Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[JJxvi]

That's right. We don't. But it could. It might not increase crime, but chances are greater that it will. There is a slim possibility it will not increase flooding or cause more polluted run offs in to our water, but statistically chances are significantly greater that it will. It may allow some small businesses to survive, but there will be more loss than gain in the independent, local business. Local businesses help our economy more than national retailers, especially big boxes. No one truly knows what WILL happen, but based on what has happened in other cities and towns, the stats lean toward the negative impacts being much more likely and that is what people are trying to do- prevent the negative or at least mitigate it as much as possible (knowing that any development will bring increases in the negative but if done wisely can be much less than Walmart).

There is a slim possibility that you didn't make up a bunch of relative statistical outcome claims based on your personal biases and desire to spread fear.

How about this, try and force the city to buy the land and make it an untouchable park...I've seen that done before.

[samagon]

You are right. We do not live in a small down. We live in a very dense urban environment. The supercenter concept was designed to be put on the outskirts of town where land is very cheap and there was minimal demands on roadways. The idea was to draw people away from the local shopping district so they would do all their shopping at the supercenter in one stop. Walmart replicated this model in larger cities by building on the outskirts of suburban areas. After anemic sales growth last year (1%), Walmart has realized that this business model has jumped the shark. Now, Walmart wants to just take a supercenter and jam it right in the middle of densely populated urban areas. This the exact opposite of the model for smart and sustainable urban development (smaller retail centers in walkable neighborhoods to diminish traffic congestion).

You can't blame WalMart for wanting to adjust their concept to match the re-urbanization of large cities.

The point that was made is in direct answer to jobs being lost from local businesses. Houston is so large and diverse that these specialty stores won't lose traffic, and in fact, by bringing more people to this area, it may increase the local business sales. Of course, as we can't read the future, we can't really say for sure whether it will positively impact the local businesses or not, but I am confident that it won't impact the majority of them negatively.

The average Walmart generates an average of 10,000 car trips a day. That number is based on stores that are in suburban areas. Walmart is marketing the Yale location as some super duper new concept store that will serve the entire city. Thus, the Yale location will generate significantly more traffic than an average store because it is in a densely populated urban area and is being marketed as a special flagship urban store. Add to that the increased traffic burden created by a new east bound feeder road an Yale St. exit (this will be a preferred alternate for downtown commuters as they can get on Memorial from Waugh without waiting for a traffic light and well before the I-10 45 traffic), and you are looking at possibly three times the current traffic volume on Yale, while adding two traffic lights. between I-10 and Washington. There will be gridlock as there is barely a tenth of a mile between the new light at I-10 and the new light at Koehler and similar gridlock between the proposed extension of Koehler to Heights Blvd.

Have you done the traffic studies, or the predictive analysis on the impact that this unknown store will generate? How do you know that this store will generate more than 10000 cars per day if it is a new concept? Where did you get the numbers from?

Walmart will have an affect on small businesses. It always does. It won't be quite the same dynamic as what happens in small towns. What will happen is that the traffic burden will change the face of development. Big national chains (everything from Quiznos to check cashers to mobile phones to Best Buy) will want to build in the area as the traffic count goes up. Restaurants and bars will not. Small businesses will have trouble because they will see their rents rise as national chains move in to the area.

But, with a city the size of Houston with millions that are possible customers, the ones that will shop at these local businesses will continue to support the locals. Has the chilis at Target negatively impacted the local businesses? Have the specialty stores been affected because of Target itself? What about any small pet stores in the Heights? were they negatively impacted by the big box pet store?

I mean, with your reference to more than 10000 cars coming into the area, if those are 10000 cars that would never have been in the area anyway, doesn't it stand to reason that even if 1% of those people per day decide to go to a local store/restaurant in the area, that it will do even better for the local stores?

Home Depot and Lowes have a nursery section, but that hasn't put Buchanans out of business, and as I understand the only reason Teas closed was because the family didn't want to continue to run the business, not because they weren't doing well (and I can attest to that, as I had been going there my whole life up until a month before they closed, and they were just as busy as ever). Houston is diverse and large enough to support many different businesses in the same area.

