Townhomes At 3314 Harrisburg Blvd.

[ljchou]

Waste water permits in the system for 3314 Harrisburg Blvd by Niazi Family Investments, the owners of King Fuel, Inc. (the gas station on the corner of Harrisburg + Milby). They own quite a few parcels of land in the area.

In my experience, WW permits indicate the start of a project or the preparation for a land sale. Can't find any additional information on the land use plans right now.

Their parent company is linked to a billion different smaller entities:

[wilcal]

This block or two along Harrisburg has some nice momentum. Fortunately, have to think that they wouldn't be building another gas station just two blocks from their other location and this lot is about 25% smaller at 14,800 sq ft. 

Land is this area is appraised at $32/sq ft. Feel like it is probably worth a bit more than that considering that double lot a block away is asking for $172/sq ft.

I wondered if the tax bill is pushing along a sale, but it is probably that massive potential valuation. Their tax bill went from in $675/month 2017 to $1050/month last year. No increase for 2021. 

 

 

[ljchou]

Townhomes?

 

[wilcal]

1 hour ago, ljchou said:

Townhomes?
 

Looks like it. There really aren't any townhomes near here. Maybe Milby @ Menard are the closest ones? 

I really enjoy that there is a shared driveway with only one curb cut in the middle. Commercial has some momentum in this area, why not residential now? 

Only 500' from the light rail station.

[samagon]

On 11/19/2021 at 5:43 PM, wilcal said:

Looks like it. There really aren't any townhomes near here. Maybe Milby @ Menard are the closest ones? 

I really enjoy that there is a shared driveway with only one curb cut in the middle. Commercial has some momentum in this area, why not residential now? 

Only 500' from the light rail station.

Valesco and Garrow. probably the same distance as the ones you reference.

then you can go south to McKinney and turn east or west and find plenty of townhomes.

[wilcal]

6 hours ago, samagon said:

Valesco and Garrow. probably the same distance as the ones you reference.

then you can go south to McKinney and turn east or west and find plenty of townhomes.

Nah, you win by about 500 feet actually. Yours only about 1,000 feet. That still is pretty far, though. 

I forgot that New Hope has retail space that is empty. Going to take more than a couple of townhomes, but hopefully we'll get that filled in, too. 

[thedistrict84]

19 hours ago, samagon said:

Valesco and Garrow. probably the same distance as the ones you reference.

then you can go south to McKinney and turn east or west and find plenty of townhomes.

If we want to improve density in this area, we need more than 10-12 townhomes every five or so blocks. It especially makes sense to build more townhomes in this immediate area due to the proximity to the Coffee Plant/Second Ward Station for the Green Line.

Once you cross the tracks and hit McKinney, you’ve entered EaDo, which if anything has a bit of an over-saturation of townhomes. 

13 hours ago, wilcal said:

Nah, you win by about 500 feet actually. Yours only about 1,000 feet. That still is pretty far, though. 

I forgot that New Hope has retail space that is empty. Going to take more than a couple of townhomes, but hopefully we'll get that filled in, too. 

Precisely.

[ljchou]

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/510-Sampson-St-Houston-TX-77003/2063375570_zpid/

[samagon]

On 11/25/2021 at 12:24 PM, thedistrict84 said:

If we want to improve density in this area, we need more than 10-12 townhomes every five or so blocks. It especially makes sense to build more townhomes in this immediate area due to the proximity to the Coffee Plant/Second Ward Station for the Green Line.

Once you cross the tracks and hit McKinney, you’ve entered EaDo, which if anything has a bit of an over-saturation of townhomes. 

Precisely.

it'll take time, but it'll get there. 

hopefully the townhomes stay in the neighborhoods, and then along Harrisburg that's where we get the bigger apartment complexes. 

I mean, if that (mostly) empty lot adjacent to the coffee plant LR stop only gets townhomes, that's a loss, I mean, it'd be better than is there now, but would it be great 10 years from now?

[wilcal]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

I mean, if that (mostly) empty lot adjacent to the coffee plant LR stop only gets townhomes, that's a loss, I mean, it'd be better than is there now, but would it be great 10 years from now?

