CVS Pharmacy On Main St. At Elgin St.

[TheNiche]

Don't confuse the issue. You speak only for yourself. Own up to your unsubstantiated generalizations and move on.

I have. I will.

[Dream]

Fannin has a higher traffic count because most people know better than to drive on Main Street. People in vehicles also tend to be significantly wealthier than people on the LRT because the LRT is basically a glorified bus-replacement system.

The value of LRT should be as a rapid transit option, but that is not how it has been implemented. If it doesn't save time, the people who will most frequently use it are those relatively few for whom it is the most direct path and the majority who are forced to transfer on/off of it because of bus rerouting. And these people are disproportionately poor. The wealthy that must build up the LRT corridor don't want to ride with poor people...and certainly not when they can get most places faster in their cars.

Niche,

I respect your well thought response and that you attempted to contribute to this thread. At least you have an opinion and think beyond just complaining about CVS.

It does make business sense for CVS to face Fannin with higher traffic counts. It does not fit the ideal and mold to the romantic thoughts of pedestrian friendly dense urban midtown. But reality is vacant stretchs and suffering businesses. How can anyone ride the train and not see what is out of the window or not outside the window?

I used Metro busses exclusiely for 2 years at one point in my life and I agree that the working class or less fortunate do use public transit, I've seen it with my own eyes. I was just one of the masses on the buses and enjoyed the anonymity of the experience. I've also been on our LRT about 20 times, I noticed the same thing. On the LRT there seems to be a lot of homeless catching free rides to Autrey House for brekfast and back to downtown for lunch/panhandling.

Dream

[MidtownCoog]

Considering there is not a rail station nearby what's the big deal?

[VicMan]

While it does make business sense to add parking (And I don't disagree with having parking in Midtown), I still believe that CVS should make the part facing the rail line look like an entrance even though the entrance is not actually in the said side.

[MidtownCoog]

agree

I remember when this was our old hardware store.

[KinkaidAlum]

The development along the Main St. line has been a disappointment in Midtown. Much of this however is due to speculative flippers who have priced anyone other than national companies such as CVS out of the market. It's a shame.

Again, I have to ask CVS, why there? There are hundreds of parcels of land in the midtown area that are much more suitable for a CVS style pharmacy. Why build with your back to the Main Street line? Why not find a parcel on the opposite side of Fannin or along San Jacinto or Brazos or any of the other N/S thoroughfares? It's not like this location is surrounded by a neighborhood. They will be relying solely on drive-through traffic.

Again, it's a real shame that Houstonians would allow a Rhode Island based company to do as they please regardless of the larger consequences.

[N Judah]

But if it's still rubble, then isn't there a way to reverse this? When the builders come, get a bunch of guys with HUGE picket signs... anything to get CVS to change its mind!

Where's Earth Liberation Front when we really need them!??!?

Again, it's a real shame that Houstonians would allow a Rhode Island based company to do as they please regardless of the larger consequences.

It doesn't matter. In 5-10 years the land it is on will be bought and something else will replace it.

Edited November 22, 2006 by N Judah

[TheNiche]

The development along the Main St. line has been a disappointment in Midtown. Much of this however is due to speculative flippers who have priced anyone other than national companies such as CVS out of the market. It's a shame.

High land prices are what assures us that the development that eventually does get here is high-quality. If the prices were too low, you'd see townhomes along the rail line. Would you prefer that? CVS is merely a placeholder, but the townhomes would have more permenancy.

Again, I have to ask CVS, why there? There are hundreds of parcels of land in the midtown area that are much more suitable for a CVS style pharmacy. Why build with your back to the Main Street line? Why not find a parcel on the opposite side of Fannin or along San Jacinto or Brazos or any of the other N/S thoroughfares? It's not like this location is surrounded by a neighborhood. They will be relying solely on drive-through traffic.

They chose that spot because it has some really high traffic counts and is highly-visible. They also know that the land value certainly isn't going down anytime soon because it is such a 'blue chip' block of land that'll hold its value, and the cost of the actual store relative to the value of the land is probably pretty low. So when the time comes, they can dispose of it easily to a high bidder and about the only thing that they'll have to write off as an expense is the build cost, which will likely be entirely recouped (and then some) from sales.

Again, it's a real shame that Houstonians would allow a Rhode Island based company to do as they please regardless of the larger consequences.

Xenophobia? Kinkaid? I'm surprised at you.

[Guest danax]

High land prices are what assures us that the development that eventually does get here is high-quality. If the prices were too low, you'd see townhomes along the rail line. Would you prefer that? CVS is merely a placeholder, but the townhomes would have more permenancy.

