Angostura

13 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Looks like a shorter version of Stuyvesant Town. Might be taking this East River thing a little far.

 

Stuyvesant Town is towers-in-a-park, single-use residential, whereas this site plan has more street-level mixed-use urbanism. 

"Can't you use prisms and mirrors to get more light in?" 🙄

3 hours ago, cspwal said:

GFR is more about having a higher density of coffee shops, restaurants, barbershops, nail salons, and also dry goods retail.  Think about all the errands you do in a month - if you could walk a short distance to those, that would be great, but having everywhere you'd want to go within walking distance is only feasible if the places you go are close together.  Having them underneath every building, so that you have a store front of some sort every 50' or so, lets you have lots of options in a close distance.  For example, Skyhouse(s) has 2 coffee shops, a massage place, a pizza place, a burger place, and a nail salon all within walking distance.

This is true, to an extent.

Most urban neighborhoods in which most people live their day-to-day lives without driving only have GFR on a small fraction of total street frontage (prob <20%), and mostly concentrated on specific retail corridors. The most desirable buildings in these neighborhoods tend to be on side streets a block or two off of these corridors: close to, but not right on top of, retail activity. 

On 7/25/2019 at 12:53 PM, crock said:

replacing local restaurants with pass-their-prime national chains and removing all free parking is just...  sad.     

IIRC, parking in the structure is free for two hours, even without validation. But now that the surface spots in front of the stores are metered from the first minute, those spots are much more likely to be available. (Funny how that works)

On 8/1/2019 at 5:02 PM, s3mh said:

Read my entire post.  I clearly note that the business model stand alone automated garages is for downtown areas.  My point is that they would never come to exist purely due to market forces in areas like White Oak Blvd because they are too expensive and demand would never be high enough to generate sufficient revenue.  The only way they get built outside of the CBD is if the parking minimums force landowners to use them.

The amount of retail space that results in a 200-space parking requirement is over 30,000 sf. That's a pretty big development. Ideally, we'd be able to have structured parking (instead of surface parking) AND smaller, more fine-grained retail development. The only way to get there is to decouple parking provision from retail development and price on-street parking appropriately (or otherwise limit its supply by, say, limiting it to one side of the street).

Eliminating parking minimums wouldn't result in spec garages being built overnight. Houston currently has 30 parking spaces for every car. There's plenty of parking, it's just poorly allocated. The likely first step would be for current business owners with off-street lots to allow non-customers to park in their lots (for a fee), since they could do this without risking losing their occupancy permit. That would establish a market for parking so that the price is closer to the cost of providing it. Eventually you would arrive at a level of commercial density that would justify standalone parking structures, but at that point the number of spaces needed per 1000 sf of retail space would probably be lower than current requirements, since having a non-zero price for parking tends to result in less of it being consumed. 

On 7/25/2019 at 11:52 AM, s3mh said:

So, parking minimums are bad but giant parking garages are good.  Hmmmm.

Sorry to jump into this a week late, but.. yes?

Obviously eliminating parking minimums doesn't eliminate parking. One of the benefits of eliminating parking minimums is that you decoupling parking provision from commercial development. For small numbers of spaces, structured parking is very expensive (per-space), so even in places with high land values, parking tends to be in surface lots. But while it's very difficult for individual small-scale developments to provide structured parking, lots of small retail developments can provide enough scale to justify it, so someone can make money by providing it. This allows for more dense development than would be possible otherwise, even if the total number of spaces is no different than would be required currently.

And since density is upstream of mode-shift, having lots of (structured) parking is probably a necessary step on the path to needing less parking in the future.

23 hours ago, Subdude said:

 

I'm all for historic preservation, but the old post office hardly strikes me as architecturally or historically significant.  

23 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

It does not have red brick, arched windows, keystones, wood timber beams, or detailed stonework. However, the giant concrete columns will be a sight to behold in our era of cheap disposable construction. I know, I know - concrete. Not the most poetic material. But think of the cistern on Buffalo Bayou. It has a certain "pillars of the earth" quality. The fact that this thing is strong enough to hold a rooftop garden with public gathering is pretty remarkable - no modern distribution center roof is built so strong. They didn't mess around when they built post office buildings. Even neighborhood post offices are a nightmare to tear down. There was a certain "we are the new Rome and we're going to build like Rome" mindset in the USPS in the 20th century. This may not have the Beaux Arts classicism of the Farley building in NYC but where it counts, in durability and utility, it evokes something of a classical spirit.

