Angostura

9 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

If it wasn't Gensler, I would think it was the same architect as did the Main Food Store reno.

 

Of the four façades, one is a blank wall, one is a mostly blank wall with a glass door to some kind of lobby, and two are not shown. Presumably there will be a place for cars to enter and exit somewhere.

Kind of terrible from a street-scape point of view.

I'd be interested to see how this competes with nearby non-automated garages. I wonder how quickly they can empty it out after an Astros game, for example.

On 11/8/2019 at 9:42 AM, Angostura said:

 

Deferred to 14 Nov.

In the intervening two weeks, it appears staff uncovered an approved parking plan for 2805 White Oak that included three spots on the these lots to meet the minimum requirements. That parking plan pre-dates the MLS application, which means that those lots should have been coded commercial in the MLS application. As a result, the planning commission approved the replat without a variance.

10 hours ago, TheSirDingle said:

hmm wonder how this is going to affect the variance request. Does the vocal public support this project more than it doesn't? Hoping this doesn't destroy/delay the plan, and we can get this project underway sooner than later.

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Everyone should carefully read that article, especially the part where it says that this will be "the first CBA in Houston." What you will see in that article is a prime example of how development takes place in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc.

Houston, and the Planning Commission, have been generally pretty good at making decisions on variance requests based on the merits of the request itself, in accordance w/ city ordinances. For example, the VR for the Ion garage is perfectly aligned with the planning commission's goals for walkable places and transit corridors, and the variance is to be able to go beyond what the current ordinance requires (i.e. allowing the Fannin frontage to opt in to transit corridor standards).

If the variance process becomes, as is common in a lot of cities, a method for interest groups to shake down developers, it will be a step backwards.

1 hour ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

The person speaking on behalf of Easy Park or EasyPark said they're still in the planning stages for the overall development, so there isn't a firm plan (obviously). But the developer is willing to make a compromise with residents and the city to close access on E 6th 1/2 St with the exception of emergency vehicles. The street references the  lots on  742 E 6 ½ St  and 746 E 6 ½ St
 

That exchange was confusing to me. It wasn't clear if they would restrict access to the site from 6½ or restrict vehicles from accessing 6½ from Studewood.

Also, there's a third lot in the re-plat, #736, which is already designated non-residential, and unaffected by the MLS application.

This has been deferred twice, so the commission must either accept or reject the replat tomorrow. 

20 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

Only partially funded. Grant was for $25 million and construction costs are estimated at $65-$70 😕

Turns out it's $25M Fed, matched with $25M from the TIRZ. Funds Phase I, 15th to 610. A lot of the cost is sub-surface (stormwater and sanitary sewer upgrades).

More info here.

H/T @HOUstreets on twitter.

Not sure they know yet, at least until the MLS issue gets resolved. I don't think they can open 2805 White Oak until they provide some kind of additional parking.

18 hours ago, X.R. said:

 

And I guess I never thought of Montrose/Muesum District/Midtown as under-built, just that a new need has arisen. But now it makes sense why people are stumbling over themselves to dump trucks of money in these areas, as if playing catch-up. 

The center of gravity for development was closer to the Galleria than the CBD in large part because that was where you could build apartments. This probably led to some of the multi-centric development pattern we have (uptown, energy corridor, Greenspoint, etc.) rather than more jobs concentrating in the CBD. Now that the supply of central-neighborhood housing is allowed to meet demand, we've seen a LOT of densification in the last couple decades, and probably more to come.

15 hours ago, X.R. said:

What in the world, they're completely redoing the landscaping in the area? I don't think Caroline has esplanades, does it? And is it just me or are they basically shutting down that central laneway area? 

 

They weren't kidding about walkability. With the speed in which Ion is moving now...I'm guessing some of the landscaping and sidewalk stuff will probably start in the new year. 

The "central laneway" is already mid-block, so it's not replacing a thru street, but from the site plan, it looks like they want to pedestrianize Eagle St as well.

17 hours ago, Avossos said:

From buffalo bayou or white oak bayou?

White Oak

In the 31Oct Planning Commission meeting, the developer made mention of being willing to restrict access to the parking garage from Studewood only, not allowing access from 6-1/2 (About 33 minutes into Section D here). This indicates to me that their current plan is to place it on that corner.

They acquired the Fitzgerald's lots about a year after acquiring the original lots. I think the current plan is to site the garage at Studewood and 6-1/2, but I haven't seen site plans or renderings.

On 11/10/2019 at 7:18 AM, CrockpotandGravel said:

@Angostura  I have a question about the proposed parking garage. The garage is intended to  serve this development, Easy Park and Verde's other White Oak properties acquired last year, their new retail building nest Bobcat Teddy's Ice House and the surrounding businesses.
[...]

