Alexan Heights: Multifamily At 655 Yale St.

[RedScare]

s3mh still trying to convince us that 4.000 people psm is dense. This makes me laugh.

[RedScare]

In Houston, density is coming just because the cheap land is running out very quickly.  The question then is whether you are just going to sit there and hope that everything comes out alright (like the City did when there was densification in the Gulfton area during the last major boom--didn't turn out so well) or whether you are going to manage the density to minimize the externalities and maximize the benefits.  Failure to do the latter runs the potential risk of repeating Gulfton. 

 

I love when you try to teach us about Houston history. You see, you weren't around then...but we were. So, when you completely stick your foot in your mouth, it is especially funny. Case in point...Gulfton. You act like Gulfton turned into a ghetto because of bad planning or lack of zoning. But, the fact is, Gulfton was built exactly the way Portland would have ordered it to be built. Block after block of apartment buildings. The only difference is that Portland would have wanted them taller.

 

And, Gulfton worked well. That is, until the twin catastrophes of the oil bust and the savings and loan crash. The recession was so hard that Houston actually lost population for the first time in its history. Gulfton, which had been full of young professionals, emptied out as the oil business tanked. Of course, the apartments slashed rents in order to fill empty units, and the poor, who were paying the same rent for slum housing, saw a chance to upgrade. Modern day Gulfton resulted.

 

You are actually advocating that Houston zone Gulftons all over the city. You are hoping that we are awed by your long posts, without actually reading what you type. But, we do read it, mostly for laughs. And when we see you contradict yourself...often...we love to point it out. Gulfton is one of your whoppers. The great part is Portland wishes it had Gulfton's density. Gulfton is triple the density of Portland's densest neighborhood. The problem is you and Portlanders want it to be densely populated with white people. Gulfton is a bit too tan for your taste. You probably think a Walmart would work well there.

[crunchtastic]

 No  kidding-- density is only good at a certain price per square foot.

 

Lomax made a funny over on Swamplot with the phrase 'yuppie favela'. We all snicker and nod because we're loathe to contemplate what the Yale 'densification' would look like if the rents were cheaper. Oh, wait, it would look exactly like beautiful southwest houston. Face it, 'bad' density's got nothing to do with traffic or other stressed infrastructure.

[august948]

The problem is you and Portlanders want it to be densely populated with white people. Gulfton is a bit too tan for your taste. You probably think a Walmart would work well there.

Perhaps that is part of the on-going fascination with Portland. The people you see on the streets of downtown Portland are 90% white and 10% asian. Some folks would like to see more of that in their neighborhoods. Walmart doesn't help them out with that.

[livincinco]

I really don't understand the fascination with Portland. Compare it with Charlotte as an example. They are almost identical in size of metro. Both at almost exactly 2.3 million people. Charlotte is not dense at all - 2457/sq mile for the city, but very bike friendly. Virtually no rail system. However average commute time is 20.3 min for Portland and 22.1 for Charlotte, not much of a difference. Avg housing price is significantly in Charlotte's favor - $155k vs. $224k. But on top of that avg. salary is in Charlotte's favor as well - $53k vs. $49k.

Why is Portland considered such an ideal city when making that comparison?

[Ross]

I really don't understand the fascination with Portland. Compare it with Charlotte as an example. They are almost identical in size of metro. Both at almost exactly 2.3 million people. Charlotte is not dense at all - 2457/sq mile for the city, but very bike friendly. Virtually no rail system. However average commute time is 20.3 min for Portland and 22.1 for Charlotte, not much of a difference. Avg housing price is significantly in Charlotte's favor - $155k vs. $224k. But on top of that avg. salary is in Charlotte's favor as well - $53k vs. $49k.

Why is Portland considered such an ideal city when making that comparison?

 

Because it has strict land use controls and zoning. There are those, I consider them borderline insane, who think every facet of land use has to be controlled, lest property owners get the idea they should have input into their own destiny.

[heights]

Houston Population Estimate: 2,100,000

 

times 50 cents per person

 

equals $1,050,000 that we could give to s3mh to move far, far, away so Houstonians would not have to suffer his ideas being forced upon us.

