Jump to content
Mab

2714 White Oak

Recommended Posts

"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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Luminare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by mcook2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Luminare
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
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.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@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 by Luminare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Luminare
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2019 at 5:02 PM, 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.

 

The amount of retail space that results in a 200-space parking requirement is over 30,000 sf. That's a pretty big development. Ideally, we'd be able to have structured parking (instead of surface parking) AND smaller, more fine-grained retail development. The only way to get there is to decouple parking provision from retail development and price on-street parking appropriately (or otherwise limit its supply by, say, limiting it to one side of the street).

 

Eliminating parking minimums wouldn't result in spec garages being built overnight. Houston currently has 30 parking spaces for every car. There's plenty of parking, it's just poorly allocated. The likely first step would be for current business owners with off-street lots to allow non-customers to park in their lots (for a fee), since they could do this without risking losing their occupancy permit. That would establish a market for parking so that the price is closer to the cost of providing it. Eventually you would arrive at a level of commercial density that would justify standalone parking structures, but at that point the number of spaces needed per 1000 sf of retail space would probably be lower than current requirements, since having a non-zero price for parking tends to result in less of it being consumed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted November 10, 2017 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.

 




 

On 11/8/2017 at 10:07 PM, Mab said:





More from the leasing flier of the Revive development ( Re:Vive Development) from Bryan Danna at 2714 White Oak Dr


Land: 12,500 Sf
Proposed building: 2,600 Sf
Parking: 26 spaces


axRPaBP.jpg
(direct link to full sized, non-compressed image that's easier to zoom in)



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted May 1, 2019 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.

 





2714 White Oak Dr may become the site of the automated parking garage from EasyPark and U-Tron.

The automated parking garage was planned for 2912 White Oak Dr or 2920 White Oak Dr  (more about it in the other thread here)

There were plans for a development next to whatever will become of the building that was Fitzgerald's. The recent updated proposed site plan implies there has been a change in direction.

The map also seem to back this blurb in a Forbes article from January 2019 on U-Tron (the mixed-use commercial and residential described below is the redevelopment of the former Fitzgerald's music venue at 2706 White Oak Dr, Houston and the automated parking garage is 2714 White Oak)



The company expects to complete  a 664 fully automated parking spaces for a new mixed-use commercial and residential real estate in Houston in 2020.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/lianeyvkoff/2019/01/31/watch-this-robotic-garage-park-cars-like-sardines-in-a-can/





DdUnG7g.jpg

 

Edited by CrockpotandGravel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted May 3, 2019 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.

 




Copying this comment made about the new location of the automated garage from another thread to this one because the poster posted in the wrong thread.

 

On 5/2/2019 at 5:29 PM, thedistrict84 said:

I know the initial speculation was that the automated garage would go where the current 10-stall, sorry-excuse-for-covered-parking lot by Christian’s Tailgate currently sits, but the updated brochure puts it on a larger lot further east towards Studewood and White Oak, where a few older homes currently sit.

 

Since there is more land area to work with there, it looks like the automated garage will not be as tall as we initially thought.

 

 

Edited by CrockpotandGravel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted July 5, 2019 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.

 




 

Here's more on the automated parking garage at 2714 White Oak Dr in the Heights, Houston,

Re:Vive Development (Revive Development) had plans for some kind of retail or commercial development here, but sold it to an entity under Chicago's Easy Park last year.  This will become the site of the automated parking garage from EasyPark and U-Tron.


The automated parking garage was first planned for 2912 White Oak Dr or 2920 White Oak Dr  (more about it in the other thread here) 2805 White Oak Dr in the Heights, Houston. It will now be located at 2714 White Oak Drive.


 


This comes from their other company Verde, which is their retail and apartment arm (I posted about this company in another thread):


Further east on the north side of White Oak, we are developing an automated parking garage of more than 275 parking spaces. During the design process, we expanded the garage capacity given recent increases in commercial activity in this area of the Heights.


https://verdecommunities.com/retail/


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted July 5, 2019 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.

