The Boulevard Project

[Vy65]

Is it? I wonder where your optimism comes from?

[j_cuevas713]

23 minutes ago, Vy65 said:

Is it? I wonder where your optimism comes from?

It comes from an overall trend in development not just in this city but across the country. I mean it's pretty obvious. The fact you minimize the impact of "sidewalks and trees lining a boulevard" says enough. Those very specific features is what draws developers to build with no setbacks. They look at it as an opportunity for not just motorists but those walking and taking transit as an opportunity to better their business. Again I don't know what else to say but look at other cities. 

Edited March 8, 2018 by j_cuevas713

[Vy65]

11 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

It comes from an overall trend in development not just in this city but across the country. I mean it's pretty obvious. The fact you minimize the impact of "sidewalks and trees lining a boulevard" says enough. Those very specific features is what draws developers to build with no setbacks. They look at it as an opportunity for not just motorists but those walking and taking transit as an opportunity to better their business. Again I don't know what else to say but look at other cities. 

I discount trees and sidewalks because this is Houston, not the rest of the country.

 

This is a suburban, sun belt city. That is it’s DNA. That I’ve been told one of the advantages to the bus is easier parking underscrores that fact. 

 

What evidence specific to Houston that supports your that sidewalk and trees will spearhead urban renewal? Why isn’t Apache building its new HQ?

[Naviguessor]

Vy, my optimism comes from what I have witnessed in this city and in this general area in the city.  Look at the area just East of the West Loop, between San Filipe and Westheimer.  Within just a few years, it has transitioned from low density apartment communities, to high rise, high density towers and up scale high density shopping/Mixed use areas.  All of these come along with off-street parking structures.  Also, look at BLVD Place right on the BRT line...more Density, with multi level commercial/retail buildings and high rise apartment buildings, with more garage parking.  Low density retail, is giving way to more high-rise residential structures, at San Filipe.  Those large parking lots, just will no longer make sense...they probably don't now.  With more people along the street and on the sidewalks, retailers and other commercial enterprises, will find it to their advantage to have their front doors where the people are and put the cars in the back/under or over.  There are also more hotels proposed for 'the boulevard'.   Next, imagine a high speed rail station adjacent to the NW transit center and terminus for the BRT Line.  Sure Hit! 

[Vy65]

11 minutes ago, Naviguessor said:

Vy, my optimism comes from what I have witnessed in this city and in this general area in the city.  Look at the area just East of the West Loop, between San Filipe and Westheimer.  Within just a few years, it has transitioned from low density apartment communities, to high rise, high density towers and up scale high density shopping/Mixed use areas.  All of these come along with off-street parking structures.  Also, look at BLVD Place right on the BRT line...more Density, with multi level commercial/retail buildings and high rise apartment buildings, with more garage parking.  Low density retail, is giving way to more high-rise residential structures, at San Filipe.  Those large parking lots, just will no longer make sense...they probably don't now.  With more people along the street and on the sidewalks, retailers and other commercial enterprises, will find it to their advantage to have their front doors where the people are and put the cars in the back/under or over.  There are also more hotels proposed for 'the boulevard'.   Next, imagine a high speed rail station adjacent to the NW transit center and terminus for the BRT Line.  Sure Hit! 

Appreciate the response. And, I agree that there has been development on the east side of 610, and it's a welcome sign. 

 

That said, I don't see how you can extrapolate that development to POB. For starters, they're divided by 610. I don't see people walking from the ROD under the highway, through some commercial office buildings, just to take a bus to go to a mall. If the BRT system included a stop at the ROD, I'd be able to muster some enthusiasm for it.

 

The Galleria has been a major draw for decades. Yet those shopping plazas have remained. You still have large, empty parcels along POB, San Felipe, and on the interior. The market hasn't moved to prod development in those places - and suggesting that trees + sidewalk is the lacking catalyst doesn't pass the straight-face test. Will the area change over the course of decades? Maybe. But to suggest that anything is imminent (i.e., within the next couple years) is beyond optimistic in my book. 

[j_cuevas713]

12 minutes ago, Vy65 said:

Appreciate the response. And, I agree that there has been development on the east side of 610, and it's a welcome sign. 

 

That said, I don't see how you can extrapolate that development to POB. For starters, they're divided by 610. I don't see people walking from the ROD under the highway, through some commercial office buildings, just to take a bus to go to a mall. If the BRT system included a stop at the ROD, I'd be able to muster some enthusiasm for it.

