Jump to content

Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.


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

Just for the record, I can't wait for the new Walmart to be built and I can't wait to mail in my postcard saying that I don't want to be in a Historic District anymore. And I've lived in the Heights for 16 years! All those naysaying newcomers should move back to the burbs where they belong (that's you s3mh)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what does walmart have to do with people cutting through on yale???

They are building a cut through street by extending Koehler to Heights Blvd.

They were building those exit ramps anyway. Unless the Evil walmart Chupacabra was behind the contruction of the exits in the first place...

The ramps weren't be built until the stimulus was passed, If I remember correctly this was one of those shovel ready projects the President had alluded to.

I have no interest in going to wal mart, but this will be a great example of effective federal stimulus spending. Once that federal money showed up, private industry (Wal Mart et al) was ready to invest and create jobs for americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we to the point not where we can equate "Responsible Urban Development" as meaning "Dont build anything asshole!"

Interesting question, I did a whois on rudh.org (responsible urban development Houston) and here's some interesting information:

Domain Name:RUDH.ORG

Created On:02-Aug-2010 02:11:20 UTC

Last Updated On:01-Oct-2010 03:50:29 UTC

It looks like the website and ideals behind the website were developed specifically to try and stop the Walmart, and there is absolutely nothing else they have done, or from the looks of the website, plan to do to promote any responsible urban projects in Houston.

So yeah, maybe "responsible urban development" means "do whatever the f--- you want and don't expect our support or anything else, but don't build a Walmart asshole"

Just my opinion, but that area isn't even what I'd consider urban, even taking the growth spurt that Washington has seen into account. If Washington is urban because there are some high density apartments and townhomes, then Westheimer at Gesner is urban as well.

All that website is, is someone trying to make their whining about a Walmart that close to their house seem more legitimate.

Here's a great example of a website that promotes real responsible urban development in Houston: http://www.houstontomorrow.org/

They make some very valid points about the 380, but there isn't anything I found on there that is just bashing the development itself, or Walmart, or even saying that this specific development shouldn't be built. Anyway, they make some extremely legitimate arguments for why the 380 shouldn't be used here, but no where do they say that the site shouldn't house a Walmart, just that the 380 for the type of development that is going in there is a bad investment. Which, when their goal is more urbanized places like the post midtown stuff, I can see why (and that certainly doesn't make their arguments and claims less legitimate, just that they are only presenting what coincides with their agenda).

Anyway, rudh.org is a bad joke when considering urbanizing Houston, and http://www.houstontomorrow.org/ is a great example for a urban focused Houston organization. In fact, I plan on reading some of the articles tonight (not regarding walmart and the 380, cause I already did that).

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is clear that the people who are trying to tell the people in the Heights to just relax and let Walmart ruin the neighborhood have no clue about the neighborhood.

I have lived in the Heights area since 1987. You and your group do not represent me. I first moved here for the laissez faire, bohemian attitudes. I rarely step into a Walmart but in no way oppose their legal right to provide a store "near" my neighborhood, as the new store will NOT be in the Heights as I know it. The battle is over, the store is being built.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have lived in the Heights area since 1987. You and your group do not represent me. I first moved here for the laissez faire, bohemian attitudes. I rarely step into a Walmart but in no way oppose their legal right to provide a store "near" my neighborhood, as the new store will NOT be in the Heights as I know it. The battle is over, the store is being built.

I don't think the laissez faire, bohemian attitudes were meant to attract big box suburban retailers to the area. And the arbitrary geographical distinction is the worst argument I have heard, second only to the elitist/racist one. So what if it isn't in within the plat for the heights as recorded in the Harris County real property records. And if you are so laissez faire, bohemian, you would equally support people's rights to speak out against what they consider to be a nuisance and detriment to their community. But you are not really Mr. Heights laissez faire/bohemain. You are just another right wing conservative who favors the rights of giant corporations to suck money out of a community over the right of the community to have some influence over the quality of life in their area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the laissez faire, bohemian attitudes were meant to attract big box suburban retailers to the area. And the arbitrary geographical distinction is the worst argument I have heard, second only to the elitist/racist one. So what if it isn't in within the plat for the heights as recorded in the Harris County real property records. And if you are so laissez faire, bohemian, you would equally support people's rights to speak out against what they consider to be a nuisance and detriment to their community. But you are not really Mr. Heights laissez faire/bohemain. You are just another right wing conservative who favors the rights of giant corporations to suck money out of a community over the right of the community to have some influence over the quality of life in their area.