It was platted as a reserve, so won't be townhomes. 

If you go on Houston Map Viewer, you can turn on the PlatTracker layer under Planning & Development department. It should show all applications from 2013 forward. 

https://mycity.houstontx.gov/houstonmapviewer/

 

[ljchou]

@wilcalThe to-be built townhomes are already listed on zillow (https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/510-Sampson-St-Houston-TX-77003/2063375570_zpid/)

Perhaps they're just gauging interest?

[wilcal]

1 hour ago, ljchou said:

@wilcalThe to-be built townhomes are already listed on zillow (https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/510-Sampson-St-Houston-TX-77003/2063375570_zpid/)

Perhaps they're just gauging interest?

I think we are conflating two different pieces of property.

Purple are the townhomes and green is the one that I  was talking about that is going to be the highish-rise.

The light rail stop IS directly in front of the green arrow lot FWIW 😜

[ljchou]

14 hours ago, wilcal said:

I think we are conflating two different pieces of property.

Purple are the townhomes and green is the one that I  was talking about that is going to be the highish-rise.

The light rail stop IS directly in front of the green arrow lot FWIW 😜

Thanks for clarifying! This topic is about the purple.

You can find information on the green here:

 

[samagon]

19 hours ago, wilcal said:

I think we are conflating two different pieces of property.

Purple are the townhomes and green is the one that I  was talking about that is going to be the highish-rise.

The light rail stop IS directly in front of the green arrow lot FWIW 😜

yes, thanks. and sorry for derailing the thread.

[thedistrict84]

There is activity on site. I noticed an excavator breaking up a concrete slab in the back corner of the lot, and a black construction fence is now up along both Harrisburg and Sampson.

[hindesky]

I stopped and asked a worker what they were building, he said apartments.

[HoustonMidtown]

I think it's these townhomes:

 

https://www.har.com/homedetail/508-sampson-st-houston-tx-77003/15866449

 

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by HoustonMidtown

[wilcal]

It is five townhomes (non-duplex). Kind of an interesting design with an 18' shared driveway that splits from the opening on Sampson St.

Edit: note that this is also along a TOD primary street, so note the public sidewalk easements, which are kind of abnormal. They are required to measure the pedestrian realm from back of curb, which is why that is dimensioned. 20' along Sampson and 15' along Harrisburg is required, so they are having to give up building on a chunk of their property.

Will be interesting to see how they fence it.

Edited December 8, 2022 by wilcal

[ljchou]

Those are townhomes. We have a thread for this @Moderators:

 

[hindesky]

[hindesky]

I asked a worker how many stories, he said 3.

The developer is https://www.experiencedevelopmentandconstruction.com

 

[004n063]

Is it just me, or do they seem unusually far back? Are they anticipating widening the sidewalk on Sampson?

[ljchou]

There will be a large shared driveway in front. It is a bit unusual, especially given that each could have their own short driveway and a small backyard had the chosen a different layout.

[iah77]

16 hours ago, ljchou said:

There will be a large shared driveway in front. It is a bit unusual, especially given that each could have their own short driveway and a small backyard had the chosen a different layout.

I don't think it's that simple, I bet since the street is rather wide there is a good amount of "minimum setback" and the fact that is is next to an intersection and the metro rail made the city probably not want 5 separate driveways so close to the corner but I'm not totally sure. I would have put the driveway in the back of the homes but anyways. 

[Ross]

16 minutes ago, iah77 said:

I don't think it's that simple, I bet since the street is rather wide there is a good amount of "minimum setback" and the fact that is is next to an intersection and the metro rail made the city probably not want 5 separate driveways so close to the corner but I'm not totally sure. I would have put the driveway in the back of the homes but anyways. 

The City probably wouldn't allow a shared driveway entrance on Harrisburg, so the entrance is on Sampson. From the drawing, the curb cut for the entrance appears to be in the middle of the driveway, but I could be wrong.

[ljchou]

On 12/24/2022 at 10:49 AM, iah77 said:

I don't think it's that simple, I bet since the street is rather wide there is a good amount of "minimum setback" and the fact that is is next to an intersection and the metro rail made the city probably not want 5 separate driveways so close to the corner but I'm not totally sure. I would have put the driveway in the back of the homes but anyways. 