 

The Galleria has been a major draw for decades. Yet those shopping plazas have remained. You still have large, empty parcels along POB, San Felipe, and on the interior. The market hasn't moved to prod development in those places - and suggesting that trees + sidewalk is the lacking catalyst doesn't pass the straight-face test. Will the area change over the course of decades? Maybe. But to suggest that anything is imminent (i.e., within the next couple years) is beyond optimistic in my book. 

That's fine, walkability is a major component. Yeah the lack of solid infrastructure is the failing component. You continue to ignore the small details that make a city great and more desirable to pedestrians, transit riders, and motorists. The market hasn't moved because those areas haven't maximized their potential for development. In other words, if the city encourages sprawling growth, then developers will follow because the end game is making money. However if you direct and guide development, then you change that mindset. Idk why that's so difficult to understand. My point isn't sidewalks and trees, it's guided infrastructure for strong development/redevelopment. AGAIN look at other cities.

Edited March 8, 2018 by j_cuevas713

[Vy65]

1 minute ago, j_cuevas713 said:

If the city encourages sprawling growth, then developers will follow because the end game is making money. However if you direct and guide development, then you change that mindset. 

100% agree with this. The problem is that there's no zoning here. There aren't restrictions in when/how developers develop land. That is far more for accomplishing an urban/pedestrian environment than a bus and some trees. Again, look at other cities (Austin would be a great example).

[Houston19514]

4 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

That's fine, walkability is a major component. Yeah the lack of solid infrastructure is the failing component. You continue to ignore the small details that make a city great and more desirable to pedestrians, transit riders, and motorists. The market hasn't moved because those areas haven't maximized their potential for development. In other words, if the city encourages sprawling growth, then developers will follow because the end game is making money. However if you direct and guide development, then you change that mindset. Idk why that's so difficult to understand. My point isn't sidewalks and trees, it's guided infrastructure for strong development/redevelopment. AGAIN look at other cities.

 

AND Vy ignores the extent to which the market has already moved... BLVD Place for example.  Also, The shopping center across POB from BLVD Place seriously considered a more dense redevelopment several years ago, but decided the time wasn't quite right. They made it clear that such a redevelopment is likely to happen in the future.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

18 minutes ago, Vy65 said:

Appreciate the response. And, I agree that there has been development on the east side of 610, and it's a welcome sign. 

 

That said, I don't see how you can extrapolate that development to POB. For starters, they're divided by 610. I don't see people walking from the ROD under the highway, through some commercial office buildings, just to take a bus to go to a mall. If the BRT system included a stop at the ROD, I'd be able to muster some enthusiasm for it.

 

The Galleria has been a major draw for decades. Yet those shopping plazas have remained. You still have large, empty parcels along POB, San Felipe, and on the interior. The market hasn't moved to prod development in those places - and suggesting that trees + sidewalk is the lacking catalyst doesn't pass the straight-face test. Will the area change over the course of decades? Maybe. But to suggest that anything is imminent (i.e., within the next couple years) is beyond optimistic in my book. 

 

Not sure that anyone suggested a wholesale redevelopment is imminent (within the next couple of years).  This is about the long term

[j_cuevas713]

4 minutes ago, Vy65 said:

100% agree with this. The problem is that there's no zoning here. There aren't restrictions in when/how developers develop land. That is far more for accomplishing an urban/pedestrian environment than a bus and some trees. Again, look at other cities (Austin would be a great example).

Austin is a sprawling city other than their downtown. Zoning has nothing to do with this lol

Edited March 8, 2018 by j_cuevas713

[Vy65]

Just now, Houston19514 said:

 

Not sure that anyone suggested a wholesale redevelopment is imminent (within the next couple of years).  This is about the long term

 

"Vy, my optimism comes from what I have witnessed in this city and in this general area in the city.  Look at the area just East of the West Loop, between San Filipe and Westheimer.  Within just a few years, it has transitioned from low density apartment communities ..."

 

That's what I was responding to. 

[Vy65]

4 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

AND Vy ignores the extent to which the market has already moved... BLVD Place for example.  Also, The shopping center across POB from BLVD Place seriously considered a more dense redevelopment several years ago, but decided the time wasn't quite right. They made it clear that such a redevelopment is likely to happen in the future.

 

Right, that's why there are several barren fields in off of POB/around BLVD place that have remained undeveloped. For years. Clearly lots of market movement already ...

[Vy65]

1 minute ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Austin is a sprawling city other than their downtown. 

You kinda missed the point. Would you consider Austin a city with a high amount of regulations on real estate development? 

