Jump to content
Urbannizer

2805 White Oak Dr

Recommended Posts

:o:o:o:o:o:o

 

This is the parking lot across from Barnabay's/Christian's. 

 

It appears like they'll do structured parking in place of the current single-story parking enclosure next to Tacos a go-go, which will open up this land for development. This is kind of huge, and may be the first of it's kind in the Heights: infill development of a surface lot by going vertical with parking.

 

If this kind of development catches on, it could really add a lot of pedestrian activity to major commercial corridors.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope they build the garage first.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mollusk said:

Let's hope they build the garage first.  

 

They'll have to.

 

Can't get a permit without demonstrating adequate off-street parking :rolleyes: (also would put the businesses across the street out of compliance w/ Ch 26). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

244 spots? Sounds like it will be about 5 to 6 stories? Can't imagine too many residents being happy about that but I truly think we need this especially with this lot going away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be even higher. Footprint is around 7200 sf, which wouldn't be much more than 24 spaces per level. I would guess something like 80-ft high, unless they do something like this.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this just the parking lot itself?  The east end of the black and white SITE graphic has an angular property line which sure looks like the Bobcat Teddy's property line.  I think it's the parking lot plus the small white oak tributary...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tanith27 said:

Is this just the parking lot itself?  The east end of the black and white SITE graphic has an angular property line which sure looks like the Bobcat Teddy's property line.  I think it's the parking lot plus the small white oak tributary...

 

I believe it's the current parking lot, plus the wooded area between the parking lot and the bar fka Jimmy's Ice House

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2018 at 1:26 PM, Triton said:

244 spots? Sounds like it will be about 5 to 6 stories? Can't imagine too many residents being happy about that but I truly think we need this especially with this lot going away.

I think that's exactly what they plan on doing.

 

"New 244 car automated garage being built"

 

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/2805-White-Oak-Dr-Houston-TX/11627429/

 

This will be interesting to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyone notice that 244 spaces is way, way more than the city minimums would typically require? Even at 10 per 1000 s.f., they'd only need 100 (minus the 5 onsite, plus whatever they displace)

 

I think this is the first salvo in a major densification of this district. For example, the site next to Fitzgerald's could have three restaurants instead of one by leasing parking in the new garage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Called it! 

 

This parking garage could very well have a battle ahead in the Heights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess that they might put in additional retail sq ft in the parking lot between Christain's and Barnaby's if they have excess parking spots in the proposed parking tower.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoH plan review comments are a rich vein of insight into the experience of interacting with city bureaucracy.

 

Traffic comments: "Furnish parking analysis and planning approval prior to traffic approval."

 

Planning comments: "There must be traffic approval before our department can approve your site plan."

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a mess. So they're going to tear out the parking lot and have plans for a parking garage to someday get built. Parking is about to get a hella lot worse on White Oak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Triton said:

What a mess. So they're going to tear out the parking lot and have plans for a parking garage to someday get built. Parking is about to get a hella lot worse on White Oak.

 

They have plans for a parking garage, just as they have plans for the whole development. There is nothing in that story to suggest they are going to build one without the other.  (In fact, they likely would not be able to get a COO without the parking facility.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2018 at 1:20 PM, Triton said:

What a mess. So they're going to tear out the parking lot and have plans for a parking garage to someday get built. Parking is about to get a hella lot worse on White Oak.

 

 

When they originally submitted the plans for permitting back in March, among the comments they got back was that the garage needs to be permitted before the retail can be permitted, since it's required for compliance w/ Ch 26 (parking minimums). Appears plans for 2805 White Oak were re-submitted last week.

 

You can check on status here: https://www.pdinet.pd.houstontx.gov/cohilms/webs/Plan_LookUp.asp

Project number 17144910

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

 

When they originally submitted the plans for permitting back in March, among the comments they got back was that the garage needs to be permitted before the retail can be permitted, since it's required for compliance w/ Ch 26 (parking minimums). Appears plans for 2805 White Oak were re-submitted last week.

 

You can check on status here: https://www.pdinet.pd.houstontx.gov/cohilms/webs/Plan_LookUp.asp

Project number 17144910

 

Thanks. So just to be clear, the parking garage must be finished before they remove this parking lot or must the parking garage be finished before the retail structure is finished? Or... neither?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Triton said:

 

Thanks. So just to be clear, the parking garage must be finished before they remove this parking lot or must the parking garage be finished before the retail structure is finished? Or... neither?

