Retail At 2714 White Oak Dr.

[Mab]

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5215234ae4b0745af88f3c00/t/59fe35a964265f6a401552c8/1509832113901/2714+White+Oak_Property+Flyer_FINAL_web.pdf

[Angostura]

"Premier location on one of Houston's few walkable streets."

 

So let's dedicate 3/4 of the frontage to a parking lot.

 

I'll consider getting excited when I see who the tenant is. Until then, it's just another building on a site that's 80% parking lot. 

[Avossos]

1 hour ago, Angostura said:

"Premier location on one of Houston's few walkable streets."

 

So let's dedicate 3/4 of the frontage to a parking lot.

 

I'll consider getting excited when I see who the tenant is. Until then, it's just another building on a site that's 80% parking lot. 

 

The parking lot already exists and is shared with Fitzgeralds... Not so quick to judge... I doubt they even own that parking lot.

[Angostura]

On 11/9/2017 at 9:58 AM, Avossos said:

 

The parking lot already exists and is shared with Fitzgeralds... Not so quick to judge... I doubt they even own that parking lot.

 

This is the two bungalows immediately west of Fitzgerald's. So this parking lot will be right next to Fitz's parking lot. Which will make about 120 feet of surface parking fronting the sidewalk between Fitz and whatever this ends up being. 

 

Point being: why advertise your development as being on one of Houston's few walkable streets, only to make that street less walkable.

[swtsig]

it would be interesting to know if the city would have allowed them to do away with spots 14-16 and just extend the patio... that additional 15-18' of patio space would give it a much stronger pedestrian presence.

[Angostura]

1 hour ago, swtsig said:

it would be interesting to know if the city would have allowed them to do away with spots 14-16 and just extend the patio... that additional 15-18' of patio space would give it a much stronger pedestrian presence.

 

Not without a variance.

 

As designed, it exceeds the parking requirement, but that doesn't mean they could just extend the patio.

 

A restaurant <3000 s.f. requires 8 spaces per 1000 s.f. That 3000 s.f. includes the building, and any patio space in excess of 15% of the size of the building. In this case, the building is 2600 s.f., 15% of which is 390 s.f., but the patio is (a little more than) 625 s.f., so for purposes of parking, the building is 2825 s.f., which in this case would require 23 spaces. That can be further reduced by up to 10% by providing bicycle parking spaces (in this case 8 bicycle spaces could replace 2 parking spaces), reducing the requirement to 21 spaces.

 

So, in theory they could get rid of 4 parking spaces and convert a fifth into bike spaces and still comply with the city's requirements. But if they use that space to, say, double the size of the patio, then the building area plus excess patio area would be 3450 s.f., which changes the use classification from "small restaurant" to "neighborhood restaurant," so they would need 9 spaces per 1000 s.f., which, even with the 10% reduction for bicycle parking, would be 28 spaces.

 

So, in this case, adding 600 s.f. of patio increases the parking requirement by 7 spaces. At an average of 300 s.f. per parking space, that means that for every s.f. of added patio space, they'd need to add 3.5 s.f. of surface parking.

[Houston19514]

On 11/13/2017 at 8:47 AM, Angostura said:

 

This is the two bungalows immediately west of Fitzgerald's. So this parking lot will be right next to Fitz's parking lot. Which will make about 120 feet of surface parking fronting the sidewalk between Fitz and whatever this ends up being. 

 

 

Jjust curious  how you know this.  The flyer and renderings make it appear that the parking lot in the renderings is the current Fitzgerald's parking lot and the building replaces one bungalow (perhaps not coincidentally the one that has the address 2714 White Oak Dr.)

Edited November 15, 2017 by Houston19514

[Angostura]

4 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Jjust curious  how you know this.  The flyer and renderings make it appear that the parking lot in the renderings is the current Fitzgerald's parking lot and the building replaces one bungalow (perhaps not coincidentally the one that has the address 2714 White Oak Dr.)

 

By looking at the plats and ownership data on HCAD.

