Heights 26th: 10-Story Multifamily With Retail

[IntheKnowHouston]

1 hour ago, TylerHerman13 said:

Bonus, the old Sear’s lot is under contract with a multi family developer. 

Yep. The former Sears at 4000 N Shepherd Dr has been under contract for months, possibly almost a year.

Also, there are several posts regarding Sears possibly becoming a multifamily development. It's in the topic linked below dedicated to 4000 N Shepherd Dr:



https://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/46042-toll-brothers-multifamily-at-4000-north-shepherd-dr
 

 

[goofy]

12 hours ago, TylerHerman13 said:

Was on LoopNet and saw this on a sales flyer for the Garden Oaks Strip Mall… looks like a Target has been proposed… 

Bonus, the old Sear’s lot is under contract with a multi family developer. 

It has never been under contract truly. It has always been owned by seratige, an reit established ro managed the last assets of Sears. Seratige has a partnership with toll brothers and the property is listed as a pipeline project and monitored by other threads on this forum. 
 

the news of the target originated here and was cross posted for clout on Reddit and Facebook and now people are circling back to tell us of our own work. 

[hindesky]

I talked with the two guys taking down this light pole. They weren't aware what was going to be built so I showed them. But he told me that the Houston Bark Park Dog Daycare's lease is up at the end of the month and they will be leaving too. He also said the two other lots associated with this have been sold. The one across 26th St. is going to be a CVS. He didn't know what the used car lot across N. Shepherd was going to be but it sold too.

CVS.

[Ross]

4 hours ago, hindesky said:

I talked with the two guys taking down this light pole. They weren't aware what was going to be built so I showed them. But he told me that the Houston Bark Park Dog Daycare's lease is up at the end of the month and they will be leaving too. He also said the two other lots associated with this have been sold. The one across 26th St. is going to be a CVS. He didn't know what the used car lot across N. Shepherd was going to be but it sold too.

 

CVS.

 

I'm not sure how the Bark Park can lose its lease when the land owners are the same people that own the Bark Park. WBM Investments and Houston Bark Park and Daycare, Inc have the same principals.

[hindesky]

Three buildings remain. The two houses on 27th St. and the metal warehouse on 26th.

[hindesky]

Taking the metal warehouse down one piece at a time.

[Urbannizer]

This has grown in size, appears to be 10-stories.

[LiverpoolTX]

The earlier renderings had it looking nice.. now it's so......grey. 

[hindesky]

Metal warehouse is coming down piece by piece. 3 buildings to the left are being gutted by hand.

[Paco Jones]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IntheKnowHouston]

On 6/5/2023 at 11:12 AM, Paco Jones said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An application for the abandonment of an alley was submitted to the city's Joint Referral Committee recently. Jay Janacek of Property Commerce is  the listed applicant.

Included in the application for Heights 26th were the conceptual renderings and floor layouts Paco posted above. Also included were photos of the requested alley abandonment. 

This request was rejected June 8th. The committee noted the "abutting owners need to agree to the abandonment." So, I'm assuming the developers are going to seek an agreement with  the owners of Houston Bark Park (710 W 27th St), then submit it to the Joint Referral Committee.


Below is what the developer submitted:
 

• Description and square footage of requested street or alley to be abandoned and sold:
  
  Alley, 38-feet wide by 600-feet long; total 22,800 square feet
  
  
   
• Statement of intended use and details of the requested street or alley to be sold:
  
  The alley will be incorporated in mixed use development for Height Twenty-Sixth development.  Owner is proposing a 10-story mixed-use retail and residential development:
  
   
  • Level 1 - retail leasing, retail parking
  • Level 2 - Target store
  • Level 3 - retail parking
  • Level 4 - residential parking
  • Level 5 - residential parking/units
  • Level 6 - units, pool amenities & courtyard
  • Levels 7 - 10 residential units
    
    
     
• What is the timeline for proposed redevelopment? 
  
  90 days
  
  
   
• What is the timeline to vacate the property if the property is currently occupied? 
  
  A section of the alley, 19-feet wide and 249.81-feet wide; 4,746.39 square feet, is occupied by the dog park.  Code Enforcment has issued citations to remove improvements. We have not received notification of compliance.  
   

https://popms.houstontx.gov/OnlineJRC/Review/Review/2558

[IntheKnowHouston]

Just now, IntheKnowHouston said:

 

An application for the abandonment of an alley was submitted to the city's Joint Referral Committee recently. Jay Janacek of Property Commerce is  the listed applicant.

