Jump to content

Land On Yale St.


poyea

Recommended Posts

Seriously?

Well, people, it's The Niche's world and we're all just lucky to live in it. Please lower your expectations to match his and we stop this sillier-by-the-moment discussion and move on with our bourgeoise little lives...

I would never suggest that you change your consumer preferences or expectations on account of mine, nor would I seek to deny your neighborhood or our community any retailer that thinks that there's demand enough to make an investment here worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Saw this today, thought it was relevant:

Smaller stores

If Wal-Mart can succeed in the urban market, that could mean several hundred stores just in major cities like New York, Chicago and Detroit, bringing several hundred million dollars in additional earnings, analysts said.

To fit into cities, Wal-Mart is proposing to make itself more trial-size. It would shrink its stores to as small as 8,000 square feet, about 4 percent of the size of an average supercenter. It is considering formats that are primarily groceries, stores where customers can order items and and pick them up, stores where local business owners can lease space, and even formats like bodegas.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7079360.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah and in The Niche's world he actually eats McDonalds on a regular basis - ick! Cheap yes - but it makes me sick every time I eat it so I stopped eating there long long time ago. Since I've seen the movies "Super Size Me" and "Food Inc.", it also makes my stomach turn a bit when I hear the name. There's lots of good food for you that is cheaper than McDonalds. How about peanut butter sandwiches and an apple? (easy to pack carry and doesn't need refrigeration either) Beans and Rice....Spaghetti with homemade sauce, fried rice with frozen peas and a bit of meat in it....I could go on and on and on. Don't be lazy people and think it is okay to hear someone from a tin box say "may I take your order?" Please Tthe Niche - try eating a bit more healthy (hey even WalMart has organic foods now) and perhaps you mind and body will improve for it and your postings may be a bit more pleasant ;-D

Stop proselytizing me. I don't need your propaganda.

Don't call me lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop proselytizing me. I don't need your propaganda.

It never seems to fail that regardless of how many people take the dissenting view, only one person will ever become the lightning rod for personal attacks from the opposition. I'd try to take some of the heat off you by admitting that even though I hate McDonald's more than Walmart, I had two sausage McMuffins for breakfast yesterday (yes, I'm a big ol' hypocrite), but I fear they've already made you the figurehead of the pro-Walmart movement. Nothing will stop that now, and it doesn't matter your reasons. Emotions trump logic in nearly every argument ever debated.

Don't call me lazy.

You're lazy. And worse, I hear you kick dogs.

Edit: And to the guy who's throwing the negs out for no apparent reason other than to be vindictive, I'm going to counter those as much as I can despite the fact I fundamentally disagree with Niche's point too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never suggest that you change your consumer preferences or expectations on account of mine, nor would I seek to deny your neighborhood or our community any retailer that thinks that there's demand enough to make an investment here worthwhile.

See, I don't get why it's better if the retailer gets to choose and not the neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I don't get why it's better if the retailer gets to choose and not the neighborhood.

The neighborhood DOES choose, with their wallets. If West Adams did not want Walmart, its sales would slump, it would shut its doors, and move on to a neighborhood or town that wanted its low prices and could tolerate (or did not care about) its business practices. The opposition to a Walmart on Yale is precisely because it WOULD do well. Everyone knows it would do well, and it might thwart efforts by some (not you necessarily) to run the undesirables out of the Heights. This can be seen in many other lightning rods for criticism, such as opposing Starbucks, McMansions, developers, big box stores (except hip Targets), and of course, the effort to make the entire Heights area historic. Certain residents have a self-view that they wish to project by banning everything that does not conform or promote that self-view. Those who do not share that same self-view are forced to comply by ordinance. This practice is at its most extreme in places like Bellaire and West University Place, but it exists in the Heights as well, and is picking up steam. It is the exact same process, only with a different veneer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the parking lot is full of crime, that's your neighbors - and they're already here. It's not like Walmart includes petty thieves in their development plan.

