Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[Marksmu]

Ainbinder doesn't have a single permit. In fact, it is still not clear whether TxDOT has approved the connection of Bass to the new frontage road. So, no battles have been lost. They are just beginning.

I doubt the developer really cares. It owns all the way to two roads, it can make AN entrance work regardless of TxDot.

Making the development attractive to the public makes the developer money.

True, but what WalMart considers attractive enough to the public and what you would actually like to see there, are two different things. It can build any nice generic building it wants to. Ainbinder does not have to listen to you at all...this is your chance to have some comment no the looks. Even the Mayor on the radio said this morning that she is supporting WalMart and so is City Council. She was on 740AM around 7:45 this morning stating that the people opposing this are not thinking clearly...she said this is a brownstone that has been paved over, and is contaminated soil...Ainbinder and WalMart are going to clean up the soil and put something productive where a hazard currently exists....those are her words, not mine. You lost...the permits are not issued yet but the battle is over...when the Mayor & City Council support a developer to do what they are legally entitled to do, the result is always that it gets done. You have on blinders if you think otherwise. I will even spell it for you so its clear. Y-O-U - L-O-S-T. Now spend your time making this the best walmart ever...it will pay you a higher dividend than p i s s i n g into the wind.

Also, there is a huge difference between a 24 hour 152k sq ft supercenter and a 70k sq ft grocery store. There is no comparison in terms of traffic, crime, parking lot coverage, and truck traffic. It is the difference between 20k cars a day and 7k. It is the difference between a 600+ car parking lot and a 250 car parking lot. It is the difference between 3 police calls a day and three a month. And HEB doesn't just throw a different facade on their stores and plant a few rows of trees in response to community concerns. HEB has offered to do bi-level parking, allow space for a farmer's market and give up a portion of the property for a park at the proposed Montrose location. Walmart has paid lip service to the Heights and West End in comparison.

You dont know for sure what size store HEB was going to build. Their Bunker Hill store is pretty big, and I have seen several HEB stores that are almost as big as any WalMart. Furthermore - do you really think if the development was an HEB that Ainbinder would just let that extremely valuable real estate just sit there??? No way. If it were a HEB, then you would just have another 70,000 to 100,000 sq ft of other shopping, stores, and development. The drainage and effect on traffic would be the same. Your fighting nothing but the Walmart, and your using anti-development rhetoric to try to achieve your goals.

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

I agree that there is no hope for me. As little of a fan of Walmart as I am, there is no hope whatsoever that I will make up things in an attempt to keep them from building on Yale. I thoroughly understand the law of unintended consequences. Therefore, I realize that if I convince government officials to violate the rights of a corporation simply because I do not care for them, there is nothing to stop that same government from violating my rights simply because someone does not care for me.

You strike me as rather young. You also do not appear to be much of a student of the Constitution and of fairness. Not that you should be ashamed. There are many who feel as you do. Too many, in fact. My only wish is that you and your anti-Walmart friends would channel your energies into something worthwhile, as opposed to fighting a Walmart proposed on an industrial site. In a world where tens of millions are homeless in Pakistan, we are still stuck in 2 wars, the economy is going back into recession, and Jimmy Johnson is about to be on Survivor, few could care less whether a Walmart is built on Yale. As for me, add up the sum total of my post on this thread. That is the grand total of time I have spent on this subject...unless you count the times I have laughed with my friends and neighbors about how seriously some take this.

Pretty hilarious - you have posted over 10,000 times in the past 5 years ...? That's an average of about 5 posts a day every day for over 5 years! Who are you to state that people should change their energies when you spend so much of your time posting? These people are fighting for something they believe in and are taking action. You do not know what other causes the people (that are against the proposed Wal-Mart) are involved in (and nor do I know yours). I have given my time, blood and money for various causes that I believe in; local, national and global.

s3mh is young at heart and that's why he believes and will do something. I do hope (as with the other mega-posters) you are actually doing something to make a positive change in your life other than posting.

[s3mh]

I doubt the developer really cares. It owns all the way to two roads, it can make AN entrance work regardless of TxDot.

