RedScare

Oops...

http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s07001.htm

Gas prices are where they were at about five years ago. Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are lower than they were about thirty years ago; and since that time, the average fuel economy for passenger cars has increased by about 50%...along with horsepower. Better quality control standards mean that vehicles break down less frequently as well.

Mmm...no, in the last 30 years, average overall fuel efficiency has decreased. Since 1987, it decreased nearly 10%. Only in the last year or so have overall averages begun to rise again...slowly. From 1975 to 1987 there was a drastic increase, almost all of that occurring between 1978 and 1983. Suggesting that there has been a continuous rise over 30 years is not just disingenuous, it is an outright falsehood.

http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s07001.htm

I'm sorry, anyone who looks at this top rendering and thinks that it is not a superb improvement, not only over what is currently there, but also over anything built at Sawyer Target or on Washington Avenue, is simply lying. I realize that these are merely renderings, but the attempt to fit the "character of the Heights" is definitely there.

http://washingtonheightsdistrict.com/renderings.html

http://www.click2houston.com/video/24666506/index.html at 26 sec.

Walmart did not confirm anything in the Chronicle article. In another article after they signed the purchase agreement, they still would not commit to sq ft.

So, in light of Walmart saying nothing, and a developer's site plan showing 152,000 sf, you decide that the prudent thing to do is continually scream that they are planning a monstrosity in excess of 200,000 square feet.

Makes sense to me.

Channel 2 reported 200k sq ft a week or two ago on a news story that featured an interview with a Walmart spokesman. Aside from that, wed night was the first time Walmart would commit to sq ft. Dirt bar has been sold with the apartments (I didn't even know that was a bar). Both will be demolished.

It's only been reported to be 152,000 square feet since Day 1. Here's a Chronicle article from July 1...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7090711.html

This same article is posted in the first post of the non-confrontational Walmart thread. I don't see how you could have missed it, unless perhaps you haven't researched what is proposed there (or don't care).

With the exception of Terminator and Star Wars, the sequel is never greeted with the same enthusiasm as the original. I wonder what would have happened had Walmart come before Target.

It would have been largely the same. Walmart is Pavlov's dog to the enlightened set. Say the word and they bark. If Walmart had come first, the opponents would have merely appeared less hypocritical, as we would not have their welcoming remarks seen in the Target thread.

Yeah, I know there is concern but looking at the probabley vote it's still going to be 9 for and 6 against, which is a pass. Most of the Council doesn't think this will have any effect on their Districts so they will probably be unwilling to stand up to the Mayor. Unfortunantely, unless people outside of the existing Historic Districts get more vocal, it's probably too late to stop this being adopted.

True, but 9-6 on what ordinance? It could include a re-vote on Heights East and West. It could include a re-vote on every single existing historic district. It could vote down South Heights and make them start over. Who knows?

Wouldn't the City be obligated to make most of the infrastructure improvements that $6M pays for?

Isn't the City forgoing future taxes rather than paying out cash now? That sounds like a win to me.

Given that the City isn't paying out cash and the developer is, doesn't that mean the City has an advantage from a cost of funds view?

Yeah, this does look like an interest free loan to the City by the developer. I am curious how the taxpayers get screwed by interest free loans. It's not like Yale doesn't NEED to be redone.

Well, not "instant" street cred. He has to kinda work on it a little here, at least. Everybody that wants instant street cred just puts a sign up in their yard. 20 years ago it was just the same, except all the signs said No Trespassing or Beware of Dog.

Maybe drink some coffee at Antidote and name drop a few stores on 19th Street. It doesn't take much. Oh, it probably helps to to have a HuffPost icon on your iPhone, too.

I don't think he's really a snob. He just moved to the Heights last year, and I think he is simply trying to gain Heights street cred. He argues for historic districts and against a Walmart. Instant street cred. The Walmart stuff is pretty harmless when all is said and done. The store gets built, none of us sees it, unless you live in the 6 townhomes that are near it, he gets to tell other Heights neighbors he fought the evil empire, and all is well. Even if somehow the Walmart wasn't built, it wouldn't hurt much, since others are being built. The historic district is the one that will cost us time and money.

I just talked to someone at the City to see when they were going to send out the re-vote ballots and they told me that they are going to do in in October, after the Ordinance is adopted by City Council. Sue Lovell has been saying that if they do the re-vote before the Ordinance is passed they will only have to meet the 51% number, but if they do it after the Ordinace is passed it will be 67%. She kept saying this as though it would benefit the people against the ordinace to let it pass as it would make the preservationists meet a highter burden.

