Morning Edition from Houston

[crunchtastic]

NPR's Morning Edition was broadcast from Houston today. The first segemnt was Inskeep talking to Stephen Klineberg about housing prices and sprawl.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112896915

Ironically, I would have ordinarily already been at work and not heard it, but was at a stand still in traffic on the gulf freeway.

Tomorrow Bill White will be on.

Edited September 17, 2009 by crunchtastic

[sarahiki]

NPR's Morning Edition was broadcast from Houston today. The first segemnt was Inskeep talking to Stephen Klineberg about housing prices and sprawl.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112896915

Ironically, I would have ordinarily already been at work and not heard it, but was at a stand still in traffic on the gulf freeway.

Tomorrow Bill White will be on.

The part about the Third Ward was interesting, but it was upsetting, too. It pissed me off to hear Garnett Coleman talking about trying to keep white people out of the Third Ward. I lived there for 4 years, and intended to become part of the neighborhood, and to make it my home. I never felt at all welcome. But them Coleman says, in response to the interviewer asking what's wrong with a white person moving in, that they buy a house but don't try to be part of the neighborhood. That's bull. You can't devote the effort he does to keeping people out, then accuse them of not trying to make it a home. We tried. We were not welcome. No doubt because, in part, he was working so hard to tell the residents to keep people like me out.

I recognize the interest in trying to preserve the neighborhood, and not driving people out of their homes. But it was one of my white neighbors, in one of our new abhorrent-to-Coleman townhomes, who would go out on the weekend with a trash bag and pick up trash from the street, and clean out the gutters so they didn't flood the street. It was the other residents who were throwing trash in the street. Tell me who cares more about the neighborhood.

[gto250us]

It pissed me off to hear Garnett Coleman talking ...

Yeah, this guy is like that Quantum 10 or Quanell X, what ever the hell he calls himself. These guys go through life and blame every perceived problem as a race issue. They and their views make me sick.

[editor]

Here's the Third Ward piece:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112888084

[crunchtastic]

Here's the Third Ward piece:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112888084

Thx--I missed this part of the series.

[sarahiki]

Yeah, this guy is like that Quantum 10 or Quanell X, what ever the hell he calls himself. These guys go through life and blame every perceived problem as a race issue. They and their views make me sick.

I wouldn't agree. I don't think he is blaming anyone, or trying to make something a race issue. He seems genuinely interested in preserving what he sees as cultural history; it happens to be black history. I understand his goal. But I'm surprised that he doesn't see how racist and exclusionary his own actions are.

[LTAWACS]

Some of the comments on the site are hilarious.

[gto250us]

He should be trying to preserve history. Not just "Black" history. Are the folks in Williamsburg, VA trying to preserve "White" history? I think if you add any adjective on the front of history you are going down a slippery slope.

I understand that the third ward was developed and settled by blacks but I think that it is wrong and insane to think that only blacks can redevelope, and preserve the history of that area.

[citykid09]

NPR's Morning Edition was broadcast from Houston today. The first segemnt was Inskeep talking to Stephen Klineberg about housing prices and sprawl.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112896915

Ironically, I would have ordinarily already been at work and not heard it, but was at a stand still in traffic on the gulf freeway.

Tomorrow Bill White will be on.

I can't believe he said people are moving to less attractive places like Texas. Is Texas as a whole that unattractive?

[kylejack]

I can't believe he said people are moving to less attractive places like Texas. Is Texas as a whole that unattractive?

He said less "environmentally attractive" by which I think he means less environmentally friendly/conscious, not necessarily that its an ugly environment, but I can understand the confusion. That seemed to be the thrust of his point, the well-meaning environmentalism is resulting in a high cost of living for people and making them move away to places where the government doesn't have as many environmental restrictions.

[citykid09]

He said less "environmentally attractive" by which I think he means less environmentally friendly/conscious, not necessarily that its an ugly environment, but I can understand the confusion. That seemed to be the thrust of his point, the well-meaning environmentalism is resulting in a high cost of living for people and making them move away to places where the government doesn't have as many environmental restrictions.

You're right, but it just seemed like they were hating hard on Houston and Texas. I agree that the area is far to spread out though, hopefully this next century we will start to see more infill and much less spreading.

