Jump to content

Wal-Mart To Invade The Heights


HeyHatch

Walmart at Yale & I-10: For or Against  

160 members have voted

  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

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

No, but because of the attention RUDE keeps bringing back to the bridge (pics of walmart truck on it) it has forced the city to harass all driving over the bridge. I would say a majority of drivers have no freaking clue how much their vehicles weighs, so enforcing this rule on non commercial vehciles with a monetary fine seems overbearing to me. A written warning would suffice (repetitive violaters after the written warning should be fined). Commercial trucks should be fined as they are required to know their weight and etc. though.

Leonard you need to stop with the trying to put words in everyone's mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any sane municipality, people would find it crazy to put in a big box supercenter and strip malls served by a major thoroughfare with a country load weight limited bridge. The only sane thing to do is fix the bridge and then let development proceed down stream.

If this was the only route to the Walmart.....

The other "sane" options would be to mark the bridge with large signage saying (BEWARE BRIDGE OF DEATH COULD FALL AT ANY MOMENT) or something along these lines. Perhaps limit the bridge to one lane of traffic. Put up temporary gates at 6'6" tall (that would keep nearly all overweight vehicles off).

There are plenty of other "sane" options for the city to do while they update the reconstruction plan of the bridge. I supsect we will see this bridge rebuilt no later than 2014.

Your perceived problem is again with the city (admittedly from this post), not with wal-mart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bridge can safely support more than the rated load limit, why was it rated at this load limit? Why should ignorance of the load limit be an excuse for violating it? Are we only going to cite people for violating laws they knew about and reward ignorance? There's a lot of laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what words I'm supposed to be putting in people's mouths.

For the record, I've said before and I've already said it today, I don't think non-commerical drivers should be expected to know the weight of their vehicles.

Well I'm not sure if that's just lazy or stupid or both.

If you are going to drive a 4000+ lb deadly weapon (just read the bicycle thread) you should at least have the mininum knowledge of your vehicle. And if it is remotely tall - you should also know the height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Pleak, you're right. I'm sure everyone knows the weight of their vehicle plus passengers and cargo and how it is distributed between the axles.

If you open your driver (or in some cars passenger) side door and look on the metal body of the car there is a small plate that tells you the weight of your vehicle...at least there is for trucks....

As to the comment above about writing tickets....I don't know that the people who got pulled over got tickets, I just know they were pulled over....the officer could have just been warning folks - but knowing HPD and their love of ticket writing in the area, they probably got a ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was the only route to the Walmart.....

The other "sane" options would be to mark the bridge with large signage saying (BEWARE BRIDGE OF DEATH COULD FALL AT ANY MOMENT) or something along these lines. Perhaps limit the bridge to one lane of traffic. Put up temporary gates at 6'6" tall (that would keep nearly all overweight vehicles off).

There are plenty of other "sane" options for the city to do while they update the reconstruction plan of the bridge. I supsect we will see this bridge rebuilt no later than 2014.

Your perceived problem is again with the city (admittedly from this post), not with wal-mart.

The bridge has nice new big signs all over the place. I still see trucks on the bridge all the time. 6'6" gates would just leave a trail of shattered glass from cab lights. This is still Texas. But it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

The fact of the matter is that the City and the developer had the money, knew about the bridge and chose to do nothing about it. The result is that instead of construction taking place along with all the other feeder work before the development went in, it will now take place in the presence of the new feeder, 280 new apartments, a 250k sq ft supercenter, another 200-500k sq ft of retail space (depending on what happens at the Yale St. Market site). People have been freaking out because they took out a few lanes on Durham at I-10 for construction. This will make that seem like I-10 between Kerrville and Ft. Stockton.

It is certainly a big problem with the City, but Walmart does not get a free pass. They attended the town meeting at the GRB and did a big presentation about how they are such a great friend to the community. The got the benefit of the 6mil in tax payer funded improvements. The issue of the bridge has always been about the concern over Walmart's 18 wheelers. Walmart has just sat back and let everyone else deal with their problem while they get 6 mil of new infrastructure for free. With all of its political power, if Walmart wanted a bridge built on an emergency basis prior to the opening of the store, they could get it done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big problem for the City? Hardly. One bridge with another one 100 feet away is hardly a problem. And people freaking out? Half a dozen RUDE members posting nonsense on a Facebook page hardly qualifies. And even though you admitted earlier that Walmart is not responsible, you come right back and attempt to blame them. And then you wonder why you get accused of having ulterior motives.