This isn't really true, research show that most of the crime is "passing through" and not in the neighborhood itself. I can't find the study I read last year in regards to crime, traffic and big box retail stores but the findings were not good. Basically said that the through traffic increase of the area and increased "targets" thats the store attracted made crime rates go up. This was doublely felt by the community because local response times went up and more law enforcement was needed in that area and pulled from neighborhoods, etc...

Following up on the negative tick comment... Where I too disagree with someone giving negative ticks for fundamental view differences and being vindictive. I've followed Niche for a long time and where most comments are intelligent and express opinions with out offense to anyone, (painting a taget on my back here) some comments of late have bordered personal attacks and have had prejudice undertones. Honestly I don't see them as anything but a gauge on the majority opinion of the board, not really a personal right or wrong scale. I mean what happens if you get too many bad ticks? Banishment? If thats the case then I need to find another board.

Just my .02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I don't get why it's better if the retailer gets to choose and not the neighborhood.

Well, I think that for a relatively recent transplant the best thing is to just understand the Houston (and Texas's) economic model from the ground up. Then it might make more sense regarding why people here instinctively take the side of big corporations over all else (including their own well being), and other things will start to make sense, too, such as the lack of emphasis on education and quality of life, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't really true, research show that most of the crime is "passing through" and not in the neighborhood itself. I can't find the study I read last year in regards to crime, traffic and big box retail stores but the findings were not good.

Out of curiosity, was this study Walmart specific or did it include the massive parking lots of all big box retailers? If the latter, I wonder how it compares to the crime stats of the Sawyer Target. A Walmart on Yale will likely draw the same criminal element as that Target, so what you see there will likely be repeated at Walmart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, was this study Walmart specific or did it include the massive parking lots of all big box retailers? If the latter, I wonder how it compares to the crime stats of the Sawyer Target. A Walmart on Yale will likely draw the same criminal element as that Target, so what you see there will likely be repeated at Walmart.

It was not walmart specific, it was a general big box retailer study with some definition around "big box" which from what I remember focussed on the square footage and offerings of retail stores. I know that Supercenters and SuperTargets were figured in this particular study. I'd also be curious to see the stats from the new target. I think I might have it at home, will try and dig it out later today.

EDIT: Found something I read that lead me to the research last year.... http://www.ncsociolo...day/raleigh.htm

The part of praticular interest. (Keep in mind I found this when researching why we should NOT have I-10 feeders and on/off ramps)

" A total of 63% of the variance in property crime is explained when all accessibility and opportunity variables are entered into the equation. Opportunity and accessibility measures are very strong predictors for such a small unit of analysis. By explaining a large proportion of the variance in property crime, at a small level of aggregation, we are able to demonstrate that crime is a nonrandom event and is very predictable.

This research has established not only that crime patterns exist, but that crime is more often found in accessible areas with commercial land use. Shopping centers, storage places, schools, service stations, and restaurants tend to attract criminals along with legitimate customers to the area. Hence, commercial centers are good for both business and crime. The type of residential land use also has an effect on property crime. The more housing units on a street segment, the greater the property crime risk. Additionally, street segments without a predominance of owner occupancy are more likely to be victimized. The implications of this research are important in being able to identify "hot spot" areas. If certain areas or even certain places of a city are considered "hot spots" then efforts should be taken towards making these areas less criminogenic by reducing accessibility opportunity and/or increasing guardianship factors. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think that for a relatively recent transplant the best thing is to just understand the Houston (and Texas's) economic model from the ground up. Then it might make more sense regarding why people here instinctively take the side of big corporations over all else (including their own well being), and other things will start to make sense, too, such as the lack of emphasis on education and quality of life, etc.

...or perhaps that quality of life is not a one-size-fits-all formula. :wacko: I'd submit to you that understanding a people's value system is a better place to start rather than understanding the consequent economy, which is what those values hath wrought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...or perhaps that quality of life is not a one-size-fits-all formula. :wacko: I'd submit to you that understanding a people's value system is a better place to start rather than understanding the consequent economy, which is what those values hath wrought.