Finally, if Walmart must have a store inside the loop, there are plenty of locations that would be beneficial for both Walmart and the immediate area. There are brownfields galore out around Old Katy Rd, Hemstead Rd, and W 11. A Walmart out there would help revitalized an area that is being abandonned by industry and is seeing a lot of new residential construction. There are opportunities on S. Main for a Walmart that would actually serve an underserved southside market. East of Downtown, there are plenty of lots on Navigation that could be remediated to become a Walmart that would serve a truly underserve eastside market. But, instead of going where Walmart is actually wanted and needed, Walmart is going to go right into an area that is already full of traffic and bring in people from underserved areas miles away to ruin a resurgent area with traffic, crime and piles of the same old coat tail retail development that follows Walmart everywhere. You just cannot cram a supercenter concept into a neighborhood that was originally desinged for trolleys and model Ts. Supercenters are suburban stores and are not compatible with urban life.

I don't pretend to understand the reasoning for why WalMart chose this location over others, but they probably chose it because of the easy freeway access, and that this particular freeway access location is located centrally to other freeway interchanges that make it easy to move in all directions of the city. On top of that, it is fairly centrally located to various different areas that are not easy to get to from freeways.

Edited August 24, 2010 by samagon

[heights]

You are right. We do not live in a small down. We live in a very dense urban environment. The supercenter concept was designed to be put on the outskirts of town where land is very cheap and there was minimal demands on roadways. [...]

Supercenters are suburban stores and are not compatible with urban life.

Gosh, I think somewhere early in this thread I posted about the Walmart AND Sam's Club smack dab in the middle of Honolulu, which is a heck of a lot more dense than Houston. When I visited, both stores seemed to be thriving and none of the fancy tourist traps on KLAKALKALKALAKALKALKALAKALAKLAKAKLAKA Boulevard had been put out of business!

[JJxvi]

Interesting

Although not likely very comparable to what we will get, except for, apparently, the color scheme.

Edited August 24, 2010 by JJxvi

[samagon]

Gosh, I think somewhere early in this thread I posted about the Walmart AND Sam's Club smack dab in the middle of Honolulu, which is a heck of a lot more dense than Houston. When I visited, both stores seemed to be thriving and none of the fancy tourist traps on KLAKALKALKALAKALKALKALAKALAKLAKAKLAKA Boulevard had been put out of business!

Also, if you go to Disney World, there is a WalMart right in the middle of all the tourist traps, and the tourist traps there are thriving (as are the Disney Shops on the property).

Edited August 24, 2010 by samagon

[RedScare]

You are right. We do not live in a small down. We live in a very dense urban environment. The supercenter concept was designed to be put on the outskirts of town where land is very cheap and there was minimal demands on roadways. The idea was to draw people away from the local shopping district so they would do all their shopping at the supercenter in one stop. Walmart replicated this model in larger cities by building on the outskirts of suburban areas. After anemic sales growth last year (1%), Walmart has realized that this business model has jumped the shark. Now, Walmart wants to just take a supercenter and jam it right in the middle of densely populated urban areas. This the exact opposite of the model for smart and sustainable urban development (smaller retail centers in walkable neighborhoods to diminish traffic congestion).

The average Walmart generates an average of 10,000 car trips a day. That number is based on stores that are in suburban areas. Walmart is marketing the Yale location as some super duper new concept store that will serve the entire city. Thus, the Yale location will generate significantly more traffic than an average store because it is in a densely populated urban area and is being marketed as a special flagship urban store. Add to that the increased traffic burden created by a new east bound feeder road an Yale St. exit (this will be a preferred alternate for downtown commuters as they can get on Memorial from Waugh without waiting for a traffic light and well before the I-10 45 traffic), and you are looking at possibly three times the current traffic volume on Yale, while adding two traffic lights. between I-10 and Washington. There will be gridlock as there is barely a tenth of a mile between the new light at I-10 and the new light at Koehler and similar gridlock between the proposed extension of Koehler to Heights Blvd.