Could we have a HAIF / Swamplot crossover and this can be the comment of the day? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the laissez faire, bohemian attitudes were meant to attract big box suburban retailers to the area. And the arbitrary geographical distinction is the worst argument I have heard, second only to the elitist/racist one. So what if it isn't in within the plat for the heights as recorded in the Harris County real property records. And if you are so laissez faire, bohemian, you would equally support people's rights to speak out against what they consider to be a nuisance and detriment to their community. But you are not really Mr. Heights laissez faire/bohemain. You are just another right wing conservative who favors the rights of giant corporations to suck money out of a community over the right of the community to have some influence over the quality of life in their area.

Wow - you really believe that too....that is what is funny, or sad...or both....It's just hard to believe people really think this stuff!

The Chupacabra is probably part of the evil elite right wing conservatives plan to pilfer local money off into the pockets of giant bloodsucking corporations who plan to use that money for more evil bloodsucking....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the laissez faire, bohemian attitudes were meant to attract big box suburban retailers to the area. And the arbitrary geographical distinction is the worst argument I have heard, second only to the elitist/racist one. So what if it isn't in within the plat for the heights as recorded in the Harris County real property records. And if you are so laissez faire, bohemian, you would equally support people's rights to speak out against what they consider to be a nuisance and detriment to their community. But you are not really Mr. Heights laissez faire/bohemain. You are just another right wing conservative who favors the rights of giant corporations to suck money out of a community over the right of the community to have some influence over the quality of life in their area.

I thought the mayor who signed the deal with the devil was a Democrat?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His/her's latest comments had me almost rolling on the floor. I guess we have different definitions of laissez-faire/bohemian, because mine is living and letting others live as they wish, and keeping the liberal, yeah I said it, spirit that was alive in the Heights 20 years ago, hell it still is. The Walmart won't change my way of life at all I suspect. The NIMBYism that the Anti's have brought in from the 'burbs are what's right wing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His/her's latest comments had me almost rolling on the floor. I guess we have different definitions of laissez-faire/bohemian, because mine is living and letting others live as they wish, and keeping the liberal, yeah I said it, spirit that was alive in the Heights 20 years ago, hell it still is. The Walmart won't change my way of life at all I suspect. The NIMBYism that the Anti's have brought in from the 'burbs are what's right wing to me.

the NIMBY attitude is a scourge that affects both Liberal and Conservatives, it is an affliction that can't tell the difference between red or blue.

people forget their morals, beliefs and things they stand for when something threatens their back yard.

which is why I hate NIMBYs and I do everything I can to keep myself from being one, they are so hypocritical, and I dislike hypocrites.

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

people forget their morals, beliefs and things they stand for when something threatens their back yard.

That's some pretty serious NIMBY, considering that this proposed store is over 2 miles from the poster's back yard, on the other side of a hideous freeway overpass, on the site of a former steel mill, and fronting not one, but TWO 4 lane thoroughfares.. I guess some NIMBY's eyes are bigger than their back yards, to butcher a phrase.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's some pretty serious NIMBY, considering that this proposed store is over 2 miles from the poster's back yard, on the other side of a hideous freeway overpass, on the site of a former steel mill, and fronting not one, but TWO 4 lane thoroughfares.. I guess some NIMBY's eyes are bigger than their back yards, to butcher a phrase.

Not Within a Two Mile Radius of My BackYard Even if it is an Improvement Over the Current State of the Property and None of My Arguments Against it are Valid.

NWTMRMBYEIOCSPNMAAV just doesn't have the same ring to it as NIMBY though.

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

If anyone here thinks the word "bohemian" belongs in the same argument as "Walmart", then there is absolutely no point in arguing with you. You have gone completely outside the realm of all sensiblity. Walmart represents the corporate homogenization of all things consumer and the death of any connection between producers, retailers and consumers. Walmart is the antithesis of the anti-bohemian.

And, for those who were wondering how the apartments would be cleared for chef driven restaurants (apparently if you are against a Walmart you are elitist, but if you destroy affordable housing for retail space for boutiques and chef driven restaurants, you get a free pass), the developer is going to non-renew their leases. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7765524

This is how it played out at Allen House and is generally the way it is done, unless the developer has enough cash to pay people off and get an agreement to vacate early. Aside from the irony that the developer is kicking out the very people who are in the heart of Walmart's demographic, why doesn't the City use 380 agreements or other development assistance to build affordable housing inside the loop? Instead, the city is using development tools to kick low income people outside the loop and build expensive homes inside the loop (see Frank Liu's 20 million dollar 380 agreement to build homes in the 300-500k price range inside the loop). Now who is the elitist?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Within a Two Mile Radius of My BackYard Even if it is an Improvement Over the Current State of the Property and None of My Arguments Against it are Valid.

