Windsor Memorial Apartments: Multifamily High-Rise At 3131 Memorial Cr.

[sowanome]

Sounds a lot like the Galleria...tourist mess not favored by (this) local.

Non sequitur.

Memorial Park is protected by the language in the gift from development. ALL of Memorial Park has no business activity, due to the prohibition in the gift.

Interesting that you take your jab at the Mayor and greedy developers, yet suggest zoning for the creation of "more density". Who would build that density other than greedy developers...benevolent ones?

Since when has the galleria been connected/attached to downtown Houston?

Also, I never mentioned Memorial Park, I mentioned Memorial "AKA Memorial P.Way"where there is business activity.

[N Judah]

Washington Ave. is the last place in Houston that needs zoning. But the other side of Memorial Dr. could benefit from something like that.

[sowanome]

Washington Ave. is the last place in Houston that needs zoning. But the other side of Memorial Dr. could benefit from something like that.

Can you explain why not?

washington Ave. could benefit from some type of building restrictions, such as a "Maximum Setback and Max. # of parking spaces, etc" for newly constructed buildings. The continual Min. Setback and Min. # of p.spaces continues to add to a pedestrain hostile/car friendly environment which doesn't assist in Urban Density IMO.

Zoning is not always bad, just think of it as "Deed Restrictions"

[N Judah]

Other places could use "zoning" more. Washington Ave. already has buildings right up to the edge of the street and is not bad for pedestrians. If you want to try to lump Memorial Dr. in with Washington Ave. then work on making Memorial Dr. better for pedestrians first.

Memorial Dr. could use your "branding" idea more than Washington Ave. also. As it stands now the two areas are complete opposites of each other and it's too much of a stretch to try to spin it to convince people that they are part of the same neighborhood.

[sowanome]

Other places could use "zoning" more. Washington Ave. already has buildings right up to the edge of the street and is not bad for pedestrians. If you want to try to lump Memorial Dr. in with Washington Ave. then work on making Memorial Dr. better for pedestrians first.

Memorial Dr. could use your "branding" idea more than Washington Ave. also. As it stands now the two areas are complete opposites of each other and it's too much of a stretch to try to spin it to convince people that they are part of the same neighborhood.

I agree that the areas are totally opposite, but if you've ever lived in the area between The proposed Regent Square and Archstone site (from heights/waugh to sheperd, and between Wash. and W.Dallas) You will see the proximity that exists and how both Wash. Ave and Memorial Dr. fit with one another.

I know it sounds like a far fetched idea, but just take a ride/walk in that area and you will see exactly what I'm referring to. The only thing that's missing is an overpass walkway from Allen P.Way to Memorial.

In regards to the zoning of Washington Ave., It'd be nice to no longer see p.lots in front of Newly built construction/retail offerings. (I'm sure we can both agree with that)

[RedScare]

I agree with Judah. Washington Ave. is far from the least pedestrian friendly area of the city. Even inside the loop, it is one of the better ones. Only its length works against it. More importantly, I don't understand why we are even discussing "zoning" for one street or area in the first place. Zoning is outlawed in the City Charter. It would take a citywide referendum to impose zoning. IF that were to happen, it would happen citywide, not just along one street.

A better discussion, since zoning isn't going to happen, would be whether setbacks and parking requirements should be adjusted for the area, as is being discussed for Midtown. The short answer is yes, but the longer one involves METRO's eventual rail line that will run through the area. If the line runs down Washington, requiring additional ROW along the sidewalks, it would be counterproductive to approve pushing buildings up against the sidewalks, only to make it cost prohibitive to take additional ROW. And, if rail is pushed off of Washington Avenue because we attempted to make it more "pedestrian friendly", then we have actually achieved the exact opposite result.

[dbigtex56]

A better discussion, since zoning isn't going to happen, would be whether setbacks and parking requirements should be adjusted for the area, as is being discussed for Midtown. The short answer is yes, but the longer one involves METRO's eventual rail line that will run through the area. If the line runs down Washington, requiring additional ROW along the sidewalks, it would be counterproductive to approve pushing buildings up against the sidewalks, only to make it cost prohibitive to take additional ROW. And, if rail is pushed off of Washington Avenue because we attempted to make it more "pedestrian friendly", then we have actually achieved the exact opposite result.

If I'm understanding you correctly, we must be willing to sacrifice all of the existing buildings which are pushed up against the sidewalks if METRO needs the ROW. That's a tough choice.

[RedScare]

If I'm understanding you correctly, we must be willing to sacrifice all of the existing buildings which are pushed up against the sidewalks if METRO needs the ROW. That's a tough choice.

