Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HeyHatch

Wal-Mart to invade the Heights

Walmart at Yale & I-10: For or Against  

160 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Q1: Regarding the proposed WalMart at Yale and I-10:

    • I live within a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am FOR this Walmart
      41
    • I live within a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am AGAINST this Walmart
      54
    • I live outside a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am FOR this Walmart
      30
    • I live outside a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am AGAINST this Walmart
      26
    • Undecided
      9
  2. 2. Q2: If/when this proposed WalMart is built at Yale & I-10

    • I am FOR this WalMart and will shop at this WalMart
      45
    • I am FOR this WalMart but will not shop at this WalMart
      23
    • I am AGAINST this WalMart but will shop at this WalMart
      7
    • I am AGAINST this WalMart and will not shop at this WalMart
      72
    • Undecided
      13
  3. 3. Q3: WalMart in general

    • I am Pro-Walmart
      16
    • I am Anti-Walmart
      63
    • I don't care either way
      72
    • Undecided
      9


Recommended Posts

This is what I don't understand. What you are basically saying is that being involved in the affairs of your community is only worth it if there is a realistic chance you will get what you want. Otherwise, we all have to just shut up and trust Michael Ainbinder to do what is right for the community.

An interesting point here is that he is on a polar opposite from you. He is resigned to it being built and isn't going to do anything to change the way it's built, and you are fighting tooth and nail with wild accusations and false rumors, distorted facts and just plain lies to try and garner support to try and push the developer away from doing this.

maybe a happy medium is where you should strike. And not one that doesn't include Walmart, that is pretty inevitable, but if you approached the developer with pleas, real factual data to back up some of what you want. work with him to find the designer restaurants.

the developer has a vision, but that vision is not subject to change based on what people who are trying to save money, or otherwise decide. it's like a car, the engineer says this is what the car should be, and someone else looks over the cost, and says, well, this is what we can afford, if you change this material to something else, lets review the cost benefit analysis.

they don't come back to the engineers and say, sorry this is outside of the budget, denied. they have a thoughtful process of making changes and updates based on recommendations.

a development is much the same. if the only input they have from concerned citizens such as you is to go to hell and die, that isn't working at all at a common goal.

so I ask, what has you and your group done to work with these people and their vision, understanding that walmart is the main tenant?

Frankly, no one who is against the walmart thinks that they have some silver bullet. We know much better than anyone on this message board what we are up against. But, the idea that a battle that cannot be won should not be fought is just the kind of idea that help make Walmart what it is and enables a land use system that allows one guy to determine the character of an entire area. I don't care whether I win or lose. What I care about is that people know that my community is organized and ready to fight developers that do not respect the community. We may lose against Walmart, but might win against the Rutland Highrise or whatever stupid idea comes up next.

and there isn't a silver bullet, assuming a silver bullet is something that makes this development go away or change from a walmart to something else.

but there is a way that you could have reasonable input.

walmart, and this developer doesn't want this to fail, cause they have a stake in making money, and if they spend their money wisely on things that would entice more people to shop there, then it is a win, but you have to show them why the changes you want will draw more customers.

but all you do is complain about walmart.

so what you're doing isn't any better than what the poster that has resigned to the fate of his neighborhood. in fact, you may be doing more harm by making so much noise, the people who would have positive input can't be heard.

edit: that's why that rudh website is so silly, they aren't advocating that the developer do anything responsible, they are just saying to get the hell out of here. where's the suggestions from that website to create easier walkable access? Where's the proof that this is needed? Where's the request for better drainage than what the city demands, and where's the proof that this will draw more citizens that are concerned with the environment?

you are going to say it's a worthless endeavor to do this, but it's less worthless than fighting the way you are, and at the end of the day, if you're the reasonable person and the developer isn't that ends up being better for the people against walmart itself.

right now, it looks like you aren't reasonable at all, and so when you tell your story as you picket in front of the walmart people aren't going to listen, but if you were working on a reasonable solution, and the developer was unreasonable, people will listen, and take up your fight.

making claims of a store that is as small as this one will be will draw twice as many cars as a larger store does is not reasonable btw.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I don't understand. What you are basically saying is that being involved in the affairs of your community is only worth it if there is a realistic chance you will get what you want.

Yes. Or a reasonable compromise. Otherwise it is a waste of time.

Otherwise, we all have to just shut up and trust Michael Ainbinder to do what is right for the community.

Under what legal basis can it be stopped?

Frankly, no one who is against the walmart thinks that they have some silver bullet. We know much better than anyone on this message board what we are up against. But, the idea that a battle that cannot be won should not be fought is just the kind of idea that help make Walmart what it is and enables a land use system that allows one guy to determine the character of an entire area. I don't care whether I win or lose. What I care about is that people know that my community is organized and ready to fight developers that do not respect the community. We may lose against Walmart, but might win against the Rutland Highrise or whatever stupid idea comes up next.

I think a better focus would be to work on changing the system to allow more community input into large-scale projects in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Or a reasonable compromise. Otherwise it is a waste of time.

Under what legal basis can it be stopped?

I think a better focus would be to work on changing the system to allow more community input into large-scale projects in the future.

1. It is never a waste of time to advocate for what you believe is best for your community. Plenty of Walmarts have been defeated across the country, including two recent examples in Helotes and Spring Valley.

2. You don't need a lawsuit to stop a Walmart. This development has major problems with traffic and drainage. If the City is held to its promise to "hold the developers feet to the fire", the development may not happen in its current form. But if everyone just walks away and leaves it up to the City, the favors will come pouring in for the developer and Walmart and everything will be rubber stamped. If people are vigilant and organized, then the City may have political cover to put their foot down and take real action that may reduce the size of the Walmart, which would probably send them packing.

3. Any attempt at reform will be shot down by the deep pocketed developers. But, if people make developer's lives very difficult every time they come up with a tower or supercenter in a residential/urban neighborhood or whatever stupid and irresponsible development they will come up with next, then developers may see some sort of reform as a better way to do business than to have to deal with all the ill will, delay and expense that comes with each land use fight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It is never a waste of time to advocate for what you believe is best for your community. Plenty of Walmarts have been defeated across the country, including two recent examples in Helotes and Spring Valley.

2. You don't need a lawsuit to stop a Walmart. This development has major problems with traffic and drainage. If the City is held to its promise to "hold the developers feet to the fire", the development may not happen in its current form. But if everyone just walks away and leaves it up to the City, the favors will come pouring in for the developer and Walmart and everything will be rubber stamped. If people are vigilant and organized, then the City may have political cover to put their foot down and take real action that may reduce the size of the Walmart, which would probably send them packing.