NWTMRMBYEIOCSPNMAAV just doesn't have the same ring to it as NIMBY though.

Can someone please explain to me what is so terrible about caring about what goes on in my neighborhood?

I hate how the anti-Walmart or anti-developers on this thread are being attacked and forced to defend themselves about traffic, construction, etc etc etc.. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the developer to prove how their proposed impact will be mitigated? Traffic studies, drainage studies, input from the nearby residents and businesses, etc. This information should be INDEPENDANT from any 380 agreements, tax incentives, etc.

Furthermore, many of the pro-Walmart or pro-developer comments recently reek of hypocracy (not calling you out specifically samagon, just continuing a thought here). They're calling people out on NIMBY. Ok, so say I wanted to build a 30 story highrise literally next door to you. I'm guessing you probably wouldn't like that. Ok, so how about 2 houses away? Still no? How about 10 houses? What is the exact distance at which I'm allowed to call you a snob since it's no longer in your backyard? If we can establish that, then I'll draw a circle around the proposed Walmart site, and everyone outside of that area can leave the discussion. Does that work for you? I have a funny feeling many of the more vocal folks on this board would be outside of that radius.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain to me what is so terrible about caring about what goes on in my neighborhood?

I hate how the anti-Walmart or anti-developers on this thread are being attacked and forced to defend themselves about traffic, construction, etc etc etc.. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the developer to prove how their proposed impact will be mitigated? Traffic studies, drainage studies, input from the nearby residents and businesses, etc. This information should be INDEPENDANT from any 380 agreements, tax incentives, etc.

Furthermore, many of the pro-Walmart or pro-developer comments recently reek of hypocracy (not calling you out specifically samagon, just continuing a thought here). They're calling people out on NIMBY. Ok, so say I wanted to build a 30 story highrise literally next door to you. I'm guessing you probably wouldn't like that. Ok, so how about 2 houses away? Still no? How about 10 houses? What is the exact distance at which I'm allowed to call you a snob since it's no longer in your backyard? If we can establish that, then I'll draw a circle around the proposed Walmart site, and everyone outside of that area can leave the discussion. Does that work for you? I have a funny feeling many of the more vocal folks on this board would be outside of that radius.

I wouldn't think that anybody would want to live next to a Wal-Mart (although the good people living at Sawyer Heights Lofts, sandwiched between a Target parking lot and an interstate freeway apparently think otherwise).

I can understand how a change in circumstances could piss off people in a neighborhood. But that's desperation and catharsis, not a political philosophy.

When a group of people don't get upset the first several times that big box retailers have built at the periphery of their neighborhood (or the hundreds of times that they've built in neighborhoods throughout the city) and then are suddenly up in arms only when it is convenient for them...yeah, that's hypocrisy. I understand where it's coming from. But it makes for crappy policy (and for lawsuits brought against the City). It's a big, dumb, angry, reactionary movement of otherwise disagreeable people without a common intellectual underpinning. Basically, it's like the TEA Party.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't think that anybody would want to live next to a Wal-Mart (although the good people living at Sawyer Heights Lofts, sandwiched between a Target parking lot and an interstate freeway apparently think otherwise).

I can understand how a change in circumstances could piss off people in a neighborhood. But that's desperation and catharsis, not a political philosophy.

When a group of people don't get upset the first several times that big box retailers have built at the periphery of their neighborhood (or the hundreds of times that they've built in neighborhoods throughout the city) and then are suddenly up in arms only when it is convenient for them...yeah, that's hypocrisy. I understand where it's coming from. But it makes for crappy policy (and for lawsuits brought against the City). It's a big, dumb, angry, reactionary movement of otherwise disagreeable people without a common intellectual underpinning. Basically, it's like the TEA Party.

what is dumb is the attempt to discredit the anti-Walmart points by questioning why there wasn't a similar opposition to an entirely different development. Target is not a supercenter. It is not open 24/7. It is not abutting residential neighborhoods. It is not on a major artery that serves as the main connector between the Heights and Downtown/Upper Kirby/River Oaks. It is on a road that can be widened enough to have a signalized intersection to the entrance with dedicated left turn lanes, while still having two lanes of through traffic in each direction. It will eventually have direct driveway access to the new feeder rd. It is not on a main commuter route to downtown from I-10. It does not send overflow traffic throw residential neighborhoods on 21 ft streets. It did not recieve 6.05 million in tax payer dollars, including 300k for onsite stormwater detention on private property. And it was not the third Target to be built within a five mile radius.