Also why is the grass around the Mount Rush Hour statues not cut? I think those statues would have been better in the Museum District or in a more touristy area.

I also want to say this about how this area needs climate control. Is Houston the only city in the US that gets this hot and humid? Is there nothing that can be done in the year 2009 that could make the city more walkable without the people being turned away by the heat? Couldn't tree help?

Edited September 17, 2009 by citykid09

[kylejack]

I don't really like to see the statues on the side of the highway like that. They're a lot more interesting in their native environment at the SculpturWorx studio on Summer St. and they leave the gate open 24 hours so anyone can pull in to the parking lot and look at the whole set of them. Fun place to check out late at night, or in the day.

I was kind of surprised about that statistic of how many different cities you could pack into Houston's square miles.

[kylejack]

Tomorrow morning they're airing an interview with Bill White from City Hall and Discovery Green.

[august948]

You're right, but it just seemed like they were hating hard on Houston and Texas. I agree that the area is far to spread out though, hopefully this next century we will start to see more infill and much less spreading.

Also why is the grass around the Mount Rush Hour statues not cut? I think those statues would have been better in the Museum District or in a more touristy area.

I also want to say this about how this area needs climate control. Is Houston the only city in the US that gets this hot and humid? Is there nothing that can be done in the year 2009 that could make the city more walkable without the people being turned away by the heat? Couldn't tree help?

The most natural way to deal with the summertime heat is common in tropical countries but runs counter to our northern European culture. That would be to siesta during the hottest part of the day and do your walking/shopping at night. Think of places like Bangkok or Saigon where the throngs come out in the evening.

[AtticaFlinch]

The most natural way to deal with the summertime heat is common in tropical countries but runs counter to our northern European culture. That would be to siesta during the hottest part of the day and do your walking/shopping at night. Think of places like Bangkok or Saigon where the throngs come out in the evening.

Seems like college students are the only people in Houston who've figured out how to beat the heat naturally.

[citykid09]

The most natural way to deal with the summertime heat is common in tropical countries but runs counter to our northern European culture. That would be to siesta during the hottest part of the day and do your walking/shopping at night. Think of places like Bangkok or Saigon where the throngs come out in the evening.

I really think that the way that Houston is developed makes it hard for people to walk anywhere, its not the heat. Yeah there is downtown, but say you want to walk from downtown to somewhere else, its possible, but you're going to have to walk through parking lots, empty lots etc. I have always said that its good Houston has no zoning, but now I am going to change my mind on that, HOUSTON NEEDS ZONING!!!! PDQ!!! I see all of these other cities with all of these cool walkable developments and I always say that's what I wish Houston had. Houston has it all, the attractions, and some urban developments, but none of its connected. Dallas gets hot, Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, etc, yet they all have walkable areas.

All of this about Houston being an ugly is false, yeah many areas and many freeways are ugly, but there are many beautiful areas of the city.

And let me get back to something else I heard the man say in the NPR interview. It was like he did not acknowledge anything good about Houston. He made it seem as if it was just a place where millions of people have moved to that did nothing but build strip malls, loop freeways, and endless suburbs.

Edited September 18, 2009 by citykid09

[JLWM8609]

He should be trying to preserve history. Not just "Black" history. Are the folks in Williamsburg, VA trying to preserve "White" history? I think if you add any adjective on the front of history you are going down a slippery slope.

I understand that the third ward was developed and settled by blacks but I think that it is wrong and insane to think that only blacks can redevelope, and preserve the history of that area.

I think he's just afraid after what happened to Fourth Ward. Historic churches and buildings have been displaced and replaced in the name of redevelopment. Remember, Houston's never been the quickest to preserve historical areas, whether black or white. Just think about the Frost Town site and all of the other historic sites we've lost around town to redevelopment.

[crunchtastic]

He made it seem as if it was just a place where millions of people have moved to that did nothing but build strip malls, loop freeways, and endless suburbs.

But forget the fact that enough people are down with it to make us the 4th largest city in the country. Forget all that about actually being able to afford a good life here. If you think your prospects are good to make 200 grand a year all of your adult life, then by all means, the walkable urban-living experience in Seattle or Denver or Providence awaits you.