 

I think cities should preserve a certain (small) number of these kinds of buildings so we don't forget just how ugly they are, lest someone someday decide it's a good idea to build in this style again.

Something like 3300 parking spaces. Seems like a lot. Looks like they're not leveraging the mix of uses in the parking calculation.

22 hours ago, HNathoo said:

 

They are asking for a very minor variance to reduce the building setback lines 5’ above the second floor for the garage and balconies. The neighborhood can only really chime in due to the request of the variance. The thought within the neighborhood is that if the variance is denied, the developer won’t be able to build the desired project and will drop the deal. They’ll do whatever they can at the hope the developer just goes away.

 

I think the reason the setback requirements haven't been revised/eliminated is so that the Planning Department can use the variance process to extract improvements to the pedestrian realm. A very high percentage of setback variances get approved, almost always accompanied by wider sidewalks, landscape buffers, etc. not otherwise required.

23 hours ago, Nate99 said:

 

Yep. Up in Kingwood when the plans for the ridiculously overwrought development on the lake came out, everyone was instantly convinced of any and every calamity that they could imagine ruining their lives because of the impact of towers, offices and some shopping.  There were even some high school kids looking to burnish their college applications trying to "organize" the noble opposition. 

 

It's a cultural thing, what will we accept happening around us and what rights will eventually be legally recognized if they are not delayed and harassed out of feasibility.  There are many places in this world where laws are vague and what will be permitted is anyone's guess. This dynamic is on a spectrum, but unless you are that incumbent in a comfortable position or become wildly rich elsewhere and like the scenery,  you don't go anywhere near the least predictable jurisdictions and they stagnate or bifurcate into extremes of luxury and poverty as a result. 

There are two kinds of people: those who think it's a question of WHETHER homes will be built, and those with understand it's a question of WHERE. In places where building activity is well-controlled, density prevention results in sprawl. In places where building isn't well-controlled, it results in favelas and shantytowns.

(BTW, aside from a lack of adequate wastewater infrastructure, favelas are an urbanists wet dream: low-rise, high-density, mixed use development; zero setbacks, narrow streets, and entirely pedestrian oriented.)

16 hours ago, X.R. said:

I spoke too soon. I emailed the homies from the neighborhood association and...maybe they aren't as supportive as I assumed they would be. I don't really understand why, because the Southmore is pretty massive and I don't see anything bad stemming from it. In fact, they might be the only reason Java Lava Brew has such consistent business since people just stumble out of their place and fall into that coffee shop/bar/food place. 

 

The most predictable majority in American local politics is incumbent residents opposing any new development with a density higher than their current home.

On 7/6/2019 at 10:26 AM, danielsonr said:

Yes. From Steven Holl Architects website, here is a photo of what appears to be a mock up of the lighting...

 

This will look great until the back lights start burning out. It doesn't appear to be designed for easy maintenance.

3 hours ago, db650 said:

Finally builders have caught on that you can fit many more condo units than townhomes on the same sized lot. And most people prefer one floor to four. What took so long?

2 hours ago, Purdueenginerd said:

 

I dont believe its as simple as consumer preferences. Though that dynamic does play into some peoples decisions--- I think the more real reason is merely economics. Single Family homes inside the city are still relatively cheap compared to cities of similar size. In my opinion, that depresses demand for condominium housing. 

45 minutes ago, db650 said:

Many of these condos are more expensive than homes in the neighborhood, so I’m not sure it’s simply cheaper dwellings. Condos in the U.K./River Oaks are are well over 600 per square foot and the newer ones are usually greater than 3,000 square feet in size. That’s way more expensive than townhomes and many single family homes in the neighborhood.

It all comes down to (a) land costs and (b) what market segment these are aimed at. 

This project probably has a floor area ratio (total square footage divided by total land area) of 2-3x a typical TH project. That makes a lot less difference at a land cost $30/sf than it does at $100/sf. In this neighborhood, at an FAR of, say, 4.0, even with higher construction costs (steel or concrete vs wood frame, elevators, etc.), it should be possible to hit a price point similar to that of townhouse at FAR of 1.5. In cities with very high land values, townhouses are prohibitively expensive for all but the highest end of the market.

