SkyLab At 4112 Washington Ave.

[skooljunkie]

Infill retail/office: NW corner of Washington at Bonner. Another small vacant, asphalt lot bites the dust. 

 

[Visitor]

Love to see vacant lots go away. Hope it spells the death of the two bars across from it. 

 

Wonder if we can influence them to do street frontage with parking in the back?

 

loopnet listing:

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/4112-Washington-Ave-Houston-TX/14259512/

Edited January 18, 2019 by Visitor
Url

[skooljunkie]

53 minutes ago, Visitor said:

Love to see vacant lots go away. Hope it spells the death of the two bars across from it. 

 

Wonder if we can influence them to do street frontage with parking in the back?

 

loopnet listing:

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/4112-Washington-Ave-Houston-TX/14259512/

 

haha--who was the influencer with the one at Jackson Hill...

[Visitor]

6 hours ago, skooljunkie said:

 

haha--who was the influencer with the one at Jackson Hill...

 

I'd like to know...I certainly made my opinion know to that developer.

[Ross]

12 hours ago, Visitor said:

Love to see vacant lots go away. Hope it spells the death of the two bars across from it. 

 

Wonder if we can influence them to do street frontage with parking in the back?

 

loopnet listing:

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/4112-Washington-Ave-Houston-TX/14259512/

What is this obsession with putting buildings right up on the street? It sucks, big time, when that happens. Parking belongs in front, where it can be seen before you enter the lot, not hidden away in the back, where weirdly angled spots make it hard to park, or a fence is an issue. 

[Avossos]

2 hours ago, Ross said:

What is this obsession with putting buildings right up on the street? It sucks, big time, when that happens. Parking belongs in front, where it can be seen before you enter the lot, not hidden away in the back, where weirdly angled spots make it hard to park, or a fence is an issue. 

 

I guess that you will have to accept that not everyone agrees with you.

 

I personally will gladly park in back for a walkable and quaint streetscape. 

[gmac]

1 hour ago, Avossos said:

 

I guess that you will have to accept that not everyone agrees with you.

 

I personally will gladly park in back for a walkable and quaint streetscape. 

 

And not everyone agrees with you, either. Parking in the back = no parking, to me.

 

You should have lived in the middle ages 😁

[Visitor]

3 hours ago, Ross said:

What is this obsession with putting buildings right up on the street? It sucks, big time, when that happens. Parking belongs in front, where it can be seen before you enter the lot, not hidden away in the back, where weirdly angled spots make it hard to park, or a fence is an issue. 

I understand the benefit of seeing the parking lot, but I dont really follow the thought that parking in the back is more difficult. In most cases the parking area allocation is exactly the same, front or back.

 

Personally I believe building to the street encourages foot traffic which also promotes a more cohesive pedestrian experience. Long term, if density is desired, well placed parking structures could support multiple businesses. 

 

Out of personal curiosity, are you from Houston or been here the bulk of your life @Ross?

 

[Ross]

13 hours ago, Visitor said:

I understand the benefit of seeing the parking lot, but I dont really follow the thought that parking in the back is more difficult. In most cases the parking area allocation is exactly the same, front or back.

 

Personally I believe building to the street encourages foot traffic which also promotes a more cohesive pedestrian experience. Long term, if density is desired, well placed parking structures could support multiple businesses. 

 

Out of personal curiosity, are you from Houston or been here the bulk of your life @Ross?

 

I've been here since 1976, with a few moves overseas for work, and 18 months in California. Houston is home to me.

 

Many of the rear parking lots have awkward spaces. I drive an SUV, and there's often little room to maneuver due to aisles being too narrow, bad angles, etc. Given where we live, it is unlikely we will be walking to many places, since I am not going to walk 2 miles to go to dinner. that means driving. If businesses want to make it hard for me to patronize them, that's fine, there are a myriad of other places to go.