 



 

Here's more on the automated parking garage at 2714 White Oak Dr in the Heights, Houston:

This comes from their other company Verde Communities, which is their retail and apartment arm.


In the near future, we expect to build Houston’s first fully automated (i.e. driverless) parking garage on the north side of White Oak. This will allow us to develop and provide *new retail and restaurant locations on the south side of White Oak which is currently used for parking cars

* (the retail is what's being built at 2805 White Oak Dr, thread about that here)


https://verdecommunities.com/commercial-projects/2808-white-oak-drive-houston-texas-77007-7/


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted July 25, 2019 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.

 




 

A blurb about the automated parking garage from Easy Park planned for 2714 White Oak Dr.

This blurb comes  from an article published yesterday by The Leader. This was included in a bigger report on proposed plans for the former Fitzgerald's property (and the two lots behind it) at 2706 White Oak Dr (thread about the Fitzgerald's property was moved to Going Up yesterday )



From The Leader:
 

Baldwin (Heights Realtor Bill Baldwin, a member of the Houston Planning Commission), citing conversations he’s had with Levine (of Easy Park), said the plan for the White Oak developments includes a multi-story parking garage on the north side of the street. There now is a small, one-story garage between Christian’s Tailgate and Tacos A Go Go.
 

Baldwin said he would prefer not to see a parking garage at the Fitzgerald’s lot, which is at the northwest corner of White Oak and Studewood, but realizes the need for more parking on a street lined with destinations and oftentimes parked vehicles.
 

“As this area densifies, we all have a greater need for parking,” he said.

https://theleadernews.com/mixed-use-development-targeted-for-fitzgeralds-site/




__________________________________________________________________________________


Original plans for the White Oak Dr automated parking garages from Easy Park had the site as 2912 White Oak Dr. This would have been next to Christian's Tailgate and Tacos A Go Go (thread about that here)

Easy Park also plans to add multi-story automated parking garages in other parts of Houston: Railway Heights (thread here), Montrose (thead here), and the Hobby Airport area (thread here).


 

Edited by CrockpotandGravel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted July 25, 2019 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.



 

 
  On 7/25/2019 at 2:59 AM, CrockpotandGravel said:

A blurb about the automated parking garage from Easy Park planned for 2714 White Oak Dr.

This blurb comes  from an article published yesterday by The Leader. This was included in a bigger report on proposed plans for the former Fitzgerald's property (and the two lots behind it) at 2706 White Oak Dr (thread about the Fitzgerald's property was moved to Going Up yesterday😞



From The Leader:

 

Baldwin (Heights Realtor Bill Baldwin, a member of the Houston Planning Commission), citing conversations he’s had with Levine (of Easy Park), said the plan for the White Oak developments includes a multi-story parking garage on the north side of the street. There now is a small, one-story garage between Christian’s Tailgate and Tacos A Go Go.
 

Baldwin said he would prefer not to see a parking garage at the Fitzgerald’s lot, which is at the northwest corner of White Oak and Studewood, but realizes the need for more parking on a street lined with destinations and oftentimes parked vehicles.
 

“As this area densifies, we all have a greater need for parking,” he said.

https://theleadernews.com/mixed-use-development-targeted-for-fitzgeralds-site/

 

 



 

In the above The Leader's article, the multi-story automated parking garage from Easy Park ( U-Tron) is discussed. Also included is this additional quote from residents opposing the structure. This is the garage planned for 2714 White Oak Dr in the Heights, Houston:


 

Winston Manley and Kris Wathen, who are 29-year-old roommates just south of White Oak Drive and rode their bikes to Christian’s Tailgate on Tuesday evening, also said they would be in support of more restaurant and bar options on the street. But they disagreed that there is a need for more parking, at least for automobiles.
 