 

Not entirely certain. Normally, in a retail development you can build the parking and the retail concurrently. You just need the parking to get your occupancy permit. In this case, however, I believe that if they eliminate the parking at 2805 White Oak without the automated garage in place, the businesses across the street will fall out of compliance w/ parking requirements. So I think the order it has to happen is parking garage first, then the new retail in place of the old parking, unless they come up with an alternative arrangement for the businesses on the north side of the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

Not entirely certain. Normally, in a retail development you can build the parking and the retail concurrently. You just need the parking to get your occupancy permit. In this case, however, I believe that if they eliminate the parking at 2805 White Oak without the automated garage in place, the businesses across the street will fall out of compliance w/ parking requirements. So I think the order it has to happen is parking garage first, then the new retail in place of the old parking, unless they come up with an alternative arrangement for the businesses on the north side of the street.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whine whine whine. If there's not enough parking the businesses will fail. This is one thing the market can actually handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

argh to double posting. this is like the third time the system has made it look like a comment didn't post. Lies! All lies!

Edited by Texasota

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Texasota said:

whine whine whine. If there's not enough parking the businesses will fail. This is one thing the market can actually handle.

 

True, but the order of construction would still be the same either way. In the absence of parking minimums (and even with them) providing sufficient parking would be a lease obligation of the owner (tenants are often fanatical about parking), so they couldn't just build on the parking lot without providing an alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2018 at 6:33 PM, Angostura said:

 

Anyone notice that 244 spaces is way, way more than the city minimums would typically require? Even at 10 per 1000 s.f., they'd only need 100 (minus the 5 onsite, plus whatever they displace)

 

I think this is the first salvo in a major densification of this district. For example, the site next to Fitzgerald's could have three restaurants instead of one by leasing parking in the new garage.

 

Same entity has acquired Fitzgerald's. https://www.chron.com/business/article/Fitzgerald-s-property-in-the-Heights-has-new-13152404.php

 

Confirms suspicions they have plans to use the automated garage as a way to add a lot more commercial density to this area. Really interesting case study.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

Same entity has acquired Fitzgerald's. https://www.chron.com/business/article/Fitzgerald-s-property-in-the-Heights-has-new-13152404.php

 

Confirms suspicions they have plans to use the automated garage as a way to add a lot more commercial density to this area. Really interesting case study.

 

 

 

I think this Easy Park company is getting ahead of itself in Houston.  Its concept is based on maximizing space in dense urban areas by building vertical automated parking garages.  That is a great idea in areas like Philly, NY and DC where people expect to pay for parking when visiting dense parts of the city.  But in Houston, no one is expecting to pay for parking outside of downtown, the med center and some office buildings.  The garage at Highland Village is the only place I can think of that people will pay for parking at a retail development in Houston.  But that is a very high end shopping destination with a clientele that is not going to care about paying a few bucks to park.  Unless White Oak is going to be redeveloped into something completely different, I do not see very many people being interested in paid parking to go get $2 tacos or to get beers at an ice house.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, s3mh said:

 

I think this Easy Park company is getting ahead of itself in Houston.  Its concept is based on maximizing space in dense urban areas by building vertical automated parking garages.  That is a great idea in areas like Philly, NY and DC where people expect to pay for parking when visiting dense parts of the city.  But in Houston, no one is expecting to pay for parking outside of downtown, the med center and some office buildings.  The garage at Highland Village is the only place I can think of that people will pay for parking at a retail development in Houston.  But that is a very high end shopping destination with a clientele that is not going to care about paying a few bucks to park.  Unless White Oak is going to be redeveloped into something completely different, I do not see very many people being interested in paid parking to go get $2 tacos or to get beers at an ice house.  

 

I disagree. White Oak already has a shortage of parking, especially when the nearby residents feel entitled to b*tch at people parking on the residential streets. 

 

Also, Rice Village and City Centre both charge for parking. 

Edited by LBC2HTX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LBC2HTX said:

I disagree. White Oak already has a shortage of parking, especially when the nearby residents feel entitled to b*tch at people parking on the residential streets. 

 

Also, Rice Village and City Centre both charge for parking. 

 

City Centre has lots of free parking.  The pay lot is just for people who do not want to mix with the rabble looking for a space in the garages.  And Rice and City Centre are exponentially larger developments.  People will park and spend all afternoon shopping and dining or going to the movies, etc.  People are not going to pay $5-10 to park to go to places like Barnaby's, Pho Binh and Christian's.  Anyone looking to drink a lot will get an Uber.  Everyone else will either find a space on the street or drive a mile or two to another restaurant or bar where they can find free parking.  Unless the developers can seriously up the offerings on White Oak, the parking garage will be a money loser.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, s3mh said:

 

City Centre has lots of free parking.  The pay lot is just for people who do not want to mix with the rabble looking for a space in the garages.  And Rice and City Centre are exponentially larger developments.  People will park and spend all afternoon shopping and dining or going to the movies, etc.  People are not going to pay $5-10 to park to go to places like Barnaby's, Pho Binh and Christian's.  Anyone looking to drink a lot will get an Uber.  Everyone else will either find a space on the street or drive a mile or two to another restaurant or bar where they can find free parking.  Unless the developers can seriously up the offerings on White Oak, the parking garage will be a money loser.  