[Visitor]

11 hours ago, Ross said:

I've been here since 1976, with a few moves overseas for work, and 18 months in California. Houston is home to me.

 

Many of the rear parking lots have awkward spaces. I drive an SUV, and there's often little room to maneuver due to aisles being too narrow, bad angles, etc. Given where we live, it is unlikely we will be walking to many places, since I am not going to walk 2 miles to go to dinner. that means driving. If businesses want to make it hard for me to patronize them, that's fine, there are a myriad of other places to go.

I can understand all of those points. I suppose my counter would be that restaurants in this area don't make it very easy to patronize with their mandatory valet (who then park right in front of the building).

 

All this is moot since the developers have the final say, but in my experience, street frontage building creates more pedestrian friendly corridors and positive economic impact. 

 

It also looks much nicer, but we all know houston has low (basically no) priorities when it comes to aesthetics

[Angostura]

On 1/19/2019 at 9:04 AM, Ross said:

What is this obsession with putting buildings right up on the street? It sucks, big time, when that happens. Parking belongs in front, where it can be seen before you enter the lot, not hidden away in the back, where weirdly angled spots make it hard to park, or a fence is an issue. 

 

When the end goal is that everyone who patronizes a business arrives by car, then putting parking (and lots of it) in the front, where everyone can see it makes a lot of sense. However, in a city, if every business has every patron arrive by private car, this effectively puts a density cap on the city, especially if a lot of those vehicles are pickups and SUVs, which seem to be very popular in Texas. Beyond a certain activity density (population plus jobs per square mile), car-centric development has major quality-of-life impacts.

 

One solution to this would just be to limit density: zone the city such that we never add so much density that traffic becomes unpleasant or parking becomes difficult. If the city grows, it grows by becoming bigger instead of becoming denser. However, this runs up against a major economic problem facing most cities. The cost of providing the infrastructure required to grow bigger (roads, highways, water and sewer lines, power and phone lines, storm drainage) scale with area. But if you limit density, the property tax (where a lot of the tax revenue for the cities and counties that build that infrastructure comes from) never rises to a level of revenue per square mile to adequately pay the full life-cycle cost of all that infrastructure.

 

In order for cities to attain a level of financial solvency in the long term, therefore, we need to achieve activity densities beyond what it feasible for a 100% car-centric development pattern.  In Houston specifically, that density is coming whether we like it or not, since developers can add residential and commercial density by right. That means we want some proportion of the patrons for infill development to arrive by other means (walking, biking, public transport, ride-share, etc.). The more people do this, the better things are for the people who opt to continue arriving by car. However, if we make the built environment aggressively unpleasant for anyone but motorists, we discourage the exact behavior we need to have happen for this development not to be detrimental.

 

If you want to keep driving your SUV to places, that's fine. (I think you should pay more for parking, but that's another topic.) However, if you want to spend less time in traffic, and less time hunting for a parking space, maybe you should support a development pattern that encourages other patrons from arriving by other means. Every customer that arrives in this development via the street-facing front door is a customer that isn't competing with you for a parking space behind the building.

 

In short: the inconvenient parking space is more useful to you than the occupied one.

 

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Angostura

[skooljunkie]

I personally like it when parking is mixed--some garage, some out front, some in back. This way employees and delivery trucks can park in the hidden spaces and patrons can use the more convenient, visible spots.  With that said, placing structures closer to the street has been proven to slow drivers overall. Drivers tend to speed at higher rates in places that are seemingly wide and open. Regardless, this is good infill on a small lot.

 

These small, former car lots in this area are quickly going away. One side effect, which the neighborhoods will quickly realize, is that this lot currently holds ~50 bar patron cars that will now be parking on the residential streets.  The residential parking permits won't work well  on many streets due to the City's current method of defining these permit areas which tend to only benefit deed restricted neighborhoods without scattered condo and commercial structures. I can't wait to pop the popcorn and watch FB/ND blow up.