 

This project has 100-ft of frontage. The two lots immediately to the west of Fitzgeralds each have 50-ft of frontage, and both are owned by "2714 White Oak LP". The two lots total have 12,500 s.f., which is what the flyer says this project has.

 

Also, it looks like there's less than 50 feet between the west property line and the building on Fitzgerald's site. 

 

 

[Houston19514]

10 minutes ago, Angostura said:

 

By looking at the plats and ownership data on HCAD.

 

This project has 100-ft of frontage. The two lots immediately to the west of Fitzgeralds each have 50-ft of frontage, and both are owned by "2714 White Oak LP". The two lots total have 12,500 s.f., which is what the flyer says this project has.

 

Also, it looks like there's less than 50 feet between the west property line and the building on Fitzgerald's site. 

 

 

 

Great information.  Thanks!

[Luminare]

4 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

 

“Our generation Ubers everywhere,” Manley said. “Parking garages are nice, but it’s irrelevant to us.”
 

 

Thats probably the most narrow minded / shortsighted view I've seen in a while. This is the exact same mindset that once spelled the doom to our rail infrastructure. Just because something is new doesn't mean the previous isn't useful or needs further refinement, and just because that person won't use it doesn't mean others will. I mean I'm a millennial and walk everywhere or take the bus because I like doing that. No Uber for me and I drive very rarely. Not like that represents or makes me a representative of my generation though. sheesh.

 

EDIT: Also like how they said they want more retail, but don't understand the idea that this garage will be able to soak up the surround parking lots to free up potential space for what they want. Again...shortsighted.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Luminare

[mcook2002]

you guys seem grumpy.  a lot of jumped conclusions from a 13 word quote - seemingly edited from a longer conversation to intentionally show a counterpoint...

Edited July 25, 2019 by mcook2002

[s3mh]

So, parking minimums are bad but giant parking garages are good.  Hmmmm.

[Luminare]

47 minutes ago, s3mh said:

So, parking minimums are bad but giant parking garages are good.  Hmmmm.

 

Thats not what I said at all.

 

Parking Mins are the Cause and giant parking garages merely the Effect those regulations generate. Its a market solution to handle a problem that is caused from a top-down mandate. Looking at the bigger picture, and pragmatically speaking, in the current landscape where parking mins exist, a giant garage that can soak up as much parking as possible thus opening up more space to potential development is better than the alternative...which is to do nothing or to expand surface parking. Infrastructure is about efficiency and if there is a more efficient way to handle a need, meet a minimum requirement, and get something we want in the end, then yes I'm for it. The goal should be to eliminate parking mins, but only the most naive or foolish think thats going to happen in a day. Just like there are those that are foolish and naive that think we will all the sudden be driving autonomous cars tomorrow.

 

To ignore these facts is to ignore reality, and my argument contrary to that one guys quote is that one statement is what develops into neglect of existing infrastructure. Just because we don't like the current one and we want something different doesn't mean we don't have the responsibility to maintain it and make it as efficient as possible.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Luminare

[Luminare]

@s3mh Its the manner in which that person approach this that is not productive, not the fact the person doesn't like it. It would be one thing if the person said, "I don't like this planned development because I use uber to get around, and it won't be any use to me. However, I understand that not everyone is like me, and this will be wanted and used by others. Therefore I accept that it has to be built even though I don't like." In a statement like that we would understand that the person prioritizes their self-interests first but doesn't believe others should prioritize the persons interests above all others. Instead the person is blatantly saying they don't like the development and that because they won't use it or like it that it shouldn't be built at all. In a way they are expressing that they want others to put that persons interests above everyone else...which is selfish. At the core of NIMBYism is selfishness. Being concerned about your community, but understanding some things will be built because it is needed even though it doesn't immediately serve your self-interests isn't NIMBY. There is a difference.

[X.R.]

 

 

0

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

 

6 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

Residents living in these neighborhoods, neighborhoods where people from all over Houston visit daily, are short-sighted. They're also narrow-minded. They want people to visit and support the businesses that make their neighborhoods local destinations. At the same time, many of those same residents oppose multi-parking structures like these where the purpose is to alleviate neighbor's frustrations with street parking. They also oppose mass public transportation in their neighborhood - a neighborhood that is the center of entertainment and other recreational activities. It doesn't make sense.
 

