curley1733

The Walmart is already having an effect on development in the West End. Cruddy $200-250k townhomes are going up instead of the better $300k and up townhomes that have filled in the West End neighborhood west of TC Jester (northern Rice Military).

FYI, $200k-$250k is a good deal higher than Houston's median housing price of $160,120. And it is also a price point for many of us unwashed masses of young professionals...

Additionally, your assumptions are wrong. There are only 2 new builds currently listed in that area for under $250k and they are both on the small side compared to the surrounding townhomes. Everything else in that area right now is going for $280k or more with the top end off fowler street going for $429k.

A doctor owned it. He may be developing an office space for himself.

Bump! I'm surprised that no one on here knows about this establishment. I too was wondering about the current makeover of this building and was hoping that the news would break here.

For you house/townhouse hunters, which areas from your experience have had better home prices with these factors combined(quality, size, location, convenience, safety,etc.) as far as Shady Acres, Timbergrove, Sunset Heights, Norhill, Cottage Grove?

I searched for about a year and came to the conclusion that Cottage Grove had the best of your combined factors for the price. Especially with the Intown Homes properties going in, Cottage Grove is getting nicer and nicer. Of course I'm biased because I live in Cottage Grove now, but I looked in all of the places you listed and ended up in Cottage Grove. You can't beat the location and convience with is being right next to I-10, and we have had no problems with safety. In my opinion the prices are still reasonable compared to most of the Greater Heights.

Sure, they may be waiting for a big announcement where they proudly tell residents that they will be even closer to a Sally Beauty Supply, a Payless Shoes, and Chick-fil-A than ever before.

Blasphemy to bundle Chick-fil-A in with that riff-raff...

I am literally praying for a Chick-fil-a in one of those pad sites!

Is there any way we can confirm this? I live right next to this area and a "waterpark" would be great. I know for sure that Intown homes is supposed to extend the Heights hike/bike trail to Cottage Grove, but this waterpark is news to me.

For Durham to pick up some slack, a chunk of Garden Oaks would have to be rezoned there. I really don't see how closing Love is going to help. It might be better to close Stevenson, and add room at Love for those students.

I have mainly heard that if Stevenson closes, the children will go to Memorial Elementary.

I think this is accurate. This project reminds me of the proposed mid-rise condo development some guy planned for Westheimer in Montrose. It was called "The Westheimer" and was supposed to be where the empty lot is next to Buffalo Exchange. You can still see the sign on google maps. He wanted to cram 8-10 stories into a tiny lot. He had drawings, a website, a fence and even started messing with some site prep. Of course, it never happened.

I think this guy knows the neighborhood will go crazy if he tries to put six stories on a 25,000 sq ft lot and is floating this idea in order to look like a saint when he is unable to deliver on the six story project and has to scale down to a two story development with ground level parking.

Frankly, I hope this guy builds six stories. People in the Heights are getting very well organized between stop walmart and the historic preservation group. Another stupid development will just grow the ranks of those who will push for some sort of limited zoning ordinance. Houston is not post-1980s foreclosure crisis Houston. We are not desparate for any development. People are tired of bad land use choices and are going to demand a greater public role in private development in the City. The question for developers is whether they want to see this happen sooner or later. If they try to dot the Heights with mid and high rise developments, they are going to see zoning much sooner.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you the same person that has been screaming for a mixed-use project instead of walmart? Isn't mixed-use "responsible urban development"? I guess if your pursuit is to just control everything, then you can lobby for, and then against the same thing...

Parking for a large portion of the lot could definitely be a possibility, and it would be a big help to the parking situation around there. If a large portion of the land is not for parking, then that is a huge lot for 2 bars...

Does anyone know what is going on with the demolition of a Washington Ave. lumber and hardware store between Detering and Lester? With the completion of the demo, it looks like the entire block will be clear for new contruction. Will this be more residential (right on Washington), strip center, or mixed use?

kylejack,

the Wikipedia link is off point. i will let the poster speak for him or herself, but a plain reading of the post indicates that the poster was just saying that if the market thinks a dress code is a bad idea at a sports bar, then this place will close (not that if the bar remains open it necessarily means that a dress code at a sports bar is correct).

Exactly and thank you.

You don't have to be the owner of a place to criticize it, especially in a country with free speech like this one. Your "it's popular therefore it's reasonable" is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. http://en.wikipedia....ntum_ad_populum

Argumentum ad populum does not apply here because we are talking about a sports bar, not a set of invalid beliefs, and the business will go out of business once the market decides that it is no longer reasonable. I didn't say it is reasonable, I said that the market would figure it out, and it will. The owners are taking a risk (that you are well within your rights to criticize) on creating an image that is not typical of sports bars. I'm just arguing economics, not beliefs.