This actually makes a lot of sense given the high traffic of the area. Thanks!

[wilcal]

On 12/24/2022 at 10:49 AM, iah77 said:

I don't think it's that simple, I bet since the street is rather wide there is a good amount of "minimum setback" and the fact that is is next to an intersection and the metro rail made the city probably not want 5 separate driveways so close to the corner but I'm not totally sure. I would have put the driveway in the back of the homes but anyways. 

Yeah, I agree, but it may have been annoying for homeowners to only be able to enter the property from one-way side of Harrisburg and it is particularly awkward right here.

On 12/24/2022 at 11:07 AM, Ross said:

The City probably wouldn't allow a shared driveway entrance on Harrisburg, so the entrance is on Sampson. From the drawing, the curb cut for the entrance appears to be in the middle of the driveway, but I could be wrong.

The city does mandate shared driveways (or a private 28'+ drive) on major thoroughfares and along Transit Oriented Development corridors. Both of these blockfaces fall under the TOD ordinance . The shared driveway is likely along Sampson so that they can do 5 lots wide instead of 4 and because the entrance to the shared driveway needs to be 60' (I think that's the number) away from the intersection of Harrisburg and Sampson. 

 

[hindesky]

[hindesky]

[hindesky]

 

[hindesky]

[HirschWacoYork]

I really dislike this. I suppose I get it, because - Houston - but I still dislike it. It just seems like such a waste, long term, for a piece of land so close to a major downtown artery and rail stop. Perfect scenario: buy the whole block and do a podium or courtyard project. Essentially mirror NewHope. Even a true townhouse concept where the units are connected would have been a little better, right? 

[samagon]

it's not the best use of the land 30 years from now, it's the best use of the land now.

if you look at the area, this is a huge uplift to the area, sure it could have been more, but there is more right across the street, and there will be more in the coming years. first steps are often not the biggest steps.

[hindesky]

[hindesky]

[HirschWacoYork]

On 2/9/2023 at 7:39 AM, samagon said:

it's not the best use of the land 30 years from now, it's the best use of the land now.

if you look at the area, this is a huge uplift to the area, sure it could have been more, but there is more right across the street, and there will be more in the coming years. first steps are often not the biggest steps.

Probably my biggest complaint about Houston urban development - or maybe urban development in general - is that it focuses too much on "best use now". If this is not the best use in 30 years, then why offer a product where a 30 year mortgage is likely used to purchase? 

"Huge" might be a bit hyperbolic, but I agree additional residential development is good. These 5 town homes however have potential to max out at like, 15 residents? 10 if they're all car dependent, despite living right next to the metro. 10-15 people isn't as much as it could be for the neighborhood. I also pessimistically imagine at least 1 being an AirBnB right out of the gate, and a couple turn into rentals in 5 years. 

 

[samagon]

your opinion is that 5 townhomes isn't a huge uplift from 15000 feet of grassy concrete slab, at the end of the day, it's a matter of opinion.

the land being used for this development is 15,000 sf. there's 4 other developments on the same block that all are currently occupied, and I doubt whoever is building these townhomes owns those plots. what would be the best use of 15,000 sf? a gas station? a convenience store? a bar? should you just sit on it because what you can build on it isn't someone's idea of the 'highest use' of what the land might be in 30 years? does the county not charge property taxes in that situation?

maybe I misspoke, whether it's the best use of the land now, or 30 years from now, it's going to offer the return on investment that the owner is looking for at the investment they were willing to make, and to that end, it is the highest use of the land.

[Amlaham]

19 hours ago, samagon said:

your opinion is that 5 townhomes isn't a huge uplift from 15000 feet of grassy concrete slab, at the end of the day, it's a matter of opinion.

the land being used for this development is 15,000 sf. there's 4 other developments on the same block that all are currently occupied, and I doubt whoever is building these townhomes owns those plots. what would be the best use of 15,000 sf? a gas station? a convenience store? a bar? should you just sit on it because what you can build on it isn't someone's idea of the 'highest use' of what the land might be in 30 years? does the county not charge property taxes in that situation?

maybe I misspoke, whether it's the best use of the land now, or 30 years from now, it's going to offer the return on investment that the owner is looking for at the investment they were willing to make, and to that end, it is the highest use of the land.