Give it up. Walmart opens in a couple of weeks. See you there.

Oh, by the way. The sooner you get Mayor Parker out of office for this egregious transgression regarding this bridge, the sooner I can get rid of this stupid historic district in my neighborhood. More power to ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HPD said they were only going to pull over bigger trucks. Was it SUVs, or what?

When I passed by this morning they had a black Tahoe pulled over and a waste management garbage truck pulled over on front of the new Starbucks....

Normally I would have crossed but the wife was sick so I had the kids on the way to daycare...they had 3 load enforcement trucks out there though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The result is that instead of construction taking place along with all the other feeder work before the development went in, it will now take place in the presence of the new feeder, 280 new apartments, a 250k sq ft supercenter, another 200-500k sq ft of retail space (depending on what happens at the Yale St. Market site).

Did you ever pause to think that now that the feeders are done, there is a second alternate route for traffic once construction starts?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it is kinda funny that we have four brand new bridges on the feeders, the new Heights bridge and two renovated bike path bridges over White Oak Bayou all surrounding the Bridge of Death. I think we will survive any amount of time waiting on Yale, and to the rest of the community making this bridge an "issue" is making the Heights look like the bunch of self-important whiners we have become over the last decade. This place used to be laid back, and it is not the infrastructure improvements that changed it. This thread readily exposes what changed our neighborhood for the worse.

Edited by fwki
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not wrong to question how the government is spending tax money and how the government is or isn't maintaining infrastructure. It's not wrong to question why TxDOT and the City let the bridge get into this state with 4 more years before construction even starts - even with out of cycle funding obtained.

The City is going to have to repair the bridge if it is to remain open for the next 4 years before it is torn down. That's more tax dollars spent on this bridge.

If they don't know why this happened, they can't prevent it from happening over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this blame for the developer (and really, mainly for the developers anchor tenant) over this bridge...Yale is a city of houston designated major thoroughfare. This is not a case of a developer building on an idadequate site on some podunk road that needs to be updated, its a case of the city/state/whoever not maintaining its designated major routes adequately enough to handle their purpose.

Edited by JJxvi
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JJxi - you are absolutely right. It is the fault of the city and TxDOT. Why did they let this bridge get to this point?

But to suggest that Walmart has no interest in this bridge - except to want it to look prettier - is a little naive to say the least. I'm sure they are concerned about when and how long Yale will be closed. The smaller retailers in the development are probably even more concerned. And the developers must be concerned about unleased space - would you want to lease there now?

By the way, Walmart isn't a tenant, they own their property and developed it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not wrong to question how the government is spending tax money and how the government is or isn't maintaining infrastructure. It's not wrong to question why TxDOT and the City let the bridge get into this state with 4 more years before construction even starts - even with out of cycle funding obtained.

The City is going to have to repair the bridge if it is to remain open for the next 4 years before it is torn down. That's more tax dollars spent on this bridge.

If they don't know why this happened, they can't prevent it from happening over and over.

It is not wrong to question why the bridge is in the current state. It's pretty reprehensible that a bridge on a major thoroughfare that has been used for decades by really heavy commercial vehicles can only support a single smart car.

It is wrong though to insinuate that Walmart is at any type of fault here.

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the premise is that our local government is like Baskin Robbins' 31 Flavors of Nincompoop, I happen to agree. But what does any of this have to do with Wal-Mart?

It is their 18 wheeler traffic that is the reason this all came to light in the first place. West End residents did not want Walmart's 18 wheeler traffic cutting through their neighborhood and raised the issue to the City at the big public meeting when the news of the Walmart first broke. The City responded (assumedly with input from Walmart as Walmart was a participant in the public meeting) that Walmart's 18 wheelers would take Yale St.--problem solved. But then people found out that the bridge was load limited and could not handle 18 wheelers. The response to that from the City and Walmart was complete silence. Then, people looked at the underside of the bridge and saw that the bridge was in bad shape. TxDOT inspects the bridge and twice lowers the load limits down to 3k per axel. Now, the bridge could be closed any day if an inspection reveals further degradation. The City is scrambling to come up with temporary repairs, and it won't be until 2016 that the bridge gets replaced to be able to accomodate Walmart's 18 wheelers.