28 minutes ago, jmitch94 said:

 

I'd argue more people would prefer a stand alone house even if it's a tightly packed one. I was looking at some condos and the killer was the fact that you have a mortgage and basically a rent too.  Similar size and location and a condo is going to be significant more expensive.  

Again, depends on the target market. A building without that many amenities and limited common areas can be pretty competitive. Recall that the condo fee is paying for lights, climate control and maintenance of the exterior and common areas (including elevators), usually water and sewer, and a significant chunk of your homeowner's insurance costs. And your utility bills will generally be lower on a per-sf basis, since these buildings tend to be more thermally efficient than standalone houses. If you actually compare apples to apples, it's not that different.

That said, I'd expect these to be marketed at a much higher price than the current Houston TH market.

25 minutes ago, Timoric said:

How much of what was built in the late 70s early 80s has been or is being torn down? I would guess at least a third of it is gone (older apartment complexes in better areas)

 

Second, the center of the city population has steadily moved West in Houston - well past the West Loop - be interesting to know if/when that stops or starts going East toward DT because of the great new infill inside the Loop. Back inside the loop by 2030?

A lot of what was built in the 70s and 80s was built where and how it was built due to the sewer moratorium in force at the time. From 1974, the by-right limit on density for restricted areas (essentially all of the inner loop) was 15,000 sf/acre commercial, 7 DU/acre residential. Anything larger needed administrative review and assembly of sewer rights. As a result, a lot of development got pushed west, and a lot of what was built inside the loop was built at a much lower density than would otherwise make sense.

As those properties are getting to an age where they must be either re-habbed or demo'd, we are just now starting to unwind a lot of that mal-investment. This article from 1982 makes for an interesting read on the subject.

People will and do walk if the built environment is conducive to it, even in Houston.

Distance from origin to destination isn't the only factor. Places that are pleasant to walk in tend to have a few things in common:

- Enclosure: the place is visually defined by vertical elements (trees, buildings, etc.)

- Transparency: there's stuff to see beyond the enclosure (i.e. windows in street facing facades)

- Scale: there are details that are visible/interesting to a person on foot moving at a walking pace

- Isolation from (fast) vehicle traffic: either a landscape buffer or significant traffic calming

By building wide roads with building set far back from the right of way, most streets in Houston lack pretty much all of these elements. 

So, no retail.

The other Highline projects have all requested parking variances to come in a few spaces below CoH minimums and keep parking to one level. Assume this will do the same.

15 hours ago, Nate99 said:

 

Surface street traffic inside the loop has increased substantially in the last 15 years and there's more density on the way. I'm wondering if people might start embracing scooters and motorcycles more as an alternative. I just got back from San Francisco and had forgotten how relatively popular bikes are out there. 

Will probably depend on whether or not they can do so safely, which will depend on more protected lanes/bikeways. E-scooters and bikes are a non-option on our sidewalks, and would be scary on a lot of our streets.

8 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

This is interesting. Source?

 

Saw it here:

It looks... not terrible? At least the eastern half.

Looks like the freeway frontage is just parking, not residential. A pseudo street grid with relatively narrow RoWs, structured parking. The surface parking dominating the western half isn't great, and it looks like there'll be zero integration with the MKT trail (in fact, it may be actively isolated from the trail), but it's better than the previous plans.

5 hours ago, trymahjong said:

I’m sure what you say is true

however

In a City like Houston with population growing ( more cars) parking seems to be dead last to be considered—- puzzles me.

VMT (vehicle miles traveled) in Houston has basically been flat over the last 10 years (falling on a per capita basis), and we have almost certainly seen the peak amount of lane-miles of surface streets inside the loop. Absent non-market constraints (e.g. parking minimums) It's natural to start shifting land use away from surface parking and toward more productive uses.

Given what I assume is HRH's target demo, the site's main draw must be its proximity to the Men's Club.

AFAIK, this site is still subject to parking minimums, since city council hasn't approved the expansion of the exempt area yet (unless I missed it).

That said, within a 2-block radius of this site, there are about 9 full blocks that are either vacant or already dedicated to surface parking. If there's a demand for parking, I'm sure it will be provided (at some price greater than zero).