3. Any attempt at reform will be shot down by the deep pocketed developers. But, if people make developer's lives very difficult every time they come up with a tower or supercenter in a residential/urban neighborhood or whatever stupid and irresponsible development they will come up with next, then developers may see some sort of reform as a better way to do business than to have to deal with all the ill will, delay and expense that comes with each land use fight.

I've seen no evidence of traffic or drainage issues with this development, just the plaintive mewlings of control freaks not getting their way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It is never a waste of time to advocate for what you believe is best for your community. Plenty of Walmarts have been defeated across the country, including two recent examples in Helotes and Spring Valley.

2. You don't need a lawsuit to stop a Walmart. This development has major problems with traffic and drainage. If the City is held to its promise to "hold the developers feet to the fire", the development may not happen in its current form. But if everyone just walks away and leaves it up to the City, the favors will come pouring in for the developer and Walmart and everything will be rubber stamped. If people are vigilant and organized, then the City may have political cover to put their foot down and take real action that may reduce the size of the Walmart, which would probably send them packing.

3. Any attempt at reform will be shot down by the deep pocketed developers. But, if people make developer's lives very difficult every time they come up with a tower or supercenter in a residential/urban neighborhood or whatever stupid and irresponsible development they will come up with next, then developers may see some sort of reform as a better way to do business than to have to deal with all the ill will, delay and expense that comes with each land use fight.

As soon as someone puts a supercenter in a neighborhood I'll be all over it. So far, though, that hasn't happened. They've only proposed a supercenter on Yale, on the site of a former steel mill. But, if they ever put one in a neighborhood, let me know.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen no evidence of traffic or drainage issues with this development, just the plaintive mewlings of control freaks not getting their way.

So, you are both a traffic engineer and a hydrologist? Or do you think that we shouldn't bother those people with important issues like that and leave it up to you because you have a computer and an internet connection?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as someone puts a supercenter in a neighborhood I'll be all over it. So far, though, that hasn't happened. They've only proposed a supercenter on Yale, on the site of a former steel mill. But, if they ever put one in a neighborhood, let me know.

Try looking at a map or even getting in your car and going over to the site. There are residential neighborhoods to the north, south and west of the planned supercenter. The live in houses and townhouses. Many have their life savings invested. They do not live in an old steel mill.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try looking at a map or even getting in your car and going over to the site. There are residential neighborhoods to the north, south and west of the planned supercenter. The live in houses and townhouses. Many have their life savings invested. They do not live in an old steel mill.

Like I said, if they ever try to put one in a neighborhood, let me know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you are both a traffic engineer and a hydrologist? Or do you think that we shouldn't bother those people with important issues like that and leave it up to you because you have a computer and an internet connection?

the same can be asked of you?

Try looking at a map or even getting in your car and going over to the site. There are residential neighborhoods to the north, south and west of the planned supercenter. The live in houses and townhouses. Many have their life savings invested. They do not live in an old steel mill.

Please note there is a difference between the term 'in a neighborhood' and 'surrounded by neighborhoods'

you said:

...But, if people make developer's lives very difficult every time they come up with a tower or supercenter in a residential/urban neighborhood...

there is no possible way you could have meant that word to be used in any way other than the direct meaning. the word "in" means (as pertaining to your usage):

1. (used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits): in the park.

as this development is not "IN" a residential neighborhood all you are trying to do is what you normally do, scare people into believing that this walmart is dangerous and bad by providing information that is incorrect, or a flat out lie.

I think less people would be staunchly against you if you were in any way showing that you were reasonable. I'm still waiting for you to comment on my post in this thread from back on Nov. 8.

I'll ask again, cause you probably just missed my question, what are you doing to work with the developer to show that some changes are necessary? What changes are you proposing? How will these changes not only benefit the community, but benefit the developer?

I'm sure people on here (myself included) would be happy to agree with you, and provide a unified front if there were some reasonable expectations set on the developer.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try looking at a map or even getting in your car and going over to the site. There are residential neighborhoods to the north, south and west of the planned supercenter. The live in houses and townhouses. Many have their life savings invested. They do not live in an old steel mill.

So it isn't ok for Walmart to impact peoples lives, but it is ok for the Historic Ordinance too.

BTW, i looked at a map and saw that this was not in a neighborhood. Do you EVER actually do your own research, or do you just spit out what they tell you?

sidenote: living in an old steel mill could be sweet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I spent my life savings buying a house next to a 18 acre industrial site located on a city of Houston designated major thoroughfare only 700 ft from a major interstate highway and now my life is ruined because they are building something there" doesnt exactly smack me as an argument put forward by the sharpest tacks in the cork board.

Edited by JJxvi
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sidenote: living in an old steel mill could be sweet.

aside from the possibility of getting cancer from some chemicals that invariably were leeched into the soil, I agree.

you could set up a really sweet go cart track, have an awesome party deck, a really awesome big screen tv area. I imagine the heating cooling bill would suck, plus keeping the windows clean would be a huge hassle. you could set up a sweet garden too.

I think there was a rail spur so you could conceivably buy a rail car as a water feature or something, or maybe an old caboose and set it up as your living quarters and use the steel mill as storage for your lawnmower and weedeater...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you are both a traffic engineer and a hydrologist? Or do you think that we shouldn't bother those people with important issues like that and leave it up to you because you have a computer and an internet connection?

To part one of your question, the answer is "possibly, but then again I could be a dog". To part two, the answer is "absolutely".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case it was a waste of time to protest this Wal-Mart, knowing everything stated earlier in the thread. s3mh, please don't promote jousting at windmills. Please don't promote Don Quixote-ism.

Knowing that Houston is not a Spring Valley, and that it is not a Helotes, and knowing that all of the evidence points to the development being 100% within the law and regulations, it would not be possible to oppose this Wal-Mart.

1. It is never a waste of time to advocate for what you believe is best for your community. Plenty of Walmarts have been defeated across the country, including two recent examples in Helotes and Spring Valley.

2. You don't need a lawsuit to stop a Walmart. This development has major problems with traffic and drainage. If the City is held to its promise to "hold the developers feet to the fire", the development may not happen in its current form. But if everyone just walks away and leaves it up to the City, the favors will come pouring in for the developer and Walmart and everything will be rubber stamped. If people are vigilant and organized, then the City may have political cover to put their foot down and take real action that may reduce the size of the Walmart, which would probably send them packing.