Walmart will have an affect on small businesses. It always does. It won't be quite the same dynamic as what happens in small towns. What will happen is that the traffic burden will change the face of development. Big national chains (everything from Quiznos to check cashers to mobile phones to Best Buy) will want to build in the area as the traffic count goes up. Restaurants and bars will not. Small businesses will have trouble because they will see their rents rise as national chains move in to the area.

Finally, if Walmart must have a store inside the loop, there are plenty of locations that would be beneficial for both Walmart and the immediate area. There are brownfields galore out around Old Katy Rd, Hemstead Rd, and W 11. A Walmart out there would help revitalized an area that is being abandonned by industry and is seeing a lot of new residential construction. There are opportunities on S. Main for a Walmart that would actually serve an underserved southside market. East of Downtown, there are plenty of lots on Navigation that could be remediated to become a Walmart that would serve a truly underserve eastside market. But, instead of going where Walmart is actually wanted and needed, Walmart is going to go right into an area that is already full of traffic and bring in people from underserved areas miles away to ruin a resurgent area with traffic, crime and piles of the same old coat tail retail development that follows Walmart everywhere. You just cannot cram a supercenter concept into a neighborhood that was originally desinged for trolleys and model Ts. Supercenters are suburban stores and are not compatible with urban life.

You crack me up. You just throw stuff out there with nothing to back it up, expecting people to buy it. Most of it has no logic. Much of it is the OPPOSITE of the truth.

A few examples...

"We live in a very dense urban environment." No, we don't. The Heights is a collection of single family homes on 6,600 square foot lots. Most of those homes are inhabited by singles or couples. Density in the Heights Super Neighborhood is 6,272 per square mile. The average household size is less than 2.5.

"The idea was to draw people away from the local shopping district so they would do all their shopping at the supercenter in one stop." This model reduces the number of trips compared to shopping at several small shops, thereby reducing the number of cars on the road. Additionally, there WILL be a shopping center for small shops across the street from the Walmart, allowing even more shopping to be completed in one trip. Your logic is backwards.

"Big national chains (everything from Quiznos to check cashers to mobile phones to Best Buy) will want to build in the area as the traffic count goes up. Restaurants and bars will not." You've clearly never owned a bar or restaurant. I have. Both big stores and small ones want to locate near high traffic centers. Why you believe a bar or restaurant or small store would want to locate far away from its customers (that traffic) is beyond me.

"Walmart is marketing the Yale location as some super duper new concept store that will serve the entire city." You yourself complained that there will be a Walmart at Crosstimbers and Silber and that this one is not needed. You can't have it both ways. Pick one. If this store generates 10,000 trips daily, it will cause a corresponding drop in the number of trips to its main competitors, Target, Kroger, HEB and Fiesta. In fact, those Washington Avenue residents who currently travel into the Heights to shop at Kroger, HEB and Fiests will be drawn to this store, keeping traffic off of Heights streets.

"Finally, if Walmart must have a store inside the loop, there are plenty of locations that would be beneficial for both Walmart and the immediate area." Stupid argument. If Walmart wants to put a store on THIS brownfield, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

"You just cannot cram a supercenter concept into a neighborhood that was originally desinged for trolleys and model Ts." They aren't. They are proposing to build a store next to a neighborhood on the site of a former steel factory. When Walmart proposes a store at the corner of 11th and Studewood, call me. I may join your protest then.

I hope that the arguments posted here are the same ones being presented to the City. They know better than the fallacies you propound. If this is the best your group has, we'll have a shiny new Walmart in no time.

[20thStDad]

I hope the sporting goods department will be open 24 hours. Seems every time I buy a fishing license it's between the hours of 10pm and 5am.

Have they already proposed any in-store refreshments? The usual Starbucks or McDonalds? Personally I think Chacho's would be more appropriate. What's better than roaming a Wal-Mart with a half-gallon happy hour margarita?

[s3mh]

Gosh, I think somewhere early in this thread I posted about the Walmart AND Sam's Club smack dab in the middle of Honolulu, which is a heck of a lot more dense than Houston. When I visited, both stores seemed to be thriving and none of the fancy tourist traps on KLAKALKALKALAKALKALKALAKALAKLAKAKLAKA Boulevard had been put out of business!