19 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Of course the area between 610 and Beltway 8, and maybe even out to the Grand Parkway, is as ugly as it ever has been and is not getting replaced.

 

No, it just gets replicated. Driving west on I-10 from the city is like watching a tape loop. Every 7-8 miles or so the same set of big box stores repeats.

10 hours ago, Ross said:

The data Crossley provided purports to be for Harris County. What happens if commuters from adjacent counties are included?

 

If the numbers are based on traffic counts, then it includes all the cars on the road.

10 hours ago, Ross said:

Your argument on parking doesn't make sense. Take the three surface parking lots adjacent to 800 Bell. They are each about an acre. They are each tax appraised at about $9.4 million. Taxes on each are about $240k. those lots have been vacant for 40 years, as far as I can tell. They are owned by the same corporate group. The parking revenues probably don't exceed the tax cost by a significant amount, but let the owners hold the property until it is economic to build on the blocks. Artificially raising the the carrying cost of vacant downtown property won't create renters out of thin air.

Some possible explanations for the continued existence of large surface parking lots in the CBD include:

(a) land speculation (parking revenue exceeds carrying costs, so the owner waits until the windfall from selling increases)

(b) corporate inertia (parking revenue exceeds carrying costs, so the owner focuses on other priorities)

(c) surface parking is the highest and best use of the land

Of these, (c) is almost certainly not true (since the current opportunity cost per space is about 2-3X the cost of structured parking), which leaves us with (a) and (b). So, while raising the carrying costs won't create demand for built space, the current highest-and-best use of those blocks is probably somewhere between 10 single-family houses and 70-story office building. By making surface parking a cash-negative situation for the corporate owner, they would have an incentive to do something more productive with the land.

On 6/22/2019 at 10:38 PM, Ross said:

Why would you tax surface parking at a higher rate? It's probably illegal to do that, and why would you force land owners to build structures no one wants to occupy? If there were demand for buildings on those parking lots, they would be built.

 

If there's a congestion charge for coming inside 610, you should be prepared for massive protests, especially if there's no exemption for those of us who live inside the Loop.

 

Bikes, e-Bikes and scooters? Sure my 83 year old mother would be just thrilled to have those as the only option to go to Jones Hall

 

The people who commute in from the suburbs will never move into midrises in the center city. I am also not going to give up my 1/4 acre Inner Loop lot to provide more density.

Here's the argument for taxing surface parking: structured parking only makes economic sense when the opportunity cost of the land used for surface parking is higher than construction cost of providing structured parking. Round numbers, let's say this happens at around $5M/acre (might be a little less). However, if you artificially limit density by REQUIRING a bunch of parking when land values are BELOW this number, then you create conditions where it's very difficult for land values to appreciate to a level where structured parking makes more economic sense than surface parking. By taxing surface parking, you increase its cost relative to denser alternatives. Eventually, the land value appreciates and the need for the tax to discourage surface parking dissipates.

With respect to the other points, no one's saying suburbans have to move and granny has to ride an e-scooter to reduce VMT. First, there's evidence VMT per capita is already falling, and total VMT is about flat over the last 12 years despite a large increase in population. Most of these VMT reductions are a result of increased density (having a grocery store a mile away instead of 3 miles, for example). Second, measures like congestion charges are nudges designed to shift incentives away from single-occupancy vehicles and towards other means of travel. Want a 50% discount on congestion charge (and a 2X increase in fuel efficiency)? Put a second person in the car!

And you don't have to give up your 1/4 acre for density, but as land prices go up, some of your neighbors might decide it's a good idea.

I like the narrowness of the internal streets, and the fact that they're not dead straight, so the sightlines are more interesting. 

I think I'm kinda w/ s3mh on this one. 

I'm pretty much OK with the massing. The 20th St frontage is essentially 6 stories (a reasonable height fronting a street that width). The 12-story facade on Nicholson would seem overly high fronting a street as narrow as Nicholson, except the RoW on Nicholson is actually 50% wider than 20th (90 vs 60 ft). And the afternoon shade on that stretch of the bike trail would be welcome.

But the architecture is... not great? With the exception of the balconies on the north façade, it looks more like an office building or hotel than residential. And with the exception of the (3-story) lobby on the corner, the rest of the street-facing parts of the building look to be essentially blank walls covering a parking structure. Could be better.