In the meantime, Walmart is the direct beneficiary of 6 mil in public funds to pay for the infrastructure needed to get roads, drainage, and jogging trails upgraded for the development. The premises of providing tax payer money to the benefit of the richest retailer in the world is that it would benefit the community by taking care of needed infrastructure upgrades before the development opened. The agreement could have easily been modified to make the bridge the subject of the agreement and have the developer pay for the remainder of the upgrades that could not be funded in the 380 agreement (as every developer has had to do prior to Mayor Parker handing out 380 agreements like they were campaign flyers). That would have gotten bridge construction done by now and minimized the burden on the community, including Walmart and the rest of the tenants. But this never happened. There was never any mention of even trying to do it. Walmart and the developer just took what they could get from the community and have offered nothing to help get the bridge fixed so Walmart's 18 wheelers will have clear access to the development. The City primarly gets the blame. But, Walmart and the developer do not get a free pass. They could have stepped up and helped taken care of this problem, but did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not Walmart's responsibility to rebuild Houston's bridges, no matter how hard some anti-Walmart protester bangs on his keyboard. And, as a taxpayer, I have no interest in paying to rebuild a bridge that TxDOT is obligated to rebuild. The trucks can use Heights until the bridge is rebuilt. They can also use Washington and come north on Yale. This is only a problem to those with limited mental capacity.

However, if you promise to jump off of said rebuilt bridge, I may reconsider my stance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to think that Walmart wanted the bridge beautified but has no interest in whether it actually exists or not, that's perfectly ok with me. If you think that a bridge on the main throughfare to the Walmart is of no concern to Walmart, that is also fine with me.

If you want to think that, as Mayor Parker said over and over, that the 380 has nothing to do with Walmart that is also fine with me.

If you don't what hyperbole means, that's also ok with me.

If I have more news that I think will be of interest, I will post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is their 18 wheeler traffic that is the reason this all came to light in the first place. West End residents did not want Walmart's 18 wheeler traffic cutting through their neighborhood and raised the issue to the City at the big public meeting when the news of the Walmart first broke. The City responded (assumedly with input from Walmart as Walmart was a participant in the public meeting) that Walmart's 18 wheelers would take Yale St.--problem solved. But then people found out that the bridge was load limited and could not handle 18 wheelers. The response to that from the City and Walmart was complete silence. Then, people looked at the underside of the bridge and saw that the bridge was in bad shape. TxDOT inspects the bridge and twice lowers the load limits down to 3k per axel. Now, the bridge could be closed any day if an inspection reveals further degradation. The City is scrambling to come up with temporary repairs, and it won't be until 2016 that the bridge gets replaced to be able to accomodate Walmart's 18 wheelers.

I don't care how it was discovered that the bridge was in poor shape. There are probably lots of bridges in poor condition that Wal-Mart trucks pass over thousands of times per day throughout the country, but that we just don't know about because there hasn't been some sort of unrelated controversy nearby. Wal-Mart is not responsible for ensuring that government infrastructure is up to snuff. That's the government's job.

Thankfully, there are alternatives.

In the meantime, Walmart is the direct beneficiary of 6 mil in public funds to pay for the infrastructure needed to get roads, drainage, and jogging trails upgraded for the development. The premises of providing tax payer money to the benefit of the richest retailer in the world is that it would benefit the community by taking care of needed infrastructure upgrades before the development opened. The agreement could have easily been modified to make the bridge the subject of the agreement and have the developer pay for the remainder of the upgrades that could not be funded in the 380 agreement (as every developer has had to do prior to Mayor Parker handing out 380 agreements like they were campaign flyers). That would have gotten bridge construction done by now and minimized the burden on the community, including Walmart and the rest of the tenants. But this never happened. There was never any mention of even trying to do it. Walmart and the developer just took what they could get from the community and have offered nothing to help get the bridge fixed so Walmart's 18 wheelers will have clear access to the development. The City primarly gets the blame. But, Walmart and the developer do not get a free pass. They could have stepped up and helped taken care of this problem, but did not.

IIRC, the direct beneficiary of the 380 Agreement was Ainbinder. Wal-Mart was not a party to the 380 Agreement. It was therefore an indirect beneficiary; however, whatever economic benefits were generated would have been captured in the sale price of the land as Ainbinder transferred it to Wal-Mart.

