Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No. I'm not sure what the minimum reqs for residential parking are, but I'm pretty sure they average out to more than one parking spot per apartment.

 

In a building like this, especially at this location, less than one parking spot per apartment starts to make a lot of sense. They could also price the parking separately to incentivize *not* taking a space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Texasota said:

No. I'm not sure what the minimum reqs for residential parking are, but I'm pretty sure they average out to more than one parking spot per apartment.

 

In a building like this, especially at this location, less than one parking spot per apartment starts to make a lot of sense. They could also price the parking separately to incentivize *not* taking a space.

 

1.250 parking spaces for each efficiency dwelling unit

1.333 parking spaces for each one-bedroom dwelling unit

1.666 parking spaces for each two-bedroom dwelling unit

2.0 parking spaces for each dwelling unit with 3 or more bedrooms

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Texasota said:

In a building like this, especially at this location, less than one parking spot per apartment starts to make a lot of sense. They could also price the parking separately to incentivize *not* taking a space.

The issue with parking pricing is that, where a residential landlord issues a parking permit, the term of the permit must extend through the term of the lease after this past legislative session’s amendments to the Texas Property Code (Tex. Prop. Code 92.0132)

 

From a compliance standpoint, this makes tying a parking spot to a unit the easier way to avoid running afoul of the statute if a landlord is going to provide parking to tenants.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, houstontexasjack said:

The issue with parking pricing is that, where a residential landlord issues a parking permit, the term of the permit must extend through the term of the lease after this past legislative session’s amendments to the Texas Property Code (Tex. Prop. Code 92.0132)

 

From a compliance standpoint, this makes tying a parking spot to a unit the easier way to avoid running afoul of the statute if a landlord is going to provide parking to tenants.

 

14 minutes ago, Texasota said:

I was not aware of that particular instance of the state preempting local control. How unhelpful.

 

Requiring a landlord to guarantee a parking space when they provide a parking permit seems like an enhancement of a tenant's rights and would seem to be a no-brainer. If you say I get to park in the garage, there had better be a spot for me.

 

However, if the parking space was an add-on to the lease (which is what I believe Texasota was referring to - discount for not having a car) it wouldn't cause a conflict with the statute mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phillip_white said:

 

 

Requiring a landlord to guarantee a parking space when they provide a parking permit seems like an enhancement of a tenant's rights and would seem to be a no-brainer. If you say I get to park in the garage, there had better be a spot for me.

 

However, if the parking space was an add-on to the lease (which is what I believe Texasota was referring to - discount for not having a car) it wouldn't cause a conflict with the statute mentioned.

Oh, I agree it’s an effort to enhance tenant’s rights. However, as written, the statute makes no references to “add-ons”—the idea being that parking is not to be separately negotiated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, houstontexasjack said:

Oh, I agree it’s an effort to enhance tenant’s rights. However, as written, the statute makes no references to “add-ons”—the idea being that parking is not to be separately negotiated. 

 

After reviewing the wording (https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/property-code/title-8-landlord-and-tenant/chapter-92-residential-tenancies/subchapter-a-general-provisions/section-920132-effective-112020-term-of-parking-permit), it makes no mention of anything other than: if the landlord issues a permit, they must honor it. Therefore, if your lease states that it's up to you to find parking (aka street parking) this new change does not apply.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy isssssshhhh I've been traveling and somehow missed the updates here.

 

This is so insane!

 

What a perfect spot for this. I was railing about this area on twitter back in August because there is so little housing here and it's a perfect spot. 

 

I was excited to see some parking lot infill a la something like this with the parking restrictions dropped and was imagining a bunch of those in the area near mongoose vs cobra.

 

These are the cheapest available housing for sale in the area at the time and there is basically nothing within blocks:

 

(Note, the star is MvC)

 

NhMTKqi.png

 

Yes, there are apartments/rentals and that is what this project would be as well, but still, so much opportunity for housing development right here. 

 

Very exciting stuff!

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/29/2019 at 9:15 AM, HoustonIsHome said:

And that is exactly what we need more of in the city's core of Downtown is to keep improving. 

 

I know this is an architecture forum but most conversations delve into urban design/ planning and functionality.

 

Pretty buildings check the architectural aspects but function pleases me more.

 

Yeah we wet or undies fantasizing about supertalls, Mandarin Orientals, Ritz... But to me a beautiful building that adds to the residential population excites me way more.

 

Workers love suburban campuses because there is more parking, the homes near by are newer and usually more affordable. There is usually talk about less traffic... If we want all these vacant lots and decaying buildings to be made into better use we need to change that line of reasoning. But if all the housing is higher priced units like the bulk of new developments popping up around downtown in all directions then what is there for the everyday man? 

 

The corporations are who benefits the most from suburban campuses. The land is far cheaper, building low- mid rises are more feasible on the larger plots and lower buildings are cheaper to build. Plus the cheaper land allows for abundant surface parking which is loads cheaper than garages. So these corporations boost the benefits of the suburban campuses. 

 

A renewal of urban housing stock however increases the critical mass required to attract more grocery options, bars, restaurants, retail...

Business cannot thrive on just the upper earners and occasional visitor to downtown. You can clearly see the difference between before and after 5pm downtown. 

