Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wxman

The Astoria Condos at 1405 Post Oak Boulevard

Recommended Posts

So, now that this thread has become a travesty of a worthwhile HAIF discussion, let's move on with the posts

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would interesting to know who owns the McDonald's franchise and the land.  If the same entity owns both, I'm sure they/it will make lots of money from operating it over the next few years and then selling the land.

 

If McDonalds owns it then the probability of being sold is low. They are a real estate business and that location is worth owning. Ray Kroc used to say he was not in the restaurant business but was in the real estate business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hate that the night work is bothering you :( but i love that i can get my mcgriddle sooner than later ;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Astoria will really be built. It would be cool to see cranes for Astoria, Belfore, the 30-story tower where 24 hour fitness is, in addition to Boulevard Place.

Edited by treblelino
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a conversation about this with my parents. They were thinking of getting a unit here and went by the sales office today and found just the right floorplan... then saw the view it would have.

The wanted to get one that would be the corner pointing directly towards the 24-Hour Fitness. The fact that they'd have offices looking in at them from half of the living room was enough for them to back out of the deal. Paying that much for a unit that has more than half of its view blocked was not something they were willing to do.

 

One thing they learned from the sales office though that was a little interesting: no assigned parking spaces and no self parking. All of the parking at the building will be valet only. Not something I've ever heard of a place doing before. Also, apparently the penthouse unit will be 5,000 sq.ft. interior space and 5,000 sq.ft. of patio.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess (and it's just a guess, albeit with data of some kind behind it) is that the 24-Hour Fitness site will not be blocking anyone's view from The Astoria as soon as you might think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the future Astoria residents can take solace in the fact there is a wooden privacy fence between the properties now. I feel sales will skyrocket immediately. Probably get to 100% within the next week if I had to guess! :P

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Nothing better than looking at super bright, freshly poured concrete on a sunny summer day (with no sunglasses.) It is quite the challenge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the tower keeping the same curb cuts as shown in post #220?

Good question. I just checked the renderings, and they seem to have forgotten to have drawn in an entrance for the garage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This McDonald's is just ridiculous. They couldn't have just put one on the ground floor of some other type of building? They HAVE to put in a drive thru here and take up all that space for itself?

 

Like all those drive thru banks nearby (and places like midtown, also), this needs to be demolished (again). This is nothing short of "embarrassing" at this point. There is so much more that we can do with this land at this location.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We? Do we own that land? You seem to think that someone other than McDonalds (or a franchisee) owned that property and did something bad. What you do not seem to realize is that McDonalds owned the ENTIRE parcel, and sold half of it to the developer of the highrise. They could have not sold any of the parcel at all.

 

I am "embarrassed" at your lack of knowledge of how these things work.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much more that we can do with this land at this location.

Is there ? Like what ? There are huge vacant lots not to far from this site that just sit vacant and have been for quite some time. There is even the older apartment building behind this building that could be redeveloped. So apparently the demand in that area isn't that high and this is the best and highest use the owner has for the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We" don't live in a communist country. We respect and protect individual property rights which is why we live in the most prosperous country in human history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dichotomy here *is* pretty ridiculous, but if there's no market impetus to make "better" use of the site, then McDonald's will do whatever is in their best interest. "We" only have a say in the matter insofar as we're willing to change city ordinances, and "we" have pretty routinely voted against zoning of any kind, for better and for worse. 

 

*Although, wouldn't this be subject to transit corridor regulations? I realize that, as written, those are really more suggestions than hard requirements, but... 

Edited by Texasota
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how a tower this size can fit on that small of a lot.  The McDonald's will have a bigger footprint than this tower, if it ever gets built. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there ? Like what ? There are huge vacant lots not to far from this site that just sit vacant and have been for quite some time. There is even the older apartment building behind this building that could be redeveloped. So apparently the demand in that area isn't that high and this is the best and highest use the owner has for the site.

The old apartments lot is currently on the market.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We? Do we own that land? You seem to think that someone other than McDonalds (or a franchisee) owned that property and did something bad. What you do not seem to realize is that McDonalds owned the ENTIRE parcel, and sold half of it to the developer of the highrise. They could have not sold any of the parcel at all.

 

I am "embarrassed" at your lack of knowledge of how these things work.

 

 

Really RedScare? Okay..."they." MY BAD!!!