3. Any attempt at reform will be shot down by the deep pocketed developers. But, if people make developer's lives very difficult every time they come up with a tower or supercenter in a residential/urban neighborhood or whatever stupid and irresponsible development they will come up with next, then developers may see some sort of reform as a better way to do business than to have to deal with all the ill will, delay and expense that comes with each land use fight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case it was a waste of time to protest this Wal-Mart, knowing everything stated earlier in the thread. s3mh, please don't promote jousting at windmills. Please don't promote Don Quixote-ism.

Knowing that Houston is not a Spring Valley, and that it is not a Helotes, and knowing that all of the evidence points to the development being 100% within the law and regulations, it would not be possible to oppose this Wal-Mart.

What evidence? Do you have the traffic counts? Have you done the traffic impact analysis? Does the drainage plan meet the standards of the city's design manual? Is there no diversion of floodwaters that will impact surrounding residents? Are you just going to trust the City's bureacracy to protect the citizens from an incompatible development? Or would it be better to have someone who really has the community's interest at heart analyzing these issues with qualified professionals to make sure the City bureacracy doesn't rubber stamp a Walmart because the City is afraid of developers after getting sued by the Ashby developers and has too many connections with the developer and Walmart to be trusted? If you don't believe me, go around town and look at where all the Walmart's are sited. You do not need to be a traffic engineer to see that putting a supercenter in the Heights with a street like Yale as the only thoroughfare access is completely unprecedented in Houston. Most Walmart supercenters are sited on two thoroughfares or directly off of a feeder road, not on a single road (Yale) that may end up with 5 traffic signals in just over a half mile and a grade separation just a few hundred feet from the main entrance.

So, no. I am not promoting Don Quixote-ism. Houston does not have zoning, but does have standards. Those opposing this development have every right and an important duty to see that these standards are properly applied. If the traffic problems can't be mitigated, they can't get permits. If they drainage plan does not meet the design manual's standards, they can't get permits. The idea that you can do whatever you want on your land without zoning is just flatly false. If you want to trust the City with how this will all turn out, that is your problem. Don't go around telling people that everything is going to be fine just because you think it is and trust the City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you just going to trust the City's bureacracy to protect the citizens from an incompatible development? Or would it be better to have someone who really has the community's interest at heart analyzing these issues with qualified professionals to make sure the City bureacracy doesn't rubber stamp a Walmart because the City is afraid of developers after getting sued by the Ashby developers and has too many connections with the developer and Walmart to be trusted?

Yeah, this is what I said about the historic districts. However, a few of my neighbors are advocately exactly that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What evidence? Do you have the traffic counts? Have you done the traffic impact analysis? Does the drainage plan meet the standards of the city's design manual? Is there no diversion of floodwaters that will impact surrounding residents? Are you just going to trust the City's bureacracy to protect the citizens from an incompatible development? Or would it be better to have someone who really has the community's interest at heart analyzing these issues with qualified professionals to make sure the City bureacracy doesn't rubber stamp a Walmart because the City is afraid of developers after getting sued by the Ashby developers and has too many connections with the developer and Walmart to be trusted? If you don't believe me, go around town and look at where all the Walmart's are sited. You do not need to be a traffic engineer to see that putting a supercenter in the Heights with a street like Yale as the only thoroughfare access is completely unprecedented in Houston. Most Walmart supercenters are sited on two thoroughfares or directly off of a feeder road, not on a single road (Yale) that may end up with 5 traffic signals in just over a half mile and a grade separation just a few hundred feet from the main entrance.

So, no. I am not promoting Don Quixote-ism. Houston does not have zoning, but does have standards. Those opposing this development have every right and an important duty to see that these standards are properly applied. If the traffic problems can't be mitigated, they can't get permits. If they drainage plan does not meet the design manual's standards, they can't get permits. The idea that you can do whatever you want on your land without zoning is just flatly false. If you want to trust the City with how this will all turn out, that is your problem. Don't go around telling people that everything is going to be fine just because you think it is and trust the City.

What evidence? Do you have the traffic counts? Have you done the traffic impact analysis? Does the drainage plan not meet the standards of the city's design manual? Is there no diversion of floodwaters that will impact surrounding residents?

Seriously... just because you don't like walmart, you don't get to make things up. Incompatitble development, are you kidding me? If you live in the Heights, and hate walmart, I don't see why you would EVER even come in contact with this section of Yale. It is ENTIRELY avoidable. But keep up the good fight, you don't have a mayor to strong arm this one.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is what I said about the historic districts. However, a few of my neighbors are advocately exactly that.

The Hypocrisy is killing me!!!! .

If S3MH is looking out for out best interests we are in much bigger trouble than I thought possible! My best interests are definitely served by being able to use my own property as I see fit....even if that means tearing down a house that you like solely because it is old, or shopping at a store that someone else despises...your best interests are NOT the same as mine. We do not share common values, political beliefs, or anything other than a zip code...So I would appreciate it if you would stop advocating as if the community as a whole is agreeing with you, and the city is just forging ahead against the will of the people.

There is a small group...very small, who oppose this Walmart, and support historic districts. They are loud, they are whiney, they are obnoxious. They think they get to tell us our business because they have nothing better in their life to do than be in everyone else's business. It is obnoxious...its like the small annoying clicks in High School who think they are better than everyone else.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a small group...very small, who oppose this Walmart, and support historic districts. They are loud, they are whiney, they are obnoxious. They think they get to tell us our business because they have nothing better in their life to do than be in everyone else's business. It is obnoxious...its like the small annoying clicks in High School who think they are better than everyone else.

Well, the good thing about the high school clicks was that you could completely ignore the high school click cause they had no say in anything, and even if they did have any kind of authority, who cares cause high school was only 4 years of your life. This is more than just 3 heathers and a veronica nattering about their rules, this crap they pull affects our lives, and our investments.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obnoxious but somewhat entertaining. I look forward each evening when I log in to seeing what new posts are in this section to see what new "ideas" that s3mh can come up with to tell all of us how our lives will never be the same. I just don't want to go back thru 27 pages but it would be great to roll together all of the "ideas" and see how they have continued to evolve - especially these mysterious traffic counts that went from 7-8000 to now more than 22,000 per day for a supercenter. And now this statement about being incompatible for an area that was a steel mill and not even in the Heights. Just always entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As a noun, click refers to a brief, sharp noise. The verb click means to produce a clicking sound or to press down and release a button on a mouse or other pointing device. The noun clique refers to an exclusive group of friends or associates."

(Definition courtesy of About.com.)

Edited by dbigtex56
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As a noun, click refers to a brief, sharp noise. The verb click means to produce a clicking sound or to press down and release a button on a mouse or other pointing device. The noun clique refers to an exclusive group of friends or associates."