Included in the application for Heights 26th were the conceptual renderings and floor layouts Paco posted above. Also included were photos of the requested alley abandonment. 

This request was rejected June 8th. The committee noted the "abutting owners need to agree to the abandonment." So, I'm assuming the developers are going to seek an agreement with  the owners of Houston Bark Park (710 W 27th St), then submit it to the Joint Referral Committee.


Below is what the developer submitted:
 

• Description and square footage of requested street or alley to be abandoned and sold:
  
  Alley, 38-feet wide by 600-feet long; total 22,800 square feet
  
  
   
• Statement of intended use and details of the requested street or alley to be sold:
  
  The alley will be incorporated in mixed use development for Height Twenty-Sixth development.  Owner is proposing a 10-story mixed-use retail and residential development:
  
   
  • Level 1 - retail leasing, retail parking
  • Level 2 - Target store
  • Level 3 - retail parking
  • Level 4 - residential parking
  • Level 5 - residential parking/units
  • Level 6 - units, pool amenities & courtyard
  • Levels 7 - 10 residential units
    
    
     
• What is the timeline for proposed redevelopment? 
  
  90 days
  
  
   
• What is the timeline to vacate the property if the property is currently occupied? 
  
  A section of the alley, 19-feet wide and 249.81-feet wide; 4,746.39 square feet, is occupied by the dog park.  Code Enforcment has issued citations to remove improvements. We have not received notification of compliance.  
   

https://popms.houstontx.gov/OnlineJRC/Review/Review/2558

Below are photos of the alley abandonment developers of Heights 26th are requesting. The photos were included in an application for the abandonment of an alley.






W 26th St

[Ross]

I bet the property owners of the dog place say no, since they encroach on the alley.

[RaslDasl]

Two questions on this: 

1. I assume the developer must have approached the owners of the dog park lots. My guess is they are playing the long game and feel the will make more selling a lot next to a Target than selling out to the current developers. Can anyone confirm if they were made an offer?

2. Any confirmation that a CVS is going on one of the adjacent lots? The 24-hour CVS on Yale is so busy at the pharmacy these days that I’d like to have another option. However, give that Target pharmacies are CVS it seems unlikely they would build one next door unless the Target store will be built without a pharmacy. 

[hindesky]

[HNathoo]

7 hours ago, hindesky said:

Are they demolishing this by hand? 

[LBC2HTX]

From what I can tell when I drive by, yes. 

[hindesky]

[TX3G4R]

So what’s going to happen if the dog place doesn’t agree to abandon that section of the alley? 

[hindesky]

On 7/30/2023 at 1:23 PM, TX3G4R said:

So what’s going to happen if the dog place doesn’t agree to abandon that section of the alley? 

Pretty sure it belongs to the city, so they wouldn't have a choice.

 

Metal warehouse is gone, someone is dumping dirt, one more building is gone with two more to go.

[hindesky]

All the buildings on 27th St. are gone except for the Bark Park. Power lines in the alley will have to be rerouted and removed.

[hindesky]

People keep dumping piles of dirt throughout the property. Unless the developer asked for the dirt they need to fence this off or they are going to have to pay to get rid of it.

Noticed the electrical poles on the property, probably to reroute the electrical that is now in the alley.

 

 

Edited September 10 by hindesky

[TacoDog]

Do you think the dog daycare will survive construction? It seems to be very close to the construction area.

[__nevii]

On 4/28/2023 at 11:41 AM, s3mh said:

It only took a decade or two, but it looks like Houston developers have finally realized that ground floor (and second floor) retail is a good idea.  

It's possible that the developers already knew it's a good idea, but stuff like parking minimums/setbacks/etc held them back.

[Texasota]

Eh, plenty of Houston developers are composed 100% of inertia and do "what's worked before."

But yes, the City's misguided restrictions haven't helped.

[004n063]

21 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Eh, plenty of Houston developers are composed 100% of inertia and do "what's worked before."

But yes, the City's misguided restrictions haven't helped.

I think the combination of bad regulations with no zoning an minimal long-term planning cements that inertia, though. 