[musicman]

Also why is the grass around the Mount Rush Hour statues not cut? I think those statues would have been better in the Museum District or in a more touristy area.

That's the artist's property which is why they are there.

I also want to say this about how this area needs climate control. Is Houston the only city in the US that gets this hot and humid?

Go to New Orleans and get back with us.

Is there nothing that can be done in the year 2009 that could make the city more walkable without the people being turned away by the heat? Couldn't tree help?

Trees are always a good thing but 100 degrees is uncomfortable is the sun or shade. I heard people complaining about Chicago earlier this year cause it never warmed up. Average yearly temperature would probably be a better overall gauge.

[gto250us]

...HOUSTON NEEDS ZONING!!!! PDQ!!! ...

I could not agree more. I remember the last go around on this issue and the opposition kept saying that "Zoning will make your taxes go up." I thought that was quite funny. Yes taxes would go up because your property values would go up with zoning. Is that bad? Property values going? But the Texas mentality of "It's my land, and I'll do what I want with it." prevailed. In this regard Houston is still living in the 19th century. Also, developers have long had a tight hold on Houston politics. And they don't want anyone interferrin with their building of strip malls all over the city and county.

[AtticaFlinch]

I could not agree more. I remember the last go around on this issue and the opposition kept saying that "Zoning will make your taxes go up." I thought that was quite funny. Yes taxes would go up because your property values would go up with zoning. Is that bad? Property values going? But the Texas mentality of "It's my land, and I'll do what I want with it." prevailed. In this regard Houston is still living in the 19th century. Also, developers have long had a tight hold on Houston politics. And they don't want anyone interferrin with their building of strip malls all over the city and county.

Strip malls are everywhere, not just Houston. Yes, even places with zoning. Crazy, I know. Dallas has strip malls, tons of 'em. And they zone the crap out of everything. There's a weird misconception among zoning acolytes that zoning is a panacea for blight. In reality, if done improperly and inflexibly, which it almost always is, it destroys the concept of community and perpetuates the dreaded sprawly car culture. By shifting land use from an organic need based utilization into something ordered and structured and separated by use and value, it drives neighborhood walkability away. Nothing is ever close to anything. Want a pizza? Go to the restaurant zone. It's five miles away, so you'd better hop in your car. Want dry cleaning? Go to the small businesses that use chemicals zone. It's not near the pizza zone, so you should probably get the dry cleaning first. Nobody likes a room temperature pizza.

If this separation is what's desired, then Houston's got boatloads of 'burbs with restrictive HOAs that approximate zoning. Commercial along the main roads. Residential behind that. Industrial in someone else's 'burb. Not a single business is allowed to operate near anyone's home. Yes, folks, there's already zoning in Houston. And what's happening in the city proper ain't broke. Those of us who actually live in the city like it the way it is.

[Sunstar]

Out of curiosity, is it typical for Morning Edition to broadcast from different cities? I've never noticed it before and was curious why they would decide to report from Houston.

Houston seems to be getting a lot of attention during this economic downturn. It's like the media wants to get under the hood to see what makes this city tick. We're the city everyone loves to hate, and yet we're not plagued with many of the issues facing cities in the northeast and west coast: plummeting home values, stiffling regulation, shrinking economy.

[gto250us]

Out of curiosity, is it typical for Morning Edition to broadcast from different cities? I've never noticed it before and was curious why they would decide to report from Houston.

Houston seems to be getting a lot of attention during this economic downturn. It's like the media wants to get under the hood to see what makes this city tick. We're the city everyone loves to hate, and yet we're not plagued with many of the issues facing cities in the northeast and west coast: plummeting home values, stiffling regulation, shrinking economy.

Morning Edition does not typically broadcast from different cities. Usually they have one anchor in DC and the other in LA. They may go to other cities 2 or 3 times a year.

[arisegundo]

Some of the comments on the site are hilarious.

Try the facebook responses. several hundred variations of "HOUSTON IS SO UGLY, UGH! TAKE IT FROM ME, I FLEW OVER IT THIS ONE TIME IN 1989"

I cracked up when Inskeep described Mayor White as "soft-spoken, without a lot of hair" and again at White's description of the Beer Can House.

[Sunstar]

Here's today's report: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112939388

Among other topics, the Ashby highrise is discussed.

