west20th Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Who are they?Like Sam's WH but a little nicer IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dguet Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Has there been any specific information given about the layout of the new development? I had originally heard it would be a more urban style, mixed use devlopment. Would be interested in seeing what the developer's model looks like as a close friend (who live across from the property) is very upset to hear about Costco.Has anyone seen anything more about it since the last post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethanra Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Driving up 59, today I saw a crane rising up in this area. I wonder what project was it for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkjones98 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Is the site flattened now?It's all gone--nothing but dirt and Caterpillars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I have some bad news for the urbanistas out there. The Costco rumors were true. I have confirmed this through multiple sources in City Planning and the Upper Kirby Management District. The layout, shown below is an abomination. Note the location of the loading docks, along Cummins, which is an otherwise residential thoroughfare. Note the sea of parking out front and the bank branches on pad sites at the far corners. Note the 500 apartment units situated behind Costco. Even if a light rail stop was placed along Richmond in this location, a resident would have to walk through a sea of parking (and if the resident lived on the Cummins side, then past a long dreary loading dock as well). The sketch at the very bottom depicts the two-story strip center along Weslayan, perhaps the only meager concession to those who had a grander vision for the site. Folks, you all know me pretty well. After 2,900+ posts, you damn well should, anyway. You know that I'm not big on contrived urbanism. But this is a genuinely urban site, and should've been developed as such. Feel free to raise some hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I"ll bet the Costco will be more welcomed by the average joe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) That's unfortunate. They could have boxed in that parking lot with the development facing Richmond and Weslayan. Probably could have used a lot less land by mixing in the 500 apartments too. When will some folks learn? Edited January 16, 2007 by WesternGulf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I"ll bet the Costco will be more welcomed by the average joe.Yeah, uh that's less of a problem than is the sea of parking. Land that expensive should've been allocated to higher and better uses by developing more structured parking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) What the hell happened to this? Edited January 16, 2007 by Pumapayam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 What the hell happened to this? Long gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 That's unfortunate. They could have boxed in that parking lot with the development facing Richmond and Weslayan. Probably could have used a lot less land by mixing in the 500 apartments too. When will some folks learn. This is so F-ing Houston, what a way to screw up a great development. Why even bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Yeah, uh that's less of a problem than is the sea of parking. Land that expensive should've been allocated to higher and better uses by developing more structured parking. remember the city could care less as long as they are selling building permits and taking in property taxes. The USELESS councilmember Peter Brown repeatedly speaks on how he's changing the planning/design process to develop cohesive developments. See any difference? This is so F-ing Houston, what a way to screw up a great development.Why even bother. Why don't you go speak before City Council? It will be an eyeopening experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Note the 500 apartment units situated behind Costco. Even if a light rail stop was placed along Richmond in this location, a resident would have to walk through a sea of parking (and if the resident lived on the Cummins side, then past a long dreary loading dock as well).Feel free to raise some hell. Maybe the light rail stop not going there anymore helped this version of the project appear. Why why why why why. . . and why. This is so WEST Houston, not inside the loop. I hate surface lots in town! Why can't they do what they did with the Randalls in Midtown, or the Whole Foods in Austin. Houston developers and city planners are a bunch of morons! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 remember the city could care less as long as they are selling building permits and taking in property taxes. The USELESS councilmember Peter Brown repeatedly speaks on how he's changing the planning/design process to develop cohesive developments. See any difference? Oh, make no mistake about it. The City cares. They would've gotten more taxable improvements with the plan that had originally been floated. Parking lots, on the other hand, don't add a lot of value. ...but their hands are tied. The tract didn't even need to be replatted, and that's typically when concerns such as ours would need to have been addressed. Maybe the light rail stop not going there anymore helped this version of the project appear.Why why why why why. . . and why. This is so WEST Houston, not inside the loop. I hate surface lots in town! Why can't they do what they did with the Randalls in Midtown, or the Whole Foods in Austin. Houston developers and city planners are a bunch of morons! Puma, puma, puma... Calm down. The developer in this case would appear to be a moron, yes. As for city planners, they had no say over this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 The sad this is that the green-ing of 610 and freeway project has more tree than this site, which is supposed to improve the community. I miss that elementary school and HISD building now that I have seen this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) Oh, make no mistake about it. The City cares. They would've gotten more taxable improvements with the plan that had originally been floated. Parking lots, on the other hand, don't add a lot of value....but their hands are tied. The tract didn't even need to be replatted, and that's typically when concerns such as ours would need to have been addressed.Hmmm I wonder. If the city is really trying to do some transit oriented development, you would think SOMETHING would have been built by now. They don't care.Are public schools taxed or are they exempt? Edited January 16, 2007 by musicman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Oh, make no mistake about it. The City cares. They would've gotten more taxable improvements with the plan that had