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

https://theleadernews.com/mixed-use-development-targeted-for-fitzgeralds-site/

 

 


 

A parking garage may be irrelevant to them because they live close enough to the White Oak District to walk or bike. But many are coming to the area from other parts of Houston that are further out, be it in the 610 loop and parts of Houston that are between the loop and the beltway. There are also the cities surrounding Houston.

For those people, an Uber ride in the evenings can cost. Driving to White Oak and paying to park (or available street parking) would be more cost effective for them. Rail would be a better option, but the city is lagging behind on faster and technologically advanced mass public transportation.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted July 30, 2019 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.





 

On 7/25/2019 at 11:16 AM, X.R. said:

 

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.

 

 




I'm all for Uber, Lyft and car sharing services. These services and light rail services open until 4am are wonderful solutions in combating drunk driving. But not everyone drinks when going out to neighborhoods like downtown, the Heights, Midtown, or Montrose. They go to these neighborhoods to have fun. 

But being completely opposed to multi-story parking garages in areas like this one, isn't going to solve the problem. Outside of buses, Houston doesn't have adequate public transportation in these area like rail that people would be more inclined to use. Instead, people who don't live near here often drive to these places because it's less expensive than Uber.

With a parking garage in place, the cost to park will be less than an Uber ride for many who live further out. Parking garages also help reduce neighborhood street parking. 

Residents may be opposed to this, but the fact is, White Oak Dr is one of the main nightlife artery of the Heights. As more businesses build, the more influx of people coming in to visit. The Heights is not the small inner city town it once was, it's part of Houston's urban center. Keeping the small town vibe is great but realistically, residents have to come to term that they can't have their cake and eat it too. There has to be better parking options to address the growth of non Heights residents coming into the area to dine, drink, visit art galleries, or whatever is happening there. Parking garages similar to this are needed.


 

Edited by CrockpotandGravel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted August 1, 2019 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.





 

On 7/31/2019 at 7:12 PM, Urbannizer 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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted August 1, 2019 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.




 

On 8/1/2019 at 2:56 PM, crock said:

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.   





I would prefer to park my car over valet. But if this is the only parking option, I would do it.

Easy Park's U-Tron has proven successful and safe elsewhere . 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted August 2, 2019 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.




 

On 8/1/2019 at 5:37 PM, 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.





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. 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted August 7, 2019 in this thread before all of my content were removed from the entire forum earlier this month. Reposting this throws off the flow of the thread (i.e. out of order),  still, it may be helpful for visitors to see what was previously discussed or shared before. An archive link of this thread in its entirety before my comments were removed will be included soon.





 

On 8/6/2019 at 6:15 AM, Urbannizer said:





The replat for South Heights Reserve at While Oak from July. 

This is  the site of  the proposed automated parking garage from EasyPark and U-Tron in the Heights. It's planned for 2714 White Oak Dr, next door to the former Fitzgerald's building at 2706 White Oak Dr (which will be redeveloped by Easy Park; more in this thread here).

The parking garage was previously proposed for 2912 White Oak Dr in Houston (thread about it here).

The replat was filed by Lot 14 & 15 Purchase Company LLC, an entity of EasyPark. Previously the plat was filed by 2714 White Oak LP. an entity of Revive Development ( Re:Vive Development) before the real estate company sold most of their lower White Oak Drive properties to Easy Park last year.

According to county records, Lot 14 & 15 Purchase Company LLC received a deed of trust for this property in late July, 2019.





cr9OU2O.jpg






wvmG4y3.jpg
(direct link to full size, non compressed image, easier to zoom in for a closer view)





wlfpeK6.jpg
(direct link to full size, non compressed image, easier to zoom in for a closer view)



 

Edited by CrockpotandGravel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent posts about the proposed automated parking garage from Easy Park and U-Tron at 2714 White Oak Dr.

