Hardy Yards Developments

[HoustonMidtown]

On 4/23/2017 at 0:30 PM, largeTEXAS said:

Any idea what's being built here? (This is just east of the main Hardy Yards site along Maury Street between Burnett and Leona: https://www.google.com/maps/place/1498+Maury+St,+Houston,+TX+77020/@29.7745499,-95.3507772,18z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x8640b92ad6f2502d:0x800a1d7798380771!8m2!3d29.7740896!4d-95.3496499 

 

 

 

 

Looks like a warehouse

[Kinglyam]

I just did my semi-random web search for information related to this development, and found this notice in the agenda for the Commissioner's Court, for a meeting that happened last night (October 11):

 

"To consider matters relating to the case of Harris County v. CR V Hardy Yards, LP, and upon completion thereof to take further action as appropriate, including possible settlement."

 

I can't find any reference to this case otherwise. All I can tell is it's the same company name under which the MSD was obtained, but the MSD doesn't involve Harris County. Anyone know what agreements were between those two entities that might result in a lawsuit? 

[Heights007]

22 hours ago, Kinglyam said:

I just did my semi-random web search for information related to this development, and found this notice in the agenda for the Commissioner's Court, for a meeting that happened last night (October 11):

 

"To consider matters relating to the case of Harris County v. CR V Hardy Yards, LP, and upon completion thereof to take further action as appropriate, including possible settlement."

 

I can't find any reference to this case otherwise. All I can tell is it's the same company name under which the MSD was obtained, but the MSD doesn't involve Harris County. Anyone know what agreements were between those two entities that might result in a lawsuit? 

 

It's a condemnation proceeding, related to the Hardy Toll Road Extension. The cause number is 2016-13877. See attached PDF for details.

Harris County v CR V Hardy Yards.pdf

[Triton]

19 hours ago, Heights007 said:

 

It's a condemnation proceeding, related to the Hardy Toll Road Extension. The cause number is 2016-13877. See attached PDF for details.

Harris County v CR V Hardy Yards.pdf

 

Oh wow. So it looks like the Hardy Tollroad Extension will affect the new warehouse being built on that property. 

 

Edit: Attached ramps that will affect it.

[Kinglyam]

5 minutes ago, Triton said:

 

Oh wow. So it looks like the Hardy Tollroad Extension will affect the new warehouse being built on that property. 

 

 

I don't think so. If you look at the current Google Earth aerial, you'll see they seem to have already accounted for that. It crosses the corner at Brooks and Maury, which is the block they're using for laydown. The laydown yard has the northwest corner of the block left alone, which lines up right with the ROW in the condemnation document. I'm pretty sure the new building is east of that. HCAD says that little corner is CRV, but the rest of it is Kurtz Development.

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 11, 2019 by Timoric

[cspwal]

The current ones are pretty busy with freight traffic, and have a lot of at grade intersections

[Triton]

29 minutes ago, Kinglyam said:

 

I don't think so. If you look at the current Google Earth aerial, you'll see they seem to have already accounted for that. It crosses the corner at Brooks and Maury, which is the block they're using for laydown. The laydown yard has the northwest corner of the block left alone, which lines up right with the ROW in the condemnation document. I'm pretty sure the new building is east of that. HCAD says that little corner is CRV, but the rest of it is Kurtz Development.

 

I see it now. Well that's good. But the lawsuit has to do with something in this immediate vicinity right?

[IronTiger]

13 hours ago, Triton said:

 

Oh wow. So it looks like the Hardy Tollroad Extension will affect the new warehouse being built on that property. 

 

Edit: Attached ramps that will affect it.

Sad to say that's not too surprising. There was another topic where Toddle House was discussed near the intersection of Murphy Road and US-90. It was neither torn down for Jack in the Box nor the overpass...there was an incredibly short-lived building that was built at the tail-end of 2003 and completed in early 2004 (if it all) but totally torn down by spring 2005.

[hindesky]

[HoustonMidtown]

[hindesky]

Brick is going up on the west side.

[Kinglyam]

On a non-Residences note, was anyone else aware of the upgrades they've apparently proposed to do to the Burnett TC at the other end? I just came across these construction drawings (PDF) from February 2016, where they're putting in an escalator and canopy over the existing stairs. With the Hardy Yards being bracketed with development, maybe someone will FINALLY start doing something mixed use? Pretty please?

[Triton]

1 hour ago, Kinglyam said:

On a non-Residences note, was anyone else aware of the upgrades they've apparently proposed to do to the Burnett TC at the other end? I just came across these construction drawings (PDF) from February 2016, where they're putting in an escalator and canopy over the existing stairs. With the Hardy Yards being bracketed with development, maybe someone will FINALLY start doing something mixed use? Pretty please?

I get an error trying to access that link.

