RedScare

Leonard, you've gone loony with your conspiracy theories. Why do you torment yourself?

I'll let you guess the answer to your question. There is logic to it, but I am not telling it to you. I want to see you squirm.

Walmart was able to outbid HEB because of the 380. 

Ha Ha. Leonard to the rescue with a laughably stupid post!

s3mh is clearly of the mindset that, since most people are too stupid to know what is good for them, government should simply do it for them. He has done more to alert me of the dangers of not monitoring activists than anyone else. This dude's views are truly scary in their overarching scope. I use this thread to educate my neighbors to the perils of letting "true believers" run wild.

98 bucks to demo non-load bearing walls? THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Interesting. I haven't measured it.  

I fail to understand you logic.  How can you approve of something that you know nothing about? 

I guess you and I have different definitions of the word "logic".  But I do understand your sentiment, I used to not care about the historical ordinance, now I'm all for it.

I'm pretty sure we have different definitions of the word "historical" as well.

And I was talking to a friend who lives in the HD in Woodland Heights.  She said that she is so glad that she lives in an HD after seeing what they are building on Morrison.  She said that lots of people just outside the Woodland Heights HD are scurrying trying to find a way to get included or get another HD set up so they do not end up with another development like the thing on Morrison.

Oh, no doubt. There are several of you people around who think the HD and HAHC are the bees knees until you actually try to get something approved by them. I don't doubt that she thinks it's great since she hasn't had her plans snuffed. Just like you.

I fail to understand you logic.  How can you approve of something that you know nothing about? 

Simple. You and the other Walmart haters are whining about it, so it must be good for the rest of us who are not opposed to Walmart.

I don't see how you have exposed anything, other than your own unwillingness to even read the 380. 

This is correct. Since I approve of the 380, I had no reason to scrutinize it. Besides, it was getting approved whether I...and you...read it or not.

Also... I'm not sure if there are more than 2 Pro-walmart people.  I not a big fan of walmart, but what bothers me is someone coming in late and trying to block a perfectly legal development from happening, just because they don't like a store (use all your silly add-ons here that are repeatedily brought up).  It is simply this... people think they are too good to have a walmart in the neighborhood accross the interstate from them.   Could you just not afford West University?  = ]

This.

I am no big Walmart supporter. I am simply opposed to people opposing Walmart simply because it is based in Arkansas as opposed to Minneapolis. Plus, I enjoy exposing the hypocrisy of the Walmart haters.

I talked to a neighbor this past weekend who was a huge supporter of the ordinance. When it came time to get approval to tear down their old detached garage and build a new garage with apartment, they were denied a CoA by the HAHC because the garage was "too big". Keep in mind that the garage was going to be built along the rear property line and was not attached to the existing house whatsoever. Still denied. They were eventually approved for a smaller structure, but it took them 5 months to get the approval.

That's one less HD supporter.

Feel free to google it and look for yourself. The address is 501 E. Reno, Oklahoma City OK 73105.

After you look at it, come back and tell us if that is what you have in mind for Uptown Houston development.

Without reading all of this discussion I want say that I think I know what por favor gracias was talking about when he said that the McDonalds shouldn't have been allowed there. Its not the McDonalds that he has a problem with, its the form of McDonalds, Its suburban. 

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Uptown is built on a suburban street grid. The McDonalds fits just fine there. Besides, the only change OK City demanded of the McDonalds in Bricktown is that they clad the McDonalds in brick, to fit with the other buildings. They did not remove the drive thru. The new modern McDonalds is already a style that fits in Uptown.

I still don't understand all the uproar over this little McDs. Why not go large and complain about all of the strip centers all up and down Post Oak and Westheimer? Why not demand GFR in all of those condo towers? Let's gripe about something that actually matters!

I'm glad we are discussing downtown incentives in a thread about a Galleria McDonalds.

I would like to add that although it's far more the exception than the rule over time, the city has been doing a lot to encourage higher-density development downtown recently...and it seems to be paying off already.

Like owls, I am probably wasting my time pointing this out, but the City has done many things to thwart density, not promote it. The historic districts, lot line ordinances, parking ordinances, and the high rise setback requirements are just a few, but all of these new rules limit density within the city.

I am not at all sure that any of your "more appealing" alternatives would be more appealing to the city, or to anyone else. I am quite sure that a McDonald's restaurant produces far more tax revenue for the city than an athletic club, or office or residential. A multi-level entertainment center sounds like something that would attract young people and thugs, so I doubt the wealthy condo owners nearby would be impressed. And, as stated several times, McDonald's has owned this property for decades. No one is going to force them out, and the city is not in the business of working deals to make them move.