originally been floated. Parking lots, on the other hand, don't add a lot of value....but their hands are tied. The tract didn't even need to be replatted, and that's typically when concerns such as ours would need to have been addressed. This type of shopping center and those overly generic so-called "Master Planned McMansion neighborhoods stealing farm land starting in the low $120's" just tick me off when it comes to the city's evolution. Unfortunately, I have no idea really why, but that news really ruined my day. . .what an F-ing waste of land and money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) Hmmm I wonder. If the city is really trying to do some transit oriented development, you would think SOMETHING would have been built by now. They don't care.That's one of the most perposterous statements I've ever heard from you, musicman. The City doesn't build things that they don't use for government purposes. They can't force anyone in the private sector to build anything in any particular way. And they certainly can't make a developer build sooner than later. That they haven't done things that they are legally constrained from doing doesn't mean that they don't care.Frankly, if it hadn't been for someone of relatively high stature that works with the City being frustrated, I wouldn't have heard about this or had the images to share with you this morning....and those overly generic so-called "Master Planned McMansion neighborhoods stealing farm land starting in the low $120's" just tick me off when it comes to the city's evolution.Now this I've got to take issue with you on. Affordable housing is a good thing. Edited January 16, 2007 by TheNiche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHB2 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 well that explains why METRO opted to turn the LRT at Cummins rather than continuing to the UP track Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 That's one of the most perposterous statements I've ever heard from you, musicman. The City doesn't build things that they don't use for government purposes. They can't force anyone in the private sector to build anything in any particular way. And they certainly can't make a developer build sooner than later. That they haven't done things that they are legally constrained from doing doesn't mean that they don't care.Frankly, if it hadn't been for someone of relatively high stature that works with the City being frustrated, I wouldn't have heard about this or had the images to share with you this morning. They're trying to build a groundswell of public anger before taking it to the media so that they'll be able to put it in the right perspective, and I'm just helping them out a bit by breaking the news here on HAIF.Well....i never said they could force anything on the builders. However the City could update codes to require certain things in developements. I know that they added more of a landscaping requirement. I'm saying that they could so more behind the scenes to "encourage" developers. As for saying that the city doesn't care, I'm going to stand by that statement even if you consider it preposterous. Actions speak volumes to me. The planning department is catering to the developers and their wants. It's like historical preservation, the planning department could sure go before council recommending certain steps that would help save historical structures. But again, the developers get what they want. I'm not saying everyone in the city doesn't care, but the ones in power sure don't. I just can't stand to hear Peter Brown (architect and planner) speak because he has done nothing to further the cause yet that was one of the big things he ran on. I just loath the planning department in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Now this I've got to take issue with you on. Affordable housing is a good thing.I like affordable housing, but cheap quality is not good, large beige homes made of Hardi on small lots with garages facing the streets are ugly and look typcial next to each other. You know the look of a typcial McMansion, rather than a tradition looking modest sized home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I like affordable housing, but cheap quality is not good, large beige homes made of Hardi on small lots with garages facing the streets are ugly and look typcial next to each other. You know the look of a typcial McMansion, rather than a tradition looking modest sized home.Well builders think affordable housing is affordable to build not so that people can afford to live in them.A beige home with hardi plank, on small lots with garqages facing the street isn't necessarily poor quality. I think you're confusing aesthetics with quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) Well....i never said they could force anything on the builders. However the City could update codes to require certain things in developements. I know that they added more of a landscaping requirement. I'm saying that they could so more behind the scenes to "encourage" developers. As for saying that the city doesn't care, I'm going to stand by that statement even if you consider it preposterous. Actions speak volumes to me. The planning department is catering to the developers and their wants. It's like historical preservation, the planning department could sure go before council recommending certain steps that would help save historical structures. But again, the developers get what they want. I'm not saying everyone in the city doesn't care, but the ones in power sure don't. I just can't stand to hear Peter Brown (architect and planner) speak because he has done nothing to further the cause yet that was one of the big things he ran on. I just loath the planning department in general.Although I typically maintain a healthy distrust of the Planning Dept. myself, I can assure you that the City does care in this instance. Otherwise, we wouldn't be debating this topic for lack of information. That's the truth.Oridnances and codes must apply uniformly throughout the whole city. Otherwise, it is zoning, and zoning has not been approved by the voters. But the city is a mix of urban, suburban, and in some places, rural areas. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all set of codes and ordinances.Many City officials try to stay out of developers' way because developers have a great deal of incentive to maximize value of their projects without losing money...and if the City tries to interfere too frequently, odds are that they're just going to drive out developers that don't want to deal with costly red tape. They've got to be careful not to establish that kind of bad reputation. ...but that doesn't mean that all developers are perfect. Here we have one that is making a huge mistake. Unfortunately, there's nothing at all that the City is empowered to do at this point, and any move they make affects the whole city, from Clear Lake to Willowbrook, from Fort Bend County to Kingwood. They don't like it, but their hands are tied.They could offer some form of direct subsidy or a tax abatement, but that typically isn't very popular for upscale projects on private property, like this. Subsidies for the rich, you know... and then that has an unintended consequence as well, because every developer and his dog are going to want some cash for their own projects.You told Puma to go sit in on a city council meeting. Rather than taking such a flippant tone with me, perhaps you should take your own advice. Figure out how the process works and what the limitations are. Then come back and we'll have a debate. Edited January 16, 2007 by TheNiche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) Oridnances and codes must apply uniformly throughout the whole city. Otherwise, it is zoning, and zoning has not been approved by the voters. But the city is a mix of urban, suburban, and in some places, rural areas. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all set of codes and ordinances.I agree about one size doesn't fit all. I like the recent article on the TIRZ neighborhood over by the galleria. They discovered that if it is an approved TIRZ then they can enact zoning laws in the area and did. The TIRZ board then was chastised because they wanted to let something go in AGAINST the zoning laws they adopted and the residents protested because they reason they bought/built there was that it is zoned.Many City officials try to stay out of developers' way because developers have a great deal of incentive to maximize value of their projects without losing money...and if the City tries to interfere too frequently, odds are that they're just going to drive out developers that don't want to deal with costly red tape. They've got to be careful not to establish that kind of bad reputation. ...but that doesn't mean that all developers are perfect. Here we have one that is making a huge mistake. Unfortunately, there's nothing at all that the City is empowered to do at this point, and any move they make affects the whole city, from Clear Lake to Willowbrook, from Fort Bend County to Kingwood. They don't like it, but their hands are tied.Agree i didn't say the city was empowered to do anything. But there definitely is some "good ole boy" things that can happen. Peter Brown is the one who claimed he could make it happen. You told Puma to go sit in on a city council meeting. Rather than taking such a flippant tone with me, perhaps you should take your own advice. Figure out how the process works and what the limitations are. Then come back and we'll have a debate.I've been to numerous council meetings and planning meetings and am well aware of the process otherwise I wouldn't be commenting. I believed Bob Litke retiring would be great for planning since he's been a roadblock for many things, His replacement Marlene Gaffrick is very intelligent but I haven't really seen any improvements in the dept. As for being flippant, when the statement was "what an F-ing waste of land and money" was said, to me that is flippant. It's hard to make a statement like that unless you've just never been involved in the process and see it with your own eyes. That's why I got involved years ago. Edited January 16, 2007 by musicman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Well if you have a beef with Peter Brown, then that makes two of us. But he is just one person in this matter, and to my knowledge, doesn't have any power over the Costco site one way or the other.As for the TIRZ, if I'm not mistaken, that TIRZ was one of the very first ones and has rules that are grandfathered in. None of the other TIRZs have that power, nor can the City create new TIRZs with that power. Frankly, they've already created so many of them that they've lost a lot of their impact, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Well builders think affordable housing is affordable to build not so that people can afford to live in them.A beige home with hardi plank, on small lots with garqages facing the street isn't necessarily poor quality. I think you're confusing aesthetics with quality.Well, the way I see it, they are just creating "new" neighborhoods that are susceptible to suburban decay, and to get this comment back on subject and suburban sprawl type shopping center is not adding value to the neighborhood and only reverves all the good things developers have done in the area.I hope cinema users flood the parking lots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHB2 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 to get this comment back on subject and suburban sprawl type shopping center is not adding value to the neighborhood and only reverves all the good things developers have done in the area.I hope cinema users flood the parking lots. actually, as reported in both the SW News and Examiner, but probably not the Chron, the developers made their plans for the Costco known early last fall when they came out publicly against rail on Richmond b/c it will interfere with left turns into the bigass parking lot they plan. it will be hideous, but if you can build a Target on chi-chi San Felipe... ah well, maybe the tallass lights in the bigass parking lot will shine in the windows of Aftonag's AO palace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 ah well, maybe the tallass lights in the bigass parking lot will shine in the windows of Aftonag's AO palace Wishful thinking, but thanx, as I would wish that upon them too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) Well if you have a beef with Peter Brown, then that makes two of us. But he is just one person in this matter, and to my knowledge, doesn't have any power over the Costco site one way or the other.As for the TIRZ, if I'm not mistaken, that TIRZ was one of the very first ones and has rules that are grandfathered in. None of the other TIRZs have that power, nor can the City create new TIRZs with that power. Frankly, they've already created so many of them that they've lost a lot of their impact, anyway.Peter Brown is just ineffective. I didnt state he had any power but only that he campaigned on the fact that he will revolutionize planning in houston. Any improvement would be great.Not sure about the whether rules were grandfathered in, but the article sure implied that because it was a TIRZ, then could enact zoning to further the TIRZ. That was definitely news to me because I had never heard that. As for loss of impact, concur 100% Edited January 16, 2007 by musicman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 My key contact has been lurking on this thread and pointed out to me that I hadn't mentioned that some of the parking is structured (including all of the multifamily parking). His criticism, however, is that the structured parking isn't deployed very well. In fact, it appears as though the parking garage faces Richmond for a pretty long stretch. Beautiful, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.