Jump to content

EaDo Station: Multifamily Near Dynamo Stadium


Urbannizer

Recommended Posts

Connecting the dots here.. 

 

Mill Creek Residential Trust will begin three projects by year’s end and another three to four in 2014.  All projects will use wood frames as the developer feels it’s the most cost efficient. Ground breakings later this year will include a five-story mid-rise project in Houston’s EaDo Station area. The transit-oriented development will be adjacent to a light-rail station and encompass 310 units with an 840 s.f. average.

 

http://apmanagement.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/The-Apartment-Report_APC_7.8.13_PRESS-BREAK.pdf

 

EaDo Stadium Apartments - A 316 unit, 5 story Apartment Complex, to be located adjacent to the Dynamo Stadium Construction to begin Nov. 2013
 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

premium_gallery_landscape.jpg

 

premium_gallery_landscape.jpg

 

premium_gallery_landscape.jpg

 

premium_gallery_landscape.jpg

 

"Mill Creek Residential is developing EaDo Station, which developers said it will be the first high-density complex built in the area in a decade. It could be open by the time the light rail extension is completed by August 2014."

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Some-big-doings-may-make-EaDo-a-go-to-place-4870376.php#/13

Edited by Urbannizer
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

premium_gallery_landscape.jpg

 

premium_gallery_landscape.jpg

 

premium_gallery_landscape.jpg

 

premium_gallery_landscape.jpg

 

"Mill Creek Residential is developing EaDo Station, which developers said it will be the first high-density complex built in the area in a decade. It could be open by the time the light rail extension is completed by August 2014."

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Some-big-doings-may-make-EaDo-a-go-to-place-4870376.php#/13

 

 

nice..but i thought light was for east end had a 2014 march date

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, closing off the street doesnt bother me since its still open to pedestrians and cyclists, especially since it dead-ends into the stadium anyway.

 

How about the skybridge over the park, so that residents don't have to be burdened by crossing 50 ft of greenspace to get between buildings?

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the skybridge over the park, so that residents don't have to be burdened by crossing 50 ft of greenspace to get between buildings?

 

Not sure why that should bother anyone.  It appears all the parking may be in the south block, so the bridge provides access for the north block apartments to their parking. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still cringing at the name.

 

It is truly cringe-worthy.

 

 

 

 

I neither love it or hate it but the "EaDo" name is not going away any day soon so the incessant complaining in almost every HAIF thread related to "EaDo" named projects or the EaDo area itself, is frankly, a waste of time. It's just a name, time to get over it 

 

I don't think it is time to "get over it".  That made-up word doesn't stop being obnoxious because it has been obnoxious for a while now.  

 

 

 

Anyway, in general I'm opposed to closing off streets in a grid system, but here it dead-ends anyway because of the stadium so it's OK.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I would think that traffic might be a problem on game days though.

 

I don't think this will impact traffic much at all come game days.  I have been to probably 30 games and have never had issues with traffic before a Dynamo game.  Not saying closing off the block will help at all but most of the traffic is coming from the highway side anyway.  I like the design and location and expect more to follow suit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why that should bother anyone.  It appears all the parking may be in the south block, so the bridge provides access for the north block apartments to their parking. 

 

Do they not have access walking through the park? I could see it if there were something awful like a street to cross - no way I'd expect the residents to put up with that - but a park??

 

We can have different opinions, but to me a skybridge over a park is a relic of the Houston we're trying to get away from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sky bridge is surely to connect the parking garage (in the south block) to the units in the North Block.  This prevents residents from having to leave the relative security of the parking garage cross a "park" and re-enter the security of the other building.  It also reduces time spent in elevators or stairs and gives covered access in poor weather.  It's reasonable, you see it in other similar developments all over the city and something that many (if not all) residents living in the the other builing would want/requrie.  Think about it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sky bridge is surely to connect the parking garage (in the south block) to the units in the North Block.  This prevents residents from having to leave the relative security of the parking garage cross a "park" and re-enter the security of the other building.  It also reduces time spent in elevators or stairs and gives covered access in poor weather.  It's reasonable, you see it in other similar developments all over the city and something that many (if not all) residents living in the the other builing would want/requrie.  Think about it. 

 

Thought about it. I realize it's status quo for Houston. Just doesn't make for good urbanism. Sky bridges and tunnels are detrimental to pedestrian life. Sky bridges are worse, because they add a mild stigma to whatever is underneath them. In a very subtle way, it robs the park of its sense of place.