[__nevii]

3 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I think the combination of bad regulations with no zoning an minimal long-term planning cements that inertia, though. 

It's just the bad regulations, as "no zoning" in/of itself (no mandated separation of uses) is what would easily allow these "ground-floor retail" walkable holy grails. But any parking minimums, FARs, setbacks, etc requirements can prevent full-blown utilizations of those potentials, and so need to go ASAP.

As of now, Downtown, Eado and Midtown are the only areas exempt from the regulations in their entirety. Other areas like Heights and Montrose are also exempt, but, as of now, only in areas proximate to transit lines (Walkable Places Ordinance)

[004n063]

8 hours ago, __nevii said:

It's just the bad regulations, as "no zoning" in/of itself (no mandated separation of uses) is what would easily allow these "ground-floor retail" walkable holy grails. But any parking minimums, FARs, setbacks, etc requirements can prevent full-blown utilizations of those potentials, and so need to go ASAP.

As of now, Downtown, Eado and Midtown are the only areas exempt from the regulations in their entirety. Other areas like Heights and Montrose are also exempt, but, as of now, only in areas proximate to transit lines (Walkable Places Ordinance)

Don't get me wrong - there's no shortage of bad zoning out there, and organic growth would be the ideal form for any city.

 

But I think in a Houston that's already where it is in terms of car-centric insanity, a purely market-driven approach is very unlikely to undo the damage, at least in any of our lifetimes.

I'm not convinced that public intervention is inherently hopeless. 

[Paco Jones]

PROJECT:

Shepherd Mixed-Use

 

LOCATION:

NW corner of North Shepherd Drive and W. 26th Street

 

DEVELOPER:

Pontikes Development, LLC

 

ARCHITECT:

Powers Brown Architecture

 

GENERAL CONTRACTOR:

Satterfield & Pontikes

 

INFORMATION:

 10-story building with a footprint  area of approximately 126,000 SF.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BigFootsSocks]

Putting the dog park in the center is an interesting idea...would hate to have a unit on the inside.

[__nevii]

20 hours ago, 004n063 said:

But I think in a Houston that's already where it is in terms of car-centric insanity, a purely market-driven approach is very unlikely to undo the damage, at least in any of our lifetimes. 

The townhomes alone over the years contribute to added density. Removal of the remaining aformentioned regulations allows the development to continue in a way that finally makes true walakble form possible (hence, we can really see how much "inertia" is at play, if nothing else). Regardless, the Inner Loop has the most coherent grid, so is most salvagable.

Within Beltway 8 is definitely more iffy as there is more super-blocks, cul-de-sacs, and other road/block designs that make it harder to retrofit urbanity (if not outright impossible). On the other hand, the same lot-size reforms that allowed townhomes in Inner Loop were extended to the Beltway in 2013. It's possible that Gulfton, Ghandi District, Chinatown, Uptown, etc are dense enough clusters (development-wise) to work something out. 

Outside the Beltway is a lost cause for sure, though. Sorry Kingwood. Sorry Clear Lake/Space Center. Sorry SW/Funplex.

Edited September 13 by __nevii

[s3mh]

Appreciate the density and not going to even argue that the Shep/Durham corridor should have architecture that respects the Height's historic styles.  The ship has long sailed on that part of the Heights.  

But wow.  This is what I would call the "We are just not even trying" period of architecture.  My middle school aged kids do more interesting things on Minecraft (and I am not sure whether this design is or is not poached from something a middle school kid did on Minecraft).  

Hopefully, this is just a very early back of the napkin kind of rendering and the actual design will be better.  But so far, what is this style supposed to be?  Neo-soviet?  Post-modern industrial Victorian farmhouse?

Edited September 13 by s3mh
mistake

[august948]

7 hours ago, __nevii said:

The townhomes alone over the years contribute to added density. Removal of the remaining aformentioned regulations allows the development to continue in a way that finally makes true walakble form possible (hence, we can really see how much "inertia" is at play, if nothing else). Regardless, the Inner Loop has the most coherent grid, so is most salvagable.

Within Beltway 8 is definitely more iffy as there is more super-blocks, cul-de-sacs, and other road/block designs that make it harder to retrofit urbanity (if not outright impossible). On the other hand, the same lot-size reforms that allowed townhomes in Inner Loop were extended to the Beltway in 2013. It's possible that Gulfton, Ghandi District, Chinatown, Uptown, etc are dense enough clusters (development-wise) to work something out. 