I think he's suggesting more denser units instead of single family townhomes since its right off the rail line. Which I kind of agree with but this is still a plus considering what it was before. For example, it would have been nice if this was a multifamily building with 1 retail store on the Harrisburg. Don't say it can't be done because of the lot size because nothing is impossible. This all goes back to wanting a more dense/ walkable/ urban environment.

[HouTXRanger]

On 2/22/2023 at 8:35 AM, HirschWacoYork said:

Probably my biggest complaint about Houston urban development - or maybe urban development in general - is that it focuses too much on "best use now". If this is not the best use in 30 years, then why offer a product where a 30 year mortgage is likely used to purchase? 

"Huge" might be a bit hyperbolic, but I agree additional residential development is good. These 5 town homes however have potential to max out at like, 15 residents? 10 if they're all car dependent, despite living right next to the metro. 10-15 people isn't as much as it could be for the neighborhood. I also pessimistically imagine at least 1 being an AirBnB right out of the gate, and a couple turn into rentals in 5 years.
 

In a place like Houston, I don't think seeing this as a "missed opportunity" for something better makes a lot of sense. If you look at google maps, there are tons of empty or under-utilized lots all around that will likely get filled in with denser housing soon. Houston's imperfect pro-housing codes work precisely because they aren't concerned with creating the "ideal" land use on a given parcel, but by pushing every development to be at least a slight improvement on what was there before (in terms of density, mixed use, TOD, etc.)

Look at this another way: the increased number of people living on what used to be a grass lot, and the increased number of people living in other imperfect but "good enough" residential developments nearby, will drive growth for future mixed-use and dense developments like the one you would prefer be built here (and objectively would be better).

On a completely 100% subjective personal note, little oddities like how these townhomes don't *quite* fit the capacity of this street, and how they will look *slightly* out of place as Harrisburg continues to fill in with denser buildings, is probably going to add to the character of the neighborhood decades from now. Generally many fine-grain developments that don't quite match are a lot more interesting than large-grain full-block developments that would occupy the same space. We used to build that all the time, but now we call those neighborhoods "historic districts" like market square. Worst case scenario is they get torn down in 20 years for something better, but in the meantime people get to live there and nearby businesses get patrons.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, Amlaham said:

I think he's suggesting more denser units instead of single family townhomes since its right off the rail line. Which I kind of agree with but this is still a plus considering what it was before. For example, it would have been nice if this was a multifamily building with 1 retail store on the Harrisburg. Don't say it can't be done because of the lot size because nothing is impossible. This all goes back to wanting a more dense/ walkable/ urban environment.

I guess the question still remains though, what can you build on 15,000 sf that's more dense? 

the next question, does that project have buyers in that specific location?

and the most important question, does the owner of that land have the budget to chase a project that is more dense?

[samagon]

I guess that's why I'm asking, at least the first question. 

what would be more dense than the townhomes that could go on 15,000 sf?

I know what can be done in other cities with different rules and ordinances, I also know what was done in our own city before there were ordinances that disallowed certain things.

so far I haven't seen anyone say what could, or should, only lamentations about what is, I mean @HirschWacoYork put some things out there, but suggested a mirror of the new hope building, which takes up the whole block (when the owner has 1/6 that much land to work with) is kind of impossible on the footprint, or maybe it could be townhomes that share walls. but what does that buy? it still would only be 5 units, maybe 5 bigger units, or 5 units with more driveway space?