Not really. I think you can have similar value systems result in different economies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't really true, research show that most of the crime is "passing through" and not in the neighborhood itself.

I have never seen a study suggesting this, and I'm in the business. I will, however, suggest some parameters that might skew a study that concludes this. In general, most residential crime is self inflicted, in that your neighbors, or more commonly, the kids of your neighbors, are the ones breaking into your house, stealing your car, etc. If you define your "neighborhood" small enough, i.e., if you only consider your block and the blocks surrounding it your "neighborhood", it may not apply, but most crime is local, simply because the criminal knows the neighborhood, and transportation is easier. Remember, most criminals are poor. Many are drug addicts. They oftentimes have no transportation, so they steal close to home.

Moving on to retailers, businesses in general cause higher crime rates. Why? That's where the stuff is! And, they are closed at night, so no one is watching. Big retailers cause more crime than little ones. Why? They have more stuff! If you look at a crime data compilation, the highest number is Theft. This category includes shoplifting. If a store opens on your block where a vacant field previously existed, Theft will rise exponentially from 0. Is the neighborhood less safe? From the data, it appears so. In actuality, it is no less safe than before, as your neighbors are the ones committing the theft, and they live nearby already. It is the same neighborhood, but the retail store is a magnet for shoplifting.

Now, lefts look at big box versus mom and pops. The big boxes have more merchandise to steal, they have more floor space to cover, and many more customers, and consequently, thieves. It stands to reason that more theft will occur. Does it mean the neighborhood is less safe? No, for the same reasons as above. In fact, because the retail is concentrated in this smaller area, and the sales volume much higher, it is actually more economical to provide security for the big box than a small store. Despite the claims of some, virtually every Walmart has store security watching for shoplifters, as well as uniformed security watching the parking areas. While some crime inevitably does occur, most of it is committed against Walmart in the form of theft. Given the high number of shoppers, the incidences of crime against shoppers per capita is likely lower. This same phenomenon can be seen in New York City, where the actual numbers of crimes committed are high, as are the number of crimes per square mile, but because of its population density, the incidence of crime per capita is actually low for a big city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. I think you can have similar value systems result in different economies.

Though not completely clear, it struck me that your earlier comments were referring to social attitudes towards business and political outgrowths of that, such as corporate welfare disguised as economic development programs, a regressive tax policy with an emphasis on consumption taxes, rabid protectionism of property rights, and so on and so forth. ...as opposed to actually looking at aggregated economic data.

Unless you literally meant, "from the ground up", meaning that our geography and natural resources have something to do with it. But that wouldn't make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never seen a study suggesting this, and I'm in the business.

Look at the study I posted above, it suggests that. Not saying it is the end all be all but still some sound logic and information worth looking at.

If a store opens on your block where a vacant field previously existed, Theft will rise exponentially from 0. Is the neighborhood less safe? From the data, it appears so. In actuality, it is no less safe than before, as your neighbors are the ones committing the theft, and they live nearby already. It is the same neighborhood, but the retail store is a magnet for shoplifting.

I agree with everything you said in the above post. Except the point quoted... On vacant lots there is actually a HIGHER crime rate than if the lot were developed and used. So the development could possibly then decrease the crime rate ( I think this is a double win because violent crimes are more likely on vacant lots, need to verify tho) which is a good thing.

The only point that I would argue is a negative for the community in regards to crime is that it displaces emergency resources that might be utilized elsewhere in the community. Now that being said, if it brought enough revenue to the city that they would increase said emergency services to a higher capacity this point would be a non-issue. I don't think this is the case how-ever, just my gut feeling. Haven't looked that far into it.

In regards to the Walmart... I won't shop there but thats just my opinion. I am still out on how I feel about it "invading" our neighborhood... Is it better than the past Heights Park or whatever it was called? No, maybe not. Is it better than vacant lots that seem to be a haven for vandalism and vagrants. Yes. This is always the catch with land development.