 

We won't be getting the Exxons and other part companies back in downtown but the smaller relocations can breathe new life in downtown. But it starts with bringing the people closer to these jobs. 

 

I miss my easy commute to downtown. Working on the westside is killing my soul. Yes it's newer, lots of parking etc. But the traffic is horrible, the culture is lacking and the outdoor activities are near zero. 

 

To me, the more people who can walk, bike or take a quick bus ride to work means less cars on the street during rush hour= less time looking at the rear of the car in front of me while such in traffic. 

 

So while the flashy ROD developments or the fancy hotels may wet other posters undies, I for one would rather a pleasant looking building like this one that makes it easier to attract the fancy developments. Sometimes we luck out and manage to make the cart before the horse work but we can get there easier if we put the horse first.

 

You put it very well, HoustonIsHome!  I completely agree.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Anyone have an update as to this development? I did a bit of rudimentary searching myself via the methods I've noticed others on this forum use, but came up empty.

 

I was thinking about it as I went jogging by the site last week, and musing about the need for more affordable housing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to AMCAL Midtown (2505 Fannin): 30-Story Affordable Housing High-Rise
  • 3 months later...
10 hours ago, houstontexasjack said:

Wunderbar. So, the “hoping to break ground next year” response makes sense. Merci @wilcal. 😊

 

Yep, I'm too excited about this project to have a potential grey cloud hanging over it, so why not ask? I've emailed brokers after seeing things on here a few times, and they've been forthcoming every single time. This part of Midtown is picking up momentum and I want to see it going. 

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
14 hours ago, houstontexasjack said:

Sadly, Amcal dropped this deal. The listing has been updated to indicate the property is no longer under contract.

 

It seemed too good to be true, even before the economy was hit and the pandemic happened...

 

Love for this side of midtown will have to wait.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to AMCAL Midtown: 30-Story Affordable Housing High-Rise
  • 6 months later...

Update:
There was a fire in the former SEARCH building last night.
Lots of smoke, no visible damage, but today the windows are all open, presumably to air the place out. 
It still has a "BUILDING FOR SALE" sign posted on the Bremond St side  (and lots of graffiti).

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to AMCAL Midtown: 30-Story High-Rise At 2505 Fannin St.
  • 2 months later...
3 hours ago, phillip_white said:

I wonder if this is a sign of near-term development or if they just want to reduce the tax valuation of the property while is sits in perpetual limbo.

Removing a structure does not necessarily reduce the tax valuation (and in this case probably does not).

Edited by Houston19514
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hindesky said:

This isn't permitted to come down yet but it also has fencing around it. Same owner owns the whole block.

https://atticusre.com/properties/2505-fannin/

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/2505-Fannin-St-Houston-TX/5047983/

Unless they closed recently, I don't think Atticus owns the property.

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Removing a structure does not necessarily reduce the tax valuation (and in this case probably does not).

The parking garage is listed on HCAD as an improvement, so there's no reason why it wouldn't increase the appraised value. The only other option I can see for them tearing it down is to increase the marketability of property since it's within the market-based parking zone. And I would imagine that any buyer would likely raze the site anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phillip_white said:

Unless they closed recently, I don't think Atticus owns the property.

The parking garage is listed on HCAD as an improvement, so there's no reason why it wouldn't increase the appraised value. The only other option I can see for them tearing it down is to increase the marketability of property since it's within the market-based parking zone. And I would imagine that any buyer would likely raze the site anyway.

Indeed it is.  And HCAD gave value to the improvements; although the parcel includes both the parking garage and the office building and does not break out the values separately.  Given the buildings' condition, I suspect they could have successfully challenged those results. 

I would guess they are clearing it to increase the marketability (which also supports the conclusion  that there is no value in the improvements).

Edited by Houston19514
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to 2505 Fannin St.
3 hours ago, hindesky said:

Cherry Companies just showed up.

PvJec1H.jpg

enx0GCR.jpg

AOpGzsi.jpg

 

This isn't permitted to come down yet but it also has fencing around it. Same owner owns the whole block.

https://atticusre.com/properties/2505-fannin/

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/2505-Fannin-St-Houston-TX/5047983/

cbVzX3f.jpg

x4sBrh0.png

kIdz9Bq.png

vyrkvgg.jpg

Rowdy sure gets around doesn't he? There's no vacant building he won't tag at some point. How the heck does he get near the roof?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, dbigtex56 said:

Glad to see the parking garage will be razed. 
Despite the best efforts of the owner, street people found their way in and used it as headquarters for stashing stolen goods, smoking crack, and Lord knows what else.

Do people smoke crack anymore?  Didn't that go out of fashion in like 1987?  Then it was hillbilly heroin.  Then it was soccer mom heroin.  The cocaine came back briefly.  Now it's pills, right?  Or is crack back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, editor said:

Do people smoke crack anymore?  Didn't that go out of fashion in like 1987?  Then it was hillbilly heroin.  Then it was soccer mom heroin.  The cocaine came back briefly.  Now it's pills, right?  Or is crack back?

Perhaps fentanyl coming through our "secure" southern border?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phillip_white said:

According to the demo crew, the building is also coming down but they didnt know how soon.

The building has a certain MCM appeal (love the perforated blocks on the facade) but I imagine that it must be a wreck after being vacant for so long

and having a small fire a couple of years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...