That walmart is on a 5-7 lane road in the middle of a heavy commercial area. That part of Honolulu may be dense, but there is no comparison in terms of population: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html#axzz0xYj7CVh1

The proposed Heights Walmart is on a 4 lane road, barely 1/10th of a mile from a frontage road, less than a mile from a school crossing in the Heights, directly abutting a residential neighborhood and less than a half mile from the beginning of the residential areas of the Heights. If you think putting a Walmart on Honolulu's version of Westheimer is the same as putting it on Yale, then why not put a Walmart on W. 19th.

[s3mh]

You crack me up. You just throw stuff out there with nothing to back it up, expecting people to buy it. Most of it has no logic. Much of it is the OPPOSITE of the truth.

A few examples...

"We live in a very dense urban environment." No, we don't. The Heights is a collection of single family homes on 6,600 square foot lots. Most of those homes are inhabited by singles or couples. Density in the Heights Super Neighborhood is 6,272 per square mile. The average household size is less than 2.5.

"The idea was to draw people away from the local shopping district so they would do all their shopping at the supercenter in one stop." This model reduces the number of trips compared to shopping at several small shops, thereby reducing the number of cars on the road. Additionally, there WILL be a shopping center for small shops across the street from the Walmart, allowing even more shopping to be completed in one trip. Your logic is backwards.

"Big national chains (everything from Quiznos to check cashers to mobile phones to Best Buy) will want to build in the area as the traffic count goes up. Restaurants and bars will not." You've clearly never owned a bar or restaurant. I have. Both big stores and small ones want to locate near high traffic centers. Why you believe a bar or restaurant or small store would want to locate far away from its customers (that traffic) is beyond me.

"Walmart is marketing the Yale location as some super duper new concept store that will serve the entire city." You yourself complained that there will be a Walmart at Crosstimbers and Silber and that this one is not needed. You can't have it both ways. Pick one. If this store generates 10,000 trips daily, it will cause a corresponding drop in the number of trips to its main competitors, Target, Kroger, HEB and Fiesta. In fact, those Washington Avenue residents who currently travel into the Heights to shop at Kroger, HEB and Fiests will be drawn to this store, keeping traffic off of Heights streets.

"Finally, if Walmart must have a store inside the loop, there are plenty of locations that would be beneficial for both Walmart and the immediate area." Stupid argument. If Walmart wants to put a store on THIS brownfield, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

"You just cannot cram a supercenter concept into a neighborhood that was originally desinged for trolleys and model Ts." They aren't. They are proposing to build a store next to a neighborhood on the site of a former steel factory. When Walmart proposes a store at the corner of 11th and Studewood, call me. I may join your protest then.

I hope that the arguments posted here are the same ones being presented to the City. They know better than the fallacies you propound. If this is the best your group has, we'll have a shiny new Walmart in no time.

1. Dense compared to the suburbs. The area has plenty of apartments and townhomes and is not just 6600 sq ft single family homes. Walmart supercenters are designed to exist in the suburbs on cheap land far away from where people live.

2. It is not about car trips, it is about getting what you need in your neighborhood. Smaller and more plentiful stores rather than having people from all over pile into a Supercenter. If you think Supercenters are better suited for urban areas than walkable store fronts, you need to stay out in the burbs and leave us alone.

3. Maybe in the burbs, but not in the City. The developer of Sawyer Heights promised lots of nice restaurants, boutiques and so on. The result, the same crap that is in every strip center and a freebirds. No "chef driven" restaurant will open in a strip center with Wal-Mart. Not even in the burbs.

4. I complained about Walmart putting in too many stores before they announced the super concept urban store for Yale. And the duplication argument is still valid to refute all those who claim that the Heights "needs" a Walmart supercenter. You can have it both ways because it is two completely different points.

5. Stupid of you to think that people are powerless in a democracy. Councilman Gonzalez has publicly announced that he does not support the development and has tagged the Koehler street variance. Other council members are very close to announcing their opposition. No 380 agreement=no Walmart. No permits=no Walmart.