 

It's not too much to walk another flight of stairs down and brave the weather for 50 feet. You could even put a covered walkway at ground level. If walking on the ground is a security concern, then we have not embraced the urban, walkable-city mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they don't put the sky walk then they're going to put a covered walkway. I think the sky walk is nicer. It's an amenity. If I lived there I would appreciate going from my car to the apartment with groceries without getting wet in the rain. These people will be driving anyway, so it's not taking away from any pedestrian experience. When these residents go without a car they won't be using the sky walk.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that skyways and tunnels tend to detract from street traffic, I don't think this particular example is a problem.

 

This is *specifically* for people who live in the north building to park their cars and then walk in a protected corridor to their apartment, exactly the same as people in the south building would do. This *only* applies to trips made by car. People in the north building will still likely walk to the bars, clubs, restaurants, stadiums etc that are/ will be within easy walking distance. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought about it. I realize it's status quo for Houston. Just doesn't make for good urbanism. Sky bridges and tunnels are detrimental to pedestrian life. Sky bridges are worse, because they add a mild stigma to whatever is underneath them. In a very subtle way, it robs the park of its sense of place.

 

It's not too much to walk another flight of stairs down and brave the weather for 50 feet. You could even put a covered walkway at ground level. If walking on the ground is a security concern, then we have not embraced the urban, walkable-city mentality.

Part of good urbanism is to protect people from the elements (ex. the Rice Hotel sidewalk overhang on Texas). How is providing shade robbing the park of a sense of place? Shade is a good thing! How about the fact taht this provides another perspective of the park that was only available to folks with apartments facing the park; now everyone who lives there has this view. Also it's a waste of energy to have wheelchair bound residents take the elevator down and then back up again, ADA compliance is a huge factor in determining egress and I'm sure if people wanted to go down the stairs and walk across at ground level that option will be available to them as well in addition. Imagine how people will be able to get out of the bldg in the case of a major fire, more options is always better than fewer options.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of good urbanism is to protect people from the elements (ex. the Rice Hotel sidewalk overhang on Texas). How is providing shade robbing the park of a sense of place? Shade is a good thing! How about the fact taht this provides another perspective of the park that was only available to folks with apartments facing the park; now everyone who lives there has this view. Also it's a waste of energy to have wheelchair bound residents take the elevator down and then back up again, ADA compliance is a huge factor in determining egress and I'm sure if people wanted to go down the stairs and walk across at ground level that option will be available to them as well in addition. Imagine how people will be able to get out of the bldg in the case of a major fire, more options is always better than fewer options.

 

So you're saying that having a skybridge over a park gives it a sense of place because the skybridge provides shade? Is that tongue-in-cheek?

 

As far as providing another perspective of the park to residents who don't have park views, why don't they just go down into the park???

 

Sorry, but quality parks with a sense of place don't have skybridges over them. The skybridge, no matter how benign and pragmatic its intent, always gives off a sense of "we're above/better than the park." It casts a pall on the atmosphere below. 

 

To the arguments of, "Well, they're just going to/from their cars anyway," no one is ever just going to/from their cars. They may think they are, but everything in the built environment enforces a certain habit of thinking, a certain sense of what's immediate and what's separated. The person who has to walk through the park to get to their car is more likely to come back and hang out in the park later when they don't have to be somewhere. The park becomes part of their environment, not relegated below it. Anything you walk through twice a day becomes connected to you. They might have a chance encounter with a neighbor who's sitting in the park. They might notice the plants. The bridge enforces an isolated, sterile, get-out/get-back-in mentality.

 

I realize it sounds like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but the molehills add up. Skybridges here and there, like the one in the apartments on the other side of the soccer stadium, quickly start sucking the pedestrian feel out of the neighborhood. If you want a quality urban environment, everyone must be forced to occupy and share the same plane - the plane given by the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not really sure we can call this a "Park".  It really is just more a passage way...anyway.  I rather like the renderings.  I am grateful that it doesn't use all the suburban style ques that many, many of the other Apartment blocks are using.  I think it'll look great with Dynamo Stadium.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just not sure I'm convinced that this skyway is meaningfully different from the interior hallways in either building. Now, if multiple developments started to connect to each other be skyway? Then i'd be complaining.


I am not really sure we can call this a "Park".  It really is just more a passage way...anyway.  I rather like the renderings.  I am grateful that it doesn't use all the suburban style ques that many, many of the other Apartment blocks are using.  I think it'll look great with Dynamo Stadium.