 

I would be "embarrassed" for your lack of understanding that "sometimes" people misuse a pronoun or two. It seems pretty obvious to me what I was trying to say. "Thanks" for ignoring that, though, and then...without even bothering to clarify (even though I used "they" twice beforehand) that I don't "think that I actually own part of that land" (or whatever you're trying to make it sound like)...commenting on that and only that part of my comment.

 

Did you "not see" the other two "they's" I wrote before the "we?" Gosh...that must be so "embarrassing."

Edited by por favor gracias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the embarrassment is the notion that somehow McDonald's should be forced to sell or give away their land so that your idea of a good use can be implemented. Are you unaware that McDonalds has owned that parcel for decades? Or, do you simply not care, and instead, advocate eminent domain for any property that you think should be repurposed? Do landowner have no rights in your world?

 

They sold off half of it. How much should they be forced to sell?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there ? Like what ? There are huge vacant lots not to far from this site that just sit vacant and have been for quite some time. There is even the older apartment building behind this building that could be redeveloped. So apparently the demand in that area isn't that high and this is the best and highest use the owner has for the site.

 

Just because there are empty lots nearby doesn't mean there is or isn't demand for SOMETHING. There are a number of things we...I'm sorry...THEY can do with that land that would make it more productive than this lone McDonald's. They could put a gym or something like the old 24 hour fitness that closed across the street there with it, or perhaps some shops like a book store, or a souvenir shop, or a nice barber shop or a cigar/smoke shop (especially if it meant they could get rid of that hideous Zone D' Erotica @ 610 and Westheimer), or it could be mixed-use...there are a number of ways to get more use out of this location. Shit, you could feasibly put a museum here.

"We" don't live in a communist country. We respect and protect individual property rights which is why we live in the most prosperous country in human history

 

Not that anyone asked...but "thanks for clearing that up."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the embarrassment is the notion that somehow McDonald's should be forced to sell or give away their land so that your idea of a good use can be implemented. Are you unaware that McDonalds has owned that parcel for decades? Or, do you simply not care, and instead, advocate eminent domain for any property that you think should be repurposed? Do landowner have no rights in your world?

 

They sold off half of it. How much should they be forced to sell?

 

I'm not saying or suggesting any of that. I just wish this land was used differently. Good Lord, man...lay off would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you entitled to completely go off on this piece of land, yet I am not at all entitled to respond? Has this forum been banned for realists? Are only fantasies allowed?

 

Jesus, bunch of crybabies on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you entitled to completely go off on this piece of land, yet I am not at all entitled to respond? Has this forum been banned for realists? Are only fantasies allowed?

 

Jesus, bunch of crybabies on this board.

 

 

I never said or suggested that you are or aren't "entitled to respond." You put a bunch of words in my mouth, and I asked you to lay off.

 

What's the big deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because there are empty lots nearby doesn't mean there is or isn't demand for SOMETHING. There are a number of things we...I'm sorry...THEY can do with that land that would make it more productive than this lone McDonald's. They could put a gym or something like the old 24 hour fitness that closed across the street there with it, or perhaps some shops like a book store, or a souvenir shop, or a nice barber shop or a cigar/smoke shop (especially if it meant they could get rid of that hideous Zone D' Erotica @ 610 and Westheimer), or it could be mixed-use...there are a number of ways to get more use out of this location. Shit, you could feasibly put a museum here."

There is a demand there ... A demand for a McDonald's that's why it is being built there. Why do you think the things that you stated have more of a demand then McDonald's? I mean the gym went out of business, if there was that much of a demand for a gym it would still be open but it closed because there was demand for a office building to be built on the site. A book store, I don't think new book stores are in great demand anymore. A souvenir shop, this is houston. A museum, it's uptown not the museum district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a demand there ... A demand for a McDonald's that's why it is being built there. Why do you think the things that you stated have more of a demand then McDonald's? I mean the gym went out of business, if there was that much of a demand for a gym it would still be open but it closed because there was demand for a office building to be built on the site. A book store, I don't think new book stores are in great demand anymore. A souvenir shop, this is houston. A museum, it's uptown not the museum district.

 

Did the gym go out of business because they're planning on building 5 Oaks Place there? It seemed like it had its share of business, but maybe not enough.