 

I think the quoted is definitely true of older people, 40+ (and especially those 40+ who are higher on the socio-economic scale). That dude is my age, and just by him riding a bike to the bar, you know hes on Reddit screaming about the need for rail. I don't think its narrow-minded, hes just stating a fact, that people our age (who didnt grow up in Houston) are weirdly cognizant of driving drunk, so we uber everywhere. Why build parking for people driving to the Christian's tailgate/any place in that area that sells booze just so they can get above .08 and drive? I dont see that as NIMBY-ism.

 

I say weirdly because I grew up Houston. Left the city for school and stuff, but came back eventually. Lived in most areas from Gulfgate to Pearland. Drunk driving is pretty rampant the further south you go (Pearland PD knows this, so if you ever had a drink in the land of pears, watch out). But you have people driving 15-16 miles from midtown to go home in clear lake/pearland/southbelt regularly at like 1-2am after drinking. A few of my friends and I moved closer to the core once we making our own money,  met people from other cities who moved here and they were like "you actually get in your car after you've had a beeer or two? What?" and now most of my friends in Pearland pack into ubers and share the ticket. 

 

But you're definitely right, people are going to be left out. I definitely have friends who bought homes in La Porte because they wanted a 300k, 4 bedroom house on a 11k lot. And they wanted their cake and to eat it too, so they were driving drunk to go to the white party in the Heights, driving drunk to go Astros/Rockets/Texans (oh god) games, driving drunk to Midtown. But some people shamed them, and now they just don't go out to the city anymore. And thats OK. They made their choice where they wanted to live, you don't get to put other people's lives at risk to go to the hip new cocktail/asian fusion place and then drive 18 miles at 70mph at 10pm back to your house. 

 

Sorry for the length! I'm all for parking garages tho, as opposed to paved lots. Houston needs to just replace all that old, mid 90's single story lot junk with some parking garages.

 

 

[Luminare]

@X.R. and I agree with everything you said above, but again the issue is the perspective and focus, not the opinion of said individual. We would probably agree on many things if I meet the guy, but the guys position and perspective on this is selfish. Everyone prioritizes their needs above others and we should be honest about these things, but its when you ask everyone to cater to your needs alone that it then goes too far. I'm also completely open to the fact that we don't know motive and maybe it was just bad phrasing or a spur of the moment, but these are the words that we were provided and is the only words we can infer from.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Luminare

[Urbannizer]

https://www.utron-parking.com/portfolio-items/white-oak/

 

[Angostura]

On 7/25/2019 at 11:52 AM, s3mh said:

So, parking minimums are bad but giant parking garages are good.  Hmmmm.

 

Sorry to jump into this a week late, but.. yes?

 

Obviously eliminating parking minimums doesn't eliminate parking. One of the benefits of eliminating parking minimums is that you decoupling parking provision from commercial development. For small numbers of spaces, structured parking is very expensive (per-space), so even in places with high land values, parking tends to be in surface lots. But while it's very difficult for individual small-scale developments to provide structured parking, lots of small retail developments can provide enough scale to justify it, so someone can make money by providing it. This allows for more dense development than would be possible otherwise, even if the total number of spaces is no different than would be required currently.

 

And since density is upstream of mode-shift, having lots of (structured) parking is probably a necessary step on the path to needing less parking in the future.

[s3mh]

2 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

Sorry to jump into this a week late, but.. yes?

 

Obviously eliminating parking minimums doesn't eliminate parking. One of the benefits of eliminating parking minimums is that you decoupling parking provision from commercial development. For small numbers of spaces, structured parking is very expensive (per-space), so even in places with high land values, parking tends to be in surface lots. But while it's very difficult for individual small-scale developments to provide structured parking, lots of small retail developments can provide enough scale to justify it, so someone can make money by providing it. This allows for more dense development than would be possible otherwise, even if the total number of spaces is no different than would be required currently.

