Jump to content

Angostura

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,241

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Angostura

  1. Angostura
    Yes, but all the incentives run the other way. In order to open a restaurant, you need a space, a concept, and money. All of these are finite resources. Sometimes the space drives the concept, but more often, the money does. It's a far less risky proposition to invest in a proven concept (or chef, or partnership) than an unproven one, so the incentive for investors is to replicate existing successful concepts. The incentive for the chef/operator is the same. It's a lot higher return on effort to establish recipes, processes, systems, training, etc. once, and then replicate it than it is to create a new concept for every new location. Back-of-house staff work long hours for a long time for not much money, so when they get a chance to provide for themselves and their families by opening 2nd and 3rd and 15th locations of a successful concept, they have every right to take it. Every wish that a chef-driven concept remain a single location with the chef in the kitchen in reality puts a ceiling (and a pretty low one) on that chef's income. While I love new and interesting and unique restaurants, I'm more interested in getting delicious food made from quality ingredients in a pleasant atmosphere at a reasonable price. If that's in the 2nd Bernie's, or the 2nd Cloud 10, or the 2nd Helen, or the 3rd Superica, or the 5th Hopdoddy, or the 17th Snooze, I'm OK with that.
  2. Angostura
    Personally, I'd much rather have more street parking and fewer surface lots. However, most residential streets in the Heights are not quite wide enough to accommodate street parking on both sides and still allow two-way traffic to flow normally. This is not normally a problem when only 1/4 to 1/3 of the available street spaces are in use, since there's usually enough room for one car to pull over and let an oncoming vehicle pass. However, when parking volumes are high, navigating these streets becomes difficult. There are three potential solutions to this: 1 - Repave streets with curbs and gutters to allow more space for street parking. This is the most expensive option. 2 - Restrict street parking to one side of the street only. This eliminates half the on-street spaces, including spaces that residents use on a regular basis. Often spaces they've paid money to improve (like placing a culvert in the drainage ditch). 3 - Convert streets in the Heights from two-way to one-way. This maintains all the on-street spaces and eliminates any issues with flow of vehicles during peak parking demand. Many urban neighborhoods with a high usage rate of on-street parking have one-way side streets. In Houston, a big chunk of the 4th ward (the area bounded by Gray, Taft, Dallas and I-45) is laid out with one-way streets to allow on-street parking despite the narrow right-of-way. In this particular area, the N-S streets are mostly OK for street parking (except Nicholson). Converting the E-W streets to one-way from 16th to 28th (maybe with the exception of 19th and 20th) would resolve the problem. East of Heights Blvd, I think you could make an argument for converting the entire street grid, from I-10 to 20th between Heights and Studewood, to one-way traffic.
  3. Angostura
    There are provisions in the ordinance for shared parking requirements, but, effectively, if the restaurants open before 5PM, they can't use that garage to meet any of their minimum parking requirement. They CAN, however, lease up to 50-70% of the parking spaces for overflow after 5PM, depending on the actual use classification of that building.
  4. Angostura
    I don't have any issue with street parking. It's just that of the 3 streets bordering this development, 2 don't have any. I think the missed opportunity is that instead of 3 surface lots (this development, NW corner of 19th and Ashland, SE corner of 20th and Ashland) we could have one parking structure and two new developments, bringing a lot more density to this retail corridor. Between the waterworks and whatever goes on the Chase site, we could finally have a continuous corridor of street-facing buildings from Yale to Shepherd.
  5. Angostura
    39,000 pounds sounds like a lot. 19.5 tons sounds like a lot less.
  6. Angostura
    Both Nicholson and 20th are no-parking. 19th has a couple dozen street spaces, but probably not enough to absorb demand, especially with the 40% break they'll get for re-developing historic buildings. So some of the people that park on the street will have to do so on 18th and 21st. There are also surface lots for the hospital at 19th & Ashland and 20th & Ashland that could be developed if Braun were to go vertical here.
  7. Angostura
    That's a pretty impressive set of tenants so far. It looks like they're meeting their parking requirements fully on-site. Depending on the final square footages and use classifications, with the 40% break for historical buildings (provided they get a CoA), they'll need something between 120 and 130, which is about what's on the site plan. I was hoping for structured parking here, as it would let them re-purpose some of the land used for parking at the Harold's development, but I guess they couldn't make those numbers work.
  8. Angostura
    It's roughly a third of the total land area, but it's the third that's closest to the rail stop, and potentially creates a barrier between the rest of the development and the rail line. It also means they can't connect Leona St all the way to Chestnut St. It's the street grid that makes this a potential extension of the neighborhood instead of East Katyville, which is what it runs the risk of becoming. Counterpoint: If you look at this image of the Fulton St cross section, and this map of a potential future connection to San Jacinto, they may just see (potentially widened to 6 lanes) Fulton St as being too difficult to bridge, making it difficult to integrate the eastern third of the site with the rest.
  9. Angostura
    IIRC, a city-wide family membership to the YMCA is around $100/mo. Westside is around $300/mo. Both of these come with a lot more than just a pool. If you price membership at $80/mo, 6 months/yr (~$500 per family), you need ~600 families to cover the OpEx, plus $7500 in CapEx per family (which would probably be some mixture of cash and debt). I think they'll struggle to get this to work unless the land is donated (or acquired at significantly below market price).