What if the re-vote ballot says "Do you oppose the new Ordinance?" and they interpret the rule to mean that the OPPOSITION would need to meet the 67% burden to oppose the Historic District changes? I'm thinking that's the game they are going to play. Does anyone think that either side can get 67%? I don't think so.

I do not have any knowledge of how this is going to work, but going by how it has been conducted so far I think there is going to be something sneaky happening.

There is actually some pretty significant concern by a majority of City Council to the way this thing has been carried out. Several councilmembers want a re-vote, and I doubt their concerns would be alleviated if it was stacked in a way to favor either side. Despite Sue Lovell's protests, Houston City Council is still a majority 'no-zoning' group, and the uproar created by opponents of this ordinance have been heard. The question is what result is achieved? What happens to existing districts, what happens to South Heights?

But to dismiss all of the opposition on the grounds that it must just be a pretext for elitism is nothing more than an admission that the opponents are right and you have no choice but to demean them because you have no good argument for giving the developers and Walmart a free pass on everything they do.

So, when you told me to go live in the suburbs...even though I've lived here 10 years longer than you have, and live closer to the proposed Walmart than you do...was that an admission on your part that you have no good argument for opposing this store?

BTW, I also live closer than the cleaning lady, so by her reasoning she is too far removed from the heart of this issue.

kthxbye.

This whole process of redrawing the districts to fit their agenda is utterly disgusting, ludicrous and seemingly unethical at best.

In keeping with the entire process over the last 4 years.

900 square foot bungalow entrance...150,000 SF camelback add-on in the back.

Sweet! Even the HAHC would approve.

Reading between the lines on the ridiculous facebook group, the meeting goers did not exactly hear what they were hoping for. Of course, now some of the ridiculous comments are about there needing to be a fight for zoning. Ha, I agree, thats what the need to push. Zoning! Nothing will turn the eclectic, small business loving anti-WalMart loony bin on its head as the real, actual small business owners in the hood actually become their target instead of their BS talking point. Where the WalMart goes is probably not ever going to be a residential zone, where many small businesses are located in the Heights...welll, they'l fight zoning for sure out of fear if nothing else...

You're right. Kinda sounds like the hint was, "start making suggestions on what you want Walmart to do, cuz we ain't stopping 'em." Here's one of my favorite quotes...

Also talked to traffic and city guy said that Yale in its current form can support 10,000 cars per day. With the proposed widening it would allow up to 26,000 cars per day....now all we need is a traffic study saying that Walmart will attract 26,001 cars per day, right?

Unmitigated bull____. I'd expect better fact checking of articles in The Atlantic.

You're right. That is a load of bull. In fact, McMansions built in the City of Houston are required to be sheathed in OSB or plywood, have hurricane clips nailed to every stud, have straps nailed across the ridge of the roof, and the whole thing anchored to the slab...enough strapping to withstand 120 mph hurricanes. They are further required to have insulation throughout, have energy efficient windows, have every crack and crevice sealed and instal high efficiency air conditioners...all per City Code. Furthermore, most homes built in the City's ETJ follow the same codes. While there are homes built in the county that are not required to meet city codes, most new homes do so anyway.

This is by no means an endorsement of tract home builders, but things aren't as bad as that article suggests. Even crappy shingles come with 20 year guarantees.

I dont remember the arguments, I just know they had to exist! Right?

See for yourself...

Everyone was positively giddy over the Target opening. They even praised the repaving of Sawyer Street. No complaints about traffic on a 2 lane road in front of a store virtually the same size as the proposed Walmart. No worries about the mom and pop stores being hurt by a big box retailer. No concerns for the character of the Heights, nor worries of school zones just blocks away. I defy you to read that thread without coming away with the belief that the Walmart opposition is hypocritical, vapid, elitist snobbery.

The snobbery argument is still odd to me. I cycle through the heights and by one of the developer's houses everyday and to see the two neighborhoods and conclude that the Heights is the home of the snobbery snobnose snobs is silly. At least people in the Heights walk their own children and pets.

Really? Read through the past 18 pages of this thread. Talk to anyone who went to the historic district meeting on Waugh a couple of weeks ago. Then again, the people in River Oaks probably can't see the snobbery all around them either, so perhaps you aren't the best person to ask.