[kylejack]

Here's today's report: http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=112939388

Among other topics, the Ashby highrise is discussed.

Also: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112892219&ps=rs

[citykid09]

I could not agree more. I remember the last go around on this issue and the opposition kept saying that "Zoning will make your taxes go up." I thought that was quite funny. Yes taxes would go up because your property values would go up with zoning. Is that bad? Property values going? But the Texas mentality of "It's my land, and I'll do what I want with it." prevailed. In this regard Houston is still living in the 19th century. Also, developers have long had a tight hold on Houston politics. And they don't want anyone interferrin with their building of strip malls all over the city and county.

I don't understand how developers in Houston ever planned to standout if the city is felled with strip malls. I think the reason that no zoning in the past in Houston was so popular because the suburban way of life was the popular thing to do in the past. But now that that has changed and urban development is more popular, zoning is needed or else it wont work because there will always be a developer that wants to put a suburban style development into an area that is trying to be urban.

[AtticaFlinch]

I don't understand how developers in Houston ever planned to standout if the city is felled with strip malls. I think the reason that no zoning in the past in Houston was so popular because the suburban way of life was the popular thing to do in the past. But now that that has changed and urban development is more popular, zoning is needed or else it wont work because there will always be a developer that wants to put a suburban style development into an area that is trying to be urban.

So... are you suggesting that by restricting developers, you're actually encouraging them to build? So you know, no area is "trying" to be urban. It either is urban or it isn't urban. The difference, I suppose, is the model of urbanity you hold ideal, which based on your posts seem to be more inline with the Manhattan model, is that correct? Let's use Midtown as an example since I believe that's what you're referring to in the first place. There are two suburban-styled CVSs in Midtown, which is something that stick in the craw of some people like you. But how, pray tell, would zoning have prevented that? The buildings are built as they are for reasons dictated by the real estate market in the area, not by lofty hopes of Houston becoming the next New York. Reality's set in here. This isn't the Field of Dreams. Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll come. The reality is CVS built "suburban" stores because Houston in car-centric (even in Midtown), and people need places to park. Why would they build it in a way that would doom it to failure? That would just be dumb. And, forcing them to build in any specific way that would be dumb would be even dumber on the part of the local government. CVS wouldn't have built anything at all if the costs were too prohibitive and the store wasn't built to meet the needs of the consumers. Then, there'd be no pharmacy in the neighborhood, which would make it even less "urban" which would make it less cool which would drive the property values down which would make it a ghetto again.

[citykid09]

So... are you suggesting that by restricting developers, you're actually encouraging them to build? So you know, no area is "trying" to be urban. It either is urban or it isn't urban. The difference, I suppose, is the model of urbanity you hold ideal, which based on your posts seem to be more inline with the Manhattan model, is that correct? Let's use Midtown as an example since I believe that's what you're referring to in the first place. There are two suburban-styled CVSs in Midtown, which is something that stick in the craw of some people like you. But how, pray tell, would zoning have prevented that? The buildings are built as they are for reasons dictated by the real estate market in the area, not by lofty hopes of Houston becoming the next New York. Reality's set in here. This isn't the Field of Dreams. Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll come. The reality is CVS built "suburban" stores because Houston in car-centric (even in Midtown), and people need places to park. Why would they build it in a way that would doom it to failure? That would just be dumb. And, forcing them to build in any specific way that would be dumb would be even dumber on the part of the local government. CVS wouldn't have built anything at all if the costs were too prohibitive and the store wasn't built to meet the needs of the consumers. Then, there'd be no pharmacy in the neighborhood, which would make it even less "urban" which would make it less cool which would drive the property values down which would make it a ghetto again.

I believe you have it all wrong. If people that live in the midtown area wanted suburban living, they would move to the suburbs or somewhere other than midtown.

Why couldn't CVS just build a store like the one below? Where the parking is behind the store but it also allows people to walk to the store. The reason is because they don't have to, Houston doesn't have zoning so they can do as they please even in areas that want to cater to the urban lifestyle.

Edited September 18, 2009 by citykid09

[kylejack]

I believe you have it all wrong. If people that live in the midtown area wanted suburban living, they would move to the suburbs or somewhere other than midtown.