I think Walmart is smarter than people think when they look at store placement and what the future hold. They know that the only way to keep profits up is cheap labor and cheap transportation, both of which are slowly going away... Wouldn't doubt it if they chose the location (over other nearby locations) for the nearby rail so to keep costs VERY low, as shipment by train is lower than by truck... This is a whole different arguement, which I have found is not well recieved, so I will leave it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though not completely clear, it struck me that your earlier comments were referring to social attitudes towards business and political outgrowths of that, such as corporate welfare disguised as economic development programs, a regressive tax policy with an emphasis on consumption taxes

Yes, but I don't think you have to have a specific social attitude to be on board with Houston's particular economic model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't call you anything - not trying to convert you to a new religion or convince YOU of anything....the post was just about nutrition. Get a dictionary and get over it.

...gotta go "clean" something.

You said, "Don't be lazy people and think it is okay to hear someone from a tin box say 'may I take your order?'" Your comment was directed at me; I think it's okay to order food via intercom. Therefore I am lazy, according to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Judah, I've tried, but I'm just not clear on what you're trying to communicate.

It's my opinion he's saying Houstonians are dumb and that we don't know what's best for ourselves as well as he does. But don't be offended because 1) he's speaking generally and 2) he specifically excluded you from the general group of dumb people - from which you would have been excluded regardless because he's kept it general and not specifically insulted anyone.

In other words, redundancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the study I posted above, it suggests that. Not saying it is the end all be all but still some sound logic and information worth looking at.

I agree with everything you said in the above post. Except the point quoted... On vacant lots there is actually a HIGHER crime rate than if the lot were developed and used. So the development could possibly then decrease the crime rate ( I think this is a double win because violent crimes are more likely on vacant lots, need to verify tho) which is a good thing.

The only point that I would argue is a negative for the community in regards to crime is that it displaces emergency resources that might be utilized elsewhere in the community. Now that being said, if it brought enough revenue to the city that they would increase said emergency services to a higher capacity this point would be a non-issue. I don't think this is the case how-ever, just my gut feeling. Haven't looked that far into it.

In regards to the Walmart... I won't shop there but thats just my opinion. I am still out on how I feel about it "invading" our neighborhood... Is it better than the past Heights Park or whatever it was called? No, maybe not. Is it better than vacant lots that seem to be a haven for vandalism and vagrants. Yes. This is always the catch with land development.

I think Walmart is smarter than people think when they look at store placement and what the future hold. They know that the only way to keep profits up is cheap labor and cheap transportation, both of which are slowly going away... Wouldn't doubt it if they chose the location (over other nearby locations) for the nearby rail so to keep costs VERY low, as shipment by train is lower than by truck... This is a whole different arguement, which I have found is not well recieved, so I will leave it.

Your statement about the vacant lot is both true and proof of my point about the crime study. Violent crime is much more likely to occur in areas with few witnesses. While the vacant lot may be a higher risk for violent crime, the incidence of property crime on that lot is 0. And therein lies the rub. Your study assesses only property crime. While I am hesitant to criticize a study conducted at the alma mater of my dad (NC State) and my brother (App State), I must point out that they only compared property crime rates, and further, they did exactly what I predicted they would do, which is use Raleigh PD police data. As stated earlier, "Theft" is by far the most common crime, and most of that occurs through shoplifting. This is not groundbreaking news, but the percentages may surprise you. In Houston, 2/3 of all reported property crimes are thefts, dwarfing burglary and auto theft. And, it is no surprise that both retailers and local governments make it easier for shoppers to access retail stores, as retailers profit from increased sales, and local governments gain additional tax revenue from sales taxes and property taxes paid by retailers. With that increased access, both paying customers and thieves have an easier time getting to the store. This is not news. And, it is not unique to big box retail. ALL retail stores draw thieves. It is human nature. But, it does not necessarily make residents less physically safe.