[Visitor]

Fingers crossed!

[Visitor]

I think these need to be merged...

 

 

[Subdude]

16 hours ago, Visitor said:

I think these need to be merged...

 

 

Done.

 

 

[wilcal]

City permit filed for a 2,088 sq ft "shipping container retail store" for this site. 

[j_cuevas713]

On 1/19/2019 at 10:50 PM, Ross said:

I've been here since 1976, with a few moves overseas for work, and 18 months in California. Houston is home to me.

 

Many of the rear parking lots have awkward spaces. I drive an SUV, and there's often little room to maneuver due to aisles being too narrow, bad angles, etc. Given where we live, it is unlikely we will be walking to many places, since I am not going to walk 2 miles to go to dinner. that means driving. If businesses want to make it hard for me to patronize them, that's fine, there are a myriad of other places to go.

What's interesting to me Ross is your conclusion with how you commute. You said walking 2 miles is too far to walk, which I get. What I don't understand is why your default is to drive everywhere outside of 2 miles. Bus service on Washington Ave is pretty reliable from my personal experience. In order for this city to grow safer, parking can't be in the front anymore. Otherwise you end up with chaos much how Westheimer is right outside the Loop heading towards the Beltway. Yeah there are "decent" sidewalks but pedestrians pay the price in that area. People walk a lot in that section of town, many are immigrants. And they constantly face the dangers of parking lots in the front of buildings and impatient drivers nearly hitting people constantly. Plus a corridor like Washington Ave that connects to downtown should not be built like something in the burbs. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by j_cuevas713

[Ross]

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

What's interesting to me Ross is your conclusion with how you commute. You said walking 2 miles is too far to walk, which I get. What I don't understand is why your default is to drive everywhere outside of 2 miles. Bus service on Washington Ave is pretty reliable from my personal experience. In order for this city to grow safer, parking can't be in the front anymore. Otherwise you end up with chaos much how Westheimer is right outside the Loop heading towards the Beltway. Yeah there are "decent" sidewalks but pedestrians pay the price in that area. People walk a lot in that section of town, many are immigrants. And they constantly face the dangers of parking lots in the front of buildings and impatient drivers nearly hitting people constantly. Plus a corridor like Washington Ave that connects to downtown should not be built like something in the burbs. 

Closest bus stop to me is 1/2 mile. From that bus stop I can get to Washington and be a 1/2 mile from 4112. Total distance is 2.3 miles, so I would be walking about half the distance. Why would I do that when I can drive there in less time, arrive warm and dry, or cool and dry, depending on the season, and still have my car with me to go somewhere else, should I so desire. Houston is just not much of a pedestrian city, and that's unlikely to change in my lifetime. 

[j_cuevas713]

12 minutes ago, Ross said:

Closest bus stop to me is 1/2 mile. From that bus stop I can get to Washington and be a 1/2 mile from 4112. Total distance is 2.3 miles, so I would be walking about half the distance. Why would I do that when I can drive there in less time, arrive warm and dry, or cool and dry, depending on the season, and still have my car with me to go somewhere else, should I so desire. Houston is just not much of a pedestrian city, and that's unlikely to change in my lifetime. 

Not everything is meant to be that extremely convenient in a city when comparing the ability to park in front of every establishment built but it is meant to be accessible. The average NYer walks 6+ miles a day. Not a week, a day. Part of the reason you aren't as close to a bus stop as you could be though is because Metro has to extend it resources across 600+ square miles on a very tight budget. If we keep building parking lots for every business then those city resources get exhausted even further. For every additional parking lot there are utilities and roads that have to be built to service that one lot. And then City/Metro's budget just get's choked to the point where we have to say that our closest bus stop is a half mile away. I remember requesting more frequent service along Irvington Blvd a few months back, and Metro came back and said that because they have to devote so much of their resources to other routes that cover distances past the Beltway, that it wasn't feasible at the moment. That's why we can't continue to bend over backwards for cars, it isn't working anymore. The city is really pushing for people to get out of their vehicles. Sure your trip would be a little less "convenient" but it is possible. I mean I do it every day. Obviously there are exception's to that rule for those with disabilities and older people. 