 

More and more residents are coming into the area, and that will automatically boost demand for "everything" so to speak. It doesn't have to be limited to the kinds of places I mentioned. I was just bringing up places off the top of my head. I actually think Uptown could use a nice museum or two (or more), but there are better locations within Uptown for a museum. It's just hard for me to believe that a lone McDonald's is what would serve this site the best. I'm not suggesting that you're saying this, but just because something was already at a particular location to begin with...that doesn't necessarily mean it's "what's best" for that location. If it did, could we please bring back Eatzi's?

 

Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it has been on the market for quite some time.

 

The area is booming, though...and it has SO much more potential than drive thru fast food restaurants and banks IMO.

 

Do you think this McDonald's is "what's best" for this location?

Edited by por favor gracias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red, you are probably one the, if not the most insightful, and thoughtful, people in this forum and your consideration to the topics are always real and enlightening. Please don't diminish your point of view and distract the topics personal insults and smack-downs.

McDonalds owns the land...they are going to do whatever they can to maximize their profits. The fact that they compressed their footprint so a developer can build a highrise is a win win. Red is right...a city's development, at least in this city, in this country, isn't up to a planning board off some sort. What we are witnessing, at this property, the market working perfectly. We will, and hope to, see a lot more of this type of densification. And... Mc Donald's will always be part of the mix. It's who we are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This MCcDs has ground floor retail!!!!

They have a retail movie rental biz in a red square!!!!

Actually this one is ROTO

Retail on the outside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red, you are probably one the, if not the most insightful, and thoughtful, people in this forum and your consideration to the topics are always real and enlightening. Please don't diminish your point of view and distract the topics personal insults and smack-downs.

McDonalds owns the land...they are going to do whatever they can to maximize their profits. The fact that they compressed their footprint so a developer can build a highrise is a win win. Red is right...a city's development, at least in this city, in this country, isn't up to a planning board off some sort. What we are witnessing, at this property, the market working perfectly. We will, and hope to, see a lot more of this type of densification. And... Mc Donald's will always be part of the mix. It's who we are.

 

I'm not (and I don't think anyone really is) arguing that this "up to some sort of planning board." I understand how the market works and that McDonald's wants to do "what's best for McDonald's."

 

I also understand that there are ways of getting around unappealing situations. This, IMO, is an "unappealing situation"...and I really think most people would agree with that, especially if they were presented with "more appealing" alternatives (that can still include having a McDonalds on site). A multi-level entertainment complex, an athletic club, more office/residential...a number of things can be added to this location to increase its value and appeal. I have a hard time believing the city couldn't work something out with McDonald's to convince them to either share the land or sell it under certain conditions...preferably under the condition that McDonald's still has a restaurant there. This entire area is densifying rapidly, and it seems to me that it's in most people's best interest that the days of drive thru banks and restaurants here are a thing of the past. I guarantee this McDonald's has turned off potential residents from the Astoria.

 

I'd also be willing to bet that McDonald's can do just as well here with a much smaller physical footprint and less of a tax burden (or even tax incentives), more people out and about in the same building and possibly some sort of deal with the city to make room for another "choice location" under a similar scenario...perhaps closer to the Galleria.

 

I'm not saying or suggesting whether any of this is "realistic" or not. This is just my opinion. I like to envision what I consider "appealing" scenarios for the Post Oak and Greater Uptown area (amongst others). If people agree with it, great...hopefully some will spread the word. If not, that's fine too. I just wish that land was developed in the best interests of the people as opposed to the landowners. It's not like that McDonald's was THAT busy when it was up and running anyways. It really wasn't. Eatzi's, OTOH...CLEARLY what the people want, but "the market" isn't giving them anymore. I never even ate there, but I have a problem with that.

 

I think that most people would consider this "better than it was before" as opposed to a "win-win" in terms of overall use for that land...but there is always that one-in-a-million chance that I'm wrong. ;)

 

The funny thing is that I still want McDonald's in the mix at this location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The area is booming, though...and it has SO much more potential than drive thru fast food restaurants and banks IMO.

Do you think this McDonald's is "what's best" for this location?

I would love to see the McDonald's site, the drive thru banks, and all the single story shopping centers up and down Post oak be redeveloped into multi-story mixed use complexes and highrises. But reality is its not up to me. It's all up to the market and the owners of these properties. For the owner of the McDonald's site the McDonald's is the highest and best use for them. If it wasn't they would have sold the entire site and wouldn't have bothered with constructing a new one.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...