Oh, I do feel I must point out that the guy across the street from the Woodlands couldn't care less about a Walmart on Yale. In fact, on my block, we are all pretty amused at the uproar. There really aren't words to describe it.

Teardowns are off by about a third. New home sales have dropped through the floor. It is a natural consequence that McMansion building would drop with it. The unanswered question is whether they will return. I believe there will always be a market for oversized homes in certain circles. It was the extension of easy credit to a larger portion of the populace that fueled the unbridled McMansion craze. If lending practices return to mid-2000s levels, McMansions will return. If not, the McMansion as a common building type is likely gone.

Where do you currently walk to within your neighborhood that you buy what Wal-Mart sells?

And that "from all over" phrase reeks of xenophobia...or worse. Who don't you want in (or near) your neighborhood? Where are they from? Why do you not feel comfortable around them?

I don't think he is a xenophobe. He is simply advocating that several Valero stores are better than one Walmart.

Of course, what would really be cool is to have an HEB Pantry in the Heights. Too bad the neighborhood gentrified and ran it off. Now, only Walmart wants to locate here.

The only thing worse than a McMansion is the demolition of a McMansion. What a waste. So many of these homes whose owners have gone into bankruptcy are being bought at fire sales to be torn down.

I read an article over the weekend about one outside Atlanta that is the largest home in Georgia or something like that. It's supposed to be twice the size of the White House. It cost the owner $30 million to build, and some comedian bought it for $8 million. He plans to tear down the existing home and build an "environmentally friendly" mansion of his own.

You know what's "environmentally friendly?" How about not throwing a perfectly good house in the garbage!

How many? You've mentioned one. While I agree that tearing down to build new is more wasteful than repurposing or simply living in it, I haven't heard that it is epidemic.

1. Walmart supercenters are designed to exist in the suburbs on cheap land far away from where people live. Prove it.

2. It is not about car trips, it is about getting what you need in your neighborhood. Smaller and more plentiful stores rather than having people from all over pile into a Supercenter. If you think Supercenters are better suited for urban areas than walkable store fronts, you need to stay out in the burbs and leave us alone. I've been here 11 years. You've been here one. Who should be leaving who alone?

3. Maybe in the burbs, but not in the City. The developer of Sawyer Heights promised lots of nice restaurants, boutiques and so on. The result, the same crap that is in every strip center and a freebirds. No "chef driven" restaurant will open in a strip center with Wal-Mart. Not even in the burbs. Don't go into the restaurant business.

4. I complained about Walmart putting in too many stores before they announced the super concept urban store for Yale. And the duplication argument is still valid to refute all those who claim that the Heights "needs" a Walmart supercenter. You can have it both ways because it is two completely different points. I thought you just said Walmarts are designed for the suburbs? Apparently not all of them.

5. Stupid of you to think that people are powerless in a democracy. Councilman Gonzalez has publicly announced that he does not support the development and has tagged the Koehler street variance. Other council members are very close to announcing their opposition. No 380 agreement=no Walmart. No permits=no Walmart. 380 agreements are not required in order to get a permit.

My arguments are my own and not the arguments that will be presented to decision makers. Those arguments have so far been very effective. It is no coincidence that no one on city council has publicly announced their support for Walmart.

You are right. We do not live in a small down. We live in a very dense urban environment. The supercenter concept was designed to be put on the outskirts of town where land is very cheap and there was minimal demands on roadways. The idea was to draw people away from the local shopping district so they would do all their shopping at the supercenter in one stop. Walmart replicated this model in larger cities by building on the outskirts of suburban areas. After anemic sales growth last year (1%), Walmart has realized that this business model has jumped the shark. Now, Walmart wants to just take a supercenter and jam it right in the middle of densely populated urban areas. This the exact opposite of the model for smart and sustainable urban development (smaller retail centers in walkable neighborhoods to diminish traffic congestion).

The average Walmart generates an average of 10,000 car trips a day. That number is based on stores that are in suburban areas. Walmart is marketing the Yale location as some super duper new concept store that will serve the entire city. Thus, the Yale location will generate significantly more traffic than an average store because it is in a densely populated urban area and is being marketed as a special flagship urban store. Add to that the increased traffic burden created by a new east bound feeder road an Yale St. exit (this will be a preferred alternate for downtown commuters as they can get on Memorial from Waugh without waiting for a traffic light and well before the I-10 45 traffic), and you are looking at possibly three times the current traffic volume on Yale, while adding two traffic lights. between I-10 and Washington. There will be gridlock as there is barely a tenth of a mile between the new light at I-10 and the new light at Koehler and similar gridlock between the proposed extension of Koehler to Heights Blvd.