True, but what WalMart considers attractive enough to the public and what you would actually like to see there, are two different things. It can build any nice generic building it wants to. Ainbinder does not have to listen to you at all...this is your chance to have some comment no the looks. Even the Mayor on the radio said this morning that she is supporting WalMart and so is City Council. She was on 740AM around 7:45 this morning stating that the people opposing this are not thinking clearly...she said this is a brownstone that has been paved over, and is contaminated soil...Ainbinder and WalMart are going to clean up the soil and put something productive where a hazard currently exists....those are her words, not mine. You lost...the permits are not issued yet but the battle is over...when the Mayor & City Council support a developer to do what they are legally entitled to do, the result is always that it gets done. You have on blinders if you think otherwise. I will even spell it for you so its clear. Y-O-U - L-O-S-T. Now spend your time making this the best walmart ever...it will pay you a higher dividend than p i s s i n g into the wind.

You dont know for sure what size store HEB was going to build. Their Bunker Hill store is pretty big, and I have seen several HEB stores that are almost as big as any WalMart. Furthermore - do you really think if the development was an HEB that Ainbinder would just let that extremely valuable real estate just sit there??? No way. If it were a HEB, then you would just have another 70,000 to 100,000 sq ft of other shopping, stores, and development. The drainage and effect on traffic would be the same. Your fighting nothing but the Walmart, and your using anti-development rhetoric to try to achieve your goals.

http://www.ktrh.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=newscasts_c.xml

The mayor's own words:

"there are still a lot of things at play, nothing has been decided"

(And she said "brownfield", I don't think brownstones are efficient buildings for steel mills)

She said nothing about city council supporting this. She just said that generally given a choice between a brownfield and a remediated site with a modern shopping plaza, she would take the latter. She talked a lot about the traffic problems due to the new I-10 frontage and had no answers. Maybe you listened to a different mayor on another talk show. Or maybe you are applying your powers of interpretation that got you to conclude that the historic ordinance would circumvent people's constitutionally protected free speech rights to place political signs on their property.

HEB on Buffalo Speedway is 68k sq ft. They were interested in doing the same concept at Yale. The City has wrongly decided to granfather the drainage for the property. There is growing concern from Council about this decision. The property should include dentention as just less than half was permeable (dirt yard). The City has assumed, perhaps all the way back to when it was a refinery, that the entire lot was covered in concrete. It was not. If developed responsibly, a 68k sq ft HEB plus sufficient drainage would not leave much room for additional retail pads. You would not see the same burdens on traffic and would see much better outcome in terms of drainage with proper detention. So, the outcome is not the same if Walmart is replaced by another anchor. The outcome would be significantly different.

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

Just to jog your memory about what was written in the HBJ about the Target in Sawyer Heights during the planning stages, "Sawyer Heights Village will be an urban shopping center, similar in style to Highland Village and Town & Country Villages, Moss says. The developer is turning Taylor/Sawyer into a heavily landscaped boulevard with brick roadways, and has designs to make the entire project pedestrian-friendly, Moss says."

Look what happened...? And that was Target which has a higher average customer income than Wal-Mart. Pretty far from their "Vision" Too bad the Mayor and others don't see 20/20 on what will really happen to the development if the proposed Wal-mart is built.

[Marksmu]

http://www.ktrh.com/...newscasts_c.xml

The mayor's own words:

"there are still a lot of things at play, nothing has been decided"

(And she said "brownfield", I don't think brownstones are efficient buildings for steel mills)

She said nothing about city council supporting this. She just said that generally given a choice between a brownfield and a remediated site with a modern shopping plaza, she would take the latter. She talked a lot about the traffic problems due to the new I-10 frontage and had no answers. Maybe you listened to a different mayor on another talk show. Or maybe you are applying your powers of interpretation that got you to conclude that the historic ordinance would circumvent people's constitutionally protected free speech rights to place political signs on their property.

HEB on Buffalo Speedway is 68k sq ft. They were interested in doing the same concept at Yale. The City has wrongly decided to granfather the drainage for the property. There is growing concern from Council about this decision. The property should include dentention as just less than half was permeable (dirt yard). The City has assumed, perhaps all the way back to when it was a refinery, that the entire lot was covered in concrete. It was not. If developed responsibly, a 68k sq ft HEB plus sufficient drainage would not leave much room for additional retail pads. You would not see the same burdens on traffic and would see much better outcome in terms of drainage with proper detention. So, the outcome is not the same if Walmart is replaced by another anchor. The outcome would be significantly different.