My arguments are my own and not the arguments that will be presented to decision makers. Those arguments have so far been very effective. It is no coincidence that no one on city council has publicly announced their support for Walmart.

[RedScare]

1. Walmart supercenters are designed to exist in the suburbs on cheap land far away from where people live. Prove it.

2. It is not about car trips, it is about getting what you need in your neighborhood. Smaller and more plentiful stores rather than having people from all over pile into a Supercenter. If you think Supercenters are better suited for urban areas than walkable store fronts, you need to stay out in the burbs and leave us alone. I've been here 11 years. You've been here one. Who should be leaving who alone?

3. Maybe in the burbs, but not in the City. The developer of Sawyer Heights promised lots of nice restaurants, boutiques and so on. The result, the same crap that is in every strip center and a freebirds. No "chef driven" restaurant will open in a strip center with Wal-Mart. Not even in the burbs. Don't go into the restaurant business.

4. I complained about Walmart putting in too many stores before they announced the super concept urban store for Yale. And the duplication argument is still valid to refute all those who claim that the Heights "needs" a Walmart supercenter. You can have it both ways because it is two completely different points. I thought you just said Walmarts are designed for the suburbs? Apparently not all of them.

5. Stupid of you to think that people are powerless in a democracy. Councilman Gonzalez has publicly announced that he does not support the development and has tagged the Koehler street variance. Other council members are very close to announcing their opposition. No 380 agreement=no Walmart. No permits=no Walmart. 380 agreements are not required in order to get a permit.

My arguments are my own and not the arguments that will be presented to decision makers. Those arguments have so far been very effective. It is no coincidence that no one on city council has publicly announced their support for Walmart.

[TheNiche]

2. It is not about car trips, it is about getting what you need in your neighborhood. Smaller and more plentiful stores rather than having people from all over pile into a Supercenter. If you think Supercenters are better suited for urban areas than walkable store fronts, you need to stay out in the burbs and leave us alone.

Where do you currently walk to within your neighborhood that you buy what Wal-Mart sells?

And that "from all over" phrase reeks of xenophobia...or worse. Who don't you want in (or near) your neighborhood? Where are they from? Why do you not feel comfortable around them?

[RedScare]

Where do you currently walk to within your neighborhood that you buy what Wal-Mart sells?

And that "from all over" phrase reeks of xenophobia...or worse. Who don't you want in (or near) your neighborhood? Where are they from? Why do you not feel comfortable around them?

I don't think he is a xenophobe. He is simply advocating that several Valero stores are better than one Walmart.

Of course, what would really be cool is to have an HEB Pantry in the Heights. Too bad the neighborhood gentrified and ran it off. Now, only Walmart wants to locate here.

[crunchtastic]

If I have to hear 'chef-driven restaurant' again in this context I'm going to have a seizure.

Christ on a cracker! How much gastropubbin' and slow food cocktails do the Good People of The Heights need in a 5 mile area? Clearly not that many, because it's easier to use the prescribed anti-walmart talking points rather than keep the 'chef-driven restaurants' like Bedford and Textile viable in one's own neighborhood.

Curious how no one wants crappy chains, but yet the Heights manages to keep the Creeks (aka the home of the dry, overpriced burger) hopping. Style over substance, apparently.

I second 20th st Dad's Chacho's motion.

[Ross]

Where do you currently walk to within your neighborhood that you buy what Wal-Mart sells?

And that "from all over" phrase reeks of xenophobia...or worse. Who don't you want in (or near) your neighborhood? Where are they from? Why do you not feel comfortable around them?

That's what I was thinking too. I could walk to the 11th St Kroger from my Timbergrove house - if I want to die of heat stroke on the half mile hike, followed by my feeble attempt to carry 50 pounds of groceries home. The Heights area is so developed that there's little chance of walkable development. Unless the historic houses get torn down to put the stores closer to the residents, and the stores are 2500 sq ft, like they were in the old days. My Dad had to walk to the store when he was growing up. He says it sucked. A lot.