[Ross]

2 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Not everything is meant to be that extremely convenient in a city when comparing the ability to park in front of every establishment built but it is meant to be accessible. The average NYer walks 6+ miles a day. Not a week, a day. Part of the reason you aren't as close to a bus stop as you could be though is because Metro has to extend it resources across 600+ square miles on a very tight budget. If we keep building parking lots for every business then those city resources get exhausted even further. For every additional parking lot there are utilities and roads that have to be built to service that one lot. And then City/Metro's budget just get's choked to the point where we have to say that our closest bus stop is a half mile away. I remember requesting more frequent service along Irvington Blvd a few months back, and Metro came back and said that because they have to devote so much of their resources to other routes that cover distances past the Beltway, that it wasn't feasible at the moment. That's why we can't continue to bend over backwards for cars, it isn't working anymore. The city is really pushing for people to get out of their vehicles. Sure your trip would be a little less "convenient" but it is possible. I mean I do it every day. Obviously there are exception's to that rule for those with disabilities and older people. 

Cars or not, Metro still has to serve the areas past the Beltway that are part of the Metro service area, and are populated by people who actually need to take a bus because they can't afford a car. I took a bus for a month after Allison flooded my car. Taking the bus turned a 10 to 15 minute drive into a 45 to 60 minute trip. That's typical of public transport in a car centric city like Houston. When I lived in London, buses tool far longer than the underground, so I seldom took the bus. Of course, London's Underground started construction around 1860, and the subsoil there lends itself to tunneling, so there's an extensive network. I'm over 60, and convenient is important. Running the errands I need to run on weekends would be nearly impossible by bus. A trip from the Greater Heights area to Micro Center to Academy on the SW Freeway and then back home would be very difficult.

My house to MicroCenter on a Saturday is an hour, two buses, and a mile walk. Then to get to Academy is only one bus, but another mile of walking and 40 minutes. Then to get back home is another 45 minutes and a mile walk. Of course, if I buy anything, It's far more difficult. That makes me ask, why would I spend 3 hours walking and on the bus for trips I can do with 30 minutes of driving and no walking?

Parking lots are not a drag on the City, given they are built by property owners that are responsible for the costs, and are generally located next to existing roads and utilities.

[j_cuevas713]

17 minutes ago, Ross said:

Cars or not, Metro still has to serve the areas past the Beltway that are part of the Metro service area, and are populated by people who actually need to take a bus because they can't afford a car. I took a bus for a month after Allison flooded my car. Taking the bus turned a 10 to 15 minute drive into a 45 to 60 minute trip. That's typical of public transport in a car centric city like Houston. When I lived in London, buses tool far longer than the underground, so I seldom took the bus. Of course, London's Underground started construction around 1860, and the subsoil there lends itself to tunneling, so there's an extensive network. I'm over 60, and convenient is important. Running the errands I need to run on weekends would be nearly impossible by bus. A trip from the Greater Heights area to Micro Center to Academy on the SW Freeway and then back home would be very difficult.

My house to MicroCenter on a Saturday is an hour, two buses, and a mile walk. Then to get to Academy is only one bus, but another mile of walking and 40 minutes. Then to get back home is another 45 minutes and a mile walk. Of course, if I buy anything, It's far more difficult. That makes me ask, why would I spend 3 hours walking and on the bus for trips I can do with 30 minutes of driving and no walking?

Parking lots are not a drag on the City, given they are built by property owners that are responsible for the costs, and are generally located next to existing roads and utilities.

That's a fair argument. I do know that public transport takes time no matter what city you live in, but yes it is convenient to just able to hop in your own car and drive.