[livincinco]

Because it has strict land use controls and zoning. There are those, I consider them borderline insane, who think every facet of land use has to be controlled, lest property owners get the idea they should have input into their own destiny.

Which results in the ability to pay more for an apartment in Portland than you would for a house in Charlotte while making less money. That's why I'm curious to hear from the people that have been touting Portland. The cities are very similar, but Portland has heavy controls, Charlotte doesn't, but is still a very livable city. Lots of parks and bike trails and generally scores very high on most lists of "the best places to live." A very lively and walkable downtown area, but almost no rail and limited density. That being said there are some areas close to downtown that most urbanists would love, but it's only one section of town. Most of the metro requires a car.

So basically, it's a city that's almost identical in size to Portland that is lacking the things that are commonly cited as the reasons that make Portland a great place to live. Yet still manages to be a great place to live and arguably, even a better place to live than Portland.

[livincinco]

Created a new thread for the Portland discussion so that we stop the hijack of existing thread.

[mako]

Uhh...dude. 6 story apartment buildings are ALL OVER Portland and Paris. If you are whining about higher density while pining for Portland and Paris, then I can only surmise that you are ignorant or a troll.

Umm....dude, if you actually read my posts and think about it you'll note a common thread, 6 story buildings (not apartments) in Portland & Paris include extensive, vibrant public transportation & ... Need I say it - Ground floor retail!!!! Is this what TC is proposing? No, no ground floor retail and not only is there a distinct lack of public transportation, the street grid in this area is quite substandard as well. There aren't any streets to the west of this proposed development. All traffic has to go to Yale and down to the infamous F rated intersection that can't get any worse legally, but will certainly get worse in reality land. This area is poorly suited to such a development and yes I agree that it is the city that should address this deficiency, but we all know it won't happen.

Guess I've lived around Houston long enough to be very skeptical about public developments - still vaguely remember mayor Whitmire's promises to build a transit system decades ago. And today? We still don't have a good working transit system. What a waste of time.

[Marksmu]

Umm....dude, if you actually read my posts and think about it you'll note a common thread, 6 story buildings (not apartments) in Portland & Paris include extensive, vibrant public transportation & ... Need I say it - Ground floor retail!!!! Is this what TC is proposing? No, no ground floor retail and not only is there a distinct lack of public transportation, the street grid in this area is quite substandard as well. There aren't any streets to the west of this proposed development. All traffic has to go to Yale and down to the infamous F rated intersection that can't get any worse legally, but will certainly get worse in reality land. This area is poorly suited to such a development and yes I agree that it is the city that should address this deficiency, but we all know it won't happen.

Guess I've lived around Houston long enough to be very skeptical about public developments - still vaguely remember mayor Whitmire's promises to build a transit system decades ago. And today? We still don't have a good working transit system. What a waste of time.

Again with ground floor retail and transit!!!   THIS IS HOUSTON - ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. 

 

If you want ground floor & Transit, you need density - if you try to build density anywhere nice people want to live, your met with COMPLAINTS!  NIMBY's and hypocrites everywhere you look!

[Angostura]

If you look at most cities or neighborhoods comprised mainly of high-density mid-rise buildings, the actual proportion of those buildings with ground floor retail is pretty small. Probably not more than one-in-five. On the upper west side of Manhattan, for example, retail is pretty much restricted to the avenues (Columbus, Amsterdam, Broadway), and pretty much non-existent on cross streets.

 

Houston's current mixed-use developments (West Ave, City Centre, Woodlands Town Center) are basically destinations, not self supporting from their own residents. Each has extensive parking facilities. The only potential exception is Post Midtown, which is supported by a lot of very nearby residential-only developments in addition to its own residential square footage.

 

And remember that both of these blocks are dry.  No developer in their right mind would do mixed use in a dry area, especially when such a high proportion of potential tenants in mixed use projects are food and beverage operations.