Say what you want waste your energy however you want. I will get back on here when this thing is under construction post a picture of the construction and caption it again for you with my caption "Y-O-U-L-O-S-T"

The mayor is supporting it, Im not spinning that in any way...she may have "concerns" but 99.9% of those concerns revolve around her getting re-elected, and making sure she pays sufficient attention to the whiney folks who oppose everything. This thing is a done deal whether or not you realize it. She isnt stupid, she is not just gonna say nothing...she is going to act concerned, but thats all it is...an act.

Ainbinder is not going to settle with less developed space and fewer tenants either. They want money; tenants=money. HEB may have been a smaller store (all speculation) but the rest of the place would have still been built out around the HEB......Your doing nothing but speculating about what could have been if the evil WalMart had not come in here and tried to ruin your life. If the HEB took up only 68K, that leaves another 82K to be other stores around it (assuming the walmart is 150K )

I love how you say the city "wrongly decided".....Is it wrong because you dont agree?? I don't know what was there before, but what I do know is that Ainbinder is not going to construct drainage for one anchor tenant, but not another. Drainage is one of the most expensive parts of a project, if they can get it grandfathered they will. They are not going to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into dirt work when they can just get the thing grandfathered. There are a select few people who are that stupid..You may have a retention pond in your back yard, because you are so responsible but your neighbors probably dont.

Your utopia that you live in by yourself, is not reality. Reality is profit driven, and Ainbinder is not going to flush money down the toilet to please a few whiney people....the whiners will eventually quit whining after the thing has been open a while, and everything will continue exactly as it does now....only you will probably have found some new cause to protest....maybe global cooling...I hear that is going to coming back in style soon.

[J008]

Who are you to state that people should change their energies when you spend so much of your time posting? These people are fighting for something they believe in and are taking action. You do not know what other causes the people (that are against the proposed Wal-Mart) are involved in (and nor do I know yours). I have given my time, blood and money for various causes that I believe in; local, national and global.

I first read your post and thought it was a bit rude, but then I remember the ridiculous shopping cart thread a while back and the over 100 ridiculous posts regarding shopping carts, and now I agree with you for calling them out a bit. I think a major development ensnarling two main streets in the neighborhood is probably up to par for an architecture forum, or at least more so than perpetual whining about shopping carts and calls for police action, economics of letting shopping carts roam, technologies that can be deployed to prevent it, etc... I didn't read that whole thread but I don't remember anyone telling them to go do something useful with their lives?

Since I brought up the subject.. Since this is going to be such a pedestrian friendly walmart that will bless everyone with irresistible low prices, should we expect a dramatic increase in shopping cart litter?

[s3mh]

Say what you want waste your energy however you want. I will get back on here when this thing is under construction post a picture of the construction and caption it again for you with my caption "Y-O-U-L-O-S-T"

The mayor is supporting it, Im not spinning that in any way...she may have "concerns" but 99.9% of those concerns revolve around her getting re-elected, and making sure she pays sufficient attention to the whiney folks who oppose everything. This thing is a done deal whether or not you realize it. She isnt stupid, she is not just gonna say nothing...she is going to act concerned, but thats all it is...an act.

Ainbinder is not going to settle with less developed space and fewer tenants either. They want money; tenants=money. HEB may have been a smaller store (all speculation) but the rest of the place would have still been built out around the HEB......Your doing nothing but speculating about what could have been if the evil WalMart had not come in here and tried to ruin your life. If the HEB took up only 68K, that leaves another 82K to be other stores around it (assuming the walmart is 150K )

I love how you say the city "wrongly decided".....Is it wrong because you dont agree?? I don't know what was there before, but what I do know is that Ainbinder is not going to construct drainage for one anchor tenant, but not another. Drainage is one of the most expensive parts of a project, if they can get it grandfathered they will. They are not going to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into dirt work when they can just get the thing grandfathered. There are a select few people who are that stupid..You may have a retention pond in your back yard, because you are so responsible but your neighbors probably dont.

Your utopia that you live in by yourself, is not reality. Reality is profit driven, and Ainbinder is not going to flush money down the toilet to please a few whiney people....the whiners will eventually quit whining after the thing has been open a while, and everything will continue exactly as it does now....only you will probably have found some new cause to protest....maybe global cooling...I hear that is going to coming back in style soon.

