thedistrict84

I was looking at the minutes from the planning commission meeting on 8/30/2018 where these proposed developments were up for discussion. Apparently there was a staff recommendation to deny the variances and disapprove the plats. However, the commission rejected that recommendation and voted to approve everything. 

That doesn’t seem typical to me, although I’m admittedly not well-versed in the workings of the planning commission at this point. Is there something else going on here behind the scenes?

Redevelopment planned for the old Rex Supply building on Harrisburg at Milby. This is near the Second Ward/Coffee Plant stop on METRO Green Line light rail. Looks to be mixed-use retail with plans for a three story garage.

Definitely would be a welcome addition near the Sampson/York corridor.

http://swamplot.com/what-rex-supplys-harrisburg-complex-would-look-like-with-restaurants-throngs-of-pedestrians-taking-over-its-thru-street/2018-09-20/

https://www.hpiproperties.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/milby-junction-1.pdf

Special thanks to Swamplot for finding this (or at least making me aware of it lol)

3 hours ago, Angostura said:

Notwithstanding some neighborhood opposition, the setback variances were approved last week.

RISE Lofts just a few blocks away is of a similar height, and it seems as though the developers are addressing any traffic flow/accessibility concerns, so I don’t see how any opposition to this will be remotely successful.

On a related note, is “pedestrian realm” a legitimate industry term, or is the developer trying to be “hip” and “cool” by pushing a new buzzword?

3 hours ago, Angostura said:

All variances were approved last week.

That’s great news. Another victory for common sense.

Drove by this yesterday, and a new blue construction fence is up around the entire block.

Is TNP still open? I tried to go there on a Tuesday a few weeks ago and it was closed, with no notice on the door or anything.

On 9/15/2018 at 0:15 PM, SampsonScientist said:

Where exactly is the old folks homes in commerce being built on?

2800 Commerce. It’s the large vacant lot at Commerce and Delano.

I created a post about it a while back, it was moved over to the “Going Up!” section.

https://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/39132-campanile-on-commerce-2800-commerce-new-senior-living-apartments-in-second-ward/

10 minutes ago, CREguy13 said:

We'd also have less development.

I think I would trade less development overall for a more cohesive approach to developing inner-loop areas. 

41 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

However, I find the argument "if you don't own a building, you don't have an interest what happens to it" to fall flat, especially on an architectural forum. If that were the case, we wouldn';t designate certain structures landmarks, we wouldn't designate historic districts, we wouldn't have Chapter 33, Article VII of the COH ordinances that protects such properties from their current owners doing whatever they want with them, etc. I, like many on this board, am a native Houstonian, and I've seen a lot of our history and best architecture lost. Preservation of old buildings (where it makes sense to) is important to me, despite living in a city that "cherishes" fewer restrictions on the use of private property, why do I live here (to answer Nate99's question)? Because I was born here, because it's where my family is, and because I love the city I have known all my life. I don't want to see all the places that have been part of what I have loved about this city in my 42 years demolished, often by developers from elsewhere who don't have the longterm stake in this city I have, and so I think pushing for greater protection of historic structures, even the ones I don't own, is  a completely legitimate and worthwhile motive.

Very well said.

On 8/26/2018 at 1:20 PM, Tone2002 said:

I also saw they are also building townhomes near Sampson/Harrisburg intersection too. 

Do you know exactly where that development would be located? There are quite a few vacant lots in the immediate few blocks, so it would be nice for something to be done with at least some of those.

The Sampson/York corridor is going to be interesting in a year or two with all of this new town home construction and new restaurants/bars such as Victorian’s BBQ and The Plant at Harrisburg in the works.

9 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

The "wanting it all to be towers" comment was tongue-in-cheek.

I know. My response was a playful jab at those people who do.

And valets are universally awful. I’ll stand by that comment.

2 hours ago, Angostura said:

And if those people aren't buying expensive condos in high-rise buildings, what ARE they buying?

I might be underestimating the number of people that will be “cross-shopping” 1930s bungalows and a condo in a new high-rise tower. Those are near opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of property type.