Yet many people still choose to pay for parking, as evidenced by the metered spots being filled and the lines to pay the garage meters. Being a larger development doesn't mean anything - the Galleria is a larger development than RV and CC combined and yet all the parking is free.

 

What matters is that its a destination and that parking is at a premium, which is exactly the case on White Oak.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, s3mh said:

 

I think this Easy Park company is getting ahead of itself in Houston.  Its concept is based on maximizing space in dense urban areas by building vertical automated parking garages.  That is a great idea in areas like Philly, NY and DC where people expect to pay for parking when visiting dense parts of the city.  But in Houston, no one is expecting to pay for parking outside of downtown, the med center and some office buildings.  The garage at Highland Village is the only place I can think of that people will pay for parking at a retail development in Houston.  But that is a very high end shopping destination with a clientele that is not going to care about paying a few bucks to park.  Unless White Oak is going to be redeveloped into something completely different, I do not see very many people being interested in paid parking to go get $2 tacos or to get beers at an ice house.  

 

 

 

They don't (necessarily) have to charge for parking for this to make economic sense. 

 

Consider the project announced late last year for the site between Fitz and Barnaby's. That was for a 2600 sf restaurant on a 12,500 sf lot. If you move the required 26 spaces for that project, plus another 78 into the new structure, you can now build 4 restaurants on that site instead of 1. Building ~100 spaces in this parking structure is like creating an ADDITIONAL 37,500 sf of develop-able land. At $70/sf, HCAD's current valuation, that means that if you can build parking at less than $28,000 per space, you come out ahead, even if you don't charge a nickel for it. Some lazy Googling indicates that robotic parking systems can come in around $20k-30k per space. I assume that includes margin for the provider of the parking system, but in this case, the developer is also the provider, so the actual cost may be even lower.

 

Why do this in Houston, instead of NY, DC, SF or other places with much higher land values? I can think of a couple possibilities:

 

1 - In Houston you can change land use and add density by right, without having to ask for zoning changes, so it may be possible to get a demonstration project like this in place faster than in other jurisdictions.

 

2 - The land value in those other cities is already high enough to justify traditional structured parking for any new development, whereas this part of Houston has a land value right in the sweet spot: not quite high enough to justify traditional structured parking, but high enough for robotic parking to make sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And every restaurant where valet parking is really the only option is effectively paid parking. Even when it's "complimentary". 

 

And I'm not sure the robot parking system is any less trustworthy than your average valet parking operator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Angostura said:

And every restaurant where valet parking is really the only option is effectively paid parking. Even when it's "complimentary". 

 

And I'm not sure the robot parking system is any less trustworthy than your average valet parking operator.

So true here, I'd rather pay to park in a structure than be forced into valet, personally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2018 at 7:21 AM, Visitor said:

So true here, I'd rather pay to park in a structure than be forced into valet, personally.

 

I’d agree, it’s certainly the lesser of evils. I’ve seen too many videos of valets wrecking or abusing vehicles (revving, driving aggressively, etc.) to trust any of them.

 

I am concerned about how this parking garage will fit into this area visually. Given the number of spaces they’ve stated it will provide and the dimensions of the lot on which it will be built, I imagine it will have to be a good bit taller than any neighboring buildings, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thedistrict84 said:

 

I am concerned about how this parking garage will fit into this area visually. Given the number of spaces they’ve stated it will provide and the dimensions of the lot on which it will be built, I imagine it will have to be a good bit taller than any neighboring buildings, right?

 

I'd imagine so.  But if houston wants density and infill, vertical will have to happen. And I suppose someone has to be first...

 

Knowing I sound like a broken record,  but I wish we had more organized commerical districts with leadership focused on walkability and zero setbacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Visitor said:

But if houston wants density and infill, vertical will have to happen. And I suppose someone has to be first...

 

I agree with this general sentiment, but not every neighborhood/area inside the loop needs to or should go vertical.

 

Something like this in Midtown, Downtown, Med Center, along Allen Parkway? Yes, definitely. But going “vertical” isn’t a fit for this part of The Heights.