These posts were made in the thread for 2805 White Oak Dr, but should have been posted here.



https://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/39010-2805-white-oak-dr/?do=findComment&comment=603513

On 10/17/2019 at 11:22 AM, s3mh said:

Also, the neighborhood is getting a bit frothy about the parking garage.  The developer for the garage needs a variance because there is a pending minimum lot size application for that section of the Heights.  Planning commission will be getting an earful on Oct 31.




https://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/39010-2805-white-oak-dr/?do=findComment&comment=604111

On 10/21/2019 at 3:00 PM, Angostura said:


 

On 10/17/2019 at 11:22 AM, s3mh said:

Also, the neighborhood is getting a bit frothy about the parking garage.  The developer for the garage needs a variance because there is a pending minimum lot size application for that section of the Heights.  Planning commission will be getting an earful on Oct 31.



 

That MLS application, covering the area between Oxford and Studewood, from the south blockface of 6½ St to the north blockface of 9th St, was pretty clearly designed to prevent development of the two lots on the corner of 6½ and Studewood (the 3rd lot from the corner is classified commercial already). The south blockface of 6½ is predominantly 3300 sf TH lots, and the MLS area was extended north until the 70% lot size cutoff reached 6250 s.f.

 

When the planning commission considered the application, they approved the staff recommendation that the south blockface of 6½ be excluded, and the modified area be forward to city council for approval.

 

There is also an application for JUST the south blockface of 6½, also in an effort to block development of the two lots on the corner. (The lot on the corner of Oxford, slated for multi-familty development, would not be affected since it's not currently restricted to SF residential). The developer has retained Richard Epstein (a law professor with a fair amount of expertise in takings law) to argue that since those two lots were already used for commercial purposed by Sara Fitzgerald, it would be inappropriate to restrict them to single family use. (Both of these applications were submitted AFTER the developer acquired the land, and at least one if not both were submitted after the structures were demolished.)

 

The second MLS application almost certainly meets the ordinance requirements (78% of the block face is SF residential, albeit at around 3200 s.f. lot size). Presumably the variance sought by the developer is to codify the land use for those two lots as other than single family residential, which would mean they would be unaffected by any MLS application. If that variance is rejected, it will probably result in litigation.

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Angostura  I have a question about the proposed parking garage. The garage is intended to  serve this development, Easy Park and Verde's other White Oak properties acquired last year, their new retail building nest Bobcat Teddy's Ice House and the surrounding businesses.

According to Virtual Builders Exchange, the automated parking garage will built on the two lots at 742 6 ½ St  and 746 E 6 ½ St.

I'm assuming Virtual Builders Exchanged arrived at that conclusion because the variance request documentation and the planning commission meeting discussed the parking garage. There's also this language in the documents submitted to the city:




We have purchased the two specific lots prior to the submission of  application  #749  at  a  price  intended  to  reflect  its  commercial  redevelopment  potential,  approximately $900,000 per lot, well above what the lots cost if they are restricted to single‐family residential use. Additionally, the two lots were purchased as part of a very expensive assemblage of lots that took place prior to the submission of application #749, which includes the former Fitzgerald’s site and the adjacent retail development along White Oak Drive. The owner has spent approximately $9.5 million on this assemblage, which includes acquisition costs, architectural design and engineering costs for the entire site, which includes the land subject to the replat.   

The owner has also spent an additional $3.2 million on design, engineering and other work as well as equipment necessary to construct the parking garage proposed for the site, all prior to the submission of application #749. The current retail along White Oak Drive has been underparked for years, and the project, including  the  $3.2  million  parking  garage  equipment,  is  intended  to  add  parking  needed  to  comply with City of Houston parking rules. 





But I think Virtual Builders Exchange's reporting is not  entirely accurate. From proposed plans shown in marking documents for another Easy Park development on White Oak (and shown above in this thread), the automated parking garage is shown here  at 2714 White Oak Dr. Also Easy Park vaguely referred to 2714 White Oak Dr as the White Oak site for the automated parking garage. as Easy Park, which was posted in this forum this summer. 


