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
    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. Angostura
    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.)
  3. Angostura
    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.
  4. Angostura
    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.
  5. Angostura
    I assume the other "donut hole" is the pool.
  6. Angostura
    Definitely small-m modern. The Lindy effect basically says that the life expectancy of a (non-living) thing is proportional to its current age. A restaurant that's been operating for 50 years is more likely to still be operating 50 years from now than a restaurant that opened a couple years ago. Ditto an architectural style that has been in use for a couple centuries is more likely to still be in use a couple centuries from now. Specifically, sometime around the middle of the 20th century, architects started designing to a different scale. Instead of designing features to be appreciated by someone walking past on a sidewalk, they started designing features for someone riding past in a car (or flying over in a helicopter). The motto of this kind of architecture seems to be "Look at me! (but only from a distance)." As the period where cities are designed around cars rather than people comes to a close, that style of architecture might also fade out. After all, it didn't take us all that long to realize that building in raw concrete was a bad idea.
  7. Angostura
    Architecture is not immune to the Lindy effect. If a style from 100 or 1000 years ago looks good today, it's likely to still look good 100 or 1000 years from now. I'm less sanguine about the staying power of modern architecture.
  8. Angostura
    First of all, kind of cool that there's a tunnel under the RR tracks between the warehouses and barge terminal. Second, I think the key word is "conceptual." BTW, the warehouse in the upper rendering looks to be near Turkey Bend, Navigation @ Norwood.
  9. Angostura
    Most hotels in non-resort areas are kept afloat by business travelers, not leisure travelers. (Same is true for airlines, for that matter.) Sao Paulo has twice as many hotels as Rio de Janeiro, and it's not because SP is a more attractive tourist destination. I suspect that most of the people who stay in downtown hotels over a weekend are either there for a convention or a sporting event, as anyone who's tried to get an elevator at the Marriott Marquis an hour before first pitch of an Astros game can tell you.
  10. Angostura
    Soon there will be no place in the Heights that isn't within walking distance of a boutique ice cream shop.
  11. Angostura
    Great fit for what Caydon is trying to do. Also a great spot for a hotel: lots of bar and restaurant options within walking distance, and transit access to downtown, TMC, Hermann Park, Museum District, plus NRG, MMP, Toyota Center, TDECU and BBVA.
  12. Angostura
    Site work permit was issued in May. The permit in Nancy's tweet is for the building shell. There are separate permits for each floor's buildout, the parking garage, the amenity deck, etc., which were also issued last week. You can search here if you really want to see the whole list.
  13. Angostura
    Unless the bikeshare is very actively operated, it can be dicey to depend on it for commuting, especially into/out of a CBD like Houston's. Aside from station placement, there are two big risks you face as a commuter: having a bike available at the station nearest where you live, and having an open dock at the station nearest where you work (and vice versa for the trip home). Dockless solves one of these problems, but not both.
  14. Angostura
    This is about half a mile from the Greyhound station, so I don't think that'll be a huge deterrent. If you work downtown or in the TMC, living here means you can get by without a car, which puts an extra $800 or so in your pocket every month. Living car free, in a place where you can reasonably live car free, is fantastic, and this is the first neighborhood in the city where one can reasonably live car free.
  15. Angostura
    Oh, so this is the SW quadrant of the lot, which puts the retail at 19th and Lawrence (makes more sense than 20th). Which means that there is still one more shoe to drop: the NW quadrant (which we see as gray boxes in some of the Phase 1 renderings).
  16. Angostura
    So, lemme get this straight. Phase 1 is the 9-over-3 building on the NE quadrant of the block (SW corner of Nicholson and 20th), and Phase 2 is a 5-over-1 building on the NW quadrant (SE corner of Lawrence and 20th)? That puts the GFR on the corner of Lawrence and 20th?
  17. Angostura
    The question isn't current rents for aging strip centers. It's the opportunity cost of keeping a parking lot a parking lot. And at typical rents, that opportunity cost is about $800/month per space (assuming you're just building single-story retail, which you're probably not). With CoH parking minimums and assuming surface parking, parking takes up 55-75% of land area. So unless parked rents are much, much higher than unparked rents, we're going to see less parking in the area over time, and more of what remains priced at a level above zero.
  18. Angostura
    Beyond a certain density, alleys make a lot of sense, as anyone who's had the misfortune of strolling around Manhattan on trash day can tell you.
  19. Angostura
    Some properties for lease (w/o parking) on LoopNet: $2.60/sf/mo $2.25/sf/mo (2nd floor) $2.25/sf/mo $2.50/sf/mo $2.92/sf/mo Making a place denser and more walkable tends to increase, not decrease rents, though the tenant mix will probably be different.
  20. Angostura
    Let's say you own a block in Midtown with (considering 5-ft setbacks) about 57,000 of buildable area that currently has a 20,000 s.f. strip center and 90 surface parking spaces. At triple net retail lease rates of $2/month, those 90 parking spaces are costing you over $800/month each in opportunity costs. So yes, I'd expect the number of parking spaces to decline over time. Since it's not very efficient to charge for parking in small lots in front of strip centers, I'd expect parking to be concentrated in places like this garage. I'd also expect parking to be more efficiently allocated once it's priced at a level above zero.
  21. Angostura
    Because pretty much every place you would park in this garage to go already has their own parking. And street parking is plentiful 20 hours per day, and free after 6PM. There are 12 blocks surrounding Midtown Park, and 10 of them are at least 50% surface parking. An 11th is pretty close to 50%, and the 12th is an apartment building wrapped around a parking garage. The area is not under-parked.
  22. Angostura
    So, remind me again why we need city-mandated parking minimums if developers and tenants are already acutely aware of the need to provide parking in places where personal vehicles are still the dominant mode of transport? BTW, I don't disagree that the vast majority of customers for this development will need a place to park, and I'm skeptical that the land value here is high enough to justify structured parking. But there is already a massive amount of parking within 1000-ft of this site, most of which (YMCA, high school, Hare Krishna temple) will sit empty during peak hours for this development. It's not a case of not enough parking, it's a case of poor allocation.
  23. Angostura
    There is no shortage of parking near Heights Water Works, it's just (under-priced and therefore) poorly allocated. That said, given the current CoH parking rules, it may have been worthwhile for WW to have a parking structure to serve the various Braun developments in the vicinity, and allow additional retail of residential development of existing surface lots.
  24. Angostura
    No one goes there. The lines are too long.
  25. Angostura
    I hope you're right. I think it depends on how they use the space. About ten years ago there was a wine bar/retail shop on Shepherd (the name escapes me) that split the space about 50/50. They had a fair amount of interesting wines, occasional tastings, etc. Over the course of the time they were open, the area dedicated to the wine shop gradually shrank, and the area dedicated to on-premise grew, until eventually the retail operation ceased altogether. A successful restaurant, with a full reservation book and/or significant wait times at some point looks around their space and thinks, "if I didn't have all this retail stock taking up floor space, I could seat more people." Which is why a lot of places that start out as a restaurant/grocery or restaurant/delicatessen or restaurant/retail wine shop end up as just restaurants sooner than later. (Not to mention the impact on wine mark-ups when you're no longer selling the same bottles for retail prices a few feet away.)
×
×
  • Create New...