 

What really needs to happen, as others have mentioned, is for the city to do away with parking requirements. Current requirements will be more and more obsolete as ride sharing services and automated vehicles become more prevalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, thedistrict84 said:

 

I agree with this general sentiment, but not every neighborhood/area inside the loop needs to or should go vertical.

 

Something like this in Midtown, Downtown, Med Center, along Allen Parkway? Yes, definitely. But going “vertical” isn’t a fit for this part of The Heights.

 

What really needs to happen, as others have mentioned, is for the city to do away with parking requirements. Current requirements will be more and more obsolete as ride sharing services and automated vehicles become more prevalent.

 

It's tricky. Even in the absence of city-mandated parking minimums, tenants are going to demand a certain amount of parking, since they're aware that most of their customers are likely to arrive by private automobile. You can only really reduce the amount of parking consumed when arriving some other way becomes cheaper, faster and/or easier than temporarily storing your car at your destination. 

 

There's a certain level of activity density at which it becomes no less convenient to walk than to drive for daily necessities. It won't necessarily get commuters out of cars, but you're more likely to walk to a restaurant or grocery store than to drive. It's pretty much impossible to get to that level of density when there's high levels of surface parking. So parking structures are a gateway to getting to the kind of density needed to be a truly walkable neighborhood.

 

The problem is that, since all that parking limits density, most neighborhoods never achieve land values high enough for structured parking to make sense economically, so they get stuck in a suburban development pattern where car dependence never really goes away. Which is why a parking system that can make structured parking economical at land values of $60/sf rather than $100/sf (not to mention on smaller footprints) has a real chance to transform how neighborhoods develop.

 

(BTW, this can be done without going THAT vertical. There are a lot of very dense, walkable neighborhoods in cities around the world with typical heights of 4, 5 or 6 stories.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

It's tricky. Even in the absence of city-mandated parking minimums, tenants are going to demand a certain amount of parking, since they're aware that most of their customers are likely to arrive by private automobile. You can only really reduce the amount of parking consumed when arriving some other way becomes cheaper, faster and/or easier than temporarily storing your car at your destination. 

 

There's a certain level of activity density at which it becomes no less convenient to walk than to drive for daily necessities. It won't necessarily get commuters out of cars, but you're more likely to walk to a restaurant or grocery store than to drive. It's pretty much impossible to get to that level of density when there's high levels of surface parking. So parking structures are a gateway to getting to the kind of density needed to be a truly walkable neighborhood.

 

The problem is that, since all that parking limits density, most neighborhoods never achieve land values high enough for structured parking to make sense economically, so they get stuck in a suburban development pattern where car dependence never really goes away. Which is why a parking system that can make structured parking economical at land values of $60/sf rather than $100/sf (not to mention on smaller footprints) has a real chance to transform how neighborhoods develop.

 

(BTW, this can be done without going THAT vertical. There are a lot of very dense, walkable neighborhoods in cities around the world with typical heights of 4, 5 or 6 stories.)

 

Agree with you. The lack of commerical districts in Houston and zoning in general is how this random development happens. Personally I'd like to see Washington become a commercial district with overall planning and cohesive development. I could see more vertical dev working there and fitting in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2018 at 0:11 AM, Visitor said:

Agree with you. The lack of commerical districts in Houston and zoning in general is how this random development happens. Personally I'd like to see Washington become a commercial district with overall planning and cohesive development. I could see more vertical dev working there and fitting in. 

 

Honestly, I'd be more likely to trust random development than zoning. Zoning done well could theoretically lead to very good results. The problem is that zoning is almost never done well. It ends up being captured by special interests like large-scale developers, big box retailers and single-family homeowners (and yes, single-family homeowners are a special interest). More often than not, zoning leads to use segregation; use segregation leads to car-dependency; and car dependency leads to parking minimums and low density and a really unpleasant pedestrian environment.

 

With a few tweaks (setback rules, RoW widths) Houston's sometimes chaotic development rules may be the best way to migrate from car-dependence to non-car-dependence, since you can add density by right, without needing zoning approval. The problem is, there will be pain along the way. When you start with relatively low-density suburban style development, it's pretty comfortable (as long as you're in a car): there's not much traffic, it's pretty easy to park, and there's a lot of space. When you add density to this development pattern, things start getting less comfortable. It's still pretty shitty to be a pedestrian (lots of cars around, hard to cross streets, things are still pretty far away from each other), and it gets harder to be a driver (more traffic, harder to park, etc.). But if you keep adding density (and we're going to keep adding density, because that's what growing cities do), eventually you get to a point where vehicle miles decrease because things are closer together, demand for parking decreases because there are other ways to get where you're going, and quality of life increases. Traveling between neighborhoods is often still difficult, but within neighborhoods, it's pretty easy to get around.