I would think that if someone cannot afford the type of housing they would prefer in a certain neighborhood, they would look at other nearby neighborhoods instead of completely changing the criteria on the type of property they want to purchase.

2 hours ago, Angostura said:

If the number of people who want to live in a given neighborhood goes up (which is the case in Montrose), either we build more housing to meet the demand, or the price of the existing housing stock goes up, which absolutely prices people out of the neighborhood.

I get that. Economics 101. Supply and demand.

However, if the goal is to provide more affordable property for the area, this particular high rise tower with what will almost invariably be “luxury” condos with a high sale price and the added bonus of an insane monthly maintenance fee (if it’s anything like other towers in Montrose) is probably not the best way to go about it.

2 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

In Houston, we want it all to someday be towers.

I mean I certainly don’t. Certain areas, sure, but not the whole inner loop area. I like having a yard. And a garage. And valets are the worst.

2 hours ago, jgriff said:

I don’t want that kind of elitist thinking in Houston. Keeping certain people out of a neighborhood is something that we should be well behind by now.

How on earth is wanting to retain historic bungalows in Montrose, or keeping a single family neighborhood single family, an “elitist” idea? 

Now if you’re talking about pricing people out of the neighborhood, then you’re just wrong. High rise apartments/condos are very expensive. How cheap do you think the condos are going to be in this particular tower?

That’s fair. I was just thinking that if it’s meant to be a gateway to the East End, then it would be silly for one of the streets off of the roundabout to be a short dead end street.

Also, I would guess that blocking off Runnels would have an effect on traffic flow and would mean whatever traffic analysis was used to justify this change to the intersection (which I assume was based in part on an increase in traffic volume) may no longer be applicable.

Does the fact that this is moving forward suggest that the connectivity of Runnels to McKee will be retained as part of the I-45 reroute project?

46 minutes ago, HoustonIsHome said:

What interest me is the Tale of Two cities that is East and West of Main in midtown. East of Caroline has quite a few single family and lower density residences. I highly doubt that that area will change much in the next 30 years or so. That is quite fine as the neighborhood feel in that area appeals to me. 

This is a very good point. Going vertical is definitely necessary in this city, and I’m sure many of us welcome higher density and more retail, restaurant, and entertainment options which higher density brings. But not every part of town (or, as you point out, even every part of a neighborhood) needs to go vertical. 

Pockets of high-density towers and other vertical developments (in Midtown, downtown, along Allen Parkway, Upper Kirby, Museum District, Med Center, etc.) connected by light rail and other transportation systems should provide for all of the increased capacity inside the loop that we as a city should need in the next 30-40 years, if not longer.

There is still going to be a strong need (and desire) for single-family homes inside the loop. Many people (myself included) have no interest in living in high-rise towers, but still want to be close to these neighborhoods.

On 8/31/2018 at 11:31 PM, jgriff said:

I like it because it pisses off the "What about the drainage?", "What about the traffic?", "It's out of scale with the neighborhood.", "Think of the children.", "I live in a bungalow." crowd. There's already a group of them trying to stop this. These people are truly evil. 

That’s a fairly low bar to set. There will always be somebody to oppose virtually any new development, no matter what the justification of their opposition may be. I’m not sure such people should be deemed “truly evil” though. 

4 hours ago, Angostura said:

Every apartment in this building could mean one fewer house on the Katy prairie, which should HELP the flooding situation. 

Although I agree with you in principle, I’m afraid the Venn diagram between people considering a house in Katy and those who would live in a high-rise apartment in Montrose would basically be two perfect circles directly next to each other.

I personally have zero interest in living in a high rise, but also zero interest in living anywhere outside the loop, so maybe I’m not the best person to opine on such a choice. 

24 minutes ago, jmosele said:

I'm diggin the funky retro vibe. I think it'll fit Montrose nicely!

I’m getting a “Sears store renovated in the 1980s” vibe from this render. 

4 minutes ago, Naviguessor said:

Oh. No no. That's ugly and so misporoportioned. However, can't argue with a frontage of retail. 