(Definition courtesy of About.com.)

dwight-schrute-fact.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obnoxious but somewhat entertaining. I look forward each evening when I log in to seeing what new posts are in this section to see what new "ideas" that s3mh can come up with to tell all of us how our lives will never be the same. I just don't want to go back thru 27 pages but it would be great to roll together all of the "ideas" and see how they have continued to evolve - especially these mysterious traffic counts that went from 7-8000 to now more than 22,000 per day for a supercenter. And now this statement about being incompatible for an area that was a steel mill and not even in the Heights. Just always entertaining.

According to the 8th edition whatever you call it traffic manual, a Walmart supercenter generates 10,000 car trips a day. This number has been controversial because it is based on the assumption that a 24 hour store will have fewer trips than a store with limited hours. Thus, a CNBC documentary about Walmart stated that the real number of car trips for a Walmart supercenter is 22,000. Both figures are well sourced and not made up. The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

And thanks for saying that it isn't in the Heights. So what? Really, so what? And just because it used to be a steel mill doesn't mean that any use for the site is compatible. The neighborhood has changed immensely since the site was industrial. The immediately surrounding neighborhood is seeing a lot of new residential construction in an area that was a no-go zone just a few years ago. Put in a giant Walmart and you kill off a neighborhood that is in the midst of a revival. Put in a responsible develoment (mixed use/smaller grocer), and you compliment the neighborhood and spur further investment. It is a simple choice, stuff a suburban Walmart supercenter and watch all the dollars get sucked out to Arkansas or develop something that will be a benefit to the neighborhood.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the 8th edition whatever you call it traffic manual, a Walmart supercenter generates 10,000 car trips a day. This number has been controversial because it is based on the assumption that a 24 hour store will have fewer trips than a store with limited hours. Thus, a CNBC documentary about Walmart stated that the real number of car trips for a Walmart supercenter is 22,000. Both figures are well sourced and not made up. The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

Let's use our common sense and try to estimate the real traffic burden. We don't have to be "authorities" to use arithmetic and our own traffic experience.

In El Paso, a traffic study by an anti-Wal-Mart organization concluded 10,968 additional trips to a proposed new Wal-Mart supercenter. Wal-Mart estimated 7,598. Both estimates are "new traffic additions." It isn't the total number of car trips to the store that's important. It's the increase in traffic that matters. It would be silly to assume that all patrons of Wal-Mart are from outside the area and represent new traffic on Yale.

Let's assume there will be 9,000 new cars on Yale in a 24 hour period and that most of them (66% = 6000) are between the hours of 10:00am to 9:00pm (11 hours). During the busy hours, there will be 545 more cars/hour = 9 more cars/minute. Yale goes both North and South, so the traffic burden is about 5 more cars/minute each direction. Because each direction has two lanes, the burden becomes 2.5 more cars/minute in each lane.

2-3 more cars/minute in each lane doesn't sound like it's a big deal. Most of this traffic will be on and off at the new intersection of Yale and I-10, so little additional traffic can be expected on greater Yale.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the 8th edition whatever you call it traffic manual, a Walmart supercenter generates 10,000 car trips a day. This number has been controversial because it is based on the assumption that a 24 hour store will have fewer trips than a store with limited hours. Thus, a CNBC documentary about Walmart stated that the real number of car trips for a Walmart supercenter is 22,000. Both figures are well sourced and not made up. The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

And thanks for saying that it isn't in the Heights. So what? Really, so what? And just because it used to be a steel mill doesn't mean that any use for the site is compatible. The neighborhood has changed immensely since the site was industrial. The immediately surrounding neighborhood is seeing a lot of new residential construction in an area that was a no-go zone just a few years ago. Put in a giant Walmart and you kill off a neighborhood that is in the midst of a revival. Put in a responsible develoment (mixed use/smaller grocer), and you compliment the neighborhood and spur further investment. It is a simple choice, stuff a suburban Walmart supercenter and watch all the dollars get sucked out to Arkansas or develop something that will be a benefit to the neighborhood.

Yes, those are the ONLY two options that are possible. (give me a break)

What are the traffic counts for walmart supercenters that do not have tire/auto departments or gas stations?

Why does an increase in traffic really matter to you anyway, as I've said before, this is an easily avoidable street to the residents in the heights... one could argue that this will decrease the amount of rush hour traffic on yale North of I-10 because it will no longer be a quick cuthrough (coming from anywhere south of washington or heading to south of washington) to bypass I-10/610 traffic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the 8th edition whatever you call it traffic manual, a Walmart supercenter generates 10,000 car trips a day. This number has been controversial because it is based on the assumption that a 24 hour store will have fewer trips than a store with limited hours. Thus, a CNBC documentary about Walmart stated that the real number of car trips for a Walmart supercenter is 22,000. Both figures are well sourced and not made up. The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

And thanks for saying that it isn't in the Heights. So what? Really, so what? And just because it used to be a steel mill doesn't mean that any use for the site is compatible. The neighborhood has changed immensely since the site was industrial. The immediately surrounding neighborhood is seeing a lot of new residential construction in an area that was a no-go zone just a few years ago. Put in a giant Walmart and you kill off a neighborhood that is in the midst of a revival. Put in a responsible develoment (mixed use/smaller grocer), and you compliment the neighborhood and spur further investment. It is a simple choice, stuff a suburban Walmart supercenter and watch all the dollars get sucked out to Arkansas or develop something that will be a benefit to the neighborhood.

This is a great example of the intellectual dishonesty of the anti-Walmart crowd, and sm3h in particular. He claims that a "giant" Walmart will kill investment as dollars go to Arkansas, yet a Target was not a problem, even though the dollars go to Minneapolis. Neither would be a HEB or Whole Foods, though those corporate dollars go to San Antonio and Austin. Even a Kroger would be OK with this crowd, with their Cincinnati bound dollars. The fact is these people live in denial. Houston has one of the most competitive grocery markets in the country. Every grocer that operates here is building larger and more complete stores with more selection. No one is getting smaller. Why? Because the consumer demands it. HEB closed their small Heights store because business was going to Kroger's Signature store.

What would happen if the 152,000 square foot Walmart was not built? There would be 152,000 square feet of stores that sell the same things. It would take up the same space, require the same parking, and draw the same traffic. Would the anti-Walmarters oppose that? No! In fact, they are proposing that as an alternative. Just look at the post I quoted. Sm3h proposes "mixed use/smaller grocer". What does that mean? It means he is proposing even more square footage, drawing more traffic into the same space. He calls that "responsible development". And perhaps it is. But, it makes clear that he is not worried about traffic on Yale so much as a Walmart on Yale.