[heights]

That walmart is on a 5-7 lane road in the middle of a heavy commercial area. That part of Honolulu may be dense, but there is no comparison in terms of population: http://www.infopleas...l#axzz0xYj7CVh1

The proposed Heights Walmart is on a 4 lane road, barely 1/10th of a mile from a frontage road, less than a mile from a school crossing in the Heights, directly abutting a residential neighborhood and less than a half mile from the beginning of the residential areas of the Heights. If you think putting a Walmart on Honolulu's version of Westheimer is the same as putting it on Yale, then why not put a Walmart on W. 19th.

As with so many of your previous posts, you have not allowed facts to interfere with your theories:

The 2-Story Walmart/Sam's Club at 700 Keeaumoku Street is bounded by four streets. The largest street (Keeaumoku) is only 3 lanes in each direction. The other three streets (Makaloa, Sheridan, and Rycroft) are only 1 lane in each direction!

According to http://demographia.com/db-ua2000pop.htm Honolulu's population density is MUCH HIGHER than that of Houston. Honolulu's is 4659.8/sq mile and Houston's is 2951.1/sq mile.

The Honolulu Walmart is directly abutting a residential area to the northwest, is one half mile from a major interstate, 3/10 of a mile from not one but two schools with lots of crosswalks, and is one mile from Waikiki Beach.

So what is your point anyway?? If you are going to try to put up some reasoning for why you think the proposed Walmart is a bad idea, at least use some relevant information and try to find some facts to back up your opinions.

The other option would be for you to just admit the truth: You hate Walmart and the people that shop there because you think you are better then they are.

[J008]

Where do you currently walk to within your neighborhood that you buy what Wal-Mart sells?

C&D Hardware and 14th ST Fiesta. Target is a stretch but not by bike.

[LookyHere]

C&D Hardware and 14th ST Fiesta. Target is a stretch but not by bike.

I also ride my bike to pick up assorted needs around the neighborhood. I ride to Kroger, Fiesta, CVS

[samagon]

That walmart is on a 5-7 lane road in the middle of a heavy commercial area. That part of Honolulu may be dense, but there is no comparison in terms of population: http://www.infopleas...l#axzz0xYj7CVh1

The proposed Heights Walmart is on a 4 lane road, barely 1/10th of a mile from a frontage road, less than a mile from a school crossing in the Heights, directly abutting a residential neighborhood and less than a half mile from the beginning of the residential areas of the Heights. If you think putting a Walmart on Honolulu's version of Westheimer is the same as putting it on Yale, then why not put a Walmart on W. 19th.

as far as being less than half a mile from the beginning of the residential areas of the heights, the name of the residential area doesn't matter. You say it as if it has some special significance over other neighborhoods in Houston.

you say that it is 1/10th of a mile from the freeway like it's a bad thing. The closer this store is to a freeway the better it will be for the residents, and the lower impact it will have on the area for people who use the freeway to get to and away from the walmart. That is pretty easy to see.

In fact, you don't have to travel out of the city, then out of the state, then across half an ocean to get a comparable store. You can look right here.

610/PostOak and Belfort has an apartment complex directly behind it, and single family residence on the remaining 3 sides, the same as the heights, but closer to Walmart in this case.

Belfort is only 2 lanes in each direction here (of course the entrance to the store is about 1/4 of a mile from belfort through the parking lot). 610 feeder is 3 lanes, but you can only go north, if you want to go south, you have to either uturn at Braeswood 1/4 mile up the road, or you can drive down to Belfort. the other small road that connects to the parking lot of Walmart is Meyer Park Blvd which ends at Belfort or the south610 feeder.

Actually, looking at the location at 610/PostOak and Belfort, and then the proposed site near the heights, this location looks to have similar restrictions as far as traffic as the heights location will. I've been to that Walmart (and driven around the surrounding area) and have experienced no issues with mobility.

Edited August 25, 2010 by samagon

[sevfiv]

Mr. Kuffner's take:

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=30712

[Angostura]

Now, Walmart wants to just take a supercenter and jam it right in the middle of densely populated urban areas. This the exact opposite of the model for smart and sustainable urban development (smaller retail centers in walkable neighborhoods to diminish traffic congestion).