http://mycity.houstontx.gov/crime/ucrPage.aspx

Note that statistically, theft accounts for 2/3 of property crime reports, but in reality, it is probably closer to 90 or 95%, as many thefts are not reported, the small loss not being worth the time of reporting it, or the theft only being discovered during end of month inventory. For example, the only 2 crimes I have suffered in the Heights were 2 thefts, one being the theft of a couple of 10 year old plastic chairs, whose value could be calculated in pennies, and a gas weedeater that cost $70 new, but was several years old. Even though I knew who the thief of the weedeater was (a contractor), I never reported it, as I knew that there was insufficient evidence to arrest him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAIFers...does anyone have any knowledge of what is happening on the land on Yale, just south of I-10 (either side of Yale actually). There has recently been quite a bit of earth movers chopping up the concrete on the west side of Yale. The For Sale signs are still in place however. We were hoping for a new HEB location, but with Montrose getting one, we're not as hopeful anymore. HAIFers just HAVE to know something by now.

Thanks!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAIFers...does anyone have any knowledge of what is happening on the land on Yale, just south of I-10 (either side of Yale actually). There has recently been quite a bit of earth movers chopping up the concrete on the west side of Yale. The For Sale signs are still in place however. We were hoping for a new HEB location, but with Montrose getting one, we're not as hopeful anymore. HAIFers just HAVE to know something by now.

Thanks!!!

This started out as a simple question and wound up looking like a script to a Maury Povich episode. Geez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not walmart specific, it was a general big box retailer study with some definition around "big box" which from what I remember focussed on the square footage and offerings of retail stores. I know that Supercenters and SuperTargets were figured in this particular study. I'd also be curious to see the stats from the new target. I think I might have it at home, will try and dig it out later today.

EDIT: Found something I read that lead me to the research last year.... http://www.ncsociolo...day/raleigh.htm

The part of praticular interest. (Keep in mind I found this when researching why we should NOT have I-10 feeders and on/off ramps)

" A total of 63% of the variance in property crime is explained when all accessibility and opportunity variables are entered into the equation. Opportunity and accessibility measures are very strong predictors for such a small unit of analysis. By explaining a large proportion of the variance in property crime, at a small level of aggregation, we are able to demonstrate that crime is a nonrandom event and is very predictable.

This research has established not only that crime patterns exist, but that crime is more often found in accessible areas with commercial land use. Shopping centers, storage places, schools, service stations, and restaurants tend to attract criminals along with legitimate customers to the area. Hence, commercial centers are good for both business and crime. The type of residential land use also has an effect on property crime. The more housing units on a street segment, the greater the property crime risk. Additionally, street segments without a predominance of owner occupancy are more likely to be victimized. The implications of this research are important in being able to identify "hot spot" areas. If certain areas or even certain places of a city are considered "hot spots" then efforts should be taken towards making these areas less criminogenic by reducing accessibility opportunity and/or increasing guardianship factors. "

That study doesn't in any way suggest that the criminals aren't from the area, in fact it suggests the opposite based on the fact that the types of living establishments (single family versus multi/apartment) in the area have a direct effect on the crime rate. In fact, according to your study we should be just as worried about building more schools as we are more businesses, since crime goes up significantly near schools, and "since offenders are typically school age, the existence of a middle or high school on a segment represents a gathering of potentially motivated offenders and increases the risk of property crime to the area".

So if you want to minimize the parking lot crime, according to your study, tear down a few schools (kids steal things), get rid of the apartments (poor people steal things), and fight the I-10 feeder and added exit (accessible places get more crime for obvious reasons).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That study doesn't in any way suggest that the criminals aren't from the area, in fact it suggests the opposite based on the fact that the types of living establishments (single family versus multi/apartment) in the area have a direct effect on the crime rate. In fact, according to your study we should be just as worried about building more schools as we are more businesses, since crime goes up significantly near schools, and "since offenders are typically school age, the existence of a middle or high school on a segment represents a gathering of potentially motivated offenders and increases the risk of property crime to the area".

So if you want to minimize the parking lot crime, according to your study, tear down a few schools (kids steal things), get rid of the apartments (poor people steal things), and fight the I-10 feeder and added exit (accessible places get more crime for obvious reasons).