 

Just to be super obnoxious:

 

Cues, not "ques"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that it's very important to consider the feelings of the actual park itself.  The park may feel inadequate living in the shadow of the skybridge every day without anyone ever coming down to sit on it.  There is a strong possibility that a lonely park with an inferiority complex won't produce the quality of grass that would want to make anyone sit on it anyway, so the whole thing really just becomes a downward spiral.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that it's very important to consider the feelings of the actual park itself.  The park may feel inadequate living in the shadow of the skybridge every day without anyone ever coming down to sit on it.  There is a strong possibility that a lonely park with an inferiority complex won't produce the quality of grass that would want to make anyone sit on it anyway, so the whole thing really just becomes a downward spiral.

 

Hey, make fun if you want, but there's no way to express urban planning principles without this sort of terminology.  If you want to understand why, say, the historic district downtown has a more inviting feel to pedestrians than Houston Center, the psychological effect of skybridges comes into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky bridge is just a terrible idea. Discourages walk ability in the park.

 

Actually, it connects the garage to the second building. Form follows function.  The tenants are probably going to pay high rents and they would appreciate a covered walkway to carry groceries, or other items to their apartment without having to worry about rain...sun...etc.

 

 

They will use the park space when they want to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can't help but get mad when i read h-town man's asinine posts. he has to be trolling, right?

If people discussing and sometimes disagreeing about the fine points of urban planning makes you mad, then maybe an architecture forum isn't a good place for you.

I actually like everything else about the building. Sorry to hurt anyone's feelings.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it connects the garage to the second building. Form follows function. The tenants are probably going to pay high rents and they would appreciate a covered walkway to carry groceries, or other items to their apartment without having to worry about rain...sun...etc.

They will use the park space when they want to.

Are you insulating that people should be given the choice between using the skybridge and using the park? Clearly unacceptable.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people discussing and sometimes disagreeing about the fine points of urban planning makes you mad, then maybe an architecture forum isn't a good place for you.

I actually like everything else about the building. Sorry to hurt anyone's feelings.

 

H-town Man - not sure about all your posts but I concur with swtsig that your posts on this particular skybridge IS ASININE. We're all urban planning enthusiasts but please be practical.

 

If I lived on the 5th floor of the north building why on God's earth would I park on the 5th floor of the south garage, walk down four flights of stairs (with or without groceries, rainy day or not), cross the courtyard (it's not a 'park') and climb 4 more flights of stairs to my apartment just to appear "urban".

 

Get Real Dude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H-town Man - not sure about all your posts but I concur with swtsig that your posts on this particular skybridge IS ASININE. We're all urban planning enthusiasts but please be practical.

 

If I lived on the 5th floor of the north building why on God's earth would I park on the 5th floor of the south garage, walk down four flights of stairs (with or without groceries, rainy day or not), cross the courtyard (it's not a 'park') and climb 4 more flights of stairs to my apartment just to appear "urban".

 

Get Real Dude. 

Even though I agree that the skybridge is not such a bad idea, some of these arguments are absurd.  First of all, the buildings have something a called elevators, I don't see why you would have to use the stairs. In your example above, with out without the skybridge, you would still have to take two elevator rides (or stairs) since the skybridge is on the third floor. So unless you live on the third floor, and happen to find a parking spot on the third floor of the garage, the skybridge doesn't do much for you - except protect you form the elements. In any city where people are used to walking, being hot, cold or wet is just normal part of the commute. Cities like NY or DC don't have covered sidewalks, yet thousands of people use them every day, all year long. And finally, the issue is not the particular user pretending to be urban. The project is meant to be urban, yet makes an effort to keep people off the street. It's a valid argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I agree that the skybridge is not such a bad idea, some of these arguments are absurd.  First of all, the buildings have something a called elevators, I don't see why you would have to use the stairs. In your example above, with out without the skybridge, you would still have to take two elevator rides (or stairs) since the skybridge is on the third floor. So unless you live on the third floor, and happen to find a parking spot on the third floor of the garage, the skybridge doesn't do much for you - except protect you form the elements. In any city where people are used to walking, being hot, cold or wet is just normal part of the commute. Cities like NY or DC don't have covered sidewalks, yet thousands of people use them every day, all year long. And finally, the issue is not the particular user pretending to be urban. The project is meant to be urban, yet makes an effort to keep people off the street. It's a valid argument.

