musicman Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) 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. your premise was a comparison of two existing buildings. i'm sticking with that. randall's was forced to design specifically for the lot otherwise the standard template randall's wouldn't work. cvs could use their standard template. 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. the entire lots (including parking lot and structure) are basically identical size. walking across the cvs lot is the same distance as walking across the randall's lot. with the doors of both structures are in the middle of the lot, a pedestrian is walking approximately the same distance to enter. Edited September 20, 2009 by musicman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 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.There's history and historic preservation, and then there's broken down shacks and crack houses. Everything in Third Ward is not worth saving, and I don't think it's right to hoarde land in the interest of NIMBYism and call it preservation. Instead, what he should be fighting for is that these people get proper compensation for their land (as it is highly valuable) and that they have a say in how it's being redeveloped. If you want to save areas like Emancipation Park and the project rowhouses, fine. But I'm not going to complain if a developer sees a better use for a plot land than the current crack houses that are there now. This is Houston after all... it's not like some big developer is going to swoop in and buy every inch of the neighborhood... they're going to take small pieces (which has already begun). So the people need to decide what they feel is worth saving, and let some portions of their neighborhood move on to their next stage of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 There's history and historic preservation, and then there's broken down shacks and crack houses. Everything in Third Ward is not worth saving, and I don't think it's right to hoarde land in the interest of NIMBYism and call it preservation. Instead, what he should be fighting for is that these people get proper compensation for their land (as it is highly valuable) and that they have a say in how it's being redeveloped. If you want to save areas like Emancipation Park and the project rowhouses, fine. But I'm not going to complain if a developer sees a better use for a plot land than the current crack houses that are there now. This is Houston after all... it's not like some big developer is going to swoop in and buy every inch of the neighborhood... they're going to take small pieces (which has already begun). So the people need to decide what they feel is worth saving, and let some portions of their neighborhood move on to their next stage of life. Whoa I'm reading this a couple of days later and I do sound a little harsh. Third Ward's history is important to all of us in the city of Houston and in Southeast Texas. But for as many important historical sites and cultural havens are in the neighborhood, there is an equal amount of land that is being misued for the promotion of crime and poverty. Those are the areas I am talking about in the above post. If you're driving over in the McGowen and Delano Tierwester area, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about... the churches are an important part of the history and culture there, but aside from them, there are swaths of vacant, blighted buildings that I would be glad to see put to some use again. Some examples of what I'm talking about... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gto250us Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) ...these people get proper compensation for their land (as it is highly valuable) and that they have a say in how it's being redeveloped...I think that an overwhelming majority of the land in these areas is not owned by the current residents. They only rent from a relatively few landowners who often are out of town. Edited September 24, 2009 by gto250us 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.