[j_cuevas713]

Just now, Vy65 said:

 

Right, that's why there are several barren fields in off of POB/around BLVD place that have remained undeveloped. For years. Clearly lots of market movement already ...

No just not enough incentive yet. Which AGAIN is my point. I'll bet that development picks up on those lots once the BRT is finished. 

[Vy65]

Just now, j_cuevas713 said:

No just not enough incentive yet. Which AGAIN is my point. I'll bet that development picks up on those lots once the BRT is finished. 

So bus + sidewalk is the missing link to development of those pieces of land? 

 

Others suggested that the market had already moved on the area. 

 

Pick a lane:  either the area is moving (so why several empty tracts) or its not (but will be once we get some more sidewalk put in).

[j_cuevas713]

1 minute ago, Vy65 said:

You kinda missed the point. Would you consider Austin a city with a high amount of regulations on real estate development? 

No it's actually pretty loose. Austin is sprawling more than ever. It's downtown is growing denser but that's just the overall product of people moving to the city and developers taking advantage of it. That's a city WITH zoning. Again zoning has nothing to do with just having good infrastructure. You don't need to be zoned to accept that concept. Zoning also fails in some areas to create strong urbanism.

[Vy65]

Just now, j_cuevas713 said:

No it's actually pretty loose. Austin is sprawling more than ever. It's downtown is growing denser but that's just the overall product of people moving to the city and developers taking advantage of it. That's a city WITH zoning. Again zoning has nothing to do with just having good infrastructure. You don't need to be zoned to accept that concept. Zoning also fails in some areas to create strong urbanism.

This is getting to be besides the point, but would Austin  have the highly dense downtown it enjoys without zoning?

[j_cuevas713]

Just now, Vy65 said:

So bus + sidewalk is the missing link to development of those pieces of land? 

 

Others suggested that the market had already moved on the area. 

 

Pick a lane:  either the area is moving (so why several empty tracts) or its not (but will be once we get some more sidewalk put in).

It is moving. I made that clear. Developers aren't going to budge on something that won't make them money. Is that so hard to understand? If the city doesn't provide a strong incentive then why should a developer build just to build? Empty lots have nothing to do with this. 

[j_cuevas713]

1 minute ago, Vy65 said:

This is getting to be besides the point, but would Austin  have the highly dense downtown it enjoys without zoning?

Yeah probably so because the market is determining this level of density. People want to live in the city. Zoning or no zoning there is proof of that in THIS CITY. My God wth lol

[Vy65]

Just now, j_cuevas713 said:

It is moving. I made that clear. Developers aren't going to budge on something that won't make them money. Is that so hard to understand? If the city doesn't provide a strong incentive then why should a developer build just to build? Empty lots have nothing to do with this. 

Didn't answer my question: are the bus + trees the only thing keeping the strip plazas and empty lots from being (re)developed? 

 

You and I have very different takes on what constitutes a "strong incentive" 

[Vy65]

1 minute ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Yeah probably so because the market is determining this level of density. People want to live in the city. Zoning or no zoning there is proof of that in THIS CITY. My God wth lol

True, the suburban sprawl from downtown to Tomball clearly shows a strong desire to live in/near the city of Houston. 

[j_cuevas713]

1 minute ago, Vy65 said:

Didn't answer my question: are the bus + trees the only thing keeping the strip plazas and empty lots from being (re)developed? 

 

You and I have very different takes on what constitutes a "strong incentive" 

Then you tell me what you think a strong incentive is??? For Houston, not anywhere else. The only thing you've done is argued every point and you haven't provided anything. Other than the fact you worked on Post Oak for 2 years. 

Edited March 8, 2018 by j_cuevas713

[Naviguessor]

28 minutes ago, Vy65 said:

Appreciate the response. And, I agree that there has been development on the east side of 610, and it's a welcome sign. 

 

That said, I don't see how you can extrapolate that development to POB. For starters, they're divided by 610. I don't see people walking from the ROD under the highway, through some commercial office buildings, just to take a bus to go to a mall. If the BRT system included a stop at the ROD, I'd be able to muster some enthusiasm for it.

 

The Galleria has been a major draw for decades. Yet those shopping plazas have remained. You still have large, empty parcels along POB, San Felipe, and on the interior. The market hasn't moved to prod development in those places - and suggesting that trees + sidewalk is the lacking catalyst doesn't pass the straight-face test. Will the area change over the course of decades? Maybe. But to suggest that anything is imminent (i.e., within the next couple years) is beyond optimistic in my book. 

The example of the development East of 610, is proof about how real estate in the area is becoming more dense, not as a reason for the BRT line.  Certainly, POB and ROD and surrounding areas, are poorly linked and isolated from one another.  It's a Comp. 