Walmart will have an affect on small businesses. It always does. It won't be quite the same dynamic as what happens in small towns. What will happen is that the traffic burden will change the face of development. Big national chains (everything from Quiznos to check cashers to mobile phones to Best Buy) will want to build in the area as the traffic count goes up. Restaurants and bars will not. Small businesses will have trouble because they will see their rents rise as national chains move in to the area.

Finally, if Walmart must have a store inside the loop, there are plenty of locations that would be beneficial for both Walmart and the immediate area. There are brownfields galore out around Old Katy Rd, Hemstead Rd, and W 11. A Walmart out there would help revitalized an area that is being abandonned by industry and is seeing a lot of new residential construction. There are opportunities on S. Main for a Walmart that would actually serve an underserved southside market. East of Downtown, there are plenty of lots on Navigation that could be remediated to become a Walmart that would serve a truly underserve eastside market. But, instead of going where Walmart is actually wanted and needed, Walmart is going to go right into an area that is already full of traffic and bring in people from underserved areas miles away to ruin a resurgent area with traffic, crime and piles of the same old coat tail retail development that follows Walmart everywhere. You just cannot cram a supercenter concept into a neighborhood that was originally desinged for trolleys and model Ts. Supercenters are suburban stores and are not compatible with urban life.

You crack me up. You just throw stuff out there with nothing to back it up, expecting people to buy it. Most of it has no logic. Much of it is the OPPOSITE of the truth.

A few examples...

"We live in a very dense urban environment." No, we don't. The Heights is a collection of single family homes on 6,600 square foot lots. Most of those homes are inhabited by singles or couples. Density in the Heights Super Neighborhood is 6,272 per square mile. The average household size is less than 2.5.

"The idea was to draw people away from the local shopping district so they would do all their shopping at the supercenter in one stop." This model reduces the number of trips compared to shopping at several small shops, thereby reducing the number of cars on the road. Additionally, there WILL be a shopping center for small shops across the street from the Walmart, allowing even more shopping to be completed in one trip. Your logic is backwards.

"Big national chains (everything from Quiznos to check cashers to mobile phones to Best Buy) will want to build in the area as the traffic count goes up. Restaurants and bars will not." You've clearly never owned a bar or restaurant. I have. Both big stores and small ones want to locate near high traffic centers. Why you believe a bar or restaurant or small store would want to locate far away from its customers (that traffic) is beyond me.

"Walmart is marketing the Yale location as some super duper new concept store that will serve the entire city." You yourself complained that there will be a Walmart at Crosstimbers and Silber and that this one is not needed. You can't have it both ways. Pick one. If this store generates 10,000 trips daily, it will cause a corresponding drop in the number of trips to its main competitors, Target, Kroger, HEB and Fiesta. In fact, those Washington Avenue residents who currently travel into the Heights to shop at Kroger, HEB and Fiests will be drawn to this store, keeping traffic off of Heights streets.

"Finally, if Walmart must have a store inside the loop, there are plenty of locations that would be beneficial for both Walmart and the immediate area." Stupid argument. If Walmart wants to put a store on THIS brownfield, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

"You just cannot cram a supercenter concept into a neighborhood that was originally desinged for trolleys and model Ts." They aren't. They are proposing to build a store next to a neighborhood on the site of a former steel factory. When Walmart proposes a store at the corner of 11th and Studewood, call me. I may join your protest then.

I hope that the arguments posted here are the same ones being presented to the City. They know better than the fallacies you propound. If this is the best your group has, we'll have a shiny new Walmart in no time.

Is there an organized opposition group to the proposed amendment? A website maybe? I have been out of the loop and was not able to attend any of the meetings, but would like more information regarding how to oppose the proposed new historic district/amendment. Thanks.

http://responsiblehistoricpreservation.org/

Can people withdraw from a petition which has already been submitted? Wouldn't a new petition be necessary?

They can up until the public hearing, which has already been held. So, really, at this point, the retractions are merely to show City Council that support for the new ordinance has severely eroded. Hopefully, they take notice.