 

And since density is upstream of mode-shift, having lots of (structured) parking is probably a necessary step on the path to needing less parking in the future.

 

This parking garage would never have been built if there were no minimum parking requirements.  

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, s3mh said:

 

This parking garage would never have been built if there were no minimum parking requirements.  

That's not necessarily true. The reason it's called market based parking, is the market determines it. It would have been built regardless based on need in this area. 

[s3mh]

45 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

That's not necessarily true. The reason it's called market based parking, is the market determines it. It would have been built regardless based on need in this area. 

 

It is true.  There are lots of places in Houston where parking is as bad if not worse than on White Oak, but no one has ever even thought about putting in structured parking without being required by the parking minimums.  It is pure fantasy to think that these sort of parking garages will start popping up if we let people build retail developments with no parking requirements.  The dirt is too expensive.  The cost of an automated garage is too expensive.  And even regular old structured parking lots are too expensive to run just for profit without having the city require the owners of the retail properties to fund.     The robot garage business model for stand alone pay lots is taking very small and otherwise unusable plots in dense urban areas and building very skinny and tall parking garages.  These are areas where they can charge $25-40 max for daily use and get contracts for monthly users.  On White Oak, you are not going to have any contract parking and no one is going to be willing to pay much more than $5-10 for parking, assuming that there will be some amazing new retail establishments.  I am not sure the crowd at BBs and Tacos Agogo are willing to pay anything for parking.

[kbates2]

2 hours ago, s3mh said:

 

It is pure fantasy to think that these sort of parking garages will start popping up if we let people build retail developments with no parking requirements.  The dirt is too expensive. 

 

There are no parking minimums in downtown.  The dirt is expensive.  Standalone parking garages are being built all over the place.  

[crock]

who in their right mind would be ok with putting their car into a mechanical valet box?  it's like... let's add the wait time and shitty classist nature of valets to the unreliability of a large public-facing machine?   there is literally no benefit to the consumer of this sort of system, it's all in increasing revenue, who cares if the moment this thing breaks there will be dozens of people not able to get their car at the end of the night.   

[s3mh]

15 minutes ago, kbates2 said:

 

There are no parking minimums in downtown.  The dirt is expensive.  Standalone parking garages are being built all over the place.  

Read my entire post.  I clearly note that the business model stand alone automated garages is for downtown areas.  My point is that they would never come to exist purely due to market forces in areas like White Oak Blvd because they are too expensive and demand would never be high enough to generate sufficient revenue.  The only way they get built outside of the CBD is if the parking minimums force landowners to use them.

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, s3mh said:

Read my entire post.  I clearly note that the business model stand alone automated garages is for downtown areas.  My point is that they would never come to exist purely due to market forces in areas like White Oak Blvd because they are too expensive and demand would never be high enough to generate sufficient revenue.  The only way they get built outside of the CBD is if the parking minimums force landowners to use them.

I don't think that has anything to do with parking minimums. That sounds more like a zoning issue. Our lack of zoning allows developers to build whatever and wherever for the most part. 

[Luminare]

2 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

This looks out of place with the rest of the neighborhood on White Oak Dr and Studewood. I'm for the garage, but I'm not here for the design if this is the final product. Maybe some greenery would help.

 

As one who renders and creates architectural visualizations on the daily. Rest assured that while the design may or may not be final it really looks out of place because of the fact this isn't a completed render with proper context. This is literally just a model in an open void. That background isn't even the area its going to be in, but a stock skybox. The render engine they are using is either Enscape or Lumion, and projects, just like in any medium to represent architecture can look very odd if there isn't context surrounding this. Its why I have in multiple threads taken issue with firms such as EDI International, who just throw up screenshots from Sketchup because part of selling a project, both client and people who live near it, is the visual element and most importantly what a project will look like in its context. I'm amazed sometimes how some firms will let images loose like this out into the wild when it will only serve to confuse, and potentially alienate those whom they need to win onto their side. All this does is hurt others who actually care about these things, and makes it harder to propose development in the future.