 

The skybridge would do a lot for me - if I lived on ANY higher floor it makes my trip that much shorter and it gives me the OPTION to choose an alternate route.  Forcing people to live by what you perceive to be 'better' when you most likely will never be a resident of the building yourself is ludicrous.

 

Sorry but I just don't see much validity in this argument. I would agree that the tunnel system and the plethora of skywalks downtown do hinder street life but this particular skywalk is no different than placing a parking garage on the lower levels of a building - residents/office workers would still have no need to exit the building to the streets. By your argument - lets force people to have to visit the streets/sidewalks for every trip - even if only briefly - just to ignite street life.

 

Just think about it - Houston has a quarter of the population of NY & probably the same (or more) number of cars. News flash - Houston is not NY or DC! Houston will be urban in it's own way, whether that includes a few skywalks here and there ultimately will make little difference. 

Edited by HOUSTONIAN (N-ATL)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I agree that the skybridge is not such a bad idea, some of these arguments are absurd. First of all, the buildings have something a called elevators, I don't see why you would have to use the stairs. In your example above, with out without the skybridge, you would still have to take two elevator rides (or stairs) since the skybridge is on the third floor. So unless you live on the third floor, and happen to find a parking spot on the third floor of the garage, the skybridge doesn't do much for you - except protect you form the elements. In any city where people are used to walking, being hot, cold or wet is just normal part of the commute. Cities like NY or DC don't have covered sidewalks, yet thousands of people use them every day, all year long. And finally, the issue is not the particular user pretending to be urban. The project is meant to be urban, yet makes an effort to keep people off the street. It's a valid argument.

Newsflash: if those buildings in "ny and dc" provided parking garages as a building amenity I guaran-damn-tee you they would be covered and secured as well. At some point this notion of pedestrian-oriented urbanity moved into the absurd. Hell, why stop at the skybridge? You know what's really insulating the residents from engaging w the street? Those damn walls! Let's make it totally open to the elements - really open up the complex to encourage REAL interaction w the pedestrian activity outside.

Put down your urban planning textbook and get real.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are all forgetting the security issue. I'm sure a security conscious person, arriving home late at night, would not want to cross a park in the middle of the night if he/she doesn't have to. The Developer knows this and pretty much has to provide this element of security.

And I really don't think that this strip is a "park"...which doesn't change the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the responses on here are a little nasty. Not sure why disagreement on urban issues causes people to be spiteful.

As to the arguments concerning options and convenience, that's how we got where we are. An unwalkable city. At some point you have to force people to ground level and ruffle a few feathers. If you make everything convenient and protect from the elements, you end up like Houston Center.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except this is not Houston Center. This is a genuinely pedestrian-oriented development, and the skywalk is actually probably necessary.

 

I think the strongest argument here is security. I guarantee you there are quite a few single women who would love to live in this development but for whom a secure route between the garage and her apartment is an absolute must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the responses on here are a little nasty. Not sure why disagreement on urban issues causes people to be spiteful.

As to the arguments concerning options and convenience, that's how we got where we are. An unwalkable city. At some point you have to force people to ground level and ruffle a few feathers. If you make everything convenient and protect from the elements, you end up like Houston Center.

 

i just find this pervasive attitude that nothing is ever good enough for the urbanists on this board quite tiresome. you're essentially comlpaining that people who want to move freely within their own apartment complex should have to endure the elements in order to achieve some asinine notion of interaction with the street below. it's stupid.  instead of applauding the developer for adding some greenspace to act as a pedestrian thoroughfare between the stadium and the other side of the apartment complex you focus your attention on what is without a doubt a necessary resident amenity. this developer could have just as easily closed off that area entirely and squeezed in another 40-50 units. what would you have said then?

 

your analogy between the tunnel system that is used as an ALTERNATIVE to street level retail vs. people transitioning between their apartment and car as a NECESSITY only further demonstrates how off base you are.

Edited by swtsig
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes a hell of a lot more sense for the extremist urban planning view that the apartment shouldn't have a garage for cars at all than complaining about a benign skywalk that wont even allow you to bypass any semblance of urban business, just allows you to bypass a quasi courtyard pass through.  This development is transit oriented! Lets rail on the developer for thinking of his pocket book and putting in a useless amenity like parking when tehse tenants should be forced to walk and use the convenient train station!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to EaDo Station: Multifamily Near Dynamo Stadium

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...