 

BLVD place is attached to many of the vacant lots that you are referencing. I would suggest that this is the best example of how the area is already densifying.  The Very Large building, where Whole Foods is, one large apartment tower developed by Hanover, a second being built, another sister building similar to the Whole Foods Building will be on its way soon.   Pretty remarkable density and redevelopment.  What was here before?  Strip mall. 

 

59 minutes ago, Vy65 said:

Why isn’t Apache building its new HQ?

 Seriously?  I am not sure I know what you mean by the example.   Have you been paying attention to what has happened to their business in the last few years?  Building a new building just doesn't make sense.  But, they have held on to the property, i believe.  They see its advantages.   

[Houston19514]

This project is another step in support of the long term vision of creating a dense  pedestrian-friendly environment.

 

Contrary to the dishonest suggestion above, no one has said it will cause imminent (within 2-3 years) redevelopment all along the boulevard. Again, it's part of a vision for the long term.

 

Contrary to the repeated dishonest attempts to diminish the project by referring to it as "buses and trees", the project consists of more than that:  wider sidewalks, more shade, better lighting, better landscaping and art.  And as everyone here surely knows, the buses are not just  standard buses.

 

[j_cuevas713]

17 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

This project is another step in support of the long term vision of creating a dense  pedestrian-friendly environment.

 

Contrary to the dishonest suggestion above, no one has said it will cause imminent (within 2-3 years) redevelopment all along the boulevard. Again, it's part of a vision for the long term.

 

Contrary to the repeated dishonest attempts to diminish the project by referring to it as "buses and trees", the project consists of more than that:  wider sidewalks, more shade, better lighting, better landscaping and art.  And as everyone here surely knows, the buses are not just  standard buses.

 

Eaxctly! Why is this person diminishing this project? It really screams an old Houston mentality. 

Edited March 8, 2018 by j_cuevas713

[Vy65]

32 minutes ago, Naviguessor said:

BLVD place is attached to many of the vacant lots that you are referencing. I would suggest that this is the best example of how the area is already densifying.  The Very Large building, where Whole Foods is, one large apartment tower developed by Hanover, a second being built, another sister building similar to the Whole Foods Building will be on its way soon.   Pretty remarkable density and redevelopment.  What was here before?  Strip mall. 

 

 Seriously?  I am not sure I know what you mean by the example.   Have you been paying attention to what has happened to their business in the last few years?  Building a new building just doesn't make sense.  But, they have held on to the property, i believe.  They see its advantages.   

I don't think you can say that the presence of multiple empty lots - that have been empty for years - is a sign of a densification. I only know of the one tower being built by Hanover (to the extent that you're suggesting that there are two being built). As for other's "on the way," I'll believe it when I see it because a lot of what I see out there is empty land. 

 

As for Apache, their Alpine play is poised to be highly lucrative. That, along with the rise/recovery of oil makes the renewal of their POC lease (as opposed to starting their building) kinda prove my point. 

[Vy65]

Eaxctly! Why is this person diminishing this project? It really screams an old Houston mentality. 

Because adding trees and a bus doesn't do much of anything. I would love to see this city become more urban and dense, but expanding a sidewalk isn't going to do it. A lot more drastic alternatives - which likely aren't feasible - are needed. So I'm sorry to burst your bubble on a pretty pathetic project.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Vy65

[j_cuevas713]

2 minutes ago, Vy65 said:

Because adding trees and a bus doesn't do much of anything. I would love to see this city become more urban and dense, but expanding a sidewalk isn't going to do it. A lot more drastic alternatives - which likely aren't feasible - are needed. So I'm sorry to burst your bubble on a pretty pathetic project.

So you want Houston to become more urban and dense but you want to diminish the small efforts it takes to become that. Real smarty guy... NEXT!

[Houston19514]

8 minutes ago, Vy65 said:

I don't think you can say that the presence of multiple empty lots - that have been empty for years - is a sign of a densification. I only know of the one tower being built by Hanover (to the extent that you're suggesting that there are two being built). As for other's "on the way," I'll believe it when I see it because a lot of what I see out there is empty land. 

 

As for Apache, their Alpine play is poised to be highly lucrative. That, along with the rise/recovery of oil makes the renewal of their POC lease (as opposed to starting their building) kinda prove my point. 

 

Read more. Type less.  Hanover is currently building their second tower, as Naviguesor said.  The first one is right next door.  Are you in Chicago by any chance?

[Naviguessor]

Vy,

Have a gander.