The agreement might have covered the bridge, but as Red points out, that would've been grossly irresponsible on the part of the City of Houston.

I'm sure that Ainbinder, Wal-Mart, the neighborhoods, and the City would all have preferred that the bridge get re-built concurrent with the construction of the feeder roads and prior to the completion of the development...but oh well, that just sucks. So it's up to TXDoT. You should send them letters imploring them to replace the bridge sooner than later. But I don't see how it involves Wal-Mart or how it might be particularly controversial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to think that Walmart wanted the bridge beautified but has no interest in whether it actually exists or not, that's perfectly ok with me. If you think that a bridge on the main throughfare to the Walmart is of no concern to Walmart, that is also fine with me. Cosmetic upgrades often make sense, perhaps even if they are only temporary. (In the long run, everything is temporary.) It appears from the agreement between the City and Ainbinder--not Walmart--that the City did retain the right to shift funds to some project other than balusters if they had wanted to. They didn't. I tend to agree that that was a mistake on their part, but that was the consequence of poor administration of their agreement rather than that the agreement itself was bad.

If you want to think that, as Mayor Parker said over and over, that the 380 has nothing to do with Walmart that is also fine with me. Good. I am glad that it's fine with you.

If you don't what hyperbole means, that's also ok with me. Pot meet kettle.

If I have more news that I think will be of interest, I will post it. Fantastic. Please do so in a thread that is directly related to the news that you are sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have more news that I think will be of interest, I will post it.

Hopefully, you post it in the appropriate place.

Traffic and Transportation is probably the appropriate place for news of interest relating to the bridge.

Since the bridge only has a cursory relation to Walmart, in that it would be the most direct route for their 18 wheelers to drive, this really isn't a great place for it.

Hell, this thread should probably be pushed off the bridge and drowned (hyperbole, of course) since it's purpose is pretty much done, I mean, Walmart isn't technically open yet, but it's what, 10 days away?

Point is, confusing the state of the bridge with Walmart really isn't accomplishing anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some news:

http://www.theleadernews.com/?p=2703

"Walmart sets opening date, promises no trucks on Yale St. Bridge"

this is very relevant news, it's good to see that walmart has acknowledged and pledged to stay away from the yale bridge. I doubt that this will be enough for some (s3mh is being stared at).

I do have at least one idea for a bridge specific post title...

"Yale Bridge to invade White Oak Bayou"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure that Walmart bought the land prior to development, maybe even prior to the 380.

The 380 Agreement, signed and dated Sept. 28th, 2010, cited the following:

"Whereas, Developer owns or has contracted to purchase certain tracts of land totalling approximately 23 acres...as depicted on the map...for the purpose of developing a multi-tenant commercial/retail development..."

The deed conveyed to Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust and was recorded on October 19th, 2010.

Wal-Mart would have had the land under contract at the time that the agreement was made, however would have made the contract contingent on the seller fulfilling a variety of commitments. That the seller was able to do so created value for the buyer and would have been built into the contracted purchase price of the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walmart's purchase predates both the development and the 380. However, the development's design anticipated the 16 acres that contains the Walmart. Likewise, the 380 was designed knowing the Walmart would be nearby...for whatever that's worth. Certainly, Walmart was coming with or without the Ainbinder development, and with or without the 380. Walmart stands on its own. It doesn't need surrounding retail or infrastructure to succeed. If anything, the 380 was done to support the surrounding small businesses, not the Walmart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not Walmart's responsibility to rebuild Houston's bridges, no matter how hard some anti-Walmart protester bangs on his keyboard. And, as a taxpayer, I have no interest in paying to rebuild a bridge that TxDOT is obligated to rebuild. The trucks can use Heights until the bridge is rebuilt. They can also use Washington and come north on Yale. This is only a problem to those with limited mental capacity.

However, if you promise to jump off of said rebuilt bridge, I may reconsider my stance.

18 Wheelers do not fit under the rail bridge. It is only 13' 7". Standard 18 wheelers are 13' 6". One good bump. The turn from Heights to Koehler is impossible for an 18 wheeler without having traffic stop on all lanes of Height SB to let the rig swing out wide and to have everyone on Koehler EB get out of the way so the rig can swing wide around the reverse curve. I have seen it done. It is not something you want to have happen during rush, much less normal traffic conditions.