[s3mh]

I really don't understand the fascination with Portland. Compare it with Charlotte as an example. They are almost identical in size of metro. Both at almost exactly 2.3 million people. Charlotte is not dense at all - 2457/sq mile for the city, but very bike friendly. Virtually no rail system. However average commute time is 20.3 min for Portland and 22.1 for Charlotte, not much of a difference. Avg housing price is significantly in Charlotte's favor - $155k vs. $224k. But on top of that avg. salary is in Charlotte's favor as well - $53k vs. $49k.

Why is Portland considered such an ideal city when making that comparison?

 

To be clear, Portland is not a magic city of enlightenment.  What Portland has done well is manage near-urban density in a redeveloping area that did not have existing infrastructure needed for density.  The big problem with redeveloping areas near downtown business centers is that you are trying to put a lot of square pegs into round holes.  You are trying to put large multifamily developments into neighborhoods that were built for low density single family of light industrial/commercial.  The existing street grid, public transportation and retail development is usually insufficient to support the big influx of people who will want to live, work and play in the neighborhood.  In Portland, they have done an excellent job of mitigating these issues by requiring ground floor retail, building transit and lots of bike/pedestrian amenities.  Thus, the externalities of traffic, lack of retail and pedestrian/bike unfriendly redevelopment has been mitigated. 

 

In Houston, density is happening because the suburbs are basically built out (to the extent that cheap land is available within a reasonable distance and in an area with good schools), highways are at capacity, and inner loop neighborhoods have become desirable because of lots of new restaurants and bars and other amenities.  Houston is adding 10,000+ new multifamily units inside the loop without any new transit options in the same area (light rail is going north and east, but west expansion is probably a long ways away).  Also, the vast majority of the new multifamily units are not providing any space for retail.  While this will hopefully get some notoriously underperforming properties inside the loop to flip into decent retail centers, even if it does, it will mean that the 15,000+ new residents will be dependent on their cars to get to retail.  Right now, parking around retail inside the loop isn't that bad, but certain areas (Montrose, White Oak, Wash Ave. etc.) are becoming a big challenge.  If the current pattern of development continues, most everywhere inside the loop will be a challenge in terms of parking and traffic because there will be no mitigation of car dependent living inside the loop. 

[RedScare]

In Houston, density is happening because the suburbs are basically built out (to the extent that cheap land is available within a reasonable distance and in an area with good schools), highways are at capacity, and inner loop neighborhoods have become desirable because of lots of new restaurants and bars and other amenities. 

 

This is very nearly 100% untrue. If I get some time later, I will explain why, but for now this will have to do.

[s3mh]

This is very nearly 100% untrue. If I get some time later, I will explain why, but for now this will have to do.

 

If you disagree that density is happening, then you are further backing away from your claim that Houston is 11 times more dense than Portland (maybe that was referring to collective intelligence rather than population density).  But, if you disagree with my reasons that density is happening, then so what.  There are lots of factors that are contributing to the build up of multifamily developments inside the loop.  Reasonable minds can differ over which factors are major or minor.  That is all just a sideshow to the real issue which is whether density without any planning in Houston will be detrimental or whether some planning, especially in light of many lesson learned from other areas, is needed to be sure that the benefits of density are realized in Houston.  We need look no further than the Gulfton area to see what density without planning looks like in Houston. 

[SilverJK]

I rarely hear people who live in the Loop complain about innerloop traffic...  Other than the light fiasco at Yale/I-10, but even that isn't aweful, just annoying compared to what it was.  You want to experience traffic, drive from spring to downtown during morning rushhour.  Other than a few bottlenecks... the infrastructure is adequate.

[JJxvi]

The only place I drive with "bad traffic" is Galleria area at rush hour and maybe Shepherd south of W Gray during rush hour. Everywhere else there can be heavy traffic but its just an annoying several minutes or so. (Disclaimer: I don't drive everywhere within the entire inner city)

[JJxvi]

Obviously the freeways can be bad too, but Im talking local traffic not long distance commute, so I left off the freeways.  I don't notice many "first scene in office space" type traffic jams.

[SilverJK]

I hear plenty of compliants from suburb dwellers about their commute into town... or from innerloopers in regard to traveling to the galleria, or city centre, etc.   Even Heights to Medical Center during rush hour only takes 20 minutes, and that is an ugly commute.