This is what happens when people do not know why they are opposed to something. Sm3h doesn't like Walmart. That is his prerogative. The problem is, it is illegal to deny Walmart the right to operate just because he doesn't like them. So, he must come up with a legal justification. So, the traffic, crime and other Trojan Horses appear. These claims might have merit if sm3h was consistent in his objections. But, he isn't. He supports traffic and crime inducing alternatives to Walmart. He supports denser development, just like the townhomes crammed on former single family lots behind the Walmart. He labels the Walmart "suburban", as if that means something bad. The problem is that a suburban Walmart uses more land, meaning less square footage on the available land. This results in LESS traffic, not more. Dense development would cause more traffic, as there would be more stores attracting more people.

This is why the intelligent posters enjoy sm3h's posts. It is fun to pick them apart, exposing his hypocritical argument. The only constant is that sm3h does not like Walmart. This is fine, except that dislike of a retailer does not prevent its coming to the neighborhood.

Speaking of killing off investment in a neighborhood, wait til sm3h sees what his little historic district does to investment in the Heights.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

I never claimed being an authority as YOU claim I was attempting to be - I was rehashing what others have posted over 27 pages and NOT making my own claims or attempting to give information about traffic studies. And how do you know that I don't know about the traffic issue? I might just be a traffic engineer - I'm not nor claim to be. However, I do live near by and drive Yale regularly along with Heights so I'm as much an expert as most on this forum.

You need to relax a little and realize that this is a bulletin board forum and is used by many of us to stay informed or entertained and quit attacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to relax a little and realize that this is a bulletin board forum and is used by many of us to stay informed or entertained and quit attacking.

heh, his posts are pretty entertaining, so it isn't all a loss.

a bit redundant, and predictable, but entertaining still.

Edited by samagon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only constant is that sm3h does not like Walmart. This is fine, except that dislike of a retailer does not prevent its coming to the neighborhood.

So wait a minute. Now the WalMart IS coming to the neighborhood.

Earlier you said it wasn't.

As soon as someone puts a supercenter in a neighborhood I'll be all over it. So far, though, that hasn't happened. They've only proposed a supercenter on Yale, on the site of a former steel mill. But, if they ever put one in a neighborhood, let me know.

This is an important distinction to make. In Houston, you can't build a SuperCenter on a site where deed restrictions prohibit it. But legally you CAN build it on a site next door, that doesn't have deed restrictions. The frustrating thing is - a development doesn't have to be officially in a neighborhood, to have a negative impact on that neighborhood.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that WalMart necessarily has a negative impact on neighborhoods. I am simply pointing out a major weakness in land-use regulation in Houston.

Edited by WAZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? No gas station at this one? I want the gas station! Is there a petition some where to make Walmart put one in as a requirement to building on this site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So wait a minute. Now the WalMart IS coming to the neighborhood.

Earlier you said it wasn't.

This is an important distinction to make. In Houston, you can't build a SuperCenter on a site where deed restrictions prohibit it. But legally you CAN build it on a site next door, that doesn't have deed restrictions. The frustrating thing is - a development doesn't have to be officially in a neighborhood, to have a negative impact on that neighborhood.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that WalMart necessarily has a negative impact on neighborhoods. I am simply pointing out a major weakness in land-use regulation in Houston.

Nice try, but I was using his words. While sm3h is certainly entitled to his (tainted) opinion, the fact is, he, and virtually all other Walmart opponents, are not opposed to development of the site, and further, are not opposed to retail development of the site, or even big box retailers, such as Target. They only want to oppose Walmart. The more reasonable among us recognize that there is no practical difference between an acceptable Target and an unacceptable Walmart. We also recognize that a development fronted by 2 4 lane roads with a freeway next to it is a perfect location for a retail center. Every land use regulation in the country would zone this parcel for retail development. There is no need for you to throw out vague generalities when we have a specific site to look at. This development will improve the area, regardless whether a few dozen protesters don't like it.

I'm still wondering why any Heights resident would join forces with a group of people who razed a single family neighborhood so that they could build a 3 townhome per lot development in its place. I'm further amazed that these townhome residents can claim Walmart ruins the neighborhood with a straight face.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, with sm3h and that whole stop the Walmart crowd, it's never really been about the traffic or the 380 or walkability or any of the other "issues" they throw around. It's always been about their blatant hatred of Walmart.

Not any other store. Only Walmart. And most of them say they've never been inside one.

I used to never shop Walmart mainly because there wasn't one nearby. It wasn't until HEB stopped carrying so many items that I liked/purchased that I ventured outside the loop to find that hated Arkansas chain. HEB in my area has gotten so bad that they've quit stocking many national brands in favor of their house brands.

And I agree with Red. How can folks in their townhomes (and McVics, imo) claim that Walmart will ruin their 'neighborhood'??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also recognize that a development fronted by 2 4 lane roads with a freeway next to it is a perfect location for a retail center. Every land use regulation in the country would zone this parcel for retail development. There is no need for you to throw out vague generalities when we have a specific site to look at. This development will improve the area, regardless whether a few dozen protesters don't like it.

I'm still wondering why any Heights resident would join forces with a group of people who razed a single family neighborhood so that they could build a 3 townhome per lot development in its place. I'm further amazed that these townhome residents can claim Walmart ruins the neighborhood with a straight face.

Yes, we do have a specific site to look at, but you do not even bother to look at it because you are so biased against community participation in the development process that you do not care about the facts. Since when is Koehler St. a 4 lane road? The proposed Walmart is not on the feeder. It is on Koehler (a two lane local connector) and Yale, one block south of the new feeder. Yale is classified as a major thoroughfare and has 4 lanes, but it will operate more like a 3 lane road because they are going to dedicate a northbound lane to turn traffic. That means only one through lane from Washington to the I-10 feeder.

And you know nothing about zoning. Zoning isn't just a question of residential v. commercial v. retail. Zoning regulates density within the allowed use. The major factor behind controlling density is the availability of road capacity to handle traffic. When completed as proposed, Yale St. will have 5 traffic lights in a space of just over a 1/2 mile between the I-10 feeder and Washington. Zoning would recognize the limited amount of traffic that can flow through the area and limit the amount of retail sq ft that can be built on the parcel. In fact, in most cases where Walmart gets beaten back, it is because they are unable to get a variance from local zoning to allow for a supercenter sized store in an area that is not zoned for that size of a retail outlet.

