Angostura

Just now, Angostura said:

 

Let the reckless speculation begin!

 

I'll start: 7th and Yale or 18th and Shepherd. Or maybe 24th and Shepherd.

Just now saw the Lowell St thread. 18th and Shepherd it is.

2 hours ago, s3mh said:

http://www.crains.com/article/news/snooze-am-wants-take-over-breakfast-houston

 

Snooze signs lease in the Heights for another Houston location.  No info on where. People in Montrose love to line up for this restaurant.  

Let the reckless speculation begin!

I'll start: 7th and Yale or 18th and Shepherd. Or maybe 24th and Shepherd.

I was quietly hoping the 20-month timeline was a red herring. 

6 hours ago, s3mh said:

 

You ducked a lot of substance with little more than a crack about Walmart.  The Montrose store is an interesting point.  HEB is asking the neighborhood to give up something very substantial.  But what is HEB doing in return?  With the Montrose store, they went to Lake Flato for architecture, offered to dedicate park space (but the City did not meet them half way as it was too busy handing out favors to Walmart) and preserved as many trees as they could.  What is HEB doing for the Heights?  Nothing.  Design considerations?  Nothing.  Scale?  As big as they can get it (by the way, the Montrose store is a beast--how many boxes of Frosted Flakes do you need on a shelf anyway?) and on stilts instead of having a grounds level store fronting the street with structured parking in back (funny how your vigilance for set back follies has disappeared).  Central Market?  No.  In sum, the message from HEB is clear:  We really do not see anything special about the Heights and will dump a typical suburban store on stilts in your neighborhood if you give away some of your land use restrictions.  No thanks.

Sorry you feel that way. (Really)

With respect to design, I think HEB has earned some credibility, especially in comparison with its competition. 

With respect to the Montrose store, HEB replaced a beloved complex of low-rise art-deco apartments on a beautifully wooded lot about as thoughtfully as possible while still complying with CoH's development rules (parking, setbacks, etc.). The size of that store is about 3/5 the size of the Bunker Hill store. I don't frequent the cereal aisle, so I can't really speak to the Frosted Flakes

At the Shepherd site, I have little doubt that whatever they build will be an improvement over what preceded it. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the amount of area dedicated solely to surface parking will be a significant decrease over what was there previously.

But... I don't think any of that really matters to those making the "they'll tear down our bungalows to sell demon spirits" argument. It's about land use control. But using prohibition as a way to control land use is a little like using a lawn mower to trim the hedges: I suppose it's possible, but it's really not the best tool for the job, and you might end up doing more harm than good.

6 hours ago, s3mh said:

 

You ducked a lot of substance with little more than a crack about Walmart.  The Montrose store is an interesting point.  HEB is asking the neighborhood to give up something very substantial.  But what is HEB doing in return?  With the Montrose store, they went to Lake Flato for architecture, offered to dedicate park space (but the City did not meet them half way as it was too busy handing out favors to Walmart) and preserved as many trees as they could.  What is HEB doing for the Heights?  Nothing.  Design considerations?  Nothing.  Scale?  As big as they can get it (by the way, the Montrose store is a beast--how many boxes of Frosted Flakes do you need on a shelf anyway?) and on stilts instead of having a grounds level store fronting the street with structured parking in back (funny how your vigilance for set back follies has disappeared).  Central Market?  No.  In sum, the message from HEB is clear:  We really do not see anything special about the Heights and will dump a typical suburban store on stilts in your neighborhood if you give away some of your land use restrictions.  No thanks.

Sorry you feel that way. (Really)

With respect to design, I think HEB has earned some credibility, especially in comparison with its competition. 

With respect to the Montrose store, HEB replaced a beloved complex of low-rise art-deco apartments on a beautifully wooded lot about as thoughtfully as possible while still complying with CoH's development rules (parking, setbacks, etc.). The size of that store is about 3/5 the size of the Bunker Hill store. I don't frequent the cereal aisle, so I can't really speak to the Frosted Flakes

At the Shepherd site, I have little doubt that whatever they build will be an improvement over what preceded it. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the amount of area dedicated solely to surface parking will be a significant decrease over what was there previously.