Outside the Beltway is a lost cause for sure, though. Sorry Kingwood. Sorry Clear Lake/Space Center. Sorry SW/Funplex.

Considering that the land area inside the Beltway is almost 500 square miles, I think we'll be fine.  How much urbanity do you really need?

 

[TacoDog]

11 hours ago, august948 said:

Considering that the land area inside the Beltway is almost 500 square miles, I think we'll be fine.  How much urbanity do you really need?

 

 

How did you do that?

[august948]

13 minutes ago, TacoDog said:

How did you do that?

Just a rough estimate.  Google maps shows the beltway to be somewhat of a square 22 miles by 22 miles.  That gets us 484 square miles.

[TacoDog]

3 minutes ago, august948 said:

Just a rough estimate.  Google maps shows the beltway to be somewhat of a square 22 miles by 22 miles.  That gets us 484 square miles.

Did you draw it by hand? How did you get the highways to overlay?

[august948]

7 minutes ago, TacoDog said:

Did you draw it by hand? How did you get the highways to overlay?

Google maps has a scale in the lower right corner.  I zoomed in on the beltway until the scale was a half inch (in this case the half inch showed as 2 miles).  Then I measured the north-south and east-west with a ruler on my monitor.  Like I said, it's a rough estimate, but I couldn't find an official measurement anywhere.

[TacoDog]

3 minutes ago, august948 said:

Google maps has a scale in the lower right corner.  I zoomed in on the beltway until the scale was a half inch (in this case the half inch showed as 2 miles).  Then I measured the north-south and east-west with a ruler on my monitor.  Like I said, it's a rough estimate, but I couldn't find an official measurement anywhere.

Sorry, this is what I was referring to.

12 hours ago, august948 said:

 

 

 

[august948]

1 hour ago, TacoDog said:

Sorry, this is what I was referring to.

 

That's just a link from an article complaining about how big the beltway is.

[wilcal]

On 6/18/2023 at 6:55 PM, Ross said:

I bet the property owners of the dog place say no, since they encroach on the alley.

On 7/30/2023 at 1:23 PM, TX3G4R said:

So what’s going to happen if the dog place doesn’t agree to abandon that section of the alley? 

Each side of the abandoned street is entitled to half of the abandonment. Basically, they'll be acquiring half of the alley which I think is the only part that they are actually encroaching on.

I know these comments were from a few months ago. No idea if it is cleaned up now. 

[004n063]

On 9/13/2023 at 10:54 PM, august948 said:

How much urbanity do you really need?

Oooh I love this question! All day-to-day needs and robust, frequent transit within a safe and comfortable five-minute walk. 

[strickn]

On 9/13/2023 at 5:30 PM, s3mh said:

Appreciate the density and not going to even argue that the Shep/Durham corridor should have architecture that respects the Height's historic styles.  The ship has long sailed on that part of the Heights.  

But wow.  This is what I would call the "We are just not even trying" period of architecture.  My middle school aged kids do more interesting things on Minecraft (and I am not sure whether this design is or is not poached from something a middle school kid did on Minecraft).  

Hopefully, this is just a very early back of the napkin kind of rendering and the actual design will be better.  But so far, what is this style supposed to be?  Neo-soviet?  Post-modern industrial Victorian farmhouse?

It's driven by having windows on only one side of your apartment, like a motel room.  The rest is just window dressing.

Houston is too nice a place to waste living in places like this, so I wish we wouldn't build them

OTOH the target demographic probably spends most of their week in an office... so they'll be missing out for the most part in any event

Maybe its style is to remind them of their Excel spreadsheet 

[Texasota]

Part of what makes it look a little strange is that half of the apparent fenestration isn't actually windows. Every apartment has their own balcony tucked inside the primary facade. 

This helps make the building look weirdly under-detailed in the renderings, but I think it will look much better in real life because you will be able to perceive more of that depth.

It's also just great to see. Every apartment has its own private outdoor space. Not a lot, but enough to have a little garden and sit outside in the morning/evening. My one issue is with the fact that all four facades are handled the same way - that inset shaded depth is great for the south side but not so much for the north.