It is funny that you are supporting complete handouts to a wealthy developer and multinational corporation as well as idiotic decision making by the City of Houston just because you disagree with people who oppose Walmart on ethical grounds. The City has wrongly grandfathered this project from drainage requirments. The developer should be required to put in detention for every acre of permeable land. The City is just assuming that the entire lot was covered in concrete. It was not. Looking at aerial photography, the site was clearly at least 40% dirt=permeable. That would mean 8 acres worth of detention should be required. But the City is giving this developer a free pass to help squeeze a Walmart on to the site. So, when the City does something that is clearly wrong, you are ok with it if it ticks off people who are ethically opposed to Walmart. And the 380 agreement is an unprecedented tax giveaway to a developer. 6 million dollars to a developer who has publically stated that he doesn't need it, will build anyway and in doing so will only forego the neighborhood fluff. But you are fine with giving away tax dollars to wealthy developers and fortune 500 corporations as long as it makes people opposed to Walmart's business practices mad.

There is another reality in this world. People have power. The guy with the big wallet does not always win and should not always win. The City has not approved drainage permits and may be compelled to rethink grandfathering the lot (there is already pressure from some on council on this issue). If grandfathering was reversed, the developer would have to either give up his own pads on the site or get Walmart to reduce its sq ft. Could be a deal breaker depending on how contingencies are addressing in the purchase agreement. And, if the 380 agreement dies (it very well may, CM Gonzalez and others have tagged the agreement for InTown Homes), the developer may not be able to do the road work and may have to wait for the City to get it done. Again, depending on the purchase agreement, that could be a deal killer for Walmart. That doesn't even take into consideration traffic.

Mayor Parker and council all know that if the development wrecks the area, they will never be elected again in the City of Houston. They know they are in big trouble on this one. But they cannot come out and shout from mountain tops that they are against it for fear of another Ashby Highrise lawsuit.

[RedScare]

The City is just assuming that the entire lot was covered in concrete. It was not. Looking at aerial photography, the site was clearly at least 40% dirt=permeable. That would mean 8 acres worth of detention should be required.

Could you provide the math on this. I've filled out the City's drainage worksheet before, and I'd like to see your math, since you are so specific.

And the 380 agreement is an unprecedented tax giveaway to a developer.

Not even close, but I love reading your hyperbole.

Mayor Parker and council all know that if the development wrecks the area, they will never be elected again in the City of Houston.

Biggest whopper on this whole thread! I love it! A few hundred Heights residents think they can control an election in a city of 2.25 million people. Hell, you people couldn't even get Karen Derr elected and you think you can outvote everyone else?

Edited September 2, 2010 by RedScare

[samagon]

I am convinced s3mh is just being a troll. If I am wrong this person should go through and list citations for every claim he has made.

If this can't be done, I will be inclined to continue believing this person is nothing more than a troll.

[heights]

Well, here's the "economic impact study" that the Anti-Walmart folks paid for and whaddaya know: the study concludes that there should not be a Walmart there.

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Heights+WM+Final.pdf

And their data isn't even accurate. They show a Walmart Supercenter around the East Freeway and Lockwood, which there is not. So they operate about like s3mh -- just make up "facts" to match whatever opinions you choose to broadcast.

[TheNiche]

Well, here's the "economic impact study" that the Anti-Walmart folks paid for and whaddaya know: the study concludes that there should not be a Walmart there.

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Heights+WM+Final.pdf

And their data isn't even accurate. They show a Walmart Supercenter around the East Freeway and Lockwood, which there is not. So they operate about like s3mh -- just make up "facts" to match whatever opinions you choose to broadcast.

I have cataloged the following errors and misinformation in the report:

Page 1: The proposed Wal-Mart is approximately 152,000 square feet, not 185,000 square feet. The map depicts the Wal-Mart site as encompassing the proposed pad sites laid out along Yale Street, which will be retained by Ainbinder for sale at a later date.

Page 1: Grammatical error, second sentence, second paragraph. Insert the word "along" between "roads" and "the".

Page 1: Replace "1000 feet" with "750 feet". Also, use commas consistently for number formatting.

Page 1: Cite "credible sources" as being Annise Parker, the Mayor of the City of Houston.

Page 1: Clarify that a 380 Agreement is not necessary to make the site viable for a large development. The development is legally permissible and economically feasible with or without the 380 Agreement.

Page 2: Identify the persons referred to by the use of the pronoun, "us", in the first sentence of the first paragraph.