No, you're not understanding me correctly. I am suggesting that before we push ALL new buildings up to the sidewalk, let's first make sure that it will not impact the future rail. There are not THAT many buildings abutting the sidewalk, and even fewer where they abut the sidewalk on both sides of the street in the same location. The rail may be able to work around the few buildings that currently abut the sidewalk. But, if the rail needs more ROW, and new construction restricts the amount of ROW available, rail may become unfeasible on Washington.

[dbigtex56]

No, you're not understanding me correctly. I am suggesting that before we push ALL new buildings up to the sidewalk, let's first make sure that it will not impact the future rail. There are not THAT many buildings abutting the sidewalk, and even fewer where they abut the sidewalk on both sides of the street in the same location. The rail may be able to work around the few buildings that currently abut the sidewalk. But, if the rail needs more ROW, and new construction restricts the amount of ROW available, rail may become unfeasible on Washington.

I'll maintain my misapprehension that I understand you correctly.

Your point is well taken; there are not that many existing buildings on Washington Avenue which would interfere with some future, wider ROW that METRO may require. Still, they would have to be sacrificed. And yes, it makes sense that we shouldn't construct buildings which are doomed to early destruction.

So far as buildings which do not abut sidewalks on both sides of the street, but might interfere with ROW..should we build a semi-permanent kink into the rail line to accommodate them?

[RedScare]

I KNEW that would be your next question! I don't think METRO would be fond of having the rail kink left to avoid one building, followed by a kink right to avoid one on the other side further down the street. I was thinking more along the lines of bringing the tracks closer together in those locations where the ROW is constricted by buildings set too close to the street. If you look at the Red Line on Main Street, the lines are equidistant from each other along its length. At the stations, there is a ramp and loading platform. Where there is no station, they just planted landscaping. It would seem to me that where needed, they could bring the tracks closer together in those locations where there is no station.

Just a thought. My main point is not to encourage pushing up against the ROW until we know that METRO will not need it. I have no idea if Washington Ave. ROW is wide enough to accomodate rail already or not.

[musicman]

My main point is not to encourage pushing up against the ROW until we know that METRO will not need it. I have no idea if Washington Ave. ROW is wide enough to accomodate rail already or not.

If some of the work being done on the east side is any indication, i'd say more ROW is needed. parking on washington would definitely be history.

[N Judah]

I agree that the areas are totally opposite, but if you've ever lived in the area between The proposed Regent Square and Archstone site (from heights/waugh to sheperd, and between Wash. and W.Dallas) You will see the proximity that exists and how both Wash. Ave and Memorial Dr. fit with one another.

I know it sounds like a far fetched idea, but just take a ride/walk in that area and you will see exactly what I'm referring to. The only thing that's missing is an overpass walkway from Allen P.Way to Memorial.

I disagree...I don't think perception of physical proximity is a reason to suddenly combine two absolutely disparate parts of town. I'm sure Chicago has areas where you walk a couple of blocks and then you're in a completely different place. Do they use that as an excuse to pretend it's all part of the same neighborhood?

[uhlaw09]

I disagree...I don't think perception of physical proximity is a reason to suddenly combine two absolutely disparate parts of town. I'm sure Chicago has areas where you walk a couple of blocks and then you're in a completely different place. Do they use that as an excuse to pretend it's all part of the same neighborhood?

I'm not concerned about different branding of the two areas (the streets even change names when crossing the bayou bridges).

What I am concerned about is being able to walk between the two. A ton of exciting development is going on both immediately South of the bayou and immediately North of the bayou. The areas are as closely connected as any place in the city--divided only by a 5 minute walk over a great park space with the best downtown views in Houston.

However, walking the narrow sidewalks on the Montrose or Waugh bridges is quite unwelcoming to typical pedestrian traffic. Having a signature pedestrian bridge in this area (which would provide amazing views of downtown, by the way) would be great for the area and for the city. Actually, it'd be nice if pedestrians could easily walk both the Waugh and Montrose bridges, but I'll settle for one.

[N Judah]

I don't disagree that the two areas are in close proximity. In fact, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I don't disagree that there should be more pedestrian bridges in Houston to cross busy thoroughfares such as Memorial, Allen Pkwy, and any of the various interstates which criscross the city.

The question is whether or not the development south of the bayou can be reasonably lumped in with Washington Ave. such that they can be considered part of the same neighborhood. For my part I don't think it's based in any kind of reality -- the development patterns on Memorial and south of the bayou would fit in better along Highway 6 than in Rice Military or Washington Ave. And pedestrian overpass or not, the psychological barrier still exists. Even if you crossed Memorial Dr. on a pedestrian overpass you'd still be met with that large interchange and several blocks to go.

The area south of the bayou would be much better off trying to link up with midtown along W. Gray. Otherwise it really is too much of a stretch. If the people south of Memorial were really serious about linking the two neighborhoods they wouldn't have waited until now to suddenly decide that a pedestrian overpass is needed. They also would have not offloaded that really large interchange onto the neighborhood.