I don't think I'm being passive aggressive, I think I'm looking at it from a practical viewpoint, one of a business owner, and asking questions. I appreciate your feedback though and will attempt to modify my tone when responding to posts about 'best use of land' come up, or maybe I'll just skip responding entirely.

so what's your thoughts? what should be built on this 15,000 sf of land, ignoring any limitations of the owner's budget?

for me, if I'm throwing practicality to the wind, it's maybe a 3 story structure with a 4,000 sf footprint, that leaves about 11,000 sf for parking, which is maybe 30 spots for 12,000 sf of leasable space? since it's close enough to the LR you get the benefit of needing 50% fewer parking spots. maybe the whole first floor is dedicated for retail? 2 leasable spaces, 3500 sf for a restaurant concept, and 1500 sf for a coffee concept.

back to practicality though, this project is probably costing the owner less than half of what a project like 3509 Harrisburg will cost (which is pretty much what I would think might be a good middle ground of best use), they will see a nearly immediate ROI, vs years for a 3509 build. but I guess this is where I am looking like I'm being passive aggressive, I'm thinking of it from a business standpoint and what is going to make an investor money today, or at least start getting them ROI today, or worst case, what is going to just bankrupt someone who's building because they're thinking of 30 years from now, and not today. 

and I am sorry for coming across that way, it's not my intent.

Edited February 23 by samagon

[Amlaham]

On 2/23/2023 at 2:58 PM, samagon said:

I guess that's why I'm asking, at least the first question. 

what would be more dense than the townhomes that could go on 15,000 sf?

I know what can be done in other cities with different rules and ordinances, I also know what was done in our own city before there were ordinances that disallowed certain things.

so far I haven't seen anyone say what could, or should, only lamentations about what is, I mean @HirschWacoYork put some things out there, but suggested a mirror of the new hope building, which takes up the whole block (when the owner has 1/6 that much land to work with) is kind of impossible on the footprint, or maybe it could be townhomes that share walls. but what does that buy? it still would only be 5 units, maybe 5 bigger units, or 5 units with more driveway space?

I don't think I'm being passive aggressive, I think I'm looking at it from a practical viewpoint, one of a business owner, and asking questions. I appreciate your feedback though and will attempt to modify my tone when responding to posts about 'best use of land' come up, or maybe I'll just skip responding entirely.

so what's your thoughts? what should be built on this 15,000 sf of land, ignoring any limitations of the owner's budget?

for me, if I'm throwing practicality to the wind, it's maybe a 3 story structure with a 4,000 sf footprint, that leaves about 11,000 sf for parking, which is maybe 30 spots for 12,000 sf of leasable space? since it's close enough to the LR you get the benefit of needing 50% fewer parking spots. maybe the whole first floor is dedicated for retail? 2 leasable spaces, 3500 sf for a restaurant concept, and 1500 sf for a coffee concept.

back to practicality though, this project is probably costing the owner less than half of what a project like 3509 Harrisburg will cost (which is pretty much what I would think might be a good middle ground of best use), they will see a nearly immediate ROI, vs years for a 3509 build. but I guess this is where I am looking like I'm being passive aggressive, I'm thinking of it from a business standpoint and what is going to make an investor money today, or at least start getting them ROI today, or worst case, what is going to just bankrupt someone who's building because they're thinking of 30 years from now, and not today. 

and I am sorry for coming across that way, it's not my intent.

I get what you're saying from the owners/ business perspective. But @HirschWacoYork and myself were discussing it from an urban planning perspective, we aren't discussing the technicalities. The owners/ business intention of making money aside, it just seemed silly that single family homes were going up on this lot considering all the work thats being done in the area to improve walkability/ urbanization. No need to apologize, it gets a little confusing reading a tone from text. I apologize if I was being being a little too aggressive, was just trying to get my point across 😅

Edited February 27 by editor
Edited by editor to remove a portion of the bickering that has been removed from this thread.

[editor]

On 2/22/2023 at 10:35 AM, HirschWacoYork said:

Probably my biggest complaint about Houston urban development - or maybe urban development in general - is that it focuses too much on "best use now". If this is not the best use in 30 years, then why offer a product where a 30 year mortgage is likely used to purchase? 

It's the result of a different method.

"Best use now" is what you get when there's no zoning.  The owner decides, and the owner has a finite lifespan.

"Best use 30 years from now" is what you get when you have zoning, where a group or committee guides what the city will look like in the future.

Which is better is an argument older than HAIF, and out of scope for this thread.

[hindesky]

[hindesky]

[hindesky]