But the Heights doesn't want sustainable urban development. The pre-requisite for walkable neighborhoods is population density. Heights preservationists HATE densification. Try building a townhouse (or, god forbid multi-family) in the Heights and look at the wailing and gnashing of teeth that results. Look at the uproar that resulted from building single-family houses on 3300-sf lots at 15th and Rutland. I know of no truly walkable neighborhood anywhere in the world that has a population density as low as that of the Heights.

As to the site in question: who the hell is going to walk to it? There's no access from the south; there's a stone dealer, a bayou, a freeway and several blocks of commercial and light industrial sites between the site and anything residential on the north; and there isn't much to the east but a cemetary and the railroad townhouses on Heights. It's hard to justify 25 acres of walkable retail to serve the few dozen single-family homes between Yale and Shepherd.

But even if someone WANTED to put 25 acres of walkable retail here, they couldn't. CoH setback and parking requirements pretty much outlaw "sustainable urban development" within our city limits. Like it or not, there's gonna need to be 600-700 parking spaces on this site no matter what gets built there.

[samagon]

But even if someone WANTED to put 25 acres of walkable retail here, they couldn't. CoH setback and parking requirements pretty much outlaw "sustainable urban development" within our city limits. Like it or not, there's gonna need to be 600-700 parking spaces on this site no matter what gets built there.

precisely, the requirements on parking will limit the amount of space available for the store itself, unless they build up.

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

But the Heights doesn't want sustainable urban development. The pre-requisite for walkable neighborhoods is population density. Heights preservationists HATE densification. Try building a townhouse (or, god forbid multi-family) in the Heights and look at the wailing and gnashing of teeth that results. Look at the uproar that resulted from building single-family houses on 3300-sf lots at 15th and Rutland. I know of no truly walkable neighborhood anywhere in the world that has a population density as low as that of the Heights.

As to the site in question: who the hell is going to walk to it? There's no access from the south; there's a stone dealer, a bayou, a freeway and several blocks of commercial and light industrial sites between the site and anything residential on the north; and there isn't much to the east but a cemetary and the railroad townhouses on Heights. It's hard to justify 25 acres of walkable retail to serve the few dozen single-family homes between Yale and Shepherd.

But even if someone WANTED to put 25 acres of walkable retail here, they couldn't. CoH setback and parking requirements pretty much outlaw "sustainable urban development" within our city limits. Like it or not, there's gonna need to be 600-700 parking spaces on this site no matter what gets built there.

hmm...walkable neighborhoods. I have walked to: Kroger (both), Walmart, CVS, Onion Creek, Jenny's Noodles, Lights in the Heights (most every year), Antedote, Jalisco, Berry Hill Tamales, Buchanon's, Metro Mart, Bliss, Shade, Buffalo Exchange, the Shoe repair place an W 19th., friends houses in the area, Heights Boulevard, the cemetery where Howard Hughes is buried, the new Bike Trail, etc....and I am not in my 20's or 30's. This is a walkable neighborhood - people are just lazy (or physically unable to do so.) I understand during extreme heat/heat advisories one should not walk - just like up north people don't walk around during extreme cold/blizzards. The furthest I have walked is about 2-1/2 miles to get somewhere by walking. It's really not that far especially if it's recommended that people walk a minimum of 30 minutes a day (about 2 miles) 5x a week. (Optimum distance is 5 miles daily.) Even a one-mile one-way trip to Yale and Koehler there are apartment complexes within that distance as well as homes.

Edited August 25, 2010 by CleaningLadyinCleveland

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

I think that Houston due to lack of zoning needs responsible urban development not only for the proposed Wal-Mart development, but for future development as well.

Edited August 25, 2010 by CleaningLadyinCleveland

[JJxvi]

Yeah guys. The response here would be the same no matter who that anchor store is, can't you see? Its that the "type" of development is all wrong. y'all clearly dont remember all those "No Target!!!" signs in all of our neighbros yards a few years ago...