[ricco67]

All I know is that if someone builds a nice 10 story garage with retail on the bottom, they would make a mint off of the bar patrons and locals alike.

I was trying to get to pearl bar on a back street when I saw a truck leave down a street I was trying to make my way down. Low and behold I saw a number of damaged cars that had just been sideswiped.

Don't know if the truck was responsible, but I'm sure there were quite a few peeved people.

[N Judah]

The lots are probably too small along Washington. Hey, why not put that garage somewhere along Memorial? 'Cause I mean, you know, it's right there.

[sowanome]

I disagree...I don't think perception of physical proximity is a reason to suddenly combine two absolutely disparate parts of town. I'm sure Chicago has areas where you walk a couple of blocks and then you're in a completely different place. Do they use that as an excuse to pretend it's all part of the same neighborhood?

Who commented that those parts of town (walking dist. and adjacent to one another) were in the same n.hood? However, The area between Memorial and Wash. Ave is the same n.hood. As far as The Regent Square area, it's a different N.hood and it remains a very, very short walk to the area just north of it.....At this point I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. Please Expand.....

[sowanome]

I don't disagree that the two areas are in close proximity. In fact, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I don't disagree that there should be more pedestrian bridges in Houston to cross busy thoroughfares such as Memorial, Allen Pkwy, and any of the various interstates which criscross the city.

The question is whether or not the development south of the bayou can be reasonably lumped in with Washington Ave. such that they can be considered part of the same neighborhood. For my part I don't think it's based in any kind of reality -- the development patterns on Memorial and south of the bayou would fit in better along Highway 6 than in Rice Military or Washington Ave. And pedestrian overpass or not, the psychological barrier still exists. Even if you crossed Memorial Dr. on a pedestrian overpass you'd still be met with that large interchange and several blocks to go.

The area south of the bayou would be much better off trying to link up with midtown along W. Gray. Otherwise it really is too much of a stretch. If the people south of Memorial were really serious about linking the two neighborhoods they wouldn't have waited until now to suddenly decide that a pedestrian overpass is needed. They also would have not offloaded that really large interchange onto the neighborhood.

Exactly what large interchange are you speaking of and why does the 6 minute walk from Jackson Hill to the Regent Square location sound like a stretch? Also, how does highway 6 fit into here?

[N Judah]

Who commented that those parts of town (walking dist. and adjacent to one another) were in the same n.hood? However, The area between Memorial and Wash. Ave is the same n.hood. As far as The Regent Square area, it's a different N.hood and it remains a very, very short walk to the area just north of it.....At this point I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. Please Expand.....

If your point about "continuity between W. Dallas and Washington Ave." was irrelevant, and if you knew they are in different neighborhoods, then why did you bring it up? You can walk anywhere you want and be a "short walk" away. Should I randomly bring this up in different posts?

[N Judah]

Exactly what large interchange are you speaking of and why does the 6 minute walk from Jackson Hill to the Regent Square location sound like a stretch? Also, how does highway 6 fit into here?

Look, you can try to lump Memorial in with Wash. corridor all you want but nobody's going to fall for it. The neighborhoods are totally different. I don't know why you brought up W. Dallas, but good luck to ya.

[sowanome]

Look, you can try to lump Memorial in with Wash. corridor all you want but nobody's going to fall for it. The neighborhoods are totally different. I don't know why you brought up W. Dallas, but good luck to ya.

So is it fair to say that the residents who live near Memorial Dr. and access the Parks that are Provided in the immediate area (Spotts and Cleveland Parks) should refrain from saying they live near memorial or using those parks when in Fact, Memorial Drive is closer to them than Wash. Ave?

I guess you just want to exclude memorial drive from the description of the area or any relation to Wash. Corridor....That's okay w/me, but what streets would you consider to be the borders of the Wash. Corridor area?

Please Tell....

Also, How will the Redevelp. Archstone market itself? Strictly Wash. Corridor or Memorial Dr. or both, due to the back of the project bodering a park that's connected to Memorial. I'm pretty sure that they will sell Memorial as part of the Attractiveness...

Please Tell....

[RedScare]

Proximity does not a neighborhood make. Having lived on Memorial at one time, I neither called my area the "Washington Corridor" nor the "W. Dallas Corridor". I simply lived on Memorial. Living on Memorial Drive did not make me a resident of the neighborhood that sat on the other side of 12 lanes of traffic and a non-crossable bayou. The fact that I ate, drank and shopped there, as Washington had not redeveloped, did not make me a resident there. Two major roadways and a bayou will ensure that this remains the case, regardless how badly some residents or realtors may want to piggyback onto the cache of River Oaks.

BTW, Archstone calls itself the Heights. I called my neighborhood West End. Others live in 6th Ward or Rice Military. Those names have been good for 100 years. Why do we have to change them?

