Texasota Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 (edited) The last thing downtown needs is more parking garages. For one thing, there is still a subset of suburbanites who will look for surface parking first, and only consider a parking garage if they have no other choice. Surface lots will always make money. There are ways to discourage hanging on to surface lots (beyond just market forces), but they'd have to come from the city. And even then, some people are just stubborn and don't like change. As long as their nasty surface lot is making money, they'll keep sitting on it until they die. Edited December 6, 2018 by Texasota 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 It seems irrational that a lot of buildings get demo'd and replaced with surface lots while waiting to construct something new. Sometimes for several years. Usually if a seemlingly irrational thing happens frequently, it's probably to do with taxation or regulation. (One of) the reason(s) you see buildings get knocked down and replaced with surface lots is that the property tax on a vacant building is a lot higher than the property tax on a surface parking lot. There are ways to deal with this kind of under-development. One is to use a land-value tax rather than a tax based on the land plus improvements. That way, every square foot of land is taxed at the same rate, independent of what's built on it, which incentives land owners to develop to the highest and best use. Another way would be a special assessment on any land area dedicated to parking, exempted if it's structured parking with non-parking uses fronting the sidewalk. Something like $5/sf/year would make structured parking economically attractive compared to surface parking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 On 12/5/2018 at 6:47 PM, KinkaidAlum said: Two steps forward... getting run over by someone exiting an ugly garage to speed back to the burbs. Are you saying that people from the suburbs shouldn't go to Astros games? 13 hours ago, Angostura said: It seems irrational that a lot of buildings get demo'd and replaced with surface lots while waiting to construct something new. Sometimes for several years. Usually if a seemlingly irrational thing happens frequently, it's probably to do with taxation or regulation. (One of) the reason(s) you see buildings get knocked down and replaced with surface lots is that the property tax on a vacant building is a lot higher than the property tax on a surface parking lot. There are ways to deal with this kind of under-development. One is to use a land-value tax rather than a tax based on the land plus improvements. That way, every square foot of land is taxed at the same rate, independent of what's built on it, which incentives land owners to develop to the highest and best use. Another way would be a special assessment on any land area dedicated to parking, exempted if it's structured parking with non-parking uses fronting the sidewalk. Something like $5/sf/year would make structured parking economically attractive compared to surface parking. If you have a building that requires significant improvements to make it rentable, then demolition and use as a parking lot makes sense. The types of buildings that get demolished are usually a fraction of the value of the entire property. Everyone's recent favorite, 1621 Milam, for example, has a lot value of $16 million, and the building was valued at $1.4 million. Demolition didn't reduce the taxable value by much, but does make revenue from parking possible, and without the headache of a short term lease that requires a bunch of renovation to make possible. I don't think the City can create special assessments under the current laws, nor can they impose special assessments based on usage. I could be wrong, since I haven't dug through the relevant statutes lately. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Urbannizer Posted June 14 Popular Post Share Posted June 14 https://mcshouston.com/ 22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 10 minutes ago, Urbannizer said: https://mcshouston.com/ Interesting. The parcel changed hands last October - now owned by Neway Hospitality. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 1 hour ago, Urbannizer said: https://mcshouston.com/ This is wonderful! I just walked by this parking lot the other day and was hoping a hotel would fill it before long. I think American Liberty Hospitality had some stake in this lot a few years ago when the old warehouse was torn down, something like a ROFR to purchase, but this is better than their designs (though not by much). I guess we are going to lose the trees along that stretch of Texas, but maybe they just didn't put them in the rendering? Not likely, but maybe? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSirDingle Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 Nice infill for that part of downtown, having another hotel/apartment in that area should help bolster an already decent size pocket of hospitality/residential buildings. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate99 Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Nice. This would "complete" Texas Ave/St from the new Jones Plaza/Wyatt Square to the ballpark, unless you count the parking lot that used to have the B.U.S. bar as a net minus. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 I sure hope they've got their construction loan rate locked in or this just got a lot harder to finance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.