Popular Post Urbannizer Posted May 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted May 11, 2017 2 retail structures totaling a little over 21,000 sq feet http://ucr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Navigation-Place-property-flyer.pdf 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Clean19 Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Great find! Its about time they did something with this land. I think there is some zoning against additional Mexican food restaurants along navigation. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Will this be a walkable center or similar to that shopping center at the corner of Canal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 A blue construction fence was put up around this site yesterday. Previous commercial building was demo’d back in October. They’ve been moving dirt off and on for the last few months, looks like they’re ready to get this started. Have there been any tenants confirmed? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS27 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 https://retailtxok.cbre.us/property/navigation-place/ It appears they already have some tenants signed up: - Corky's BBQ - Allegiance Bank with 2 spots to fill. Building materials also appear to be downgraded from the original images floating around. Unexciting nonetheless; comes across as kind of a wasted opportunity considering that the EADO Navigation (Marquette) just up the Street on Navigation / Jensen is being built on a similarly sized / shaped lot. Seems like something similar to that would be well suited at this spot. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 28 minutes ago, LS27 said: https://retailtxok.cbre.us/property/navigation-place/ It appears they already have some tenants signed up: - Corky's BBQ - Allegiance Bank with 2 spots to fill. Building materials also appear to be downgraded from the original images floating around. Unexciting nonetheless; comes across as kind of a wasted opportunity considering that the EADO Navigation (Marquette) just up the Street on Navigation / Jensen is being built on a similarly sized / shaped lot. Seems like something similar to that would be well suited at this spot. Thanks for sharing the CBRE link/brochure. I couldn’t find that for whatever reason (I was searching by address instead of development name). The difference between the building materials portrayed between the two renderings is staggering. Sure, you expect the initial one to be extra flashy and appealing to draw in tenants, but damn. . . that looks to be a huge drop off in quality/appearance. Very disappointing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) On 4/1/2019 at 8:52 AM, CrockpotandGravel said: Updated listing for Navigation Place at 2929 Navigation Blvd in Second Ward.https://retailtxok.cbre.us/property/navigation-place/ (archive link) Updated marketing brochure for Navigation Place at 2929 Navigation Blvd in Second Ward.https://retailtxok.cbre.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Navigation-Place-Brochure-011919.pdf (archive link) From the brochure: Adjacent to the Original Ninfas on Navigation and El Tiempo, two of Houston’s favorites, Navigation Place will provide additional restaurant options and service retailers to its surrounding neighbors. Positively located, Navigation Place along with new developments such as Pinto East End Perry Homes and Midway’s Mixed-Use project, East River, are helping to transition the neighborhood and attract more young professionals and couples starting families. ±6,366 SF shell space building available for build-out Prime location in EADO, less than a mile from Downtown Houston, across from Ninfa’s and El Tiempo Close proximity to Midway’s proposed 150-acre mixed-use development, East River ± 3,000 SF available for restaurant opportunity Site plan(direct link to non-compressed, full-sized image: https://i.imgur.com/vGK5QQ8.jpg ) Damn that’s an ugly development smh 🤦♂️ Espeically since the other businesses along Navigation have a more walkable presence. Edited April 2, 2019 by j_cuevas713 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 20 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said: Damn that’s an ugly development smh 🤦♂️ Espeically since the other businesses along the Navigation have a more walkable presence. Agreed. It would at least be a bit better with parking in the back. The main building has a very suburban strip center feel. Ugh. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate4l1f3 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 This is probably what pisses me off about Houston more than anything. Smh. Smh. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 21 hours ago, nate4l1f3 said: This is probably what pisses me off about Houston more than anything. Smh. Smh. I never understand the full logistics but the city can say no right? Or they can at least tell the developer, you need to change X, Y, and Z before we approve this, am I right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate4l1f3 Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said: I never understand the full logistics but the city can say no right? Or they can at least tell the developer, you need to change X, Y, and Z before we approve this, am I right? There are way more people who can answer that question on here than me brother. I would guess if the development fits in whatever parameters the city sets for certain developments then it’s a go. The problem would be with the City and their standards IMO. Which is why people on here push to eliminate minimum parking requirements etc. Edited April 2, 2019 by nate4l1f3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitts Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 Swing and a miss. Another suburban-style car-oriented in a potentially walkable neighborhood. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 3 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said: I never understand the full logistics but the city can say no right? Or they can at least tell the developer, you need to change X, Y, and Z before we approve this, am I right? not really. the city is going to check for setbacks, and parking requirements, not just do you have enough spaces, but do you have enough room for cars to maneuver. that's about it when considering the size of the building, and where it is situated on the property. considering building setback requirements it makes most efficient use of the land to put parking in front of a building. so, if you want to play a game, take the buildings they have, move them around on their site (taking into consideration building setbacks), and see if you can maintain the same number of entrances/exits, and also maintain the number of parking spaces. I bet you can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cspwal Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 If we wanted to, the city could pass an ordinance requiring developments in "walk-able or high interest corridors" to have the building at the street and the parking in the back. Of course defining the walk-able corridor would be a different issue altogether 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 On the positive side, the Planning Department would agree with you: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Commissions/committee_walkable-places.html My understanding is that the plan is also to update the transit corridor standards and make them mandatory. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 Construction crew is onsite as of today. Looks like this project is finally getting off the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted May 4, 2019 Share Posted May 4, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Not a Robot Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 (edited) Updated listing on loopnet. Looks better than the most recent rendering. Still no new tenants listed. https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/2929-Navigation-Blvd-Houston-TX/4614746/ Edited May 29, 2019 by I'm Not a Robot 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Could be worse, honestly. At least the Corky’s patio fronts the sidewalk. Definitely better than the abandoned commercial building it’s replacing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 I don’t understand how the hell they didn’t place parking in the back when they are right along the Esplanade. Absolutely ridiculous. This might be the worst development in this area. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 I agree! Would love it if there's a "thumbs down emoji" for that suburban crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 7 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said: I don’t understand how the hell they didn’t place parking in the back when they are right along the Esplanade. Absolutely ridiculous. This might be the worst development in this area. I’m sure the arrangement in the site plan allowed for the highest number of parking spaces possible, in order to meet the minimum parking requirements. Doing away with those minimums would eliminate that incentive for sub-optimal parking (from a walkability/pedestrian friendly standpoint) and encourage development at the sidewalks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 On 6/22/2019 at 6:41 AM, thedistrict84 said: I’m sure the arrangement in the site plan allowed for the highest number of parking spaces possible, in order to meet the minimum parking requirements. Doing away with those minimums would eliminate that incentive for sub-optimal parking (from a walkability/pedestrian friendly standpoint) and encourage development at the sidewalks. I can’t argue the minimum parking required for the site. My issue is it’s placement and the lack of thought from the developers on where to put it considering they are right along an area geared towards walkability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 12 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said: I can’t argue the minimum parking required for the site. My issue is it’s placement and the lack of thought from the developers on where to put it considering they are right along an area geared towards walkability. I agree. My point was that the layout was dictated by the required parking. Current arrangement, you have one lane with two opposite rows of parking in the front, and one lane with one row against the building in the back. Even if you just switch the lanes to have the single row in the front, you’re likely to lose some parking on the side along with the placement of the patio. It would be impossible to move all of the parking to the back and still keep anywhere near the same number of parking spots, which I would guess would be the difference between meeting the minimum parking requirements and not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 4 hours ago, thedistrict84 said: I agree. My point was that the layout was dictated by the required parking. Current arrangement, you have one lane with two opposite rows of parking in the front, and one lane with one row against the building in the back. Even if you just switch the lanes to have the single row in the front, you’re likely to lose some parking on the side along with the placement of the patio. It would be impossible to move all of the parking to the back and still keep anywhere near the same number of parking spots, which I would guess would be the difference between meeting the minimum parking requirements and not. Ahh got ya. So is this a city ordinance thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said: Ahh got ya. So is this a city ordinance thing? Yes, there are a minimum number of parking spaces required to be provided for different property types, tied to the square footage of the building. Exemptions can be requested, and there are other ways to meet the requirements (offsite parking/valet lots, bicycle racks, etc.). https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/docs_pdfs/parking_req.pdf There is a current effort to eliminate minimum parking requirements for Midtown and part of EaDo, but this property in the East End would not have been included in that area, despite its proximity to downtown. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, thedistrict84 said: Yes, there are a minimum number of parking spaces required to be provided for different property types, tied to the square footage of the building. Exemptions can be requested, and there are other ways to meet the requirements (offsite parking/valet lots, bicycle racks, etc.). https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/docs_pdfs/parking_req.pdf There is a current effort to eliminate minimum parking requirements for Midtown and part of EaDo, but this property in the East End would not have been included in that area, despite its proximity to downtown. I think this should be included to any property that fronts LRT, and BRT outside CBD, and the proposed extention of this into Midtown and EaDo. Either an elimination of the requirement or 1/2 the requirement. That would be a great incentive for developers to build next to transit. Edited June 24, 2019 by Luminare 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Yep. That's pretty much the plan. Check out the walkable place/transit ordinance thread. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 They started putting up the framework for the northern-most building (Corky’s BBQ). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 2929 Navigation. 5 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.