The City has to spend big dollars to upgrade the bridge to get it to 2016. Those are tax dollars completely wasted compared to having the bridge replaced now out of 380 funds. You can sling your childish insults all day but cannot change the fact that this is a monumental waste of tax dollars that did not have to happen.

Walmart isn't obligated to build bridges, but they sure as hell shouldn't be getting the benefit of 6 mil in infrastructure upgrades, leaving the community to deal with a massive traffic jam when the bridge is first repaired and then replaced. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot praise the 380 agreement for providing infrastructure that the developer would have built on its own dime and then throw up your hands when the 380 dollars come up way short of the infrastructure upgrades that were really needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly, Walmart was coming with or without the Ainbinder development, and with or without the 380. Walmart stands on its own. It doesn't need surrounding retail or infrastructure to succeed. If anything, the 380 was done to support the surrounding small businesses, not the Walmart.

Completely wrong. Walmart has an agreement with the developer to do all of the 380 improvements as part of the sale of the property. Walmart would never pay huge dollars to buy land without getting the surrounding infrastructure upgraded. And the idea that the 380 agreement was done to support the surrounding small businesses instead of Walmart is just hilarious. I do not think that a Walmart PR flack would have the gaul to come up with garbage like that. Walmart's building and parking lot are the vast majority of the acreage of the Ainbinder development. Walmart's traffic and 18 wheelers are the vast majority of the traffic from the Ainbinder development. But, you think the City and Ainbinder sat down and thought "gee, what can we do in the 380 agreement for the small businesses (i.e. national franchises and corporations like Walmart, Verizon, Chase, Chipotle, etc.) that will be the tenants?" That is rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....leaving the community to deal with a massive traffic jam...

Ya killin' me man! O wait, I'm sorry, hyperbole, right? You really meant "leaving the community to choose one of the other six routes" which would have been ok ten years ago when most of us were stoned, but now we are The Houston Heights, Neighborhood Extraordinaire, Preserver of Pine Sticks and Voice of the People and we want our damned eighth bridge fixed NOW.....and by a French company, with fancy metal like the Statue of Liberty, yeah, and those ballbuster things, and trees on it, big trees, damnit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned earlier, there are constantly 18 wheelers blocking lanes on Yale at other locations. A truck making a turn for a few minutes on Koehler is just you searching for anything bad you can think of to spew some crap about this WalMart development. I dont see you picketing Pappas Restaurants, which is probably the area's major offender. You would have to live a charmed life to suddenly have "trucks" thrust on you at this point and only because of this WalMart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely wrong. Walmart has an agreement with the developer to do all of the 380 improvements as part of the sale of the property. Walmart would never pay huge dollars to buy land without getting the surrounding infrastructure upgraded. And the idea that the 380 agreement was done to support the surrounding small businesses instead of Walmart is just hilarious. I do not think that a Walmart PR flack would have the gaul to come up with garbage like that. Walmart's building and parking lot are the vast majority of the acreage of the Ainbinder development. Walmart's traffic and 18 wheelers are the vast majority of the traffic from the Ainbinder development. But, you think the City and Ainbinder sat down and thought "gee, what can we do in the 380 agreement for the small businesses (i.e. national franchises and corporations like Walmart, Verizon, Chase, Chipotle, etc.) that will be the tenants?" That is rich.

Well, regardless, it is done. What'cha gonna do now? Hmmmm?

All of your carping and beeching has not stopped Walmart, has not stopped Ainbinder, has not stopped the 380, has not gotten a new bridge in less than 4 years, and has not turned anyone against the new retail on Yale. So, really, what'cha gon do? :P

Oh, and you have no idea what Walmart would do.

Edited by RedScare
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RUDH: Raising money for the CoH one ticket at a time. Using their 5 year estimate, 20 tickets day, $200 per ticket, $4,000 per day, $1.4 million per year.....wow, $7 million clawback of the 380 funds right out of our Heightstonian tail pipes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, regardless, it is done. What'cha gonna do now? Hmmmm?