Page 2: Cease comparisons to land uses that are no longer active or feasible on the subject site.

Page 2: Quote someone talking about Houston, not Austin. If there isn't anyone, get someone with an important-sounding title to say what you want and then quote them.

Page 3: Compare two scenarios, one with a Wal-Mart Supercenter that is well-landscaped (brought about by the City's negotiations) and nice surroundings and transportation and park infrastructure paid for up-front by a developer and reimbursed over a period of time by the City, and another scenario with a minimally-landscaped Wal-Mart Supercenter surrounded by ugliness and poor transportation and parks infrastructure. These options reflect a more realistic set of expectations. Acknowledge that the developer and Wal-Mart and the City would prefer the former option and that that is a Nash Equilibrium and Pareto-efficient outcome.

Pages 4 and 5: Delete. This discussion would be correct and relevant if the City were proposing to subsidize a Wal-Mart Supercenter, which it is not. Clarify instead that what is proposed is an arrangement whereby civic improvements are made by a developer up-front, that takes on indemnity for completing the civic improvements to spec, and that the City will reimburse indirectly over a period of time in the future. Also clarify that the benefit of these improvements might be enjoyed by Wal-Mart shoppers and non-Wal-Mart shoppers alike.

Page 6: Impacts to aggregate sales taxes and aggregate retail employment are not the same. This would hold according to pure theory, however the chain stores with which Wal-Mart competes are unlikely to close or downsize as a consequence of Wal-Mart's presence. Additionally, a more competitive environment may be reason for certain businesses to emphasize customer service over price, which may compensate somewhat (or fully) for theoretical employment shifting between stores. Annotate that.

Page 6: Modify conclusion to reflect changes to the starting assumptions and outgrowths thereof.

Maps: Get better data! Use Walmart.com's store finder. Some are missing, some are fictitious, and others seem to be double-counted. Delineate between Wal-Mart and Sam's Club; there's a big difference between them and their customer profile. The same observations hold true for the other types of stores that were mapped. There's lots of inconsistency, even between different maps of the same report!

Maps: Drive time analysis is not credible. Modify assumptions...or get rid of drive time and superimpose a map of stores over a map of household density or average household incomes.

...

Civic Economics executives reading this (and I know you are) should note that--for a reasonable fee--I will revise this report and make it technically accurate, realistic, and capable of telling a story that the client will appreciate. That is to say, I will tell a story that our elected officials feel is compelling. Feel free to contact me via the forum's PM system.

[heights]

I love how this "study" compares the proposed 380 agreement with the incentives that governmental entities sometimes use to entice firms to relocate. Fortunately most of us here realize that they are not the same thing.

The relocation type incentives do indeed sometimes involve taxpayer outlays for accommodations to convince the company to move to a location. For example, these are some of the incentives that the city of Chicago offered to get Boeing to relocate their headquarters:

Local: $20 million.

• Although its space is leased, Boeing will receive some $1 million a year in property tax abatements over the next 20 years.

Other: $2 million (est.)

• The city will contribute another $1 million to retire the lease of Rohm and Haas, an existing tenant in the 100 N. Riverside space that Boeing will occupy.

• The city will help pay for improvements at Midway Airport's hangars that are intended to improve the efficiencies of Boeing's Chicago operations.

The 380 agreement is nothing like this -- Ainbinder is actually going to PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY PROPERTY, some which are already needed (meat) and some which will enhance the quality of life in the area (gravy). The City is getting an interest-free loan on that money.

So the Anti-Walmart folks are so hellbent on preventing the rest of us from shopping at the Walmart that they deliberately mischaracterize the 380 agreement as a "giveaway" of taxpayer money to a deep-pocketed developer and a big-bad multinational corporation.

Edited September 2, 2010 by heights

[heights]

And this is my favorite quote of all from the entire "study":

Does a Supercenter constitute "destination retail?" It does not. A Supercenter in this location will add nothing to the product mix available in the City of Houston. As a result, it cannot be said that the store will draw shoppers from beyond the immediate market area.

If this is true, then why are y'all so worried about the f'kn traffic impact?

Wait, here's a close second:

A partner in the firm visited the site on August 8, touring the neighborhood and viewing the range of options currently available to residents of west central Houston.

Well, there you have it: we should believe everything they say. Case closed. No Walmart.

