on for the last few months, looks like they’re ready to get this started. Have there been any tenants confirmed?
  11. Still no activity on this site, despite funding being issued to the developer back in October. I’ve looked for an update online and nothing has come up. http://swamplot.com/city-council-to-cut-check-for-second-ward-senior-housing-today/2018-10-23/ There are three other similar projects predominately targeting the 60% AMI level which are earmarked for this general area using a combination of TIRZ funds and HUD/federal funds, as was the case here. I’m curious to know what happened with this project and what bearing it may have on the City’s willingness to work with these other developers. Frankly, things seem a bit shady.
  12. With nearly 300 units, this is the type of major development in this area that will help stimulate quicker development of the many empty lots up and down Navigation, Canal, and Commerce. Many of these (like the lot at Canal and N Live Oak, for example) have been listed for sale for years now. And idk, I kind of like the phrase “interesting pedestrian experience” much better than “activated pedestrian realm” or other goofy terms/phrases used to describe GFR with minimum set-backs, built right to the sidewalks. Houston could definitely use more “interesting pedestrian experiences” that don’t involve tripping on cracks in the broken sidewalks or almost getting run over while trying to cross a street.
  13. That’s fair. I guess my frame of reference is skewed a bit, as where I’m at in the Second Ward similar affordable housing developments have been proposed and built along the Green Line. These do make more sense near light rail, but that’s not exactly an option in The Heights, eh?
  14. Kind of a weird place to put an affordable housing development, as it’s not exactly close to any public transportation options.
  15. Second Ward, which is part of the larger area known as the East End. EaDo stops at the BNSF tracks that go over the Navigation underpass and continue more or less due south to I-45.
  16. Dear god let’s hope it’s just graffiti. As others have mentioned, this is definitely not EaDo. . . although the “EaDo Edge” townhomes over near Clinton Dr have already screwed up any semblance of consistent boundaries for neighborhoods in this area.
  17. And I forgot to mention, the whole movie is on YouTube if you feel inclined to watch it.
  18. I know this movie has been mentioned before as one of those shot in Houston, but I don’t think there has been a thorough discussion about the locations used in the film. For those unaware, this is a film starring Dolph Lundgren as an HPD detective investigating a string of murders tied to the drug trade. The plot is far fetched, the dialogue a bit cliched, campy and flat out awful sometimes, and the explosions a bit over the top. But, it was shot almost exclusively in and around downtown Houston and gives a decent portrayal of what downtown was like in the late 1980s. It also provides some cool shots of the downtown Houston skyline, including a close-range flyover from the north side of downtown looking south, focused on Heritage Plaza (which was just recently completed at the time). A few of the notable locations featured: •HPD/municipal court building on Lubbock •Capitol Bail Bonds at 607 Houston Ave •The Harris County Court annex at 1310 Prairie (which were apparently high-end apartments back then?) •Cullen Center •Various storefronts on Main St. •Navigation St underpass (an HPD cruiser even crashes into the center support) There are a ton of other locations which I don’t recognize, but then again it was almost 30 years ago so some of those places are long gone. Maybe some of y’all can identify the ones I left out? (I’m not sure if this is the proper place for this, so Mods feel free to move it.)
  19. I drove by this site yesterday and noticed that the Rex Supply signage is down, so I’m assuming it is officially closed and the building is now unoccupied. However, the Hunington signs advertising the new “development”—and not a lease of the existing building—were still up on both buildings as well as a sign at the corner of Milby and Harrisburg. I know the link above is inoperative, but are we 100% sure that this is dead?
  20. Really, you’re only talking about the stretch of W 34th between TC Jester and N Shepherd, which is much shorter. There are already developments on the way like the Stomping Grounds going in more or less across the street from this proposed development, and the new shopping center at the southeast corner of Ella and W 34th. The main variable would be how long the businesses in some of the commercial warehouses along this stretch stay active and whether/when they decide to relocate.
  21. W 34th is primed for development, and could work well in terms of walkability if developed in the right way. Nice to see a developer planning ahead for increased density in a spot like this.
  22. There’s plenty of land area inside the loop to still achieve the necessary density AND preserve historical neighborhoods. With current and proposed projects, we’re already seeing a concentration of high rises in Midtown, the Med Center, along Allen Parkway, etc. Full buildup of those areas will provide increased capacity that will provide for our projected population growth for decades and decades to come. Not every inner-loop neighborhood needs to be dense and vertical. I think the issue that most people have that cite “history” is that many of them are native Houstonians and their families have been here for generations, and they’re annoyed with developers—many of whom have little or no prior connection to Houston—coming in and proposing projects (whether it be town homes, high rises, McMansions, etc.) that they feel completely ruin the character of historic neighborhoods. Sure, there is no reason that these history buffs should be given precedence when their position is based more on emotion than practicality, but they likewise should have some input on what their neighborhood resembles when they very likely have more of a connection to that neighborhood than the developer does. Personally, as a native Houstonian, I have a huge emotional connection to this city and I understand the desire to preserve history. My family has been here for ages—my grandfather was born in The Heights in the 1920s. I want this City to continue to develop and grow and maintain its status as a world-class city. But, there’s no reason that it can’t do that and still preserve the character of historically-significant neighborhoods like Avondale.
  23. I drive by here fairly often and have been monitoring the construction. Seems like they’re making good progress so far.
  24. I would imagine some of the people on here who talk about “building vertical” and “density” and “activated pedestrian realms” fit this category and barely ever spend more time inside the loop than they have to. They want to build high-rise towers everywhere so they have a pretty skyline to look at on their commute. But, would they actually want to live in them?
  • Create New...