Why couldn't CVS just build a store like the one below? Where the parking is behind the store but it also allows people to walk to the store. The reason is because they don't have to, Houston doesn't have zoning so they can do as they please even in areas that want to cater to the urban lifestyle.

They can and do, I shop at the one on Main Street all the time.

[musicman]

Why couldn't CVS just build a store like the one below? Where the parking is behind the store but it also allows people to walk to the store.

What's preventing them from walking to the store?

[AtticaFlinch]

I believe you have it all wrong. If people that live in the midtown area wanted suburban living, they would move to the suburbs or somewhere other than midtown.

Why couldn't CVS just build a store like the one below? Where the parking is behind the store but it also allows people to walk to the store. The reason is because they don't have to, Houston doesn't have zoning so they can do as they please even in areas that want to cater to the urban lifestyle.

Again, this has virtually nothing to do with zoning. What you're referring to has more to do with easement rules and restrictions. Besides, considering both Midtown CVSs occupy their entire city block, it would be impossible to build to where the "parking is behind the store." That's just not geometrically possible unless you're MC Escher.

Oddly enough, there are cars in that parking lot, and the CVS hasn't shut down for want of customers. Not yet. If people were really bothered by CVS's lack of "urban lifestyle" vision, they wouldn't shop there.

[gto250us]

What's preventing them from walking to the store?

It used to be that Houston had a 7-11 or a Stop-N-Steal on every corner. Now we find either a Walgreens or CVS on just about every corner. I don't know, is it a sign that we are all aging and sick?

At least big pharma is doing its best to convince us all that we are sick. Oh, no my restless leg syndrome is kicking in, I need to walk over to CVS and get more boner pills since I can no longer sleep at night because I am depressed about my acid reflux.

Edited September 18, 2009 by gto250us

[IronTiger]

I listened, too. He mentioned the light rail, and how by 2013 you would be able to walk to a station virtually anywhere in Houston. While I'm sure more track will be accessible by 2013, it just seemed so farfetched because Houston built the first stretch in 2004, and just now is it working on a second line.

[gto250us]

I listened, too. He mentioned the light rail, and how by 2013 you would be able to walk to a station virtually anywhere in Houston. While I'm sure more track will be accessible by 2013, it just seemed so farfetched because Houston built the first stretch in 2004, and just now is it working on a second line.

I suspect that they meant that one could walk to a bus and them get that to a train. There is no way that one could walk to a train station from anywhere. I don't think that concept is on anyone's radar screen.

[AtticaFlinch]

I suspect that they meant that one could walk to a bus and them get that to a train. There is no way that one could walk to a train station from anywhere. I don't think that concept is on anyone's radar screen.

I don't think that concept is on anyone's radar, no matter where in the world they are. Even New York City. Even Europe. They've got buses too.

[citykid09]

Again, this has virtually nothing to do with zoning. What you're referring to has more to do with easement rules and restrictions. Besides, considering both Midtown CVSs occupy their entire city block, it would be impossible to build to where the "parking is behind the store." That's just not geometrically possible unless you're MC Escher.

Oddly enough, there are cars in that parking lot, and the CVS hasn't shut down for want of customers. Not yet. If people were really bothered by CVS's lack of "urban lifestyle" vision, they wouldn't shop there.

You are totally right, I don't know why I was think it was zoning, its easement rules that are the problem. So the actual problem is the city of Houston's management.

No zoning only makes development random and unorganized. But the easement rules are what require the suburban style easements.

But hold up, I remember when one of those CVSs was getting built, the people in midtown wanted them to build an urban up to the sidewalk CVS, but the did what they wanted to do any ways. So they had a choice, but didn't choose the urban way.