So, for clarification, are the  two lots at 742 6 ½ St  and 746 E 6 ½ St part of the mixed-use/ possible residential included at the former Fitzgerald's site? Or has Easy Park switch course once again and intend to build the parking garage on those two former residential lots instead of at 2714 White Oak Dr?
 

I think their original plan was to build the garage at 2902(?), in the space currently occupied by a small covered parking lot. At the time, though, the number of spaces was far in excess of what would be needed to serve the additional parking requirement generated by the new retail at 2805, so it seemed reasonable to speculate that 2714 would also be involved somehow. This was in 2017.

In July of 2018, EZ Park acquired the Fitzgerald's properties, including the 3 lots on 6th 1/2 St (738, 742 & 746). I haven't seen site plans or renderings, but I understand that the current plan is to put the garage at the corner of Studewood and 6-1/2. I assume this is because that corner is the lowest-value frontage from a retail standpoint.

However, assuming the garage occupies the three lots on 6-1/2, things could get tricky. Chapter 26 allows you to fulfill 100% of your parking requirement with off-site parking, provided that the off-site parking is within 500 feet, as measured along pedestrian walkways. My half-assed google maps measurement puts the 746 Studewood at 575 feet from 2805 White Oak (though I think they could design around this by providing public pedestrian access to the garage mid-block on White Oak).

6 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

 

 

jmitch, you are correct.  Likewise, how the building will be perceived by passers-by was very much a primary concern.

Yes, yes, I'm sure they thought about it. But all the press materials show the building as viewed by someone passing by 200 feet in the air.

13 hours ago, Avossos said:

is this building... brutalist?

 

😲

I would say the glass-tube façade (covering most of the raw concrete) would rule out brutalism. Maybe deconstructivist, at least in the massing and roof line.

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear this building won't age well. There's still a lot of exposed raw concrete in the nooks and crannies, and these surfaces tend to stain and streak over time. It will also take a lot of maintenance to keep the backlit façade looking new.

3 hours ago, MarathonMan said:

I  don’t think the Kinder building is brutalist.  Whatever the style, though, I have to say that the overall aesthetic falls flat for me.  The tubes on the outside are not very striking (hopefully they’ll be lit well at night — the evening photos above offer SOME hope) and the most interesting lines are the curved contours on the roof, which you can’t see.  🤷🏻‍♂️  

It's another example of a building designed to be striking as a model or rendering (or as viewed from a passing helicopter, I guess). This is not uncommon when the main function of the design is to convince potential donors to build it. How the building will actually be perceived by visitors and passers-by is a secondary concern at best, and entirely irrelevant if the thing never gets built.

On 11/5/2019 at 11:58 PM, mattyt36 said:

There are very few large complexes 30-40 years old inside the loop due to the sewage-related building restrictions in the 1970s (probably ended up being a good thing in the 1980s). I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the central core (inside Shepherd) had an dearth of real multifamily options until the last 10-15 years when compared with other cities.
 

I’d imagine the market that is going to be most pressured is the West Loop as well as some of the older Midtown units (but are there really that many?).

I think this is right. The sewer moratorium caused a major disruption in what would normally have been the geographic distribution of multi-family development. As a result, places like Montrose, Midtown, and the Heights were significantly under-built. This is now being corrected.

W/r/t demand, about 37% of US households are 1-person, and another 31% are childless couples (both married and co-habitating). While not all of these people want to live in apartments, a lot of them are perfectly content to, at least for a number of years.

BTW, only about 21% of households are married couples with children, which is probably less than half of what most people would guess.

On 10/28/2019 at 9:39 AM, Angostura said:

 

 

The variance request is on the agenda for 31Oct.

 

 

Deferred to 14 Nov.

Hope they keep the grandfathered zero-setback footprint.

17 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

A huge win for possible development in the future. I hope that they will let future new businesses lease parking spots or when in planning stages can throw there parking requirements to something like this garage.

It's 12X above CoH minimums, so presumably this has to be part of the plan. 

This is within the boundaries of the Montrose Special Parking Area. Businesses within the SPA can provide up to 100% of their (non-handicap) parking off-site. 

Alternatively, since due to grandfathering, within the boundaries of the SPA, total off-site parking is >2000 off-street spaces under what CoH would currently require, they could just charge for parking without leasing specific spots to specific developments. Parking is definitely at a premium in the area, and LOTS of people get towed for inadvertently parking on resident-only streets.

On 10/24/2019 at 8:04 AM, Angostura said:

 

 

Kind of a big deal. Here's why:

 

 

There have been two minimum lot size application filed that cover this block face (the south side of 6th 1/2). The first extended all the way to 9th St, between Oxford and Studewood, and (on staff recommendation) was voted out of the Planning Commission with this block face excluded, as it's predominantly 3200 s.f. townhouse lots rather than 6000+ s.f. detached house lots. The second covers JUST the south block face of 6th 1/2 St., and appears to meet all the requirements for a minimum lot size designation of ~3200 s.f.