  10. Angostura
    I'm guessing this is a result of the traffic impact analysis. What I think they'll do is: extend the left turn lane that allows cars to enter the Kroger development from SB Studemont provide a right turn lane for cars on NB Studemont to turn onto the EB 1-10 feeder re-configure the median on Studemont to extend the left turn lane (from NB Studemont to WB I-10) provide a right-turn lane for those entering the development from the EB I-10 feeder
  11. Angostura
    More than the city requires, yes. But once in place, it allows them to develop the land just west of the Tacodeli building (currently parking for that development), using the more valuable Wash Ave frontage for retail rather than parking. It also would allow them to lease space to B&B, allowing THAT parking lot to be further developed. Could be similar to what's happening on Fairview with the new parking structure there. It may even give them critical mass to apply for a Special Parking Area, which would release individual businesses from having to provide their own parking, allowing it to be shared across the SPA.
  12. Angostura
    I understand what you're saying. However: you can only appeal on one of two grounds: unequal appraisal, or market value. While we're over-appraised w/r/t market value in our current neighborhood code, the houses in 8305.1 are probably under-appraised. A market-based appeal would lower our appraisal, but only to about where it's capped at anyway. Also, we're not, strictly speaking, in a townhouse. It's a house on a sub-divided lot, but our land area is at the upper end of the range for these kinds of houses. What's frustrating is that of the other two pretty-much-identical houses that were built together with ours, one is in 8305.06 like ours, but the other is in 8305.10, and pays thousands less in taxes.
  13. Angostura
    Amazing what's possible when you centralize parking and build it vertical.
  14. Angostura
    Ummmmm...
  15. Angostura
    It was 8AM. You can't argue unequal appraisal in binding arbitration; I'd have to go to district court. If I got my full ask, it'd be $130k under my current taxable value (we're capped, but not THAT capped). I'll get legal advice regarding whether it's worthwhile to pursue further.
  16. Angostura
    These are exactly the two questions I asked. The HCAD rep said that neighborhood codes were based on characteristics of the house, year built, etc. When I further drilled down and asked why virtually all the houses similar to ours within a few blocks were coded in a different neighborhood, and why their equity comps were all from a single development 7 blocks away, 7 years newer, she had no additional answer. When confronted with our next door neighbors' house, built by the same builder, at the same time, with the same floorplan, square footage, lot size and finishes, but was coded into a different neighborhood (with an appraisal $200k lower) she simply said that "the appraisal district has no further evidence to present" and clammed up. My understanding is that, in the case of unequal appraisal, the burden of proof is on the appraisal district. I presented internal and external photos of comparable properties demonstrating that my comps were, in fact, comparable in size, style, quality, etc. The ARB, however, seemed completely immune to any evidence that wasn't part of HCAD's package. Which is to say that the ARB starts with the assumption that HCAD's assessment of neighborhood, build quality, and condition are correct, and are pretty much immune to evidence to the contrary. At least, that's what I concluded based on the behavior of my particular panel.
  17. Angostura
    It looks like they're blocking off what the city must have determined is a side patio so no one can see anyone having a beer on it, in accordance with CoH ordinances.
  18. Angostura
    This was pretty much the concept for Downhouse, which originally opened from 7AM to 2AM
  19. Angostura
    Based on my experience at the ARB, where you're coded means a lot more than proximity and similarity. I showed 10 comparables that were closer and more similar (square footage, land area, year built, build quality, etc.) than HCAD's, which supported a reduction of $200k in appraised value. HCAD's only counter-argument was that my comps were in a different neighborhood. The ARB went with HCAD. What your property is coded (neighborhood code, CDU, Grade, etc.) seems to matter a lot more than actual facts.
  20. Angostura
    Same entity owns a strip center on Bagby in Midtown with a dry cleaner, convenience store and Subway. I'd expect similar on this site.
  21. Angostura
    This makes a lot of sense. Re-developing the waterworks site was never in Alliance's wheelhouse, and Braun has some credibility and history in re-purposing older structures like this. Probably means two multifamily projects, on the NW and SW corners of Nicholson and 20th; probably >500 units total. What I'd really like to see is a parking structure on the SE corner of the waterworks site, which could serve the Harold's development as well as this one. That would free up one or both of the two parcels of land on 18th dedicated to parking for that development. Renderings seem to show surface parking on the east half of the site, though. Wonder if Braun is getting close to a critical mass of properties along 19th/20th to start looking into a special parking area.
  22. Angostura
    Deferred last meeting. Back on the agenda for Thurs.
  23. Angostura
    The Sovereign is the only part of the project that's been built so far. Additional building permits were issued October of last year. There've been rumors of work being bid. Last news was next phase to be built would be a 2nd hi-rise residential building.
  24. Angostura
    HCAD employee at the informal hearing had no interest in listening to an unequal appraisal argument. ...on to the ARB.
  25. Angostura
    Interesting that the staff recommended rejecting the design, but the HAHC approved it anyway. Staff objected to the setbacks on Studewood and Main (15 and 21-ft, respectively), the materials and the funkiness of the massing (though not the overall size or height). Can't seem to find a video of the meeting online so it's not clear what counterarguments the developer used or why HAHC approved.
×
×
  • Create New...