[Kinglyam]

Hmm,  the link must not have liked the spaces. See if this upload works.

IB1600054 Drawing PT 1 of 5 10112016.pdf

[cspwal]

Stairs on top of stairs - what will they think of next?

[htownbro]

1 hour ago, cspwal said:

Stairs on top of stairs - what will they think of next?

 

Looks like a ramp with covering that looks like stairs.

[cspwal]

Reading the plans more, the canopy will extend both over the new escalator and some of the upper platform - but not extend to the station platforms.  I guess because they don't want the canopy that tall or something, but you'll get wet walking to the train

[Kinglyam]

15 minutes ago, cspwal said:

Reading the plans more, the canopy will extend both over the new escalator and some of the upper platform - but not extend to the station platforms.  I guess because they don't want the canopy that tall or something, but you'll get wet walking to the train

 

You'd have to put it over the electric lines to get there, and they probably don't want to have to shut down the train service to get it put up. But at least all those kids running up and down the stairs for fitness can do it in any weather, now.

[andre154]

I'll reach out to METRO to see if this is still happening. Doesn't look good though because in June 2017 there was a reallocation of $200,000 from the escalator project to replace a bus washing system. https://www.ridemetro.org/MetroPDFs/FinancialAuditInformation/MonthlyFinancialReports/2017/06_Reports/0617_Performance-Report.pdf#search=escalator burnett

 

Later on though in the 2018 METRO business plan and budget, the project is listed as a potentially-funded project, among which projects "will be selected by the METRO Capital Budget Review (CBR) committee, prioritized and recommended to move forward for METRO Board approval to advance the projects from their conceptual/ developmental design phase into active capital project status."

 

https://www.ridemetro.org/MetroPDFs/FinancialAuditInformation/Budgets/FY18-Business-Plan-and-Budget.pdf#search=escalator burnett

 

Not sure where we're at right now.

[Urbannizer]

Was the clock tower axed? No signs of it so far in recent pics.

 

 

[Kinglyam]

No, it's probably the last thing they're going to do. That's not a very good picture, because it blocks the view. You can see the framework going up near the driveway off Leona near Chapman. It's only about 3 stories high so far. I seem to recall seeing that it's supposed to be near 100 feet.

[Urbannizer]

See pg 29

 

https://www.affordablehousingnews.com/issues/winter2017/

[nate4l1f3]

What’s the completion date on this again..? I may have signed too long of a lease at my current spot Smh

[HoustonMidtown]

 

[Chi-Char-Hou-Dal]

Clock tower is cool

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 12, 2019 by Timoric

[HoustonMidtown]

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 12, 2019 by Timoric

[HoustonMidtown]

mx7mI9hvR7e8+yzslsQWmQ by Houston Midtown, on Flickr

 

3%cY3ETqQ%mRnWM9oTOgJQ by Houston Midtown, on Flickr

 

CE90LJsKSkCq7ukhv3hzdw by Houston Midtown, on Flickr

[ArtNsf]

On 7/29/2018 at 9:40 AM, HoustonMidtown said:

mx7mI9hvR7e8+yzslsQWmQ by Houston Midtown, on Flickr

 

3%cY3ETqQ%mRnWM9oTOgJQ by Houston Midtown, on Flickr

 

CE90LJsKSkCq7ukhv3hzdw by Houston Midtown, on Flickr

This is looking very nice.  Glad to see the progress with the wonderful exterior materials. Thanks for the pics !

 

[Kinglyam]

Saw this on the fence on the Burnett and Fulton sides of the Hardy Yards reserve. Maybe this means we’ll soon have something else to talk about, like the “real” Hardy Yards development starting? Would developers request a build line variance if they’re not planning something relatively soon?

[Kinglyam]

Good news: Something is happening on the main Hardy Yards.

Bad (ish) news: It's just a multi-family residential development. Still no movement on the mixed-use portion, though they still say that's what's coming. I don't recall this being part of the original plan, though. I'm worried that this looks like your standard suburban housing development.

[rechlin]

If I am looking at that drawing right, it seems to be a suburban-style garden-style apartment complex with open-air parking of the type they are starting to tear down inside the loop now because of its very low density.  I hope I'm missing something here, because this seems totally out of place for something that should have an urban feel.

[Specwriter]

7 minutes ago, rechlin said:

If I am looking at that drawing right, it seems to be a suburban-style garden-style apartment complex with open-air parking of the type they are starting to tear down inside the loop now because of its very low density.  I hope I'm missing something here, because this seems totally out of place for something that should have an urban feel.

This certainly looks like Alief or Greenspoint area circa 1976. I can only suppose the developer believes this is all the market will support for the next 20 years then will sell it or redevelop it for more density. At least it may provide some more reasonably priced, and better quality housing for those who want or need to be near downtown but cannot afford $2-3/sq. ft./month rents.