[sowanome]

Proximity does not a neighborhood make. Having lived on Memorial at one time, I neither called my area the "Washington Corridor" nor the "W. Dallas Corridor". I simply lived on Memorial. Living on Memorial Drive did not make me a resident of the neighborhood that sat on the other side of 12 lanes of traffic and a non-crossable bayou. The fact that I ate, drank and shopped there, as Washington had not redeveloped, did not make me a resident there. Two major roadways and a bayou will ensure that this remains the case, regardless how badly some residents or realtors may want to piggyback onto the cache of River Oaks.

BTW, Archstone calls itself the Heights. I called my neighborhood West End. Others live in 6th Ward or Rice Military. Those names have been good for 100 years. Why do we have to change them?

Exactly, but I don't remember anyone attempting to merge the n.hoods that are separated by Memorial... However, isn't Rice Miltary/Magnolia Grove bordered by Memorial?

I just think that there are posters on the board who are a little unfamiliar with the area....

BTW, Archstone is Considered "Memorial Heights"

[RedScare]

I just think that there are posters on the board who are a little unfamiliar with the area....

I agree, but you continue posting as if you know what is going on there.

[sowanome]

I agree, but you continue posting as if you know what is going on there.

Read some of the above posts where I mentioned that "I wish that I had an "IN" on what's to come in the future" of that area. This will benefit you're greatly benefit the amount of "FACTS" that you report on this board.

[N Judah]

So is it fair to say that the residents who live near Memorial Dr. and access the Parks that are Provided in the immediate area (Spotts and Cleveland Parks) should refrain from saying they live near memorial or using those parks when in Fact, Memorial Drive is closer to them than Wash. Ave?

I guess you just want to exclude memorial drive from the description of the area or any relation to Wash. Corridor....That's okay w/me, but what streets would you consider to be the borders of the Wash. Corridor area?

Please Tell....

Also, How will the Redevelp. Archstone market itself? Strictly Wash. Corridor or Memorial Dr. or both, due to the back of the project bodering a park that's connected to Memorial. I'm pretty sure that they will sell Memorial as part of the Attractiveness...

Please Tell....

I think we will just have to wait and see what happens. I think the entire area will be unrecognizable in 10 years or so. Depending on how it all sorts itself out, who really knows what neighborhood people will identify themselves with? I just think it's up to them, not "branding" or "having one name for the whole area" as was mentioned earlier in this thread. I don't live there (and I never have, though I am familiar with the area and have seen it grow and change considerably since the late 1990s) but I oppose these things in principle, just as I oppose zoning in principle.

A pedestrian walkway would be a great addition. Streetscape improvements are better than "branding" anyday.

[margokorin]

All I know is that if someone builds a nice 10 story garage with retail on the bottom, they would make a mint off of the bar patrons and locals alike.

I was trying to get to pearl bar on a back street when I saw a truck leave down a street I was trying to make my way down. Low and behold I saw a number of damaged cars that had just been sideswiped.

Don't know if the truck was responsible, but I'm sure there were quite a few peeved people.

oh jesus. The last thing I want in my neighborhood is a 10 story parking tower. That would fit right in over here. As far as your parking on the streets how do you think that those of us that actually live in the neighborhood feel about you throwing your beer bottles in our yards, being LOUD and OBNOXIOUS at 230 am, and peeing in our streets. Quit being cheap and pay the valet. They park your cars over in the ghetto where the streets are much wider.

[sowanome]

oh jesus. The last thing I want in my neighborhood is a 10 story parking tower. That would fit right in over here. As far as your parking on the streets how do you think that those of us that actually live in the neighborhood feel about you throwing your beer bottles in our yards, being LOUD and OBNOXIOUS at 230 am, and peeing in our streets. Quit being cheap and pay the valet. They park your cars over in the ghetto where the streets are much wider.

Ha...I remember when the area was super quiet and inside your home (depending on the quality of construction) you'd barely hear the train noise. How things have changed...

[tanith27]

Quit being cheap and pay the valet. They park your cars over in the ghetto

Oh my. Something tells me my insurance company would love the sound of that.

[ricco67]

oh jesus. The last thing I want in my neighborhood is a 10 story parking tower. That would fit right in over here. As far as your parking on the streets how do you think that those of us that actually live in the neighborhood feel about you throwing your beer bottles in our yards, being LOUD and OBNOXIOUS at 230 am, and peeing in our streets. Quit being cheap and pay the valet. They park your cars over in the ghetto where the streets are much wider.

If there was a proper garage available, they'd probably rather park in the garage then in your front yard. you can then move to have parking restrictions on residential streets where you need a special sticker (like a couple of parts of town and in Bellaire). Pick your poison.

If you want beer cans in your yard, so be it.