Angostura

The people concerned about the effect of this ordinance isn't that they believe that having a "McVics" next door is a selling point. It's that having blight in the form of a rotting bungalow next door is a drag on property values. And if this ordinance makes it more expensive/difficult to renovate or repair, then the result will be (a) existing blighted properties will remain blighted longer, and (b ) currently serviceable properties may fall into disrepair. Those that recall what the Heights was like 15 to 20 years ago know that, without all these McVics around, the neighborhood wouldn't be nearly as vibrant as it is today. The area bordered (roughly) by 6th, 11th, Studewood and Heights is mostly new construction, and it looks great. Pretty much everything is 2-stories with an alley-access detached garage. The houses are appropriate to the neighborhood esthetic if not historically accurate. (And all this was achieved without zoning.) Many comments I read in support of this ordinance seem to be focused on preventing overly dense development, either too much house on a lot or lots that are too small. If you want to preserve the character of your block, convince your neighbors to sign up for minimum lot size and minimum building line restrictions. If your neighbors don't want to sign up for this, then imposing worse restrictions on them by ordinance is kind of a jerk move. Oh, and the comment that one "block-busting" house on the street prevents MLS and MBL is frankly BS. The MLS is set at the size that at least 70% of properties in the application area would meet (60% for historic districts). Ditto with MBL. The plus side of this ordinance passing, at least in the short term, is that maybe more of the developers will come up above 20th street. We sure could use it up here.

Remember that much of the non-WMT space is on the other side of Yale, and will be accessible from Heights Blvd. I'd also bet that it will be visually distinct from the Walmart, much of which won't be visible from the street anyway (because of the Yale underpass). With the exception of a small and unusually well informed minority, the properties between Yale and Heights will almost certainly not be affected by any Walmart cooties. Oh, and mark me down as a "Yes, please" on that Spec's. I think the bayou marks the southern border of the dry area.

I would assume that they're referring to neighborhoods south of I-10, but honestly, that's beside the point. It's not within the purview of government to block a development because we think it would be a bad business decision on the part of the anchor tenant. And one other point: there's a difference between being pro-Walmart and not being anti-(this)-Walmart. I'm not a frequent Walmart shopper, and I'd rather something else were built on this site, but my retail preferences do not constitute a legitimate claim on the rights of two private parties (Ainbinder and Walmart) to enter into a lawful contract with each other.

A few points that the "why can't people just go to Crosstimbers" argument overlooks: 1 - It's pretty likely that Walmart will design and stock the Crosstimbers store and the West End store differently in order to appeal to the different demographics of the two neighborhoods. 2 - Even though I live north of 20th St, I'm far more likely to be south of I-10 than north of 610. I currently drive past this site several times a week. I'm virtually never near Crosstimbers and 45. Finally, last time I checked, Walmart's business strategy is not dependent on random message-board posters deciding where to site their stores. I'm pretty sure that the world's largest retailer has some savvy about which locations are appropriate and which are not. That said, even if siting a Walmart at Yale and Koehler is a terrible business decision, that's not a valid reason for interfering in a private business agreement between the developer and their tenant. In our society, people have a right to make dumb business decisions (as long as they don't come looking for a bailout later). As much as I'd prefer something else to be built on this site, Walmart was the highest bidder. The only tax incentive I've seen discussed is a possible 380 agreement to reimburse the developer for improvements made to city infrastructure, and they'll most likely be building here with or without a 380 agreement. However, in the absence of zoning regulations, the 380 agreement is pretty much the only leverage the city has to influence the design of the development.

The closest I could find to "I'd rather it were something else, but it's their property and they can do what they want with it," was "I don't care either way."

You could address this situation by applying for minimum lot size and minimum building line restrictions for your block. This doesn't require a new ordinance, and doesn't require that your neighbors be subject to the caprice of the HAHC any time they want to alter their property.

The variance request on the agenda for yesterday's (5Aug) planning commission meeting was to include a reverse bend in the extension of Kohler St (between heights and Yale) that is slightly tighter than the ordinance calls for. The reason for the reverse bend is so that Kolhler will line up with 2nd St east of Heights. You can see the detailed request here: http://ataps1.pd.ci....ng+Calendar.nsf Based on the video available of the commission meeting, it looks like the decision was deferred for 2 weeks.

I dig the quote in the first link ("classiest Walmart I've ever seen"). "Classy" is one of those words whose very presence indicates the opposite of its literal meaning.

There are two Krogers in the Heights. And two Fiestas. In addition to the Heights, the Yale Walmart would also serve customers from the area south of I-10, East of 610, and north of US-59 (Rice Military, Montrose, etc.). The Crosstimbers store would not serve those neighborhoods as well as the Yale location would. The entity best placed to decide whether or a Walmart on Yale St. location is economically viable is Walmart. First, because they're likely to have more and better data and analysis on this issue. Second, and more importantly, they have a larger economic incentive to be right. We all seem to think that HEB would be likely to do well in that spot, and Walmart apparently thinks that they can do even better (given that they're willing to pay more for the land).