The  two lots at 742 6 ½ St  and 746 E 6 ½ St are shown in proposed plans as being part of Easy Park and Verde (their retail arm) plan to redevelop the former Fitzgerald's site at 2706 White Oak Dr. Also Easy Park and Verde reference the lots (I think) on their website for the upcoming Fitzgerald's site redevelopment.

So, for clarification, are the  two lots at 742 6 ½ St  and 746 E 6 ½ St part of the mixed-use/ possible residential included at the former Fitzgerald's site? Or has Easy Park switch course once again and intend to build the parking garage on those two former residential lots instead of at 2714 White Oak Dr?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 7:18 AM, CrockpotandGravel said:


@Angostura  I have a question about the proposed parking garage. The garage is intended to  serve this development, Easy Park and Verde's other White Oak properties acquired last year, their new retail building nest Bobcat Teddy's Ice House and the surrounding businesses.
[...]

So, for clarification, are the  two lots at 742 6 ½ St  and 746 E 6 ½ St part of the mixed-use/ possible residential included at the former Fitzgerald's site? Or has Easy Park switch course once again and intend to build the parking garage on those two former residential lots instead of at 2714 White Oak Dr?
 

 

 

I think their original plan was to build the garage at 2902(?), in the space currently occupied by a small covered parking lot. At the time, though, the number of spaces was far in excess of what would be needed to serve the additional parking requirement generated by the new retail at 2805, so it seemed reasonable to speculate that 2714 would also be involved somehow. This was in 2017.

 

In July of 2018, EZ Park acquired the Fitzgerald's properties, including the 3 lots on 6th 1/2 St (738, 742 & 746). I haven't seen site plans or renderings, but I understand that the current plan is to put the garage at the corner of Studewood and 6-1/2. I assume this is because that corner is the lowest-value frontage from a retail standpoint.

 

However, assuming the garage occupies the three lots on 6-1/2, things could get tricky. Chapter 26 allows you to fulfill 100% of your parking requirement with off-site parking, provided that the off-site parking is within 500 feet, as measured along pedestrian walkways. My half-assed google maps measurement puts the 746 Studewood at 575 feet from 2805 White Oak (though I think they could design around this by providing public pedestrian access to the garage mid-block on White Oak).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, @Angostura

 

Easy Park's original plan for the automated parking garage location was 2912 White Oak Dr (reupped thread about it here). The location of the automated parking garage switched to this address, 2714 White Oak in the spring. A replat for it was submitted to the city in July or August of this year.

So, it seemed this property is or could be the site for the garage.

I suppose we won't know for sure until details leak and  documents are posted online. ☹️

 

Edited by CrockpotandGravel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I did a search on the county clerk's website. I saw documentation from August 2019 referring to 2714 White Oak Dr. 

The documentation referenced a parking lease agreement. The parking in the attached documents for referred to the White Oak lots which  are lots 14 and 15 combined as shown in the replat several posts above. The combined lots are 2714 White Oak Dr.

South Heights Purchase Company ( 2805 White Oak Dr ) and Heights Studemont Purchase (the former Fitzgerald's venue at 2706 White Oak Dr) are listed as the tenants. Lot 14 & 15 Purchase Company LLC as landlord (2714 White Oak).

There's nothing (at least when I skimmed the document)  specifying what kind of parking: surface parking or automated parking garage.

With space being limited and Easy Park & Verde's public remarks on providing more  parking in the White Oak District by way of a parking garage, I don't think the 2714 White Oak Dr property will be converted into a surface lot for parking.

This may still be the site of the automated parking garage as depicted in the site maps above. I wish we could get a definitive answer from the developer.

Either way, I'm anxious to the see the final design.
 

Edited by CrockpotandGravel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 31Oct Planning Commission meeting, the developer made mention of being willing to restrict access to the parking garage from Studewood only, not allowing access from 6-1/2 (About 33 minutes into Section D here). This indicates to me that their current plan is to place it on that corner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...