bedmondson

Pho Binh?  They are always on a bunch of top restaurant lists for Houston.  Already have a few places to get pho nearby but I think this place would do well.

http://houston.eater.com/2015/3/17/8231019/vietnamese-mini-chain-rumored-to-replace-shuttered-heights-bistro

Samurai Noodle on Durham and I10 is a good ramen shop that is now open. 

http://houston.eater.com/2015/2/25/8109951/activity-outside-former-stella-sola-space

Following the breadcrumbs, the manager of "Kitchen Snapper" is the same name of the owner of a few international Mediterranean restaurants. Could be a coincidence.

and how does a demo get red tagged? Did they some how tear it down improperly? And how would you 'correct' a red tagged demo?

I was hoping for an ice house type place at the recently demoed 927 Studewood property.  They appear to have purposely left the core building in tact and it now looks Cottoonwood-esque.  However this looks to be in a location that could use this type development more. I wonder how much longer the trailer homes next door will last?

Thank you Real Estate for your "help," but I own a dozen properties in the Heights, some commercial and some residential. Do you?

I have have never requested a variance and I provide adequate on site parking. I suggest this developer scale back and meet the requirements. Being greedy will backfire.

Since you chose to live in a historic district, perhaps you should be ashamed for supporting the scale, design and public burden proposed by this project.

Were you then one of the people who paid the mattress store developer to speak against the variance? 

And if they decide to just move on and go with the easy Smoochies plan will you be more satisfied?  

How about a Ashby Highrise type development? or something more like what is being built across the street?

You don't get to pick and choose the developments that get built near you but you can support those that provide you with the highest quality of life and by rejecting this variance it opens up the possibility of getting something far worse.  **And still nobody has answered my qeustion about the head in parking. Because the variance was denied, why would this not be developed in to parallel parking and be big net loss of public parking to the area? The developer would have to get a variance to maintain that style parking right?

One of the things that can be done to help is the Memorial Park Demonstration project just upstream.  If you look at that area right now it is almost completely silt and sand at and near the banks because of erosion.  Every time it floods all that gets washed down here and deposits.  But who knows if that will get approved due to the backlash against it from some corners.

Was it residential neighbors who hired him or as he stated commercial neighbors? I find it unfair that the commercial developments here who provide almost no parking (and likely have some kind of grandfathered status) went out and hired someone who would say what ever they needed him to protect the public parking for their own use.  

What blew my mind was the number of people who spoke that bought in the just the last few years along Heights and were just outraged and so surprised that there is actually traffic on their street! OMG who could have predicted that!?!? And what is sad is they think that by denying this variance nobody will be parking in front of their house and it will "save the neighborhood" from this development.  The development is still going to happen in one form or another, and people will still park in front of their house if the places are popular. 

My question is, won't the developer need a variance to maintain the public head in parking if they develop the area? Typically when you develop a property like that you redo the sidewalk, curb, driveways, etc and this parking might fall in those boundaries. So the net result of denying this variance could be a large reduction in public parking in the area. 

I can see why they denied the variance because as presented because the hardship was created by themselves.  Since they are tearing down that warehouse they have the option to build it back much smaller and thus provide the parking on site for the whole development.  So an option that I can see is to come back and present all the parcels separate and have the warehouse provide all the required on site parking.  That way the bungalow and the other buildings will have a legitimate undue hardship because the only alternative would be to tear them down completely. That is the reason staff ultimately supported the variance. 

I have drove around here and thought about the area a lot also. I don't have that high of hopes for this neighborhood's future.  A good leading indicator to me is the presence of "cool" new startups.  In pretty sketchy areas east of downtown you have some really talented people opening up some really great places (Doshi, Moontower, Andes, etc.) by taking advantage of cheaper rents.  Same thing happened in the Heights years back and continues today on some of its edges. In this area however... there is nothing so far that I am aware of that would indicate a positive direction.  The Pegstar development might help send the area in a better direction but I think it might be too isolated to really make a difference.  

I think a pending announcement from Midway is more likely going to concern the recently purchased Washington ave. property.

It appears to be nothing more than a glorified pintrest board at this point but I like the direction they are headed. Based on the boundaries in the link below, they are not subject to HAHC review. 

http://www.finialgroup.com/properties/flyers/pappas-yaleflyer.pdf

Does the city granting a variance for a credit of 70% of the parking requirement seem reasonable?  Is there even a precedent for such numbers anywhere in the city?   If so, where?  If not, why is it justified here?