[20thStDad]

I think some people are confusing "walkable" in the urban sense with just plain not far away. You can walk anywhere within a 3 mile radius if you really want to. But nothing in this city outside of downtown is truly set up as walkable. A "walkable" area is one where most people walk to get from A to B, not where the few who don't mind the heat do it sometimes.

[samagon]

Yeah guys. The response here would be the same no matter who that anchor store is, can't you see? Its that the "type" of development is all wrong. y'all clearly dont remember all those "No Target!!!" signs in all of our neighbros yards a few years ago...

What were the arguments against the Target? Are they the same as those against the Walmart?

How has Target impacted the area compared to what was used as the anti-Target campaign?

Edited August 25, 2010 by samagon

[AtticaFlinch]

I think some people are confusing "walkable" in the urban sense with just plain not far away. You can walk anywhere within a 3 mile radius if you really want to. But nothing in this city outside of downtown is truly set up as walkable. A "walkable" area is one where most people walk to get from A to B, not where the few who don't mind the heat do it sometimes.

Montrose is walkable. It was initially set up that way. You'd think if a typically suburban developer was to want to build a big box store there, everyone would be up in arms. But, it seems that with the HEB, built in the Montrose equivalent of 11th and Heights, blocks from the Menil and directly across the street from a competitor, people are more concerned about riding elevators with the AWP gentrification crowd.

Then again, Montrose isn't as well know for its snobs as is the Heights. The Heights is full of people from the Woodlands who got tired of the long commute into town. There is little difference these days. It's just a bunch of snobbery snobnose snobs.

[tanith27]

Since most of what I'm reading on here are opinions, here's mine. I dont want a Walmart here. Do I think it will attract poor people? Not really. Criminals? Maybe, but nothing I'd fret over. My convertible was broken into in the new Kroger parking lot last weekend in broad daylight and I'll still shop there. Traffic? Sure, but I live in the Woodland Heights and Target hasn't resulted in traffic jams down my street.

I just plain don't want one. I moved to the Heights 4 years ago, from the Dunvale area. Yes, THAT Dunvale. The one everyone uses as the antiWalmart model. Its a good model too, that place was a mess. Do I think this will become another Dunvale? Lol, not really. But the truth is none of us know exactly what this Walmart will do to the neighborhood. Its all speculation. But I moved into the Heights and fell in love with the area in part because places like Walmart didnt exist, and now 4 years later, have some hefty financial investments in the neighborhood. So from a monetary perspective, I want to protect my investments and I don't speculate Walmart will help with that.

I left the suburbs to get away from that culture, and although I'm not one of those folks that will be showing up at every event picketing the Walmartian Gods, I will have my piece and let Walmart know as a resident I will not support their business. And its not just Walmart either. I could care less about their ethics, its more the big box constant concrete mentality. I don't think a Hobby Lobby is a good use of that space either.

I think given the strong antiWalmart sentiment being expressed here and on the web, I really don't fear for our little mom and pops in the neighborhood. The Heights has a neighborhood loyalty I have not experienced anywhere else, and I think that loyalty will more than ensure the continued profitability of our little shops. My money will still go to C+D, I will still shop on 19th, and I will still ensure that much of my disposable income stays in the neighborhood. Walmart needs to know that. And I think that's where the power of the thousands of anti Walmart people can and will make a difference.

[tanith27]

Then again, Montrose isn't as well know for its snobs as is the Heights. The Heights is full of people from the Woodlands who got tired of the long commute into town. There is little difference these days. It's just a bunch of snobbery snobnose snobs.

Actually, I know way more Montrose folks that have moved to the Heights. I dont know a single Woodlands person that made the move. Its not snobbery to be vocal with neighborhood concerns. So I assume you wouldn't oppose a sex shop being built next to your house then? You'd just be quiet because being vocal about it would be considered too snobby right, and I assume you're not a hypocrite.

[JJxvi]

What were the arguments against the Target? Are they the same as those against the Walmart?

How has Target impacted the area compared to what was used as the anti-Target campaign?

I dont remember the arguments, I just know they had to exist! Right?

Edited August 25, 2010 by JJxvi