Jump to content

Morning Edition from Houston


crunchtastic

Recommended Posts

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.

midtown-cvs.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

midtown-cvs.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

CVS%2C_ATL.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:wacko:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

april09-2001.jpg?t=1241706817

april09-2004.jpg?t=1241710133

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...