My big regret is that I've seen complexes such as this become "shooting galleries" many time over once the economy starts on a downward trend and management starts letting maintenance slide, e.g. Greenspoint circa 1987.

[Angostura]

At least the parking (and it's a LOT of parking) isn't along the street, but this is a real wasted opportunity.

 

Would make more sense to continue Chestnut and Gentry streets across Burnett to get some smaller block sizes, then build all the way to the lot line. This much surface parking this close to downtown is kinda gross.

[Kinglyam]

That was my initial concern, but the various size structures and shapes imply to me that they're townhomes. It's fairly uncommon, but there are a few townhome-based developments I've seen with all that open-air parking. Seems way too much for the given size, though.

 

Considering the land value in the area, I don't see how they could justify low-rent housing that close to downtown as being "all the market will support". New construction has been selling at around $200/sf in that area (likely partly on speculation about this development, of course), and the demographic trend has been towards displaced Heights people. Putting low-value rental up as their first development would basically tank the value of the other 30 acres they have. Unless the developers themselves are in desperate straights after failing to sell the property, and this is a cynical effort to drop their property taxes, it just doesn't seem to make sense to non-developer me.

[cspwal]

Yeah something seems off.  Why would they build parking lots instead of garages?  These would be the closest residential parking lots to downtown - the next closest would be the small amount of open air parking for Camden Midtown

[Luminare]

This would be a major disappointment especially with the transit center right next door! This is a big opportunity wasted to design a true transit oriented development if this is actually what they are planning.

[MarathonMan]

The Hardy Yards development has always seemed a little off to me.  I can’t put a finger on why.  It just seems like the wrong type of development for the neighborhood.  Really, everything just north of the Bayou on the north end of downtown is awkward to me.  Steps from downtown and yet a world away.  I’m sure the freeway has a lot to do with it.

[Triton]

13 minutes ago, MarathonMan said:

Steps from downtown and yet a world away.  I’m sure the freeway has a lot to do with it.

 

Because it just feels so disconnected from downtown, especially with the railroad crossings... I'm hoping the future Fulton extension into downtown will really help this area out.

[Angostura]

I counted about 100 apartments on the drawing. Assuming it's 3 stories (typical for suburban-style apartment complexes), that's 300 apartments. By eyeball, it looks like about 500 surface parking spaces. Which would be about right w/r/t CoH parking minimums. 

 

If they could make a 4-story wrap work on the corner of the site next to Elysian, why is it so much lower-density on the part closer to the light rail line? It's kind of laughable that they use the terms walkable and transit-oriented in a variance request for a project that is over half surface parking. 

 

 

[Sparrow]

Request was deferred. They want more info on the Fulton Street bridge as well as elevation drawings. 

[Kinglyam]

2 hours ago, Sparrow said:

Request was deferred. They want more info on the Fulton Street bridge as well as elevation drawings. 

 

This is the planning commission? That’s good, sounds like they aren’t rubber-stamping. However, since the other choice may be simply the keep the 25-foot setback and put parking in front, allowing this is probably the least of two evils.

[CaptainJilliams]

I was in the area yesterday and decided to drive through the site. They are still working, albeit very slowly. It looks like the clock tower is nearing completion and the scaffolding has been taken down on almost all sides. It's a really nice development and it looks sharp, but it certainly feels like a ghost town over there. 

 

I hadn't been to the site before, and it is a bit out of range in terms of walking to downtown, but it's cool how close it is to Saint Arnold's Brewery. I think if they can add some more amenities (retail, green space), it could be a pretty cool place to be. But who knows what the timetable is on this? Probably take years to get to that point.

[andre154]

Did the variance end up getting approved? That's a completely underwhelming use in Hardy Yards, and discouraging that so much surface parking would be adjacent to a transit center.

[andre154]

Did the variance end up getting approved? That's a completely underwhelming use in Hardy Yards, and discouraging that so much surface parking would be adjacent to a transit center.

[andre154]

Did the variance end up getting approved? That's a completely underwhelming use in Hardy Yards, and discouraging that so much surface parking would be adjacent to a transit center.

[Kinglyam]

Good question. Last we heard (earlier in the thread) that it was deferred. I don't know if that means they can come back and provide the planning commission the requested information without another hearing, or if we should expect an additional mailer. If the commission requested the elevations, I'm thinking they probably don't have that done yet. I'd expect they would have expected to hold off on any but the most bare-bones platting requirements until they got their variance. The variance request signs are gone, for whatever that may mean.

[andre154]

Sorry for my multiple posts! The post hadn't appeared to go through, and I tried a few times. Anyhow, there's only two deferrals allowed for items, so they likely just didn't resubmit the item or had it removed before subsequent agendas.