You mean high quality as in a more expensive project but even a mid or high rise building can be cheaply built, like perhaps Tremont Towers.

[VicMan]

IMO, even the low-rise, flat stores are welcome for Midtown, since, as a rail passenger, I can easily walk to the said stores.

Though, CVS should try to have the store somewhat cater to rail passengers by placing a fa

[77017]

So much for pedestrian friendly Main Street! Now everyone can walk down Main or ride the rail and see the back of a new CVS. The entire building is oriented to the car and traffic on Fannin, the front door and parking lot will face Fannin.

What does everyone think of this new development in Midtown? How does everyone feel about rail now? Is this a huge setback for Main Street and Midtown? Why is so much of Main street retail vacant? Where are all of the businesses that are supposed to come to Main with the train? Why are national retailers/CVS ignoring the train and huge 10 to 12 foot sidewalks on Main street and facing their businesses away from Main? Will rail fail? Should Midtown keep spending public money to keep the pretty flowers and plants along Main Street or start investing money on marketing this stretch of vacant real estate?

I believe in rail for Houston but seeing things like this make it very difficult to for me to understand or see the value of Main Street light rail to date.

Dream

[TheNiche]

You mean high quality as in a more expensive project but even a mid or high rise building can be cheaply built, like perhaps Tremont Towers.

Are you familiar with the problems endured by the owners of Tremont? Is that what you want for Midtown???

Projects like Tremont are atypical anyway. If they were repeated too many times, the bad press would be sufficient to keep people away from condo mid/highrises entirely.

[Guest danax]

Are you familiar with the problems endured by the owners of Tremont? Is that what you want for Midtown???

Projects like Tremont are atypical anyway. If they were repeated too many times, the bad press would be sufficient to keep people away from condo mid/highrises entirely.

I see that the way I wrote that could have double meaning and be misinterpreted. What I meant was that, just because land values warrant only larger projects in Midtown at this point, that is not a guaranty of high quality, and Tremont is an example of just that. If the rents or sales don't allow much profit after paying loads of money for the land, there could be some corners cut, meaning flashy looking buildings that are poorly built. Or, maybe just not much gets built until land goes down or rents/sales prices go up. Maybe that's where we're at today.

[TheNiche]

I see that the way I wrote that could have double meaning and be misinterpreted. What I meant was that, just because land values warrant only larger projects in Midtown at this point, that is not a guaranty of high quality, and Tremont is an example of just that. If the rents or sales don't allow much profit after paying loads of money for the land, there could be some corners cut, meaning flashy looking buildings that are poorly built. Or, maybe just not much gets built until land goes down or rents/sales prices go up. Maybe that's where we're at today.

The market value of land is equal to the present value of all expected future cash flows that can be generated by its use by the highest bidder. This is true of all competitive land markets, whether they be urban, suburban, subsidized, or unregulated/unincorporated. Barring extreme and very specific kinds of subsidy, the key factor upon which land prices will rest are expectations of consumer demand.

Equilibreum pricing based upon demand throughout the broader market is important because it forces cost control. Cost control is important because it forces firms within an industry to continually innovate to remain competitive; in the long term, industry-wide cost reductions get passed on to consumers. However, there are always extreme cases where developers go too far with cost-cutting in order to be able to afford to be the high bidder for a parcel. Such was the case with Tremont. But this practice is not unique to urban condo midrises. There are countless builders of single-family homes and townhomes that cut corners excessively. When land prices are in equilibreum, this occasional tendency is inescapable.

[Watch4Snakes]

I tend to agree with those that believe that plots of land will be redeveloped in a decade or so. The neighborhood must fill in with working businesses first. The delapidated buildings and empty lots must be occupied by something. I don't think that Midtown will initially look like everyone hopes. But "box stores" such as this CVS will be replaced. We just won't be able to enjoy the neighborhood we want just yet.

Someone also mentioned that there is no rail stop at Main@Elgin. I would agree that we should be most concerned, in the short future, of ensuring that "pedestrian friendly" retail/development occurs in clustered formations around the rail stops.

[Guest danax]

Someone also mentioned that there is no rail stop at Main@Elgin. I would agree that we should be most concerned, in the short future, of ensuring that "pedestrian friendly" retail/development occurs in clustered formations around the rail stops.

The Ensemble Station isn't too far and my fear is that without any protections, those sidewalk-hugging historic retail strips that are currently along Main and Fannin near there will get bulldozed for more "place holders". That would be a double tragedy and one that couldn't be reversed.

[torvald]

...my fear is that without any protections, those sidewalk-hugging historic retail strips that are currently along Main and Fannin near there will get bulldozed for more "place holders". That would be a double tragedy and one that couldn't be reversed.

hear hear!