[barracuda]

So... are you suggesting that by restricting developers, you're actually encouraging them to build? So you know, no area is "trying" to be urban. It either is urban or it isn't urban. The difference, I suppose, is the model of urbanity you hold ideal, which based on your posts seem to be more inline with the Manhattan model, is that correct? Let's use Midtown as an example since I believe that's what you're referring to in the first place. There are two suburban-styled CVSs in Midtown, which is something that stick in the craw of some people like you. But how, pray tell, would zoning have prevented that? The buildings are built as they are for reasons dictated by the real estate market in the area, not by lofty hopes of Houston becoming the next New York. Reality's set in here. This isn't the Field of Dreams. Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll come. The reality is CVS built "suburban" stores because Houston in car-centric (even in Midtown), and people need places to park. Why would they build it in a way that would doom it to failure? That would just be dumb. And, forcing them to build in any specific way that would be dumb would be even dumber on the part of the local government. CVS wouldn't have built anything at all if the costs were too prohibitive and the store wasn't built to meet the needs of the consumers. Then, there'd be no pharmacy in the neighborhood, which would make it even less "urban" which would make it less cool which would drive the property values down which would make it a ghetto again.

It's been my experience that the more pedestrian-friendly cities with multi-use buildings have zoning.

Also, I don't think anyone would be crying if zoning had prevented CVS from building in Midtown. Regardless, Randall's was able to cost-effectively open a more urban store in Midtown (in their case, with underground parking and a pharmacy). I think most people are more upset at CVS, for choosing their shareholders over the Midtown community's pleas when they built these two locations, then at the lack of zoning. This was the cheapest way for CVS to build their cookie-cutter drug dispensers, but as Randall's illustrates it's not the only way. A more creative developer or retailer might have chosen to build something that would fit the community long-term instead of something that will be torn town in ten or twenty years.

Edited September 19, 2009 by barracuda

[citykid09]

It's been my experience that the more pedestrian-friendly cities with multi-use buildings have zoning.

Also, I don't think anyone would be crying if zoning had prevented CVS from building in Midtown. Regardless, Randall's was able to cost-effectively open a more urban store in Midtown (in their case, with underground parking and a pharmacy). I think most people are more upset at CVS, for choosing their shareholders over the Midtown community's pleas when they built these two locations, then at the lack of zoning. This was the cheapest way for CVS to build their cookie-cutter drug dispensers, but as Randall's illustrates it's not the only way. A more creative developer or retailer might have chosen to build something that would fit the community long-term instead of something that will be torn town in ten or twenty years.

That's the point that I was trying to make. By CVS building suburban style stores in those location even after the community pleaded with them to build a more walkable location, they showed that they really don't care about the community, they care about the money.

[musicman]

This was the cheapest way for CVS to build their cookie-cutter drug dispensers, but as Randall's illustrates it's not the only way.

randall's had to heavily design the store cause a typical grocery store design wouldn't fit on the lot. last time i went, the door was in the middle of the parking lot, just like cvs

Edited September 20, 2009 by musicman

[barracuda]

randall's had to heavily design the store cause a typical grocery store design wouldn't fit on the lot. last time i went, the door was in the middle of the parking lot, just like cvs

I'm merely pointing out that it can be done even with the easements, and that CVS went with a architecturally lazy and inexpensive design by rehashing what they do in the suburbs. Some of us think Midtown deserves a different approach that does a better job of considering the area's density and availability of land.

[AtticaFlinch]

That's the point that I was trying to make. By CVS building suburban style stores in those location even after the community pleaded with them to build a more walkable location, they showed that they really don't care about the community, they care about the money.

Again, this has nothing to do with zoning. Zoning won't fix corporate greed. What you want are laws regulating community standards. That would be pretty tough to get in Houston though, especially considering our wacky easement laws and business parking requirements.

" Retail stores are also saddled with these parking minimums, and even barsas Lewyn notes are required to build “10 parking spaces per 1000 feetof gross area,” flying in the face of common sense. To add insult toinjury, the city requires that structures on major roads have asignificant setback from the street, and the only rational thing to dowith this unbuildable space is to put the mandated parking there,meaning that Houston actual codifies the hideous and inconvenientparking lot-out-front model of sprawl that is so typical across the US."

http://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/

These building codes need to change. We don't need zoning. By pointing to cities that are more "urban" and also just so happen to have zoning doesn't mean that zoning has had anything to do with the urbanism. I guarantee even if Houston had zoning, the CVSs in Midtown would have been built identically to the current standard. The only way they could have skirted the current laws and built to the edge of the property would have been if they'd been built as part of a larger mix-used development that already had parking built or if they had built an unnecessarily expensive parking garage on the property.

randall's had to heavily design the store cause a typical grocery store design wouldn't fit on the lot. last time i went, the door was in the middle of the parking lot, just like cvs

Yeah, the use of Randall's as a positive example kind of boggles me. Midtown is full of strip malls, old and new. They're just less obvious than the the 'burbs' strip malls because the lots are smaller.