 

Very few places that start out as car-dependent have managed to get over this hump. Usually because zoning locks them into a certain density level, or people resist additional housing construction and convince their elected representatives to block it, or cities impose parking minimums that make it difficult to develop to a walkable density. So if automated garages can resolve the issue of complying with parking minimums while STILL providing levels of built square footage per acre compatible with walkable density, it's a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put.

I'd add that neighborhoods like this one, that at least didn't start out car-dependent, are the best positioned for this transition.

 

I'd also like to see the City move toward more of a form-based code. It's something they've played with a bit- minimum setbacks, historic districts, transit corridors, but i'd love to see the transit corridor regs become requirements rather optional and expand to cover major bus, bike, and pedestrian areas with some kind of ratcheting mechanism that allows them to expand but not contract.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Texasota said:

Well put.

I'd add that neighborhoods like this one, that at least didn't start out car-dependent, are the best positioned for this transition.

 

 

...as long as we don't screw it up. That infill on the 300 block of West 19th requires a ton of variances (incl off street parking) to be built to match its neighbors on either side.

 

 

5 hours ago, Texasota said:

I'd also like to see the City move toward more of a form-based code. It's something they've played with a bit- minimum setbacks, historic districts, transit corridors, but i'd love to see the transit corridor regs become requirements rather optional and expand to cover major bus, bike, and pedestrian areas with some kind of ratcheting mechanism that allows them to expand but not contract.

 

The planning commission's walkable places pilot is doing this, sort of. The current optional performance standards (setbacks reduced to 5-ft, parking in rear, wider sidewalks, minimum levels of transparency in the facade, limited curb cuts, entrance facing the street) will become mandatory in those areas, though parking minimums will still exist outside the CBD. Currently this is limited to a couple of pilot areas (near Northside, Midtown and Emancipation Ave in EaDo), but could expand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2018 at 3:23 PM, Angostura said:

CoH plan review comments are a rich vein of insight into the experience of interacting with city bureaucracy.

 

Traffic comments: "Furnish parking analysis and planning approval prior to traffic approval."

 

Planning comments: "There must be traffic approval before our department can approve your site plan."

 

 

 

 

5 months later, same chicken-or-egg comments on the new revision of the plans.

 

This is going to get stuck in a recursive loop and never get approved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Permit for the retail building was approved back in December.

 

I haven't seen approvals for the automated garage, yet (unless they were re-filed under different numbers).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went by the site the other day and looks like some preliminary work has started. The lot is closed off and mostly demoed at this point. 

20190324_172541.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

Updated Loopnet listing of 2805 White Oak Dr. This is the development South Heights on White Oak Dr. under construction in the Heights in Houston.

Discussion of the automated parking garage next to the Fitzgerald's building is here.



https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/2904-2920-White-Oak-Dr-Houston-TX/15766084/
(archive link)

DdUnG7g.jpg

 

Had to think for a minute until I realized there was an error on the map where they call E 6 1/2 E 11th. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chick'ncone is a small chain serving chicken-nuggets-in-a-waffle-cone, with locations in NYC, Dubai, Colorado and the Woodlands.

 

Light googling didn't turn up anything on Karne, but one assumes it's a steakhouse of some sort.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, 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.

 

100-ft of frontage instead of ~60-ft. The original spot would become new retail.

 

 

A couple other observations from the images:

 

- Moku (Poke place, currently operating in Conservatory food hall downtown) was already announced, but it looks like it'll be sited to the rear of Lucky food store, and take access from the side parking lot. The front half of Lucky's space is currently labeled as "occupied but available".

 

- It shows a stop light at Granberry. At the very least, a pedestrian crossing wouldn't be a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

Yes. That's why I SPECIFICALLY ADDED to this post that the discussion of the automated garage's new location has been updated and included a direct link to that discussion in two of the posts above earlier this week (and quoted below from the post above several days ago)

 

Why don’t you go ahead and move the other 20+ comments talking about the automated parking garage from the first page over to the other thread too, if it bothers you so much.

 

It has been an ongoing topic in this thread for months. I’ve specifically commented on it a few times, as have many others. I was more focused on the new site plan you posted instead of your one-line link, sorry I missed it...

Edited by thedistrict84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://houston.eater.com/2019/10/17/20919161/karne-korean-barbecue-opening-houston-heights

 

Restaurant tenant announced for this development.  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.

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...