[Subdude]

From "The Houstonist"

New Main Street CVS exposes planning problems: When Midtown planners heard that CVS intended to build a new store at Main and Elgin, they asked the drugstore chain to make some changes to the store's design, including orienting the building to face the corner of Main and Elgin and adding a second story above the store with several loft apartments. But CVS would have none of it, which means there'll be a suburban-style store on Main

[WesternGulf]

WOW. I am actually surprised they asked for lofts on top! If building up to the sidewalk and not taking up the whole block for a single use development was too much, the former would have been a hassle. Very sad.

Edited May 25, 2007 by WesternGulf

[Subdude]

Upstairs apartments may have been asking too much. CVS presumably isn't interested in being residential landlords. I think a more realistic request would have been to put parking in the back and the store close to the street. Not that CVS would listen anyway.

[Jax]

Has anybody confirmed that there won't be an entrance from Main street and that it will be "suburban style" ? Last time I drove by it was really hard to tell what it was going to look like.

[CSOM]

Has anybody confirmed that there won't be an entrance from Main street and that it will be "suburban style" ? Last time I drove by it was really hard to tell what it was going to look like.

It appears that way, all of the curb demolition for driveways appears to be on Elgin. I'll try and snap some pics this weekend.

[lockmat]

Upstairs apartments may have been asking too much. CVS presumably isn't interested in being residential landlords. I think a more realistic request would have been to put parking in the back and the store close to the street. Not that CVS would listen anyway.

I agree. Albuquerque has actually done a decent job of doing this - putting parking behind the building, away from the street.

The Chronicles article didn't say anything about parking either.

I'm in favor of a public protest. Or can't we at least get some kind of online petition going and then send it to them? I'm sure we can get plenty of signatures from here and I'm sure we all know people who would be in favor it too. Should I get it started? Anyone?

Edited May 25, 2007 by lockmat

[Subdude]

I'm in favor of a public protest. Or can't we at least get some kind of online petition going and then send it to them? I'm sure we can get plenty of signatures from here and I'm sure we all know people who would be in favor it too. Should I get it started? Anyone?

I'm sure a public protest or petition would be as effective as that trying to save the River Oaks shopping center. Let's face it, the developers couldn't care less.

[lockmat]

I'm sure a public protest or petition would be as effective as that trying to save the River Oaks shopping center. Let's face it, the developers couldn't care less.

Then lets just throw rocks through their windows.

Just Keeding.

[Ethanra]

Drove by today.... The frame is going up and all four sides of the building are surrounded by parking. Basicly a suburb style CVS in the middle of the block surrounded by concrete. A sighed letter or petition needs to be put together and let CVS know who and why their is a protest and boycott of CVS..... At least the Walgreens in MT had two sides facing the street as well as nice landscaping. Walgreens did a good job with the one in the heights as well.

I just don't understand , why they couldn't have CVS run the length of the block facing main and have the back half of the block parking....

[musicman]

I just don't understand , why they couldn't have CVS run the length of the block facing main and have the back half of the block parking....

i don't understand why it matters. the parking lot is still the same size. if you cant walk the extra 50' to the front door then there's a problem..

[Ethanra]

i don't understand why it matters. the parking lot is still the same size. if you cant walk the extra 50' to the front door then there's a problem..

It is not walking the extra 50; it is making it look nice and having the the entrance street side and not having a ugly suburb style structure in the midlle of an area that is trying to be redevelop and create an urban indentity...

[musicman]

It is not walking the extra 50; it is making it look nice and having the the entrance street side and not having a ugly suburb style structure in the midlle of an area that is trying to be redevelop and create an urban indentity...

so if it looks good on ONE side that is enough? i personally don't think that's an "urban" structure.

let's examine a real urban structure across main street. come out the front door and stare at a parking garage with space for stores on the first floor but no businesses have moved in yet. is this the kind of urban indentity you're going for?

Edited May 30, 2007 by musicman

[houstonmacbro]

Fannin has a higher traffic count because most people know better than to drive on Main Street. People in vehicles also tend to be significantly wealthier than people on the LRT because the LRT is basically a glorified bus-replacement system.

The value of LRT should be as a rapid transit option, but that is not how it has been implemented. If it doesn't save time, the people who will most frequently use it are those relatively few for whom it is the most direct path and the majority who are forced to transfer on/off of it because of bus rerouting. And these people are disproportionately poor. The wealthy that must build up the LRT corridor don't want to ride with poor people...and certainly not when they can get most places faster in their cars.

Yes, but couldn't they have a decorative main street entrance as well?