Agreed. This lot has a relatively narrow footprint for the size of the building, so when you combine that with the asinine minimum parking requirements, this is what you get.

13 minutes ago, lithiumaneurysm said:

If a lot on a major thoroughfare in one of the densest and most walkable areas in Houston isn't a logical place to put a multifamily tower, I don't know what is. The only way it could be more appropriate is if it were on a rail line and had less parking.

The issue isn’t the location, it’s the size of this particular lot. Because the footprint is relatively narrow and small, they require 9 stories of parking (+2 underground!) to provide the number of parking spaces necessary to make this development workable. 

I’m all for walkability, but this city is still car-centric and will continue to be for the near future. Providing for parking, especially for a residential tower, is a necessary evil. I agree that light rail in the area would be a nice addition (maybe up the median down Montrose?), but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

43 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

What part of my post do you think was in favor of saving old houses? I said I wanted Montrose to look like Broadway on the Upper West Side, lol.

 

No, no, no, you’ve got it all wrong. Midtown is supposed to be developed into a mini-Manhattan, not Montrose. Get it right! /s

Seriously though, not every inner loop area needs to go vertical. Building up Midtown, the undeveloped southwest portion of Downtown, Allen Parkway, Kirby, Museum District, etc. will provide more than enough density for the next 30+ years.

Although, I guess a tower here would be a potential connector between Allen Parkway and The Hanover and the (future) Colombe d’Or towers near Westheimer. I guess I’m a bit conflicted. 

From Swamplot last week, regarding this development:

http://swamplot.com/what-the-new-commerce-st-old-folks-apartments-will-look-like-to-the-middle-schoolers-across-the-street-from-them/2018-08-22/

23 minutes ago, Luminare said:

When a plot says its an "unrestricted reserve" the city really means that its "unrestricted" not "unrestricted" for residential area or in a commercial area or industrial. Its "unrestricted" meaning anything can go there if it follows current Harris County regulations and code. If what is being proposed follows Harris County rules and regulations than it will pass.

I was not aware that this particular lot was designated as “unrestricted reserve” (although, I’d assume that most lots up and down Montrose in this area carry that designation). That definitely changes things, as you mentioned. 

I understand that the planning commission in Houston has limited power—my comment was more regarding cities with no zoning in general. However, certain things are within their purview which could influence what gets built and where, such as the setback guidelines at issue with this particular variance request.

31 minutes ago, jgriff said:

Also, that kind of thinking is what gets you sky high rent. The planning commission is a bunch of dummies, the market knows better. 

 

Edit: I'll take part of that back, a planning commission aren't necessarily dummies. They will do what's best for themselves and anyone who they are friends with. 

I don’t disagree with this. Certain developers are definitely given wider latitude by the planning commission than others. I’m sure you can guess the reasons.

47 minutes ago, William said:

My point is that you'd be hard pressed to name a major development in Montrose in the past 10 years that shares a block with a bunch of single-family homes. Take the El Tiempo development for example. They're building an 8 story apartment complex, but it's not being built on top of any of the homes in that areas. All of those homes are across the street.

There is also a significant difference between 8 stories and 20 stories as well.

Based on the “nine floors of parking” bit (if true), it sounds like this developer is trying to shoehorn a tower in a place where it’s not a good fit.

If I were you (and as concerned as you seem to be about this project), I’d do what I could to oppose the granting of the variance they are seeking. Given the limitations of the size of the lot, there is no way this gets off the ground if the variance isn’t granted.

Like you, I’m not opposed to densification and “going vertical”, but there are definitely areas (and lots) where a development like this makes much more sense.

49 minutes ago, jgriff said:

Bottom line, the owner of this lot wants to make some money and this is how they've decided to do it. 

This shouldn’t be the overriding factor. Even in a city with no zoning, the planning commission has a duty to make sure proposed uses are appropriate and fit the greater development scheme of the area.

I agree that that is a good possible candidate. I had looked at it before, but from what I remember the community center was smaller and not two stories, and the acreage of the park itself was smaller as well. The buildings around Woodland Park are also older than I recall.

Thanks for the input though, I appreciate it!