 

Someone needs to take pictures of the current usage of the street parking the developer wants to claim to assess whether those spaces are actually available.  On a recent Saturday afternoon I did not see ANY empty spaces.

 

And then there is the live example of how this plays out: Coltivare.  40 bike spaces used to obtain a variance to reduce the parking requirement.  The last time I was there I saw a handful of people come in on foot, two people on bikes, but mostly young people driving in from all over the City so a table of six means six cars.   Great restaurant, but poorly planned by the city.

 

You can look at the plans for the 7th Yale/ Heights development.  Not sure how to attach it here but I saw them.  The proposal is a glorified strip mall with all the onsite parking visible from the street (very different from 19th Street which has much parking oriented in the rear so the area is pedestrian friendly).   I am still making sense of it all, but it looks like 3 or possibly 4 restaurants with additional outdoor patio seating. 

 

Imagine. 3 or 4 restaurants.  Coltivare is one restaurant and Arlington is a disaster.  I doubt a HFD truck can get through. 

 

In my mind the real question is whether the neighborhood will push back?  I suspect they do not want to be another Montrose and they city will be under pressure to respond appropriately after the embarrassment of the Coltivare fiasco.

You keep on bringing up Coltivare but I believe you are incorrect. If I remember correctly, they received a variance to be allowed to use parking that was not allowed by PWE because the spaces were not wide enough and resulted in cars blocking the sidewalk.  It was granted because the parking already exists and not granting the variance will not stop anybody from parking there and continuing to block the sidewalk.  Also, it is written into the parking ordinance that business owners can use bike racks to reduce their overall parking requirement by a few spots.  Coltivare did not need or get a variance for the bike racks and did not get a variance to lower the total number of required parking spaces. Please correct me and attach the variance if I am wrong.  

I saw 60% construction plans about 6 months ago for this segment.  Not sure the status but you could email the Council member and ask them to find out what is going on. Likely it is waiting on funding.

http://www.houstonbikeways.org/index.php/bikeways/61-houston-heritage-corridor-bayou-trails-west

Just remember seeing the listing in the past.  But now looking it up... Zillow shows just the 1201 Omar property listed for $1M and sold 2 months later.  Add in the 927 Studewood property and it could have actually gone for ~$1.4M+.

1201 Omar appears to be included and is 12,500 s.f.   That comes to about 3 lots.

If I remember correctly the property sold for $1,000,000 which would make it a pretty expensive parking lot! But either way a parking lot is better that than what it was.

There is a liquor licenses permit on the window at the former Citgo station.  I would assume this confirms the rumor.

Also 927 Studewood is being demolished today.  Future Glass Wall expansion?

I know personally in the past that Friends for Life next door expressed interest in the Alabama Furniture property. 

Looks like this is finally moving forward.  Picture taken at Fraiser and the bike trail.

Anyone have information about this property? Its next to the Glasswall property.  Fencing has been put up around it and looks like maybe a pending demo?

Both the  walmart light and the Target light are 1/10 a mile from the I-10 lights (according to google maps). 

 

The Center street light is 300 ft from the Washington light on Yale. 

 

Perhaps the second one is too old to qualify, but the first ones are pretty new.

True. Looking closer, this particular design requirement speaks more to mid-block signals.  The Walmart and Target ones are located at existing streets and are therefore ok with the requirements. Since this newly proposed signal is at an existing street Summer St I guess I could see it getting approved also. However if they had built this one on Summer St before the Kroger light, the Kroger light probably wouldn't have been approved because it is mid-block.

I reread the signal design requirements and it uses words like "avoid" and "should" so they probably have a lot of free range to do what they want.

That light is extremely unlikely to approved.  While there isn't a law, there are design requirements which state that new signals should be spaced at least 1/4 mile away from existing signals. 

I remember that picture from the Houston Chronicle tropical storm Allison coverage which is about the largest storm you can ever expect.  The elevation of the Greystar property is at about the same elevation so if they put any parking lower than ground level it will likely flood once every 50+ years or so.

...isn't it illegal to have a cooler of beer and drink downtown?  I think the move is more about getting the ability to charge $10 for a budlight.

There is a facebook page that puts it at 623 W 19th.   Looks like that place needs a full build out though.