Jump to content

thedistrict84

Full Member
  • Posts

    593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thedistrict84

  1. There is a mistake in their listing. It refers to the Kroger as the “east end Kroger” instead of “Kombat Kroger.”
  2. They are some of the best margs in the city. Luckily I only live a few blocks away so I have the option to walk there and back.
  3. All of those options you mentioned are generally similar to Tex-Mex and it’s derivatives. We need more diverse food options in this area beyond any of those.
  4. I think the NRP development will have one major effect for people on the north side of the Bayou—a significant increase in vehicle traffic. With the way the streets are laid out in that area, the most likely access to and from the NRP property will be Kennedy St. to Jensen. From there, I think you will see a significant amount of traffic head up and down Jensen, which provides direct access to I-10, I-45, and 59 with less hassle then other alternatives. Does anyone have more details about the unit mix at NRP? I’ve seen varying details from different sources but nothing consistent.
  5. They are moving fast on build-out of the restaurant portion. Maybe a half-dozen workers were present. No sign is up, so I’m not sure if this is still going to be a Corky’s or some other restaurant. https://imgur.com/gallery/vOISdHl (Sorry for the link, it’s inverting the orientation of photos when I try to upload directly, and Imgur imbed feature isn’t working on mobile)
  6. I feel like that 1100 number is the unit count between both developments. I don’t see how the Ojala development alone could have that many units. Unfortunately HHA hasn’t been very forthcoming with details and the manner in which they approved the project was a bit shady. I wouldn’t expect much from them.
  7. I don’t believe that’s accurate. The majority of units for each of these will be at 60% AMI or below—400 units at the NRP development and 304 units at the Ojala development.
  8. Good news for me though. I’m just a few blocks away but couldn’t see myself going to Corky’s and wasn’t super excited about it. Hopefully something with a more diverse menu goes in here. But knowing my luck, it will probably be a Chipotle.
  9. Anybody else find it beyond annoying that the website refers to this as being “East Downtown/EaDo’s newest community”? The name creep continues.
  10. Yes. We need more quality developments like this in the immediate area to help counteract the proposed affordable housing developments (one of which will be right to the east of this, if I’m not mistaken). Speaking of which, whatever happened with that proposal for the multi-family building on Fox and N. Nagle? The renderings for it looked very similar to this.
  11. Wow I didn’t even realize that it had opened. I guess that might have been part of the problem?
  12. The Corky’s in Katy closed in December. Has anyone heard recently whether the location slated for this development is still going forward? I know there is still one other location in Cypress that is still open. https://communityimpact.com/houston/katy/impacts/2019/12/16/corky039s-ribs-bbq-in-katy-area-closes/
  13. That building and the smaller warehouse at the southwest corner of McKinney and Emancipation would both be good candidates to be renovated into either a bar or restaurant.
  14. Yep, saw that coming. Suburban-style strip center leads to suburban tenants. Ugh.
  15. Thanks, I searched in the East End neighborhood sub forum for the post on East Village prior to my post, as I didn’t realize the East Village thread was still in “Going Up.”
  16. Just came across this article regarding Conservatory and Prohibition moving to the former Chapman and Kirby spot as part of the East Village development in EaDo, on St. Emanuel. More good news for EaDo! https://m.chron.com/entertainment/restaurants-bars/article/Ambitious-new-food-hall-projects-slated-for-EaDo-14937598.php
  17. Right, I was just clarifying whether it was required or not. @Luminare suggested it might be required, and I was just pointing out that it might be inside the zone in EaDo that has had parking requirements lifted. In my earlier comment just a few minutes prior to the one that you quoted, I acknowledged that parking was necessary for the Lovett redevelopment of the Post building, and that the indication of retail parking on the Alliance Broadstone site plan—which otherwise doesn’t seem to include GFR—indicates that the two developers have apparently come to an agreement regarding providing parking for the Post building.
  18. I think you beat me to this point by about 15 seconds lol I would agree about the move to have this parking count towards the required parking for the Lovett redevelopment of the Houston Post building, but isn’t this property within the area of EaDo recently excluded from parking minimums? Or does that end at Emancipation?
  19. My guess is that they will have an arrangement with Lovett to have that part of the Alliance Broadstone parking garage used for Lovett’s redeveloped Houston Post building immediately next door.
  20. This Alliance Broadstone project is only utilizing the southern half of the lot. The northern half of the lot where the old Houston Post building remains will presumably still be redeveloped separately by Lovett. A site plan for Alliance Broadstone posted in the neighborhood forum excludes the northern part of the lot.
  21. At this stage in the project I would assume they are structural. They’ve been steadily banging the pillars further into the ground over the last few weeks, probably to help reinforce the land at the edge of the bayou to help protect against subsidence or washout. I can hear the sound fairly clearly about 0.75 miles away, it was kind of creepy until I found out what it was.
  22. Honestly, I feel like this project should be kept here in Going Up since it includes the additional lot fronting Leeland. Save the other post in the neighborhood forum for Lovett’s half-baked, constantly in flux “plans” for the Houston Post building.
  23. “Amazing” is a bit of an overstatement, it could certainly be better than this. Angled parking definitely has its place and is useful when used on one-way streets, but is less than ideal on a two-way street such as this. I take it you don’t spend much time trying to park on W 19th between Ashland and Rutland in The Heights? Between the dumb drivers blocking traffic while waiting for someone to back out of a spot and others pulling across traffic to park in spots angled away from their direction of travel, it’s an exercise in frustration. Granted, the volume of traffic won’t be as bad here for the reasons you state, but it doesn’t mean we should welcome a subpar site plan and parking arrangement with open arms. As far as I am concerned nothing benefits walkability (or “activates the pedestrian realm” *eye roll*) as well as buildings fronting the street and parking in the back.
  24. The site plan shown in the brochure is horrible, and not very pedestrian friendly. People walking will not only have to dodge two driveways but also parked cars that hang over into the sidewalk (such as large trucks with trailer hitches backed into parking spots). Also, angled parking spots fronting a two-way road is sure to make for bad parking jobs and blocked traffic as people engage in the dumb and nonsensical parking maneuver of pulling across opposite lanes of traffic to pull into a parking spot angled away from their direction of travel. New retail in this area is welcome of course, but they need to think through the details better than this half-baked site plan.
×
×
  • Create New...