I didn't specify that study, if you would reread my post I said this particular one I posted the link to was one that LED to the information I referred to. I still cannot find the one that does tie through traffic to the crime rate. You are targetting me as a part of the opposition, yet I never picked sides. I was simply trying to clarify and bring more light to the situation as a whole so people could make an educated decision.

Now, you have just contradicted yourself... I guess all neighborhood criminals would be jumping on and off I-10 stealing stuff so they can take the next exit and double back to their home??? Also, I think you mis-interpretted the information. They study suggests that if it is mostly home-owners in and area rather than renters (apartments included) or commercial buildings, there is a heightened awareness and people are more likely to watch for crime, therefore lowering the crime rate. Please explain how this supports the "opposite" of saying through traffic raises crime rate? Does it say definitively that people who live in those arpartments are robbing eachother?

Please do some research and carefully read others posts before attacking and stating "facts"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not groundbreaking news, but the percentages may surprise you. In Houston, 2/3 of all reported property crimes are thefts, dwarfing burglary and auto theft. And, it is no surprise that both retailers and local governments make it easier for shoppers to access retail stores, as retailers profit from increased sales, and local governments gain additional tax revenue from sales taxes and property taxes paid by retailers. With that increased access, both paying customers and thieves have an easier time getting to the store. This is not news. And, it is not unique to big box retail. ALL retail stores draw thieves. It is human nature. But, it does not necessarily make residents less physically safe.

I agree with all you have said. My only arguement/concern was not whether we were less physically safe but rather the response times and use of those emergency resources would be comprimised by opening any bigbox store therefore causing the use of those resources to be allocated to commercial areas dealing with theft rather than the current scenerio of them patrolling the area. As I said before I havent dug into this but would be interested to see if someone has done some research on the relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't specify that study, if you would reread my post I said this particular one I posted the link to was one that LED to the information I referred to. I still cannot find the one that does tie through traffic to the crime rate. You are targetting me as a part of the opposition, yet I never picked sides. I was simply trying to clarify and bring more light to the situation as a whole so people could make an educated decision.

Now, you have just contradicted yourself... I guess all neighborhood criminals would be jumping on and off I-10 stealing stuff so they can take the next exit and double back to their home??? Also, I think you mis-interpretted the information. They study suggests that if it is mostly home-owners in and area rather than renters (apartments included) or commercial buildings, there is a heightened awareness and people are more likely to watch for crime, therefore lowering the crime rate. Please explain how this supports the "opposite" of saying through traffic raises crime rate? Does it say definitively that people who live in those arpartments are robbing eachother?

Please do some research and carefully read others posts before attacking and stating "facts"...

I'm not contradicting anything. The study clearly states that accessibility is a big factor in crime, but it can't state that as a direct cause of it. More likely it's an indirect cause in that more businesses are built in accessible areas than inaccessible ones. I never said that through traffic doesn't lead to increased crime, I agreed with that. My original statement that you argued against was that the criminals you are worried about already live here, building a Wal-Mart won't increase or decrease the number of criminals around.

My only rebuttal was to your statement that the studies somehow indicate that it is not people who live in the area who commit the crimes. That can't be concluded from that study in any way, and I am saying the study suggests the opposite, that locals (from apartments and schools apparently) are the most likely criminals.

I'm not trying to be attacking at all. I just stand by the statement that the criminals we're all afraid of are already here, this will just be a new target for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, so we will be getting a crappy little WalMart without the variety of items all the yay-sayers have been so excited about with crappy quality items with a bunch of leased space i.e. a mini-mini mall. Now we will all be screwed.

Go Walmart!

The link to that article was broken. It was originally published in the New York Times, available here. Do note that the article does not reference Houston or Texas even once, and mostly discusses a store in Chicago and the prospect of further penetrating Chicago, Detroit, and the northeast corridor.

I don't really see the relevance of this article to Yale Street in Houston, TX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...