As for the last crack, I guess I am glad to hear that you are now on board with the historic preservation ordinance. The West End has followed the development model of Rice Military and Montrose. If you think that putting in town homes ruins a neighborhood in the same way a 24 hour Walmart Supercenter ruins a neighborhood, then you have completely lost touch with reality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, with sm3h and that whole stop the Walmart crowd, it's never really been about the traffic or the 380 or walkability or any of the other "issues" they throw around. It's always been about their blatant hatred of Walmart.

Not any other store. Only Walmart. And most of them say they've never been inside one.

I used to never shop Walmart mainly because there wasn't one nearby. It wasn't until HEB stopped carrying so many items that I liked/purchased that I ventured outside the loop to find that hated Arkansas chain. HEB in my area has gotten so bad that they've quit stocking many national brands in favor of their house brands.

And I agree with Red. How can folks in their townhomes (and McVics, imo) claim that Walmart will ruin their 'neighborhood'??

Bungalows are an important part of keeping the Heights personality, so I fully support people doing tasteful remodels and there will always be a strong market for a beautiful old bungalow, but the McVics as you like to call them are what is driving the growth and value of the Heights.

I do not think the McVics are ruining anything. Some are ugly, but most +/-90% are extremely attractive and well done.....I can tell you one thing for sure....the McVics as you like to call them are not ruining the neighborhood....they are the driving force behind its increase in quality from year to year.

Nor will the WalMart ruin the neighborhood. The only thing ruining the neighborhood in my opinion is a bunch of snobs who think they are better than everyone else who want to tell everyone else what to do with their money and their property. If the snobs, whether they be bungalow elitists, preservationist, or just some kind of Walmart hater, would just shut up and keep their opinion to themselves, the entire neighborhood would be a much better place.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why traffic keeps coming up as an argument against this development. Any development on that site is going to increase traffic.

With the other Walmarts being built in the area, I would suspect that this Walmart will primarily attract local residents and have a fairly compact radius of shoppers. Even if it does cause significant net-new traffic, the new feeders and on/off ramps on I-10 should mitigate neighborhood traffic through the Heights on Yale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never claimed being an authority as YOU claim I was attempting to be - I was rehashing what others have posted over 27 pages and NOT making my own claims or attempting to give information about traffic studies. And how do you know that I don't know about the traffic issue? I might just be a traffic engineer - I'm not nor claim to be. However, I do live near by and drive Yale regularly along with Heights so I'm as much an expert as most on this forum.

You need to relax a little and realize that this is a bulletin board forum and is used by many of us to stay informed or entertained and quit attacking.

So, you get to attack me and call my posts "obnoxious" and ridicule the traffic numbers I have provided, but I am supposed to just sit back and take it? If you are not an authority on traffic and know nothing more than what you see out the window on your daily drive, then why are you slamming me by name on this issue? I have done the research, seen documents related to traffic analysis for the site and researched the traffic requirements in the city's design manual. But, I am just supposed to sit back and let you and everyone else ridicule me because you have driven down Yale St? I can take all the attacks from people on this forum. But, the idea that I am not allowed to return fire because I represent a minority view on this board is pretty offensive. I will relax when other relax. I will respond to attacks when attacked.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we do have a specific site to look at, but you do not even bother to look at it because you are so biased against community participation in the development process that you do not care about the facts. Since when is Koehler St. a 4 lane road? The proposed Walmart is not on the feeder. It is on Koehler (a two lane local connector) and Yale, one block south of the new feeder. Yale is classified as a major thoroughfare and has 4 lanes, but it will operate more like a 3 lane road because they are going to dedicate a northbound lane to turn traffic. That means only one through lane from Washington to the I-10 feeder.

And you know nothing about zoning. Zoning isn't just a question of residential v. commercial v. retail. Zoning regulates density within the allowed use. The major factor behind controlling density is the availability of road capacity to handle traffic. When completed as proposed, Yale St. will have 5 traffic lights in a space of just over a 1/2 mile between the I-10 feeder and Washington. Zoning would recognize the limited amount of traffic that can flow through the area and limit the amount of retail sq ft that can be built on the parcel. In fact, in most cases where Walmart gets beaten back, it is because they are unable to get a variance from local zoning to allow for a supercenter sized store in an area that is not zoned for that size of a retail outlet.

As for the last crack, I guess I am glad to hear that you are now on board with the historic preservation ordinance. The West End has followed the development model of Rice Military and Montrose. If you think that putting in town homes ruins a neighborhood in the same way a 24 hour Walmart Supercenter ruins a neighborhood, then you have completely lost touch with reality.

So what lower density use do you propose this 18 acre parcel be used for since, in your mind, it would clearly be too much of a traffic burden in this area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also recognize that a development fronted by 2 4 lane roads with a freeway next to it is a perfect location for a retail center.

Where's the second 4 lane road? I'm only seeing one - Yale: and that's pretty narrow for a 4 lane road. No shoulders; no room for islands or center turn-lanes. It has buildings up to lot-lines on the sides, too. I don't know how they'd be able to widen the ROW without getting even more people angry.

Also, while I-10 runs past the site, there is no exit from I-10 to Yale. The nearest exit drops you onto Studemont, and you'd have to drive around the block to get to the site. Granted, TXDOT is apparently planning a new exit that would directly serve Yale - and I hope that's all the construction along the stretch of I-10.

Again, I'm not anti WalMart per-se (in fact, I'd like them to put a WalMart near me - to replace the old Sharpstown Macy's and anchor the PlazAmericas Mall). But now you've got me looking further at the Heights WalMart site, and I think the opposition has some valid points.

Every land use regulation in the country would zone this parcel for retail development.

Which is precisely why I don't support zoning in Houston. Zoning ordinances don't necessarily take into account the intricacies of specific neighborhood concerns. They don't prevent land-use battles either. The New York City zoning ordinance is 3,000 pages long, and includes detailed zoning maps of almost every block in the City. But there's still a war going on over the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards.

Edited by WAZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the second 4 lane road? I'm only seeing one - Yale: and that's pretty narrow for a 4 lane road. No shoulders; no room for islands or center turn-lanes. It has buildings up to lot-lines on the sides, too. I don't know how they'd be able to widen the ROW without getting even more people angry.

Also, while I-10 runs past the site, there is no exit from I-10 to Yale. The nearest exit drops you onto Studemont, and you'd have to drive around the block to get to the site. Granted, TXDOT is apparently planning a new exit that would directly serve Yale - and I hope that's all the construction along the stretch of I-10.