Here's a link I found with some more information about what went on in the meeting:

http://culturemap.com/newsdetail/09-02-10-mayor-annise-parker-refuses-to-defend-the-380-agreement/

Edited September 2, 2010 by heights

[RedScare]

Despite s3mh's insistence to the contrary, I am not seeing much that indicates that this store is not going to be built in exactly the place where it is proposed. Even the Facebook site seems to have a fatalistic feel, no doubt brought on by too many statements by City officials that it is not a question of 'if', but 'when'.

[Marksmu]

Well, here's the "economic impact study" that the Anti-Walmart folks paid for and whaddaya know: the study concludes that there should not be a Walmart there.

http://images.bimedi...ts+WM+Final.pdf

And their data isn't even accurate. They show a Walmart Supercenter around the East Freeway and Lockwood, which there is not. So they operate about like s3mh -- just make up "facts" to match whatever opinions you choose to broadcast.

That has got to be the most poorly written report I have ever read. If I turned that in for a grade to any college, heck, to any high school I would have failed. It looks and reads exactly like some high school kid who forgot to do his report threw it together in 2 hours or less and then added a bunch of maps and other pictures to make it look credible.

There is no data at all that can be considered credible in the whole thing.

If this is all they can come up with to oppose this Walmart, they are in even worse shape than I thought. I laughed pretty good reading it while I thought about the average intelligence of the people who oppose this store.

[JJxvi]

Biggest whopper on this whole thread! I love it! A few hundred Heights residents think they can control an election in a city of 2.25 million people. Hell, you people couldn't even get Karen Derr elected and you think you can outvote everyone else?

Heh. I assume that means that you've also noted that Keren Derr actually posts on the anti-Walmart facebook group?

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

I am convinced s3mh is just being a troll. If I am wrong this person should go through and list citations for every claim he has made.

If this can't be done, I will be inclined to continue believing this person is nothing more than a troll.

s3mh is not a troll.

Edited September 2, 2010 by CleaningLadyinCleveland

[RedScare]

Heh. I assume that means that you've also noted that Keren Derr actually posts on the anti-Walmart facebook group?

Yes, I have.

[Firebird65]

If this is true, then why are y'all so worried about the f'kn traffic impact?

That's hilarious!

[RedScare]

It seems the Planning Commission approved the Variance Request today, allowing the connection of Koehler Street to 2nd Street. Interestingly, the Commission noted that the original plan for Houston Heights intended for 2nd Street to extend over to Yale. So the argument that this development is part of the Heights had an effect on the Planning Commission in that they followed the historical intent of the developers of the Houston Heights. They also noted that the Walmart itself is not in the original footprint of Houston Heights.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/arc/maps/images/map0435.jpg

I'll bet that kinda stings to those who used the Heights argument to oppose this thing.

[20thStDad]

s3mh is not a troll.

I agree. s3mh is just the leader of the ABO when it comes to Walmart and historic districts.

[dbigtex56]

I agree. s3mh is just the leader of the ABO when it comes to Walmart and historic districts.

(...American Board of Ophthalmology? Aborigines? Me no understand.)

[samagon]

s3mh is not a troll.

Perhaps you won't mind going back through the posts that s3mh has made and cite some credible references to back up the claims being made.

[little frau]

(...American Board of Ophthalmology? Aborigines? Me no understand.)

Yeah, what you said. Glad you asked that one.

[dbigtex56]

(...American Board of Ophthalmology? Aborigines? Me no understand.)

Yeah, what you said. Glad you asked that one.

*slaps forehead* Acute Bowel Obstruction

[20thStDad]

Angry Bungalow Owner. It's like an AWP, but they try to impose their way on everyone else.

[samagon]

s3mh is not a troll.

for instance:

Also, there is a huge difference between a 24 hour 152k sq ft supercenter and a 70k sq ft grocery store.There is no comparison in terms of traffic, crime, parking lot coverage, and truck traffic. It is the difference between 20k cars a day and 7k

Now, I assume that the reference here is that a 24 hour 152k sf store will create an additional 20k cars in traffic.

I may be incorrect, but I read earlier in the thread (page 18 or 19) that the impact this store will create is to increase the usage of Yale UP TO a TOTAL of 10k cars a day, and that Yale can support up to 16k in current configuration.

If that's wrong, I'd LOVE to see a credible reference to show that it is wrong, and that 20k is the correct reference.