And a lot of people who did not fuss when Target went in are making their voice heard now because a lot of the promises about the Target development were BS. Traffic inside Woodland Heights is much worse. Watson is now a steady stream of traffic where it used to be a quiet neighborhood street. The developer also promised boutiques and nice restaurants, but delivered payless, radio shack and ATT store. Promised mature shade trees on the site gave way to parking lots of solid concrete.

So, if anything the Target has taught the community to be more involved and more vigilant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not on a major artery that serves as the main connector between the Heights and Downtown/Upper Kirby/River Oaks.

I can't keep up. Are you suggesting that commercial developments should be put on quiet side streets? I cant figure out if Yale is too small or too large and important for this store.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is dumb is the attempt to discredit the anti-Walmart points by questioning why there wasn't a similar opposition to an entirely different development. Target is not a supercenter. It is not open 24/7. It is not abutting residential neighborhoods. It is not on a major artery that serves as the main connector between the Heights and Downtown/Upper Kirby/River Oaks. It is on a road that can be widened enough to have a signalized intersection to the entrance with dedicated left turn lanes, while still having two lanes of through traffic in each direction. It will eventually have direct driveway access to the new feeder rd. It is not on a main commuter route to downtown from I-10. It does not send overflow traffic throw residential neighborhoods on 21 ft streets. It did not recieve 6.05 million in tax payer dollars, including 300k for onsite stormwater detention on private property. And it was not the third Target to be built within a five mile radius.

And a lot of people who did not fuss when Target went in are making their voice heard now because a lot of the promises about the Target development were BS. Traffic inside Woodland Heights is much worse. Watson is now a steady stream of traffic where it used to be a quiet neighborhood street. The developer also promised boutiques and nice restaurants, but delivered payless, radio shack and ATT store. Promised mature shade trees on the site gave way to parking lots of solid concrete.

So, if anything the Target has taught the community to be more involved and more vigilant.

A few inaccuracies above. Target may not be a "supercenter," but it's very big and close enough to be a good comparison. I believe if you google Target in Houston, you'll find that there are already four that exist inside the Loop 610. Wal-Marts? - Zero. So much for the five mile radius statement above. Incidentally, most of the Targets abut residential neighborhoods. Regarding the 24/7 argument, CVS on 20th St. is open 24/7 now; I believe the new Walgreens at Heights and 20th will also be open 24/7. I live within two blocks of the CVS and I don't fear for my life because of the business hours.

A work colleague of mine lives in Jersey Village about one block from a Wal-Mart. He loves the convenience and says that they keep their pantry less stocked because they can always get what they want when the need arises. Also, he doesn't fear for his life either.

I find it hard to believe that Woodland Heights traffic was made much worse because of the Target store. I don't know what deal the city struck with Target regardinig tax breaks for improvements. Do you know the specifics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't keep up. Are you suggesting that commercial developments should be put on quiet side streets? I cant figure out if Yale is too small or too large and important for this store.

Really. I have to spell everthing out?

Target is on Taylor. Taylor had enough capacity to support the additional traffic because it was not a major commuter route. Walmart is going to use Yale as its main access. Yale does not have enough capacity to support the additional traffic because it is a major commuter route and cannot even be expanded to add a dedicated left turn lane.

come on. That really isn't that hard to understand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I long for the days (ie a year or so ago) when my neighbors were bitching incessantly that Yale was not a major thoroughfare, was not amajor traffic problem, and usually was a faster route than others such as Heights, and thus did not need to be widened, and that therefore some trees would not need to be cut down.

Edited by JJxvi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could do a little analysis of the mind of the Heights HAIFer, its like a computer program.

Situation-COH wants to cuts down some trees to widen Yale.

Thought-But I like the trees.

Solution-The trees should not be cut down.

Argument-Yale does not need to be widened.

Supporting Fact-Traffic is not a problem on Yale.

Situation-WalMart is building a store on Yale.

Thought-But I dont like WalMart

Solution-WalMart should not be built.

Argument-WalMart will bring gridlock to Yale.

Supporting Fact-Traffic is already a huge problem on Yale.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watson is now a steady stream of traffic where it used to be a quiet neighborhood street.

Liar.

Watson and Taylor have always served Woodland Heights and Norhill, due to the exit and entrance ramps to I-10 that feed the street. Since you just moved here, I seriously doubt that you know what traffic used to be like on those streets, but I can say that when I drove down Watson yesterday at 6 pm, it wasn't bad.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...