Angostura

9 hours ago, Ctaf said:

I hadn't seen these pics before, but it looks like they didn't center the garage, I don't know how common that is, but seems like it would be a long walk if your apartment is on the opposite end

I assume the other "donut hole" is the pool. 

3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I think he means "modern" in the broad sense, as opposed to "traditional."

 

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.

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.

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.

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

But the main point in this thread is that downtown's hotels are still primarily driven by business, not tourism. I spent a weekend at the Magnolia last year for $68/night (before taxes). That must be the best deal in the world. $68/night in San Antonio would maybe get you a La Quinta out on Loop 410 on the southwest side of town. The takeaway being (a) we are lacking in weekend tourism, and (b) there's no good reason why we should be at this point. People just aren't aware.

 

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. 

Soon there will be no place in the Heights that isn't within walking distance of a boutique ice cream shop.

11 hours ago, phillip_white said:

 

 

She is showing that they applied for a building permit, which confirms the floor height and the construction estimate. Even though they've already started work on the foundation, that's not necessarily a green light for going vertical. This is good news that the project is full steam ahead. 

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.

On 9/27/2019 at 2:00 PM, Texasota said:

Bikeshare is incredibly convenient once you've reached a critical mass of stations. The key is having stations near where people live in addition to where people want to go. Houston's Bcycle is definitely getting to the point that there are enough stations to be convenient for quite a few rides, but it could use a bunch more, starting with obvious locations along trails and bikelanes.

 

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.

10 hours ago, clutchcity94 said:

I love what Caydon is doing with this, but the real question is...will enough people want to live in this part of Midtown with all of the baggage that entails? It isn’t all that far from the Greyhound station after all. I have no doubts this area will transform into something great over the years, but who will the first brave souls be to lease an apartment here? I mean at this price point, why not just live in the Hanover Montrose or in one of the nice residential towers downtown?

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.

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).

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?

22 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

This is highly sensitive to location and age of the building. If you are getting those rates from ground floor spaces in new multi-family buildings along Main Street, you cannot compare that to a 10-year old strip center on Smith or Milam.

 

On Main Street I think we are there in terms of the parking lot hurting more than it helps. On the streets that lead to/from the Spur, I think the parking lot still adds positive value because of the high traffic counts and the nature of commuters wanting to make a quick stop on the way home. On Travis I am not so sure, would be interesting to analyze the numbers.

 

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.

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.

5 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Good points, but you are assuming that the market for retail space without parking or with nearby/shared structured parking will be the same as the market for retail space with storefront parking.  Currently, at least, that is probably not the case.

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.

On 9/13/2019 at 11:46 AM, MarathonMan said:

The area is not lacking parking now. . . But it will be lacking parking not too far down the road, especially with the parking requirements placed on developers being lifted in Midtown. 

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. 

4 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

I wholeheartedly agree the underground parking garage at Midtown Park is not at optimal capacity. Not factoring in residents living within walking distance, others travel to the park or places nearby in their vehicles and don't park here. Is it because they want to park closer somewhere else? Afraid to leave their vehicles? Aren't aware of the parking garage?

 

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.

5 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

[...]

Despite recent policy changes eliminating minimum parking requirements near downtown and a growing social movement advocating for more biking and other alternative modes of transit, Bryan Danna, developer of Stomping Grounds, believes it’s vital to provide ample parking. In fact, he often builds more than what’s required.
 

“I don’t want to have a field of parking, but I’ve seen what it does to the sales figures of tenants. It has a massive impact,” said Danna, owner of Revive Development. “It’s a very real component of sales volumes we can’t ignore.”

...A shopping center’s lack of parking can be a deal-killer for a retailer looking to lease space there, said Lacee Jacobs, a leasing specialist with commercial real estate firm CBRE.
 

Customers crave convenience, she said, and Houston, after all, is still a driving city.
 