Koehler along the development is being widened to 44 feet (I assume thats 4 lanes) all the way from Bonner to Heights Blvd. I believe Bonner and Bass streets on the back side (assuming Yale is considered the frontage) are also being improved and widened. I think Bass was expected to be connect as an outlet/inlet from I-10 as well. And like you mention, they are building access to I-10 west from/to Yale now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the second 4 lane road? I'm only seeing one - Yale: and that's pretty narrow for a 4 lane road. No shoulders; no room for islands or center turn-lanes. It has buildings up to lot-lines on the sides, too. I don't know how they'd be able to widen the ROW without getting even more people angry.

Also, while I-10 runs past the site, there is no exit from I-10 to Yale. The nearest exit drops you onto Studemont, and you'd have to drive around the block to get to the site. Granted, TXDOT is apparently planning a new exit that would directly serve Yale - and I hope that's all the construction along the stretch of I-10.

Again, I'm not anti WalMart per-se (in fact, I'd like them to put a WalMart near me - to replace the old Sharpstown Macy's and anchor the PlazAmericas Mall). But now you've got me looking further at the Heights WalMart site, and I think the opposition has some valid points.

I would've thought that someone who nitpicked my post so much in post #1330 would have paid just as much attention to my other posts. Note that I said "development", a term that includes the entire Ainbinder project. If you had spent a few seconds looking at the site plan before typing, you'd have realized that the development will front both Yale AND Heights, both of which are 4 lane streets. But, I guess since you decided to side with sm3h, you have also decided to adopt his tactic of ignoring pertinent information, such as access to a second 4 lane thoroughfare.

And, why would TxDOT add full frontage roads if they did not also plan to install entrance and exit ramps to them? And what are these buildings up to the edge of Yale that you describe? Every building on that stretch of Yale has been demolished for the impending development. I'm sure that if a few feet of ROW is needed, Ainbinder will happily donate it for access to his property.

So, two 4 lane thoroughfares with access to a third thoroughfare (Washington), brand new feeder roads and a massive freeway, and you want to join the 'there's no room' crowd? Knock yourself out. We need new arguments to make fun of.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we do have a specific site to look at, but you do not even bother to look at it because you are so biased against community participation in the development process that you do not care about the facts.

although it is fairly obvious you are either ignoring me, or choosing to not respond to my questions, but since you feel redscare is against community participation in the process of development, let me ask the question that begs to be answered...

what role are you taking in the development process?

All I have ever seen from you is hatred and words that point distinctly to the fact that you do not want a walmart there. that isn't taking part in a process that is opposition to a process.

taking part would be working with the developer to offer better strategy for their vision. what are you doing, what is your group doing towards that goal?

don't pretend like you're taking an active participatory role when you are in fact taking an active opposition role.

the two are distinctly different, and there's no way you can confuse the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've thought that someone who nitpicked my post so much in post #1330 would have paid just as much attention to my other posts. Note that I said "development", a term that includes the entire Ainbinder project. If you had spent a few seconds looking at the site plan before typing, you'd have realized that the development will front both Yale AND Heights, both of which are 4 lane streets. But, I guess since you decided to side with sm3h, you have also decided to adopt his tactic of ignoring pertinent information, such as access to a second 4 lane thoroughfare.

And, why would TxDOT add full frontage roads if they did not also plan to install entrance and exit ramps to them? And what are these buildings up to the edge of Yale that you describe? Every building on that stretch of Yale has been demolished for the impending development. I'm sure that if a few feet of ROW is needed, Ainbinder will happily donate it for access to his property.

So, two 4 lane thoroughfares with access to a third thoroughfare (Washington), brand new feeder roads and a massive freeway, and you want to join the 'there's no room' crowd? Knock yourself out. We need new arguments to make fun of.

How is Heights Blvd going to help traffic flow out of Walmart? Who cares whether a portion of the development fronts both Heights and Yale. We are talking about Walmart in this thread, not some yet to be named "chef driven restaurant" that will lease on of the other pads. Nice try, but Heights Blvd is not the issuse. Yale is. Yale is inadequate for the traffic needed. Yale will connect to the feeder via Bass. But that won't get you anwhere as you will have to worm through exiting I-10 traffic just to get to sit at the light at Yale. Just take a look at the siting of virtually every other Walmart in Houston. They put them either right on a feeder road that is not in close proximity to a major intersection or numerous signalized intersections (as will be the case with Yale) or with access to two thorough fares with at least four lanes of traffic on one of the two, many times more. This walmart is going to only have a single main driveway to Yale, a street with five signalized intersections in just over a half mile. The freeway access will do nothing to alleviate the traffic because there is no direct access to the feeder. It is will be a complete mess.

You also need to actually drive around the area and take a look at Yale St. Yale is grade separeated at one end and goes over a bridge at the other. Adding a lane at the grade separation and over the bridge would be fantastically expensive if not prohibitively so. And the northwest end of Yale at I-10 is San Jacinto Stone, not a demolished building. They are also virtually grade separated as their property is on a slight hill above Yale. The developer is not going to be donating ROW because 1) the developer will make you and me (i.e. taxpayers) buy it from him (see 380 agreement where developer gets $50+ per sq ft for $22.5 HCAD value land for Koehler extension ROW) and 2) the developer doesn't own all the land on both sides of Yale. Bobby Orr's company owns about half of the land on the east side of Yale south of the Dirt bar. I don't see Orr being willing to donate land to Ainbinder. And that is probably the portion of land that would be needed to alleviate the north bound congestion on Yale. Sorry, but life isn't as simple as you think it is. Developers can't donate land they don't own and streets can't be widened at the snap of a finger when there is grade separation and bridges in the way. The facts are clear: this is not where you can put a Walmart Supercenter. The infrastructure will not support it, absent a massive investment above and beyond what is in the 380 agreement and, more than likely, above and beyond profitability for the developer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the entity with the most experience and expertise in "the infrastructure needed to support a WalMart store" is, well, WalMart and they seem to have decided that this location and developer have a site worth signing onto.

Perhaps Heights residents know better?

I know that I manage to go over to Target, Staples, PetsMart, etc, in addition to driving down Sawyer to get to Sawyer Park so the trips add up to multiple trips through that area per week and I never have a problem with traffic somehow. Theres a couple bank branches and fast food places over there, the stores I mentioned, plus a few restaurants, a loft apartment complex, and theres only 4 lanes in/out, no feeder road, no extra north/south thoroughfare like at Heights to help take some traffic to/from traffic from the secondary retail space, no other side street that also gives access from IH10 or Washington, and Sawyer is NOT grade separated at the railroad tracks, and somehow, someway there dont seem to be many problems at all...

Of course you will no doubt counter with "SuperCenter" and 24 hour, as if a handful of cars at 2 am is going to cause a logjam at 5pm, or that a couple departments in WalMart are going to make up for more than the large amount of bigger secondary retail like PetsMart and Staples that are at Sawyer Heights, but whatever.