But... I don't think any of that really matters to those making the "they'll tear down our bungalows to sell demon spirits" argument. It's about land use control. But using prohibition as a way to control land use is a little like using a lawn mower to trim the hedges: I suppose it's possible, but it's really not the best tool for the job, and you might end up doing more harm than good.

52 minutes ago, s3mh said:

 

There is a paucity of good sized parcels of land in the Heights because HEB sat on its hands for the past ten years while everyone else moved in.  And HEB is essentially saying that they want to build a typical suburban store that will serve everyone from Lazybrook to Lindale and the Heights to GOOF because that is what is best for them.  What is best for the area are more smaller stores like the SoFlo store in San Antonio or what Whole Foods builds (multiple 30-40k sq ft stores).  That would mean shorter car trips and less traffic.  As planned, HEB will shut down W 18th and probably not venture north of 601, meaning that the proposed W 23rd location will serve 77018, 77007, 77008 and 77009.

Thanks for deciding what's best for the neighborhood, but I disagree. This store would be similar in size to the Montrose store, and that's exactly what I'd like to have in our neighborhood. 

I get that people still resent HEB for failing to outbid Walmart for the Yale St site, but it's time to move on. 

On 10/21/2016 at 2:48 PM, Heightsfamily said:

Major grocery chains have shown little love to the Heights... 

I wonder what the reason could be for that?

The Heights has been clamoring for an HEB for years. Scott McClelland acknowledged as much in an interview in the Leader:

Quote

“Over the last five years I’ve probably gotten more requests for a store in the Heights than anywhere else in Houston,”

There is a paucity of good-sized parcels of land in the Heights. Even though this site it smaller than they would typically prefer, they've shown a willingness to design a store that makes the most of the available space by building the store above parking, limiting the area devoted to surface parking. This is considerably more expensive than building a typical suburban style store.

So HEB is essentially saying this:

Quote

You've been asking us for years to open a store in your neighborhood. We've finally found an appropriate site to do just that. It's a site that has been a grocery store in the past, so we're not displacing anyone, or imposing a new land use on an existing area. We're excited to make this investment, but due to the unique nature of the Heights, we have to ask you to meet us part-way.

 

Grocery retailing is a difficult, competitive business, with notoriously low margins. In order to compete with nearby stores, we have to be able to sell beer and wine to be profitable. So, at our expense, we organized a petition to place a local option election on your November ballot in order to allow us to obtain a beer and wine permit for this location.

 

As much as we'd like to limit the impact to our own site, Texas law doesn't allow that. Local option elections must be conducted based on established jurisdictional boundaries, in this case the area formerly known as the City of Houston Heights. Texas law offers several types of local option elections, up to full permission for all types of beverages for both on-premise and off-premise consumption. We have chosen to support the most restrictive of these options: permitting the sale of beer and wine for off-premise consumption only, even though this puts us at some disadvantage with respect to our competition (nearby Whole Foods and Kroger stores both sell beer and wine for on-premise consumption). We hope to gain the neighborhood's support on this referendum so that we can bring you more and better options for your grocery needs.

 

 

On 10/21/2016 at 11:52 AM, s3mh said:

Just so you know, the change in the law is not limited to grocery stores.  Anyone who obtains a permit can sell beer and wine for off premises consumption.  That would include CVS, Walgreens, convenience stores and beer and wine only package stores.  It could also potentially offer a work around for the club permit.  Joe's Burgers could have a beer and wine counter in a separate room of the same building and sell beer and wine to take next door to drink with your burger.  Texas allows sale of single servings of beer.  So, this is a very real possibility.  

From what I understand, the CVS and Walgreen's on 20th run afoul of the 300-ft rule due to their proximity to Hamilton Middle School, and therefore would not be eligible to receive a beer and wine permit.

With respect to the private club work-around: First, so what? Second: doubt it. For this to work, the restaurant would have to be BYOB, which means you could bring your beer and wine from anywhere, not just the retailer next door, which means that the retail operation would have to operate at pretty close to normal retail markups. It's far more profitable to operate under a private club license and sell alcohol at typical restaurant markups.

