Angostura

There are those predicting wholesale market value collapse if this passes. To see if that concept has validity, we must consider what's driving the demand. You post implied that new construction is driving the demand for Heights bungalows. That without large out-of-character construction, prices would not be assending. Not sure I buy into that. Looking around... there are swaths with largely intact houses, as well as historic districts that seem to have plenty of demand sans McVics. Perhaps the price inflation isn't as rapid, but seemingly certainly still healthy, and above local and nationwide expectations. I just don't buy into the disaster mentality some do. Nor do I believe that new construction is the sole (or even primary) driver of demand in the neighborhood.

I don't have any stats either. But I've never seen "Next to a McVic" or "New construction next door!" or listed as a feature of a bungalow advertisement on HAR by said realtors. I'd suspect if that was driving the sales of bungalows, it would be touted up more often.

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.

exactly…with all of the noise generated by the locals I hardly doubt that any “chef-driven restaurants, local boutiques and non-chain outlets” are going to risk being in that plaza. Just being in a plaza with a Wal-Mart in general would be a kiss of death for “chef-driven restaurants, local boutiques and non-chain outlets”. If the proposed Wal-Mart gets built - I will not patronize ANY shops in that development. Sorry A-Binder, but people know who you got into bed with and you’ll have to deal with your walk of shame….it will be a long walk in that little black dress and heels.

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 hear you there but I thought a big part of the pro-Walmart argument on this forum was that people will be coming from all over to shop here and that this is not about the demographics of this neighborhood, but neighborhoods with in a large radius, many of whom would actually be closer to Crosstimbers?

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.

I think this is really simple, don't build it. Many in the community have spoken and said they don't want it, why does Wal-Mart want to push the matter? People say it will bring in people from beyond the Heights, but anyone near Airline or near 610 north will have an easier time heading to the new one at Crosstimbers and 45 and anyone in the West End will have an easy time hopping off the roundabout to Westcott and hitting up the new location going in at I-10 and Silber. It isn't like there won't be close Wal-Marts-a-plenty, and Target is there to meet the big box need. We have Fiestas and resale shops and plenty of places that make living here cheap if you want it to be. Come on, now!

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).

Sadly, we could benefit from other things being built there that are low impact on the surrounding areas. Residents of this super-area are not opposed to development and anyone in the know is aware that this will never be a park. That said, this can be something that benefits the area and seriously, NO TAX INCENTIVES/ABATEMENTS/380 AGREEMENTS. Those are for encouraging people to build in undesirable areas that need growth. Last I checked, land is still pretty valuable around here. So says my tax bill, anyway.

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."

My block in the west historic district is all 1920s bungalows except for one 1970 shack and one new construction. All of the bungalows with additions have added on in the back and have preserved the front 1/2 of the building. I am next to a small bungalow that has been left to decay. Without historic preservation ordinances, a builder could buy the lot and put in a 2 story monster that goes from the sidewalk to the alley (everyone else has retained the original setback). If that happened, my bungalow would then be next on the chopping block (even more so as I have a full sized lot). There would be no point in making improvements to my house as I would only see lot value in a sale.

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.

I just saw on the Free Press website that Wal-Mart is also planning a store at I-45 and Crosstimbers. That would mean that people living from about 20th st. northward in the Heights will either be closer to that location or have better highway access by either just hopping on 45 or 610-45 rather than rolling along at 35 mph through the Heights. For those south of 20th, we are talking about a difference of a mile or two between the two locations. Thus, this whole argument about depriving low income people of a convenient Wal-Mart location is simply crocodile tears. The benefits of having the Wal-Mart at Yale and I-10 are virtually non-existent if there is also going to be a location at 45 and Crosstimbers. This is just about Wal-Mart using its corporate largesse to cram an unwanted, unneeded store down our throats so they can take a shot at Target's market share. I would bet that the revenues for a Yale store would not come close to stores in the burbs. I would also bet that in less than 10 years, Wal-Mart would dump the location, as they have done in many other powerplays when the competitive justification for the store was lost.

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).

My neighborhood hardware store where I grew up went out of business because Home Depot opened up SIX miles away. The guy had been there for 30 years, and in 6 months lost so much business he was forced to shut his doors.

When you're talking a 152,000 square foot store (plus warehouse, plus parking), 2 miles isn't that far.

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.

http://www.myfoxhous...s-about-walmart

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.

1. HEB was interested in the property but was apparently outbid by Wal-Mart. This isn't a question of Wal-Mart or nothing.

2. I would take HEB over Wal-Mart every day. I have personally seen HEB write six and seven figure checks to support local events. Can't say the same about Wal-Mart.

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.

But I am curious if the Walmart supporters think that Walmart is the only option? Are you just being so adamant because you don't like it when people have contrary opinions? For example, if this thread wasn't about Walmart, but rather was titled "What would you like to see if you could choose anything for development on this parcel?" What if Walmart were never mentioned and you were starting with a clean slate? Would Walmart be the 1st thing that would come to mind for you? Or would you have had a different vision? Maybe mixed income housing like they have on the east side of Austin? Maybe a small hotel that would employ 300 ppl, plus a restaurant employing 100 more and a few shops, employing 100+ more, all totaling more jobs and generally higher income, even in the lowest positions (hosuekeepers, busboys) for low earners, than Walmart would thus affording these people a better standard of living. If they already live in the area and shop at Walmart, they can continue to go to the (assuming 290) location and still have more pocket money at the end of the day. You might not find it more convenient, but it's about jobs, right? So, rather than 600 parking spaces for one big box, they have a garage with 600+ spaces and multiple businesses, creating more jobs than a Walmart would. Would you want that? Because that is what most of the anti-Walmart people want. We think there are better options out there.

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.

I wouldn't like the traffic an HEB created either.

I'm sure with the changes to the access roads they'll time the lights accordingly though (hopefully).

I wonder how well that HEB on 18th does. It is never busy.

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?

Looks to be transforming into a 2 story building... A casual sports bar on Washington would be a welcomed addition in my book. Has a decent sized parking lot...more than most drinking establishments in the area have. I will be utterly disappointed if the parking lot is used for valet. Hope its not another "scene" bar...

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

I can't believe people are griping about the name.

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

I've always felt that way: Room with a View

They're insane for asking that much for those townhomes. In. Sane.

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