Edited by JJxvi
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not even to mention just the fact that this WalMart will actually cut down my trips to Target since they are in competition and WalMart will be closer to my house, so its a positive impact from my personal traffic on Sawyer/IH10, with mostly minimal impact on Yale since I drive down Yale to I-10 to get to Target/PetsMArt/Staples ALREADY. Hell, if Ainbender can sign BoA as the bank branch and move them from Washington, my world will get a whole lot better as I will now be able to use Yale/I-10 exclusively for my trips to the bank rather than coming home from work down Memorial to Waugh, left on Washington and back up Yale to my house to/from their existing branch (waiting for my company to figure out that direct deposit exists, but whatever).

Edited by JJxvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Heights Blvd going to help traffic flow out of Walmart? Who cares whether a portion of the development fronts both Heights and Yale. We are talking about Walmart in this thread, not some yet to be named "chef driven restaurant" that will lease on of the other pads. Nice try, but Heights Blvd is not the issuse. Yale is. Yale is inadequate for the traffic needed. Yale will connect to the feeder via Bass. But that won't get you anwhere as you will have to worm through exiting I-10 traffic just to get to sit at the light at Yale.

Considering that I and my neighbors will drive down Heights, turn right on Koehler, and drive into Walmart without ever getting on Yale, I suspect Heights will help traffic flow a lot. Further, shoppers from Montrose will travel north on Waugh, which turns into Heights, turn left on Koehler, drive into Walmart. AGAIN, no traffic on Yale. Some shoppers from the west will exit I-10 and get to Walmart via Bonner. Some will exit Walmart to the feeder via Bonner. But don't let reality stop your fight against Walmart. It hasn't yet.

Just take a look at the siting of virtually every other Walmart in Houston. They put them either right on a feeder road that is not in close proximity to a major intersection or numerous signalized intersections (as will be the case with Yale) or with access to two thorough fares with at least four lanes of traffic on one of the two, many times more. This walmart is going to only have a single main driveway to Yale, a street with five signalized intersections in just over a half mile. The freeway access will do nothing to alleviate the traffic because there is no direct access to the feeder. It is will be a complete mess.

You make this too easy. The new Walmart at Crosstimbers is not on the feeder road, even though the mailing address is I-45. Best access is via Crosstimbers, coincidentally, a 4 lane road, just like Yale. There is also a Walmart on Sawdust Road in the Woodlands that sits on a 4 lane road just like Yale, that is about a mile from any freeway. It does just fine.

You also need to actually drive around the area and take a look at Yale St.

Isn't this cute. The guy who has lived here a year is telling the guy who has lived in the area for 11 years (and lives closer to the site than he does) that he needs to actually drive around the area and look at Yale Street. You crack me up! How many miles from this site did you say you live, newbie? I can walk to it from my house.

The facts are clear: this is not where you can put a Walmart Supercenter.

Umm....the fact is clear. They already ARE going to put in a Walmart Supercenter.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can someone say in one of their post that just because someone drives on yale it doesn't make t hem an expert, then in the same thread say you need to actually drive on Yale. This implies that S3mh considers their driving on Yale and observing traffic and etc. credible, but not others. Just another facet of your anti-walmart hypocrisy.

I'm still waiting on the answer to this questin, "Why is traffic on Yale a problem for YOU?" Yale (not to mention south of I-10) is easily avoidable for anyone who lives in the Heights. I know you can't possibly be concerned about (non-heights) through traffic... but it would be hilarious to see you use that as your argument.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just take a look at the siting of virtually every other Walmart in Houston. They put them either right on a feeder road that is not in close proximity to a major intersection or numerous signalized intersections (as will be the case with Yale) or with access to two thorough fares with at least four lanes of traffic on one of the two, many times more. This walmart is going to only have a single main driveway to Yale, a street with five signalized intersections in just over a half mile. The freeway access will do nothing to alleviate the traffic because there is no direct access to the feeder. It is will be a complete mess.

You make this too easy. The new Walmart at Crosstimbers is not on the feeder road, even though the mailing address is I-45. Best access is via Crosstimbers, coincidentally, a 4 lane road, just like Yale. There is also a Walmart on Sawdust Road in the Woodlands that sits on a 4 lane road just like Yale, that is about a mile from any freeway. It does just fine.

The 185,000 SF supercenter that they are building outside the loop will be on Silber, a 4 lane road with no median or center lane, and that site is between Westview and the feeder probably about 1000 ft from either one with no access to either except Silber itself. There is also no access/outlet at the rear of the property north south, east, or west. The only way to get to it AT ALL is Silber.

Edited by JJxvi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, I dont even think you can get to the Silber location from I-10 west. You either have to U-turn or exit the Old Katy/Post Oak exit at the loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It is never a waste of time to advocate for what you believe is best for your community. Plenty of Walmarts have been defeated across the country, including two recent examples in Helotes and Spring Valley.

Yes, but in this case the city has already endorsed and thrown their support behind the project, and there is basically zero chance of this changing based on the lack of political interest in thwarting this development that is supported by much of the community.

2. You don't need a lawsuit to stop a Walmart. This development has major problems with traffic and drainage. If the City is held to its promise to "hold the developers feet to the fire", the development may not happen in its current form. But if everyone just walks away and leaves it up to the City, the favors will come pouring in for the developer and Walmart and everything will be rubber stamped. If people are vigilant and organized, then the City may have political cover to put their foot down and take real action that may reduce the size of the Walmart, which would probably send them packing.

Maybe so, but given that this development is moving forward, I'd rather it include infrastructure improvements and amenities like wider sidewalks and more trees that the 380 agreement provides incentives for. If the opposition's activities help put pressure on the city and developer to ensure these improvements are implemented, then I support their efforts. If, however, these activities end up allowing the development to complete without the needed infrastructure improvements or amenities, then it's not really a win-win for anyone.

3. Any attempt at reform will be shot down by the deep pocketed developers. But, if people make developer's lives very difficult every time they come up with a tower or supercenter in a residential/urban neighborhood or whatever stupid and irresponsible development they will come up with next, then developers may see some sort of reform as a better way to do business than to have to deal with all the ill will, delay and expense that comes with each land use fight.

True, there aren't many options for the local community to oppose these projects unless a high-ranking city official takes on the cause. The zero-tolerance perspective of private property rights advocates perplexes me, particularly when applied to large-scale projects that do affect the local community. Even though I don't agree with all your posts, I do agree with your right to voice your opposition, and I'm surprised by the ferocity of some responses to your comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...