[RedScare]

I rarely hear people who live in the Loop complain about innerloop traffic...  Other than the light fiasco at Yale/I-10, but even that isn't aweful, just annoying compared to what it was.  You want to experience traffic, drive from spring to downtown during morning rushhour.  Other than a few bottlenecks... the infrastructure is adequate.

 

No reasonable people complain about inner loop street traffic...until they do not like a proposed project. Then, they whine and cry and use words like "grid Lock" to describe the extra couple hundred cars per day travelling down a four land road. The people that count, city engineers, never listen to them.

[s3mh]

The only place I drive with "bad traffic" is Galleria area at rush hour and maybe Shepherd south of W Gray during rush hour. Everywhere else there can be heavy traffic but its just an annoying several minutes or so. (Disclaimer: I don't drive everywhere within the entire inner city)

 

I had to do work out in the Greenway area that would put me out to commute back to the Heights around 4:00 pm.  I tried several different routes, but could not get back to the Heights in less than 35 min.  45 min was about the average.  I could have probably made it out to Sugar Land in about the same amount of time at that hour.

 

Normally, traffic inside the loop does move well.  But, we are about to get a new normal with the addition of 10,000 multifamily units and all the other development going on.  There is some spare capacity to deal with that increase, but not a lot.  Just look at how quickly Yale St. at I-10 went from being an easy route out of the Height to being the worst just with a change in the timing of the light and the addition of a shopping center.  The problem with "wait and see" v. plan now for the future is that when you wait and see, you cannot un-build all the apartment complexes that are going in and rebuild the city in a way that mitigates all the density issues. 

[RedScare]

The problem with "wait and see" v. plan now for the future is that when you wait and see, you cannot un-build all the apartment complexes that are going in and rebuild the city in a way that mitigates all the density issues. 

 

Neither can Portland. If you want density, you get traffic congestion. Deal with it.

[livincinco]

I had to do work out in the Greenway area that would put me out to commute back to the Heights around 4:00 pm. I tried several different routes, but could not get back to the Heights in less than 35 min. 45 min was about the average. I could have probably made it out to Sugar Land in about the same amount of time at that hour.

Normally, traffic inside the loop does move well. But, we are about to get a new normal with the addition of 10,000 multifamily units and all the other development going on. There is some spare capacity to deal with that increase, but not a lot. Just look at how quickly Yale St. at I-10 went from being an easy route out of the Height to being the worst just with a change in the timing of the light and the addition of a shopping center. The problem with "wait and see" v. plan now for the future is that when you wait and see, you cannot un-build all the apartment complexes that are going in and rebuild the city in a way that mitigates all the density issues.

The 10,000 apartment number is quoted frequently, but I would be curious to see the "net number" as a number of these complexes are replacing existing complexes. I'm not convinced that the net number is anywhere near as high as 10,000 units as older complexes continue to get pulled down throughout the city.

Additionally, while I agree that the city is getting somewhat more dense inside the loop, I really haven't seen anything that resembles a major trend toward density. The city appears to be getting more dense mainly because tons of people continue to move to Houston and some reasonably small percentage of them settle inside the loop. That percentage may have increased some from historical, but I would be surprised if it's more than 15-20% of the annual influx. The majority of the growth is still occurring on the fringes.

Case in point, let's assume for the moment that the 10,000 apartment units is correct and that the inner loop population grows at 1.5 people/unit as a result. That adds 15,000 people inside the loop over an estimated two years - the same numbers quoted earlier in this thread. The Houston metro grows by about 100,000 people/year, so these apartments are covering about 7.5% of the annual growth.

I'm all in favor of continued growth inside the loop, but let's be realistic about what it is. It's a small part of the overall equation. Office growth continues outside of the loop and is equally outpacing the development inside the loop. Solving the transit challenges inside the loop is necessary, but is just a part of the needs for the metro.

[skooljunkie]

With all the new bikeways in the Heights, it's now easier to ride around all this horrible city traffic!!  Vrrooooom!

[JJxvi]

I would say there is a definite trend toward density in the West End, Heights, and Cottage Grove, but its not multifamily, and the impact is mitigated slightly by the fact that many of the homes being replaced had large family demographics but are being replaced by higher density but smaller family units.