All of your carping and beeching has not stopped Walmart, has not stopped Ainbinder, has not stopped the 380, has not gotten a new bridge in less than 4 years, and has not turned anyone against the new retail on Yale. So, really, what'cha gon do? :P

Oh, and you have no idea what Walmart would do.

Oh sure, when you are dead wrong, it doesn't matter. But if think anyone who doesn't share your view makes an incorrect statement, it is all sixth grade insults. You were flat out wrong. Your fantasy about the 380 agreement being a City of Houston plan for small business owners is a laugh riot. You are completely out of touch with what is actually happening because of your determination to be a Walmart apologist.

And if you think that all the effort has resulted in nothing, you are again deluding yourself. Your pet Emme's Place project is on very shaky grounds after RUDH mobilized its followers to express their concern to the City. Cohen and Rodriguez are against it. The Mayor even said it is a bad idea. The planning commission tabled the vote for further study. All while even more people in the community are coming out against it. The community is getting better organized. Just like with historic preservation, there is only so much the community will let people get away with in the Heights. There are thousands in the Heights who are dead set against the Walmart and the strip malls. Just look at how lousy leasing has been even with as good a location (save a big stupid Walmart) as you can get in Houston right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa! Cohen and Rodriguez are against it! Wow! Cohen is a brown noser to the yuppie elites, and Rodriguez is a lap dog to Mayor Parker. They are both worthless. But, no matter. My presence here is not to apologize for Walmart. I rarely shop there, and will only go to this one when I need Target stuff, but don't want to pay Target prices. No, my real purpose here is to point out the falsehoods that you and RUDE continually post. You never back up your statements with anything. I just enjoy showing your dishonesty to the half dozen people that read this thread.

Toodles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa! Cohen and Rodriguez are against it! Wow! Cohen is a brown noser to the yuppie elites, and Rodriguez is a lap dog to Mayor Parker. They are both worthless. But, no matter. My presence here is not to apologize for Walmart. I rarely shop there, and will only go to this one when I need Target stuff, but don't want to pay Target prices. No, my real purpose here is to point out the falsehoods that you and RUDE continually post. You never back up your statements with anything. I just enjoy showing your dishonesty to the half dozen people that read this thread.

Toodles.

I like how he says you're delusional, then goes on to say that there is lousy leasing in "as good a location as you can get in Houston".

Maybe I am seeing things wrong, but if that was 'as good a location as you can get in Houston' why did it sit fallow as an empty brownfield for however many years? across the street from a strip mall with a hole in the wall bar that charged $5 for a lone star?

yeah, REALLY desirable, people were falling all over themselves to snatch up the property prior to ainbinder selling to walmart.

but you're the delusional one. lol

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how he says you're delusional, then goes on to say that there is lousy leasing in "as good a location as you can get in Houston".

Maybe I am seeing things wrong, but if that was 'as good a location as you can get in Houston' why did it sit fallow as an empty brownfield for however many years? across the street from a strip mall with a hole in the wall bar that charged $5 for a lone star?

yeah, REALLY desirable, people were falling all over themselves to snatch up the property prior to ainbinder selling to walmart.

but you're the delusional one. lol

Yeah, you nailed it. It is a terrible location because nothing has changed along Washington Ave over the last ten years. And the Heights has been on a steep decline with no new residents in years. It is worse than South Houston. Rice Military hasn't seen any new construction in the past ten years. It is amazing that the developer was able to find a single tenant to build in the middle of the most depressed area in Houston that has not seen any progress for over a decade. But thank goodness for the miracle development. Maybe this will finally end the tailspin that the Heights/Washington corridor has been in over the past few years. Because real estate is always totally stagnant. Property is never affected by changing conditions in the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you nailed it. It is a terrible location because nothing has changed along Washington Ave over the last ten years. And the Heights has been on a steep decline with no new residents in years. It is worse than South Houston. Rice Military hasn't seen any new construction in the past ten years. It is amazing that the developer was able to find a single tenant to build in the middle of the most depressed area in Houston that has not seen any progress for over a decade. But thank goodness for the miracle development. Maybe this will finally end the tailspin that the Heights/Washington corridor has been in over the past few years. Because real estate is always totally stagnant. Property is never affected by changing conditions in the area.

if you can't see the difference between the desirability of koehler street vs center street, it all makes sense why you're so hopelessly misinformed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Wal-Mart To Invade The Heights
  • The topic was unlocked

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...