I understand that in your opinion something else should be built there. However, that simply is not how life works. Some of us do not even agree that your opinion is a better idea than what is being built. I think selling half the lot to pay for my redesigned McDonald's is a brilliant idea. I also think athletic clubs are a waste of space, much more than a fast food restaurant. And, in my opinion, entertainment complexes belong in the suburbs, where all the teenagers are.

But, that is just my opinion. I think the owner is right.

I do not think GFR is appropriate everywhere but it should be advocated for most buildings downtown.  Traditional built cities commercial avenues or main corridors usually meet downtown.  One would not advocate for every high density project in Houston to have "GFR" but it is imperative for commercial corridors and centers of activity in certain neighborhoods so there are no dead zones and transit can serve these routes of mixed activity.  What makes a downtown a downtown is the concentration of businesses on almost every street and not on a few corridors like you may find in a more residential neighborhood.

 

There are tens of thousands of workers that work on Louisiana and Smith Streets downtown but the activity of the street would not tell you that because of the single use office towers on those corridors.  Almost every one of those landmark towers have some type of private plaza on the ground level that makes the whole street have an office park effect.  If you do not work at these places there is no reason to be on those "private" streets.  If that trend is carbon copied all over downtown, we will continue to have the dead zones that intermingle with other dead zones.  Doesn't make for the safest downtown after hours anyway.

Is it safe to assume that "traditional built city" is another term for cities that developed before the automobile? If so, and understanding that the automobile is not going anywhere, why should a post WWII city like Houston attempt to force its design into a form that no longer exists? Also, downtown is one of Houston's safest neighborhoods. That seems to conflict with the statement that highrises are unsafe.

Again it is not about creating GFR at every building , but these alinments of building do create a rare chance in Houston to develeop a strong retail core even how close they are to each other

I'm curious, who would shop in this "retail core"? Less than 6,000 of the Houston metro's 6 million residents live downtown. That is 1/10th of 1%. There are precious few people downtown who would shop in these stores. If there were, retailers would be rushing to open stores there without the government forcing developers to put in ground floor retail. The fact remains, no one is shopping in downtown, therefore, retailers are not opening downtown.

Why are you entitled to completely go off on this piece of land, yet I am not at all entitled to respond? Has this forum been banned for realists? Are only fantasies allowed?

Jesus, bunch of crybabies on this board.

Actually, the embarrassment is the notion that somehow McDonald's should be forced to sell or give away their land so that your idea of a good use can be implemented. Are you unaware that McDonalds has owned that parcel for decades? Or, do you simply not care, and instead, advocate eminent domain for any property that you think should be repurposed? Do landowner have no rights in your world?

They sold off half of it. How much should they be forced to sell?

We? Do we own that land? You seem to think that someone other than McDonalds (or a franchisee) owned that property and did something bad. What you do not seem to realize is that McDonalds owned the ENTIRE parcel, and sold half of it to the developer of the highrise. They could have not sold any of the parcel at all.

I am "embarrassed" at your lack of knowledge of how these things work.

I rest my case.

According to Google Maps, the Walmart at 111 Yale is 2.3 miles from it to the intersection of Yale and 20th.  However, it is only 2.1 miles from the Walmart to the intersection of Westheimer and Montrose.  The Walmart was built on industrial land and serves both neighborhoods.  Why aren't the residents of Montrose up in arms?

Same reason the overwhelming majority of Heights residents are not up in arms. It is a non-issue. Just because a couple of Heights residents whine about it doesn't mean all of us do.

I know this is going to sound naive - what is with so many people's obsession with GFR - yes I coined the abbreviation. Everytime I see it I laugh - I want everyone who yearns for ground floor retail go to a little convenience store in one of the hotels downtown and buy a $10 tooth brush then holler back at me.

If you fancy yourself a new urbanist, you must clamor for GFR in EVERY building. You must also demand rail everywhere, and condemn freeways and suburbs. It is the mantra. Unfortunately, most new urbanists...or wannabes...cannot actually tell when ground floor retail is useful and when it is not, so they demand it in every building, even when the building is not in a walkable area.

The naivete is not yours, but theirs.

Anyone know if Gary Wilson or Wilson Architecture Group has anything to do with this grand proposal?