Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Angostura last won the day on July 7 2010

Angostura had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

564 Excellent

About Angostura

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Angostura

    Avondale Highline: Proposed Multifamily @ 214 Avondale

    Even if this block goes resident-only, the people that live in these apartments will be residents.
  2. Angostura

    Avondale Highline: Proposed Multifamily @ 214 Avondale

    IIRC, Kirby Collection was charging $300/space, but that might be for below-grade construction. An above-grade structure probably needs to charge about $200-250 to be cost-neutral with the residential square footage, which is 10-15% of the rent of a typical 1BR in the area. Though since the actual requirement in Houston is 1.33 spaces per 1BR unit, people are probably paying 13-20% of their rent to store their cars.
  3. Angostura

    Avondale Highline: Proposed Multifamily @ 214 Avondale

    Actually, it seems like a pretty terrible location for low-density single-family houses, being less than a mile from downtown and within walking distance of lots of restaurants and other destinations. Seems like we'd want more people living here, not fewer.
  4. Nope. All three previously existing buildings are in the rendering. The taller, diagonally oriented building is where Braun is putting the surface parking lot.
  5. Angostura

    Avondale Highline: Proposed Multifamily @ 214 Avondale

    This is 214 Avondale, a block-and-a-half East of Taft, and between the two Avondale HD's. There is currently a parking variance on the agenda for tomorrow's planning commission meeting. The project proposes to provide 57 parking spaces (and 28 bicycle spaces) for the 50 1-BR units. Normally 66 spaces (or 59 + 28 bicycle spaces) would be required. According to the variance request, providing two fewer spaces than the ordinance requires allows them to keep parking to a single level, reducing the overall cost of the project, and thereby the rental cost of the units. The building will have an Uber/Lyft lounge, and each unit comes bundled with a Metro pass. Parking is NOT included in the rent; tenants choosing to park in the building will have to lease a space. (The apartments in the Kirby Collection work the same way, I think.)
  6. I assume this is something they put together during the bidding process for the land a few years ago?
  7. Angostura

    Regent Square: Allen Parkway at Dunlavy

    Which means GID is paying property taxes on $50M+ of vacant land. An optimist would say that it's likely someone like Hanover or Midway buys up the land and does something similar with it, but I think we should be prepared for something far crappier. Most likely: a couple of residential towers. If we're lucky they may have some GFR.
  8. Angostura

    3540 W. Dallas St: Planned Mixed-Use by Hanover

    The plat is called Buffalo Bayou Park in the variance request. This ought to be symbiotic with Regent Square. Each within walking distance of the other, and this appears to be more office/hotel focused (with a little GFR and a lot of suburban-office-park green space) whereas Regent Square has a higher proportion of retail and residential. Both this development and Regent Square are more valuable long-term if the other is built. Someday we'll learn the real reason Regent Square was never built.
  9. Angostura

    347 W 20th

    Site layout and elevations from parking variance request. The 7 large trees are already existing on the site. In addition to parking and setback variances, the project requires a variance to Ch 28, Section VI, the ordinance regulating location of hotels, as it takes primary access from a local street (Ashland) and is within 750 feet of both a church (Baptist Temple) and Hospital. Both have written letters of support.
  10. Angostura

    347 W 20th
  11. Angostura

    347 W 20th

    Some additional details on the project are in this week's planning commission agenda. The property will have a gift/floral shop at the corner of Ashland & 20th, accessible from both 20th St and the hotel lobby. They are requesting a reduced setback on 20th for this part of the building. The pool/courtyard will be along the 20th St frontage, parking in the rear. 4 floors of rooms, 5 stories total. Most of the existing live oaks will be preserved.
  12. Angostura

    3540 W. Dallas St: Planned Mixed-Use by Hanover

    More detail in this weeks Planning Commission agenda. 6 buildings, including a hotel (23 stories), office (21 stories) and residential (7 stories w/ GFR). No details on the other 3. Two N-S streets will run through the site, between Dallas and Allen Pkwy.
  13. Angostura

    Randall Davis Condo 3723 Westheimer Road

    It's worse than that. Remember that, when it comes to housing, it's not a question of whether it gets built, it's a question of where. The residents of this building would generate a whole lot less impervious cover per resident (and square foot of built area) than almost any other type of development, with the exception of house boats in the ship channel. If housing doesn't get built here, it (and a lot more impervious cover in the form of roads and highways) is going to get built further north and west of here, which is to say, upstream. If nearby residents are TRULY concerned about drainage issues affecting their neighborhood, they should send RD a thank-you note.
  14. Angostura

    347 W 20th

    The theater has a parking variance, and doesn't need those spaces to meet its minimum. The cost of an externality should be borne by the party that generates it. In this case, the development isn't the externality, cars are. So the cost of the externality should be borne solely by the people who drive to the destination in question. As far as the people making piles of money are concerned, if the change in my property tax bills over the last several years are any indication, nearby homeowners most certainly belong in that category. That said, if by "the burdens of over-development" you mean that someone might park in front of my house, I feel like I've been fairly compensated. With respect to the city imposing a parking district, I'd be interested in hearing how exactly it would work. Aside from there being no mechanism in the code of ordinances for the city to do it, I don't see a way for it to be done with (a) eminent domain (which the city has no money for) and (b) a lot of work (which the city has no appetite for). Besides, I imagine if the city announced a plan to buy up a bunch of Heights parking lots so that surrounding property owners could more profitably develop their land, there'd be mobs with pitchforks and torches marching down Bagby St. Seems far simpler to just eliminate the parking minimums, and if there's any fallout over "spillover parking," allow streets to petition for (meter-less) metered parking. Go somewhere where parking is truly scarce, and you'll see that people can be pretty resourceful about efficiently allocating it.
  15. Angostura

    347 W 20th

    It means that, say, the owner of the hospital can't say that the parking lot across the street from this hotel is open to anyone who pays $5 to use it. Parking that is used to meet the minimum requirement has to be dedicated to the use that generates the requirement. There ARE rules in place that allow multiple uses to share parking in slightly more efficient ways, but only within a single development or within a single parking plan. There are also lots of pay lots unconnected to any particular development, but these aren't being used to meet someone else's parking minimum as well. And most of them are in areas that are exempt from minimum parking requirements (CBD, Midtown).