[JJxvi]

Also, I would say that the major automobile related problem in these densifying districts is not traffic, but parking. Multiple single family townhomes are built on what were previously single lots, eating up driveway space, and most of these areas have narrow streets with ditches rather than gutters and curbs with wider streets.  The townhome occupants are also wealthier than previous occupants and have more cars.

[mako]

If you look at most cities or neighborhoods comprised mainly of high-density mid-rise buildings, the actual proportion of those buildings with ground floor retail is pretty small. Probably not more than one-in-five. On the upper west side of Manhattan, for example, retail is pretty much restricted to the avenues (Columbus, Amsterdam, Broadway), and pretty much non-existent on cross streets.

 

Houston's current mixed-use developments (West Ave, City Centre, Woodlands Town Center) are basically destinations, not self supporting from their own residents. Each has extensive parking facilities. The only potential exception is Post Midtown, which is supported by a lot of very nearby residential-only developments in addition to its own residential square footage.

 

And remember that both of these blocks are dry.  No developer in their right mind would do mixed use in a dry area, especially when such a high proportion of potential tenants in mixed use projects are food and beverage operations.

 

Okay, I'm not that familiar with Manhattan (been there once in my life) but try this experiment - Yelp any address you choose in these high-density mid-rise areas and look for retail in the area. I played with it a while and couldn't find any areas without retail within a block or two.

 

I've seen several posts about how bad this dry area is...and yet, I've enjoyed many a fine craft beer at Downhouse. How troublesome is it to go the private club route? Not being argumentative here - I'd really like to know. I've lived in / visited several areas that were technically dry (Lake Jackson, Wimberley, Downhouse, etc.) where they gave you a private membership and then you could magically buy booze to your heart's content. Is this really such an impediment? Please enlighten me.

[mako]

Again with ground floor retail and transit!!!   THIS IS HOUSTON - ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. 

 

If you want ground floor & Transit, you need density - if you try to build density anywhere nice people want to live, your met with COMPLAINTS!  NIMBY's and hypocrites everywhere you look!

 

Ahh!...the heart of the problem. Why is ground floor retail & mass transit such a problem in Houston??? This is what really confuses me about this whole discussion - why are all the developers so quick to condemn local stakeholders (i.e. NIMBY's) for their resistance to change (i.e. mid-rise & high-rise apartments in their backyards) and yet entirely dismissive about any changes to their own stale business plans??? Maybe there are good sound economic basis for including some inventive retail schemes in your developments? Or do you base all of your decisions on an economic models from 30 years ago because you laid off all of your bright engineers?

[mako]

No reasonable people complain about inner loop street traffic...until they do not like a proposed project. Then, they whine and cry and use words like "grid Lock" to describe the extra couple hundred cars per day travelling down a four land road. The people that count, city engineers, never listen to them.

 

Pure bullshit. Everyone who has to drive there complains about the traffic backups along Heights and Yale & I-10. More to the point every recent TIA report of the Yale & I-10 intersection has rated this intersection as the worst possible failing rating, "F". Ironically, under Houston planning standards this means that anyone who wants to build a development that adds even more traffic to this pathetic roadway doesn't have to do anything to alleviate the additional traffic load - as far as Houston is concerned the traffic is as bad as it can get. Come on people! Pure D Bullshit!!!! We have to make both the developers & traffic department & politicians realize that this is NOT sustainable development! WE CANNOT GO ON THIS WAY!!!! We do not want to wait until literal gridlock hits the streets. Developments that drain into failing intersections should be denied until the city & developer can agree on a plan to improve the traffic flow. Dumping additional traffic onto a failed roadway is no solution and developers should realize that their customers will soon figure this out.

[Ross]

The traffic on Yale is just not that bad. People complain about having to wait a couple of minutes to get through an intersection. Bad traffic is taking 40 minutes to get through a light, which was common when I lived in Bangkok. It has never taken me more than 2 light cycles to get through the Yale/I-10 intersection, and a few tweaks top the lights would make that even better. The Yale intersection is on par with Ella and the Loop.