There's lots of numbers thrown around, and I've seen multiple locations where s3mh has had the incorrect number, I am less inclined to believe those numbers. So, lets see some references, not here-say.

[poyea]

for instance:

Now, I assume that the reference here is that a 24 hour 152k sf store will create an additional 20k cars in traffic.

I may be incorrect, but I read earlier in the thread (page 18 or 19) that the impact this store will create is to increase the usage of Yale UP TO a TOTAL of 10k cars a day, and that Yale can support up to 16k in current configuration.

If that's wrong, I'd LOVE to see a credible reference to show that it is wrong, and that 20k is the correct reference.

There's lots of numbers thrown around, and I've seen multiple locations where s3mh has had the incorrect number, I am less inclined to believe those numbers. So, lets see some references, not here-say.

I'm not sure what the correct numbers are, but from someone who lives one block west of Yale, and crosses Yale on a bike or with a dog multiple times per week, I'd say there are already too many cars on Yale for what SHOULD be considered a residential neighborhood. It's like running the gauntlet. There are too many speeders and too much traffic to cross safely during most times of the week. They need to put in more signals and NOT synchronize them, or synchronize them for the speed limit, which is 30 mpg (for reference, Heights Blvd is 35 mph).

HPD could make their monthly quota on a daily basis on Yale, and frankly, I'm ticked off about it. So, more traffic on Yale? Any more equals too many.

[RedScare]

I'm not sure what the correct numbers are, but from someone who lives one block west of Yale, and crosses Yale on a bike or with a dog multiple times per week, I'd say there are already too many cars on Yale for what SHOULD be considered a residential neighborhood. It's like running the gauntlet. There are too many speeders and too much traffic to cross safely during most times of the week. They need to put in more signals and NOT synchronize them, or synchronize them for the speed limit, which is 30 mpg (for reference, Heights Blvd is 35 mph).

HPD could make their monthly quota on a daily basis on Yale, and frankly, I'm ticked off about it. So, more traffic on Yale? Any more equals too many.

This is exactly what is proposed. The extension of Koehler will enable you to cross at an intersection controlled by traffic signals, making your gauntlet much safer.

And, not to be confrontational, but the Heights/Yale corridor is anything but residential. The proposed development is located on the site of a former steel mill. North of that is a stone yard. On the other side of Yale is a bar, another industrial shop, and a former meeting hall. Further south is a storage facility, restaurants, businesses and shops. On the east side of Heights are businesses, a shopping center, a city multi-purpose center, an office building, and whatever one wishes to categorize the Art Car Museum. There are a few townhomes so poorly located that they cannot sell them. The entire area consists of two 4 lane roads bisected by a railroad track and bordered by another major thoroughfare and a freeway overpass. This area is the very antithesis of residential. Only the apartment complex is residential. It is low rent for a reason.

EDIT: By the way, for all the talk of Yale between I-10 and Washington being a traffic nightmare, it has the lowest volume of traffic of any strtch throughout the Heights. The section at 19th is nearly 50% higher, and the upper section near 610 has 90% more traffic. Even adding the 7,500 vehicles per day that a Walmart might generate (s3mh's imaginary 10,000 vpd is for a 200,000 sf Walmart), leaves this section of Yale lower than some sections in the residential, non-big box Heights. And, unlike some anti-Walmart posters, I post links!

http://ttihouston.tamu.edu/hgac/trafficcountmap/

Edited September 4, 2010 by RedScare

[dbigtex56]

This is exactly what is proposed. The extension of Koehler will enable you to cross at an intersection controlled by traffic signals, making your gauntlet much safer.

And, not to be confrontational, but the Heights/Yale corridor is anything but residential. The proposed development is located on the site of a former steel mill. North of that is a stone yard. On the other side of Yale is a bar, another industrial shop, and a former meeting hall. Further south is a storage facility, restaurants, businesses and shops. On the east side of Heights are businesses, a shopping center, a city multi-purpose center, an office building, and whatever one wishes to categorize the Art Car Museum. There are a few townhomes so poorly located that they cannot sell them. The entire area consists of two 4 lane roads bisected by a railroad track and bordered by another major thoroughfare and a freeway overpass. This area is the very antithesis of residential. Only the apartment complex is residential. It is low rent for a reason.

So ... it's zoned?