 

EDIT: In fact. Let me get home, and I'll give this image a test spin. This kind of laziness actually pisses me off. I'll post a refresh of this just for fun later.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Luminare

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

 

As one who renders and creates architectural visualizations on the daily. Rest assured that while the design may or may not be final it really looks out of place because of the fact this isn't a completed render with proper context. This is literally just a model in an open void. That background isn't even the area its going to be in, but a stock skybox. The render engine they are using is either Enscape or Lumion, and projects, just like in any medium to represent architecture can look very odd if there isn't context surrounding this. Its why I have in multiple threads taken issue with firms such as EDI International, who just throw up screenshots from Sketchup because part of selling a project, both client and people who live near it, is the visual element and most importantly what a project will look like in its context. I'm amazed sometimes how some firms will let images loose like this out into the wild when it will only serve to confuse, and potentially alienate those whom they need to win onto their side. All this does is hurt others who actually care about these things, and makes it harder to propose development in the future.

 

EDIT: In fact. Let me get home, and I'll give this image a test spin. This kind of laziness actually pisses me off. I'll post a refresh of this just for fun later.

I’m in the same industry. Couldn’t agree more. 

[Luminare]

4 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

Yes. I know all of these things. Still, as I posted above, although this may not be the final product, the model proposed doesn't blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. Many residents oppose the automated parking garage. As this image is being shared on Facebook and probably Nextdoor, complaints I'm seeing are how this sticks out in a bad way. Residents are hoping developers take into consideration the neighborhood's aesthetic on White Oak and Studemont. 

Yes, the model is not shown next to the other buildings, but it's not hard to imagine it based off of what we've seen of the recently released render. 

 

Very true. I actually agree with all of this. Right now it looks like an alien space ship is about to crash land on the site. Go tied up in other things last night. Weekend is coming up, so I'm still going to have a little fun with this one. There a number of things this company can do to fix it, and the changes only have to be minor. I'll throw up an example soon. Clearly this is an example of one company who just doesn't understand the context they are trying to build in. Then we have the opposite of this which is Caydon. Tells you the full range of what is possible with these firms.

[s3mh]

15 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

As one who renders and creates architectural visualizations on the daily. Rest assured that while the design may or may not be final it really looks out of place because of the fact this isn't a completed render with proper context. This is literally just a model in an open void. That background isn't even the area its going to be in, but a stock skybox. The render engine they are using is either Enscape or Lumion, and projects, just like in any medium to represent architecture can look very odd if there isn't context surrounding this. Its why I have in multiple threads taken issue with firms such as EDI International, who just throw up screenshots from Sketchup because part of selling a project, both client and people who live near it, is the visual element and most importantly what a project will look like in its context. I'm amazed sometimes how some firms will let images loose like this out into the wild when it will only serve to confuse, and potentially alienate those whom they need to win onto their side. All this does is hurt others who actually care about these things, and makes it harder to propose development in the future.

 

EDIT: In fact. Let me get home, and I'll give this image a test spin. This kind of laziness actually pisses me off. I'll post a refresh of this just for fun later.

They very purposefully used that background because one of the big issues for this thing is where will cars cue up when it is busy and the robo-garage can only handle so many vehicles at once.  If you show people exactly where it is going to go, they will realize that the cue for the garage will spill out onto White Oak or Studewood and block traffic.  

 

And the only way this project will not stick out like a sore thumb is if someone puts an even bigger sore thumb next to it (which may be the plan for the Fitz lot).  

[Luminare]

4 minutes ago, s3mh said:

They very purposefully used that background because one of the big issues for this thing is where will cars cue up when it is busy and the robo-garage can only handle so many vehicles at once.  If you show people exactly where it is going to go, they will realize that the cue for the garage will spill out onto White Oak or Studewood and block traffic.  

 

And the only way this project will not stick out like a sore thumb is if someone puts an even bigger sore thumb next to it (which may be the plan for the Fitz lot).  

 

thats an awful lot of presuppositions. Always attribute to incompetence what could be attributed to malice. This isn't them smoking cigars in a star chamber talking about how there are going to stick it to the local populace...no its just professional laziness. If you really believe they are doing what you are saying then you have seriously missed the plot.