[RedScare]

I believe you have it all wrong. If people that live in the midtown area wanted suburban living, they would move to the suburbs or somewhere other than midtown.

Why couldn't CVS just build a store like the one below? Where the parking is behind the store but it also allows people to walk to the store. The reason is because they don't have to, Houston doesn't have zoning so they can do as they please even in areas that want to cater to the urban lifestyle.

I couldn't help but notice that, for the people who live in the condo behind citykid's 'urban CVS', the placement of the store with parking in back makes it LESS walkable. It may look cute at the street, but the condo dwellers must traverse the parking lot to get to the store.

It should be obvious that placing the store up against one corner makes it more accessible to that corner, but LESS accessible to the other 3 corners, yet no one ever seems to get it. They are brainwashed into what urban space should LOOK like, but have no idea what it feels like. As for zoning or no zoning, it is PARKING REQUIREMENTS that make walking more difficult, not zoning, or really, even setbacks. A relaxation of the parking requirements for these stores, taking into account the number of shoppers who walk, and the availability of street parking, would allow for a smaller footprint for the store and parking lot, and allow stores to be placed closer together, no matter the setback.

[barracuda]

I couldn't help but notice that, for the people who live in the condo behind citykid's 'urban CVS', the placement of the store with parking in back makes it LESS walkable. It may look cute at the street, but the condo dwellers must traverse the parking lot to get to the store.

It should be obvious that placing the store up against one corner makes it more accessible to that corner, but LESS accessible to the other 3 corners, yet no one ever seems to get it. They are brainwashed into what urban space should LOOK like, but have no idea what it feels like. As for zoning or no zoning, it is PARKING REQUIREMENTS that make walking more difficult, not zoning, or really, even setbacks. A relaxation of the parking requirements for these stores, taking into account the number of shoppers who walk, and the availability of street parking, would allow for a smaller footprint for the store and parking lot, and allow stores to be placed closer together, no matter the setback.

Without knowing the specifics of that Atlanta-area CVS, it's possible that there is a rear entrance for those coming from or across the parking lot. Even if that's not the case, the condo dwellers and the pedestrians coming from any other direction could easily use the sidewalks, and avoid having to cross a parking lot. So I don't see how it's any less walkable when compared to a CVS that is completely surrounded by a concrete parking lot.

Considering that the Houston-Midtown CVS parking lots never even come close to full utilization for store patrons, the local parking requirements do seem excessive. The Gray/Bagby location does turn it's lot into a pay lot for those patronizing other businesses in the evening, but I imagine that's not the original intent of the parking requirements.

[barracuda]

Yeah, the use of Randall's as a positive example kind of boggles me. Midtown is full of strip malls, old and new. They're just less obvious than the the 'burbs' strip malls because the lots are smaller.

Simple - because Randall's meets the local parking requirement with an underground lot rather than the typical massive surface lot.

The store is more accessible from a pedestrian point of view when compared to any traditional supermarket in Houston because there aren't acres of parking lots to cross. The idea that they had to build this way is not the point. Randall's did not have to built in Midtown at all. They could have found a larger plot of land somewhere else and paved it.

And yes, there are lots of other mini-strip malls in Midtown, and most of them aren't really much better than the CVS.

[musicman]

Simple - because Randall's meets the local parking requirement with an underground lot rather than the typical massive surface lot.

they had no choice but to do it that way due to limited land area. you're making it sound as if they had as many options as cvs. they didn't.

The store is more accessible from a pedestrian point of view when compared to any traditional supermarket in Houston because there aren't acres of parking lots to cross. The idea that they had to build this way is not the point. Randall's did not have to built in Midtown at all. They could have found a larger plot of land somewhere else and paved it.

Pedestrians have to cross their parking lot just as those walking to CVS do. it isn't more accessible from a pedestrian point of view. first you tried to compare midtown cvs to the midtown randalls. now you're trying to compare midtown randalls to other randalls. apples and oranges.