[august948]

On 9/15/2023 at 7:12 AM, 004n063 said:

Oooh I love this question! All day-to-day needs and robust, frequent transit within a safe and comfortable five-minute walk. 

So just a few square blocks then.  Good to know.

[004n063]

2 hours ago, august948 said:

So just a few square blocks then.  Good to know.

Yes, basic daily needs and quality transit connections for every few square blocks. Obviously, a much higher density than general Houston's 3k/sq mi is needed for this to be feasible, but it doesn't take a Hong Kong or Manhattan level. Plenty of examples around the world of cities that feel very moderate in density but have multiple businesses on every block. Am I optimistic about Houston's prospects for turning into a Berlin or even a Valencia or an Utrecht? No. But you asked how much urbanism I wanted. That's how much.

[__nevii]

On 9/13/2023 at 10:54 PM, august948 said:

Considering that the land area inside the Beltway is almost 500 square miles, I think we'll be fine.  How much urbanity do you really need?

As @004n063 alludes to, the "15 minute city" is the ideal: all the needs, especially basic ones, within close access. It isn't just simply a matter of desire insomuch as it would provide demonstrable benefit/access compared to the current sprawling regime: for instance, mitigation of commute distance, food deserts, infrastructure upkeep for the given population, etc.

Since dense urbanity takes less space than corresponding population suburban sprawl, it wouldn't necessarily lead to the full using up of 500sq miles Beltway. For instance, stuff like Ghandi District, Chinatown, Space Center that is currently more spread apart can effectively "concentrate closer" as they shift into the denser contructs (just like how the Houston Maritime Museum moved from it's old location into the new East River development), Meanwhile, the excess land freed up can be dedicated for greenbelts, parks, resevoirs, etc.

[august948]

9 hours ago, __nevii said:

As @004n063 alludes to, the "15 minute city" is the ideal: all the needs, especially basic ones, within close access. It isn't just simply a matter of desire insomuch as it would provide demonstrable benefit/access compared to the current sprawling regime: for instance, mitigation of commute distance, food deserts, infrastructure upkeep for the given population, etc.

Since dense urbanity takes less space than corresponding population suburban sprawl, it wouldn't necessarily lead to the full using up of 500sq miles Beltway. For instance, stuff like Ghandi District, Chinatown, Space Center that is currently more spread apart can effectively "concentrate closer" as they shift into the denser contructs (just like how the Houston Maritime Museum moved from it's old location into the new East River development), Meanwhile, the excess land freed up can be dedicated for greenbelts, parks, resevoirs, etc.

You'll get pockets of that in Houston, to be sure, but the city overall is never going to be remade this way.  To have a city like that you need to build from the ground up, either from scratch or starting in a prior era where walking was the norm.  And you need geographical or hard political boundaries to enforce the density.  Neither of those apply here.

[__nevii]

On 9/18/2023 at 12:21 PM, august948 said:

You'll get pockets of that in Houston, to be sure, but the city overall is never going to be remade this way.  To have a city like that you need to build from the ground up, either from scratch or starting in a prior era where walking was the norm.  And you need geographical or hard political boundaries to enforce the density.  Neither of those apply here.

Not necessarily. Retrofits, rebuilds, etc happen: for instance, just as larger lot older homes are being demolished in favor of multiple, smaller lot townhomes, the buildings of the city with more parking (either surface lot or garages) can gradually get replaced/infilled with denser, walkable builds.

A lot of what is preventing the walkable builds today is not time-period/automobile adoption in/of itself ... rather, it's the codification of such lifestyle in local, state, and federal levels. The local stuff is dealt with regarding changes to parking minimums, lot sizes, setbacks, FARs, etc (not to mention road-widths, which apply to the greenfield stuff that you allude to): that takes care of the development within the city limits.

Meanwhile, the state (TXDOT) and federal stuff are what contribute to the suburban development outside the city across the metro: the "low prices" of suburban homes per sqft are heavily subsidized by both those governmental levels, the homes would be more expensive if they bore the full cost (i.e. sewer lines, electrical lines, and other such infrastructure emanating from central city). Changes at those levels would bring about the most significant change in terms of the metro as a whole (and not just the city): as it stands, the central city obviously can sitll infill/grow, there just also will be growth in the burbs too.

 

[hindesky]

[HNathoo]

8 hours ago, hindesky said:

Looks like some serious ant problems here