Distance needs to be put in context of density. We have both a Home Depot and a Lowe's bordering the Heights, and stores like C&D and Buchanan's are still around. (Have you ever tried going to Buchanan's on a Saturday in March? Packed.) It's very difficult to compete with Walmart on price. Smart businesses find other ways (selection, service, ambience, etc.). If Heights residents truly value the small businesses in their neighborhoods (that is, enough to actually buy things from them), then these small businesses have nothing to fear from Walmart. But even if it were the case that Walmart would put half the stores on 19th street out of business, asking the city to impede the construction of a Walmart on this basis is to advocate that the government interfere with one company in order to benefit another. Either so that HEB could get the site at below market price, or so that other businesses can continue to charge above market prices for their goods. Bureaucratic interfere in the free market with the intent to benefit one company over another is often called cronyism. As much as I'd prefer something else on that site, I can't condone these kinds of methods to prevent Walmart from building here. If Walmart can be convinced to go away of their own accord, so be it. But the talk of getting the city involved is the kind of meddling with the property rights of others that strikes me as distasteful.

Thanks for the link, but I suspect that if a bead vendor on 19th Street goes out of business, it won't be because Walmart moved in. I'm not sure if the reporter has actually ever seen a map of Houston. The proposed Walmart site is about 2 miles from 19th St, and across across a 10-lane freeway. That's about the same as the distance between the Galleria and River Oaks Blvd.

I'd much prefer an HEB on this site to a Walmart, but in order for that to happen either: a - the property owner would have to accept less for the property than Walmart is offering; or b - HEB would have to increase their offer. I have a hard time telling a private property owner that they should have to accept a lower price for their property in order not to offend my sensibilities (be they esthetic, culinary, ethical, political or otherwhise). I'd have a less hard time hoping HEB would come back with a higher offer. However, I see this as somewhat unlikely due to one inescapable fact. Consider: - A Walmart supercenter requires +/- 25 acres to be viable. The universe of such sites in the vicinity is limited. - An HEB requires significantly less space to be viable. Therefore, the universe of sites that suits HEB includes all of those that suit Walmart, PLUS any number of other potential sites. Therefore, if both Walmart and HEB are interested in developing stores in the area, Walmart should be expected to outbid HEB on any site that suits their (Walmart's) needs, since they have a less attractive "next best alternative". Put another way, HEB would expect to pay less for a site that DOESN'T suit Walmart than one which DOES (since the demand for such a site would be lower). There's therefore no incentive for HEB to get in a bidding war for this site when there are probably acceptable alternatives available. I fully expect there to be a Heights HEB within the next few years despite the fact that they lost out on this property. I wish it were sooner (I make sure to enter my zip code on the keypad at the checkout line every time I shop at the Bunker Hill store), but neither the property owner nor Walmart have an obligation to assuage my disappointment.

We actually have a pretty good mechanism to ensure that land is put to its highest and best use. It's called the price signal. In this case, it's apparent that Walmart is willing to pay more for this site than HEB is. Which is to say that Walmart apparently believes it can realize more economic value from this acreage than HEB thinks it (HEB) can. I'm not necessarily thrilled by that fact, and I'd rather an HEB on that site than Walmart, but it doesn't look like HEB is willing to put its money where my mouth is.

My disappointment with this news (unconfirmed rumor?) is not that I'm not a fan of Walmart. I'm not, particularly, but they have as much right to develop that plot as anyone else, as long as they're the highest bidder for the site. My disappointment come from the fact that I'd rather this site were an HEB. W/r/t traffic, some changes will almost certainly have to take place. First, there's a single north-bound lane on Yale just north of Washington. Left turns from this lane would block those that use north-bound yale to avoid trains. I'd expect that north-bound lane to go away, or for Yale to be two lanes each way for that stretch. Access from the south would seem to be the trickiest issue. Kohler would probably need an upgrade to allow for access from Shepherd. You might also see some kind of direct access to this property from the Eastbound feeder

We're currently house-hunting in the Heights, and one of the places we're considering is on a 33-ft wide lot with a new 2-car alley-access garage. I'm curious if the costs are any lower for adding a 2nd floor space to an existing garage. I assume the slab can be re-used, but what about the existing walls, door, trusses, siding, roof, etc.? Can any of this be salvaged, or is it typically a complete demo and rebuild?

Is Houston the only city where people openly hope for more parking at drinking establishments?

Agreed. Can we please gripe about how ugly it is instead?

I liked the phrase "Special Introductory Pricing" on the site.