Finally, "beer and wine only package stores" are not a thing that exists. Alcohol retailers in Texas have two choices: operate beer and wine only and sell from 7AM to midnight 6 days a week, and noon to midnight on Sunday, or sell everything and only open from 10AM to 9PM, 6 days a week. I know of no specialty alcohol retailers who have chosen the former. The only thing that comes close is Premium Draught, which sells growlers. I don't believe they are considered a blight on their neighborhood.

Yes, I'd like an HEB in the neighborhood, but it'd also be nice to pick up a 6-pack at Sunny's at the same time I pick up my pizza at Pink's. In fact, in the 21st century, it's kind of insane that I can't.

On 8/30/2016 at 0:00 PM, Angostura said:

Listing only mentions the 2nd floor commercial space. Does that mean retail is already leased, or being leased by a different agent?

 

 

From here: "Ground floor pre-leased to a well established designer plumbing showroom."

1 hour ago, Icemanhorns84 said:

They have completed most of the exterior work with the exception of installing the windows at the Bernie's Burger Bus side. I only took pictures from the back of the building. Also, wanted to note that they have a bike rack!

 

 

Presumably the window's aren't in yet because they still have to get the bus inside.

On 7/1/2016 at 6:26 PM, Orang Bodoh said:

FWIW, TCH says they'll be open for business at the new location in January.

I would not be surprised if they beat Bernie's, despite the announced "summer 2016" opening, given that we're now in the 2nd half of October, and the interior build-out hasn't started. Apparently it's easier to get a pediatric clinic permitted than a burger joint.

Well, this article said building permits would be issued by Q3. They were off by 2 weeks.

HEB confirms that it won't invest in a dry store on this site, surprising no one.

Heights busybodies are outraged, and accuse HEB of corporate blackmail, also surprising no one.

This is the one result of election 2016 that could potentially make me happy and people are determined to ruin it.

21 hours ago, s3mh said:

http://theleadernews.com/confirmed-heb-picks-heights-spot/

 

Ballot measure should now read: "Proposition to have HEB in the Heights".  

That wording would win by 60 points. The current wording is actually: "The legal sale of beer and wine for off-premise consumption only."

I'm terrified that people may take this to mean that the ballot measure IMPOSES prohibition rather than partially repealing it.

Sample ballots are now available, and addresses within the dry area should have the local option measure on the ballot. (Mine does.)

9 hours ago, mkultra25 said:

I think it's way past time to start campaigning for the inclusion of "chef-driven" on the List of Banished Words.

 

Lake Superior State University - Banished Words List - 2016

The term should only be used when discussing food trucks.

On 9/23/2016 at 10:27 PM, On to the Next One said:

Wow.  A ton of good news for the North Shepherd/Durham and Shady Acres area.  That area is really getting attention from bars, restaurants, shops, etc.  Can't blame them.  The market is strong in that area.  Shepherd/Durham from I-10 to 610 is PRIME for redevelopment.

You have demand on one side, and supply on the other. As the dirt underneath them gets more valuable, the used car lots are getting property-taxed out of the market. Similar thing is happening with a lot of the warehouse/light industrial property along Yale. Unlike most owner-occupied residential property, commercial and industrial appraisals aren't capped at 10%/year. This, combined with our lack of zoning, has really accelerated land-use conversion in gentrifying neighborhoods.

On 5/9/2006 at 11:09 AM, shady 75 said:

My wife and I love the Heights area and have enjoyed our first year living here. One thing that we wonder about though is the lack of restaurant diversity in the area. We enjoy the new Thai Spice quite a bit...but find ourselves having to go to Montrose or Rice Village if we ever want anything other than a burger, sandwich, chinese food or pizza.

It seems like recently the Heights just started getting some new restaurants outside of the same old lines. We love Onion Creek...but Dry Creek, 6th St. Bar & Grill, etc. all serve up the same burger and fry options.