“Obviously landlords could save a lot of money by building less parking, but the truth of the matter is, tenants still need it for their businesses to survive,” Jacobs said.
 

That’s what keeps Danna from cutting down on parking at his centers. And it’s not necessarily the best way to optimize profits. More surface parking means less leasable space.
 

Outside of market-based parking areas, strip centers of less than 25,000 square feet must have four spaces for every 1,000 square feet, with additional spaces where there are restaurants or entertainment venues. The Stomping Grounds project, which will have about 23,000 square feet of retail space and 5,000 square feet of office spread throughout four buildings, will have an average parking ratio of 12 per 1,000 square feet — or 225 spaces.
 

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. 

On 9/6/2019 at 6:49 AM, CrockpotandGravel said:

All true but there will also be a lot of people who don't live within walking or biking distance patronizing the businesses in this development. Surface parking won't be enough to handle the crowds, like surface parking isn't enough at the Heights Water Works redevelopment from Braun Enterprises. Developments like this need parking structures and work with the city to develop off-site parking structures for the many people coming outside the neighborhood to the surrounding businesses. 

 

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.

20 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Except that all the information I can find indicates naming rights were sold for $100 Million, not $178 Million.  And, more important,  I'm pretty sure that MinuteMaid/Coca Cola did not write a check for the full amount; I think it's paid out over the term of the deal.

 

From here: 

Quote

Meanwhile, The Coca-Cola Co.’s (NYSE: KO) naming rights for Minute Maid Park expire in 2029, the Houston Business Journal previously reported. That 28-year sponsorship cost the Atlanta-based company $178 million. 

...though you're probably right about the payment terms.

18 hours ago, MidCenturyMoldy said:

 

I wonder what the Complete-Streeters think of the new sidewalks on Post Oak Boulevard? https://theboulevardproject.com/construction/updates 

(Post Oak photo not mine) 

 

I think there's too much focus on making a few places slightly less shitty for the rare pedestrians who might find themselves there despite a complete lack of pedestrian-oriented buildings. I'd rather see us build a handful of truly great pedestrian-focused (even pedestian-only) places in areas that have the bones for it, like the Main St corridor.

On 8/17/2019 at 6:33 PM, MidCenturyMoldy said:

 

IMO, in a neighborhood like this, the sidewalk should extend to the curb.

The complete streets mindset generally requires a buffer between sidewalk and traffic. In this case, traffic on main is generally very slow-moving, so it probably doesn't need to be this wide.

Or, in this case, since driving on Main is so pointless anyway, you could just remove all distinction between traffic lane and sidewalk, and restrict Main to deliveries only from Commerce to Wheeler.

On 8/17/2019 at 2:39 AM, mattyt36 said:

 

Of course this was all done 20 years ago, “best practice” at the time to deliver new stadia to Houston without burdening property owners through a tax levy. High priced concessions are only a part of it ... I’m pretty sure there’s a hotel tax and a car rental tax dedicated to the stadia which are (or used to be) among the highest in the country. I’m sure they wouldn’t do it the same way now. However, if the Astros re-upped through 2050, I’m sure they retained the favorable lease terms ... after all, why not?

 

Basically, yes. HCSA built and owns the stadium, and leases it to the Astros, who retain substantially all revenue generated inside, including naming rights and non-baseball events. In return, they pay a few million dollars a year in rent (now $8.1M, with the lease extension). The team also pays for certain stadium improvements.

BTW, an annuity purchased with the $178M naming rights fee paid by Coca Cola would more than pay for the team's lease costs over the 28-year term of the naming rights deal.

2 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

 

Um, no, you can blame the HCSA for giving them the concession contract.

AFAIK, the Astros retain all revenue from concessions at MMP, and the agreement with Aramark is with the team, not HCSA.

It's important to remember: much like Ticketmaster, the ticket-buying fan is not Aramark's customer, and much like Ticketmaster, Aramark is very good at delivering value to their ACTUAL customers, the venue operators.