[kylejack]

Have you ever looked at the prices in midtown Randall's? Apparently its expensive to build a parking lot underneath your store and I'm not interested in paying the premium. I'm a pedestrian/cyclist who lives downtown and frankly I'd prefer the savings to walking slightly fewer steps.

[AtticaFlinch]

Have you ever looked at the prices in midtown Randall's? Apparently its expensive to build a parking lot underneath your store and I'm not interested in paying the premium. I'm a pedestrian/cyclist who lives downtown and frankly I'd prefer the savings to walking slightly fewer steps.

Yep. If you choose to hoof it from either Downtown, Midtown, Binz or the TMC, it makes more financial sense to hop the train to Wheeler and shop at the Fiesta. It's got a bigger parking lot than the Randall's, so be prepared for a blistering trek to pick up your fresh tortillas and milk.

[barracuda]

they had no choice but to do it that way due to limited land area. you're making it sound as if they had as many options as cvs. they didn't.

Sure they did. They could have not built it at all. They could have searched for a location that would accommodate a large surface lot. Likewise, CVS could have leased space in another building or joined a multi-tenant development with attached or underground parking. Instead, they chose to build the same way they build in the suburbs. None of them were forced into their designs. One made an effort and the other didn't. Besides, it's not like CVS couldn't afford something better...pharmacies are a high-margin business. Supermarkets on the other hand are very low-margin. This makes CVS all the more bothersome.

Pedestrians have to cross their parking lot just as those walking to CVS do. it isn't more accessible from a pedestrian point of view. first you tried to compare midtown cvs to the midtown randalls. now you're trying to compare midtown randalls to other randalls. apples and oranges.

Randall's has a smaller and narrower surface lot than CVS. Seems more pedestrian friendly to me, but apparently that's in the eye of the beholder. And relative to the building and lot size, the Randall's has much smaller parking lot than CVS.

Ultimately, Randall's is a more urban and pedestrian friendly version of a supermarket, whereas CVS just another suburban CVS.

Midtown Randall's

Midtown CVS (W Gray)

For comparison:

Holcombe Randall's

Westhiemer Randall's

Have you ever looked at the prices in midtown Randall's? Apparently its expensive to build a parking lot underneath your store and I'm not interested in paying the premium. I'm a pedestrian/cyclist who lives downtown and frankly I'd prefer the savings to walking slightly fewer steps.

No, their prices are no different from Randall's stores without underground parking.

[FilioScotia]

Out of curiosity, is it typical for Morning Edition to broadcast from different cities? I've never noticed it before and was curious why they would decide to report from Houston.

Actually, NPR wasn't "broadcasting" from Houston with this series. Steve Inskeep came to Houston early in the week and did his interviews, which were arranged well in advance. Then he stood out there near I-10, and, tape recorder rolling, pretended he was on the air with Renee Montaigne.

What we heard on the air was: "This is Morning Edition from NPR, I'm Renee Montaigne in Los Angeles. (insert tape) And I'm Steve Inskeep in Houston Texas. I'm standing alongside Interstate 10, and the noise you hear....etc etc)" Renee was "live", but Steve was memorex. Actually, he was an audio sound file in a computer.

It took Inskeep a couple of days to do his interviews. In his Houston hotel room, he wrote his scripts, went through the recorded interviews to pick soundbites he wanted, recorded his voice tracks into his own laptop, and then sent all the recorded sound to NPR in Washington via FTP. NPR's sound editors spliced it all together into the 8 minute Morning Edition segments we all heard on KUHF.

FTP is a lot like MP3, except it can handle much larger sound files and the quality is significantly better.

That's why I can say Inskeep never "broadcasted" from Houston. NPR calls what he did "faux" anchoring. They do it all the time when one of the anchors goes off on "special assignment" in another city or another country. Like when Renee did a week of "faux" anchor segments from Baghdad. They make it sound like he or she is "anchoring" from that city, and that's how they make the sausage at NPR.

And to answer the other question, we're not sure why they decided to do two days of stories set in Houston. We really didn't learn anything we didn't already know. Houston is big, VERY big, crowded, sprawled out all over creation, has a very diverse population, lots of job opportunities, land use and transportation problems, and, oh yes, minorities who aren't always happy with the way things are going. So new?

Edited September 20, 2009 by FilioScotia