For example we love Indian food as many of our friends do in the area but it seems as if no Indian restaurants are venturing into the area. Just more burger joints.

 

Obviously a lot has changed in the 10 years since this thread started, but the observation about burgers, chinese and pizza is still relevant.  A handful of recent and upcoming openings: Cane Rosso, Mellow Mushroom, Luna, Pi, Alli's, La Fresca, Bernie's, The Burger Joint and the Rice Box.

Gelazzi is an odd case for a couple of reasons. 

First, to get a private club license, the establishment has to serve "meals" to its members. At the time, I think Gelazzi had yet to start selling pizza. While my son might beg to differ, I'm not sure an ice cream sandwich constitutes a meal. Second, a private club license requires that alcohol be consumed on-premise only. If the reason for the permit was ice cream with booze in it, anyone who buys that kind of ice cream has to consume in on-premise. They can't, say, buy a pint in a take-away container or eat their cone while talking an after-dinner stroll. 

Also, I'm not sure if changes in the licensing would have triggered off-street parking requirements. I don't think they currently have any off-street spaces.

5 hours ago, HeightsPeep said:

Why would anyone vote to allow a single large business to blow open the entire dry area?  What comes next for the residents?  The bungalow next door is for sale.  Will it turn into a wine and beer shop?  Be clear - No zoning means anything can happen.  Let's not kill the few protections we do have today.  Montrose did not have those protections.  Do you want to live in Montrose today?  Twenty years ago, the Heights and Montrose were much more similar.  Not so today.  Quite a few people have moved from Montrose to the Heights just to escape the ills that come with not having a dry area.  Just look at the crime stats if you are not sure.

The beer bungalows don't appear to have invaded Woodland Heights, Norhill or the other parts of the greater Heights that are outside the dry area.

3 hours ago, s3mh said:

A City Centre Jr. type development would do wonders for everyone inside the loop. 

...which is why Regent Square is always packed.

Here's the list of retailers at City Centre: 

Allen Edmonds, 
Anthropologie
bevello
Charming Charlie
Elaine Turner
Eye Couture
Free People
H&M
ivivva
J. Crew
Kendra Scott
lululemon athletica
Madewell
Muir Fine Art Gallery
OLIVE & VINE
Paper Source
Sephora
Sur La Table
Urban Outfitters
West Elm
Z Gallerie

None of these are local, one-of-a-kind shops, and most of them have other locations in Houston.

I think the ability to draw unique, high-end retail to a site surrounded on four sides by a freeway, an active freight rail line, a grocery store parking lot and the ass end of a Target, by saying it's pedestrian friendly from the Heights and downtown, may be limited. 

25 minutes ago, s3mh said:

The I-10 corridor has all of this.  In a city where everyone has a car, we do not need to be putting duplicative big box retail inside the loop where large tracts of land are extremely scarce.     

Who is this "we," and where were they when the land was being sold?

1 hour ago, s3mh said:

That is quite a collection of retail diarrhea proposed for the old Tarkett site.  i suspect it is just nothing more than an educated guess based on the developer's prior projects.  As tone deaf as developer's are in Houston, I am fairly certain that no one in their right mind would put a Micheal's inside the loop.  

Based on the rendering, that's seems like about the right mix of retailers, except maybe for Total Wine. 

On 9/13/2016 at 11:00 AM, Houston19514 said:

 

You're saying by building it horizontally rather than vertically, it would suddenly be required to have 4 or 5 parking spaces?  I don't think that's how the city's parking requirements work.  Pretty sure the parking requirements are, roughly speaking, based on the number of bedrooms... and they top out at 2 spaces per dwelling unit.

Yes, a three-apartment building requires more off-street parking than a single-family townhouse in the same footprint. Three 1-BRs would require 4 spaces (1.333 per unit), three 2-BRs would require 5 spaces (1.666 per unit).

Issue will be on the ballot in November.

Video of City Council accepting the petition and ordering the election is here (at 19:30).

Attached to that second agenda item is the most definitive map of the dry area I've ever come across, complete with house numbers.