 

However, these MLS applications aren't really about preserving a minimum lot size. They are aimed specifically at preventing development of this site. The MLS ordinance requires that if a parcel current (or, in the case of vacant land, most recent) use is single family residential, it must remain single family residential for the duration of the MLS protection. This a replat of three 6250 s.f. lots into a single unrestricted reserve. The third lot from the corner (738) is already classified as commercial, but the other two were designated as A1 (Residential, single family) at the time of demolition, and hadn't been replatted when the application was submitted.

 

The variance request is on the agenda for 31Oct.

This type of variance is "shall-approve" if the Commission finds that, "the owner, in good faith and in material reliance on the [...] lot size otherwise applicable [...] expended a substantial sum of money prior to the effective date of the establishment of the[...] special minimum lot size requirement for the lot that cannot be recovered."

The developer argues that since they (a) spent well above what land restricted to SF residential would have cost ($900k per lot, or $144/sf), and (b) spent a few million on work related to the development, they meet the requirements for a variance.

2 minutes ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

The project has included those two homes since LAST YEAR. 
 

Yes, but since they were never re-platted, they would still (theoretically) be subject to the restrictions in the MLS ordinance. Those restrictions were placed in the ordinance to close the "condo loophole," under which a lot that couldn't be subdivided due to MLS restrictions could instead be developed as multi-family.

At the hearing for the larger MLS area back in September, a large number of speakers supported maintaining the original boundary, and were clear that the application was intended specifically to block this development. (For example, the multi-family project on the corner of Oxford and 6 1/2 would not be affected.)

7 hours ago, Urbannizer said:

Project now includes the two homes at E 6th 1/2 & Studewood:

 

Potential name: 'Holcombe Heights North'

 

SubdivisionPlatPDF_Holcombe Heights North_plat_03-Plat 36X24 LSCP (2).pdf 505.08 kB · 4 downloads

Kind of a big deal. Here's why:

There have been two minimum lot size application filed that cover this block face (the south side of 6th 1/2). The first extended all the way to 9th St, between Oxford and Studewood, and (on staff recommendation) was voted out of the Planning Commission with this block face excluded, as it's predominantly 3200 s.f. townhouse lots rather than 6000+ s.f. detached house lots. The second covers JUST the south block face of 6th 1/2 St., and appears to meet all the requirements for a minimum lot size designation of ~3200 s.f.

However, these MLS applications aren't really about preserving a minimum lot size. They are aimed specifically at preventing development of this site. The MLS ordinance requires that if a parcel current (or, in the case of vacant land, most recent) use is single family residential, it must remain single family residential for the duration of the MLS protection. This a replat of three 6250 s.f. lots into a single unrestricted reserve. The third lot from the corner (738) is already classified as commercial, but the other two were designated as A1 (Residential, single family) at the time of demolition, and hadn't been replatted when the application was submitted.

So, if this replat is approved, whatever happens with the MLS application won't affect the development of this site. If it's rejected, I expect the developer to challenge the classification of the two lots on the corner (742 and 746), as the have already filed a statement from Sara Fitzgerald that these properties were used for commercial purposed related to Fitzgerald's activities. Failing that, they may opt to challenge the entire MLS process as an illegal form of zoning, since it applies land use restrictions on property but wasn't subject to a city-wide referendum.

On 10/17/2019 at 1:22 PM, s3mh said:

Also, the neighborhood is getting a bit frothy about the parking garage.  The developer for the garage needs a variance because there is a pending minimum lot size application for that section of the Heights.  Planning commission will be getting an earful on Oct 31.

That MLS application, covering the area between Oxford and Studewood, from the south blockface of 6½ St to the north blockface of 9th St, was pretty clearly designed to prevent development of the two lots on the corner of 6½ and Studewood (the 3rd lot from the corner is classified commercial already). The south blockface of 6½ is predominantly 3300 sf TH lots, and the MLS area was extended north until the 70% lot size cutoff reached 6250 s.f.

When the planning commission considered the application, they approved the staff recommendation that the south blockface of 6½ be excluded, and the modified area be forward to city council for approval.

There is also an application for JUST the south blockface of 6½, also in an effort to block development of the two lots on the corner. (The lot on the corner of Oxford, slated for multi-familty development, would not be affected since it's not currently restricted to SF residential). The developer has retained Richard Epstein (a law professor with a fair amount of expertise in takings law) to argue that since those two lots were already used for commercial purposed by Sara Fitzgerald, it would be inappropriate to restrict them to single family use. (Both of these applications were submitted AFTER the developer acquired the land, and at least one if not both were submitted after the structures were demolished.)

The second MLS application almost certainly meets the ordinance requirements (78% of the block face is SF residential, albeit at around 3200 s.f. lot size). Presumably the variance sought by the developer is to codify the land use for those two lots as other than single family residential, which would mean they would be unaffected by any MLS application. If that variance is rejected, it will probably result in litigation.