Oh, they're definitely keeping their desired image intact. Which is precisely the thrust of this thread. That image is a bad one.

A self-professed sports bar that doesn't allow sportswear is being unreasonable, yes.

Are you the owner? Are you the one that takes the financial and emotional hit if the concept fails? Maybe the market will figure out whether the dress code and concept is unreasonable? Looks like a lot of people go there on a regular basis, (I'm not one of them) so guess it's working out so far.

It has been interesting watching s3mh posit 'unassailable' theories of Walmart's mistakes, claiming them as uncontrovertable fact, only to have a subsequent post reveal that Walmart's research and planning led them to do exactly what s3mh claimed they could not do. The only conclusion to be reached by this is that the Heights is clearly NOT what Walmart opponents think it is (or wish it to be), and EXACTLY what Walmart thinks it is.

Perhaps this is the source of the Walmart opponents' angst. If Walmart is moving in next door, the Heights...by definition...cannot be any different than any other Houston neighborhood with a Walmart.

Here is another article from the same Federal Reserve Bank website titled "The Wal-Mart effect: Poison or antidote for local communities? http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3033

I have not read the entire article, but I thought you guys might be interested in it. From what I have gleaned so far (just skimmed and looked at the pretty graphs) the article gives a non-biased study of Wal-Mart's effects on the community. It doesn't "prove" whether Wal-Mart is positive or negative, but does come to this conclusion:

"findings from this fedgazette analysis suggest that much of the conventional wisdom regarding Wal-Mart's nefarious effects on local communities is off base, at least in relation to measures that the public and policymakers often use to gauge community health. The analysis is also absent any discussion of the savings local consumers realize by having Wal-Mart in town (see further discussion).But neither does the analysis assume that Wal-Mart is a boon to counties. Though the balance of findings is, in sum, more positive than negative toward Wal-Mart, all of the measured effects were small. Given some positive and some negative outcomes, it's probably safest to say that Wal-Mart's net imprint on a county's health appears to be smaller than most perceive.

If that's surprising, maybe it shouldn't be. County economies—even small ones—are dynamic entities, constantly changing and extending well beyond their retail borders. Firms, jobs and people come and go with regularity, and for lots of different reasons. It could be that the economic idiosyncrasies of local communities—education levels, infrastructure investments, entrepreneurial culture, local business mix, geographic good fortune—play a larger role in determining the long-run growth prospects for the 89 counties studied here than whether the bogyman dressed as Wal-Mart showed up at the community door."

I feel like I have been hearing a couple of people saying almost this exact quote during this thread...

There was once a time when Dee Snider was cool and Napolean Dynamite was funny. Fortunately those days are behind us now.

I would like to bring some sanity back to this ever increasingly insane thread...Napolean Dynamite is in fact still funny.

Yeah, let's get a Union to help us figure out how to run things!

Has anyone had a radiant barrier installed? If so, who did you use and would you recommend them? Also, did you use the spray or foil type, and is there a ballpark price for this type of service? Thanks.

I work for a company that makes buildings more efficient in many different ways including HVAC, lighting, Building Automation Systems, building envelope, etc... Radiant barriers will improve comfort and they do improve the envelope of your house, however they do not provide the paybacks that the installation companies tout. I would not recommend getting one unless you are uncomfortable in your house and need to seal it, or if you know for sure that you will be in your house for more than 7 years. The paybacks vary depending on how you use your house, but we have never found a REAL payback less than 7 years on a commercial building. Granted a house is different than a commercial building, but in reality a commercial building uses more energy per square foot, therefore should have a better payback on a radiant barrier. We have not found that they are beneficial economically.

I concur that the rumor needs substantiating. It could turn out that this asinine mostly-off-topic thread was instigated by someone with bad information founded on bad assumptions. (That would explain away a lot of the discourse, too.)

Not to stir this pot back up, but I just got confirmation that it is Walmart. However, my source did not know whether the deal was closed or not.

Prince's Hamburgers

Well I'm excited, but I wonder if they are going to tear down Rag printing? It doesn't seem like there is enough room on that lot unless they do.

Not on Washington Ave...but does anyone know what is being built at the 1500 block of Shepherd (between Eigel and Maxie)? The lot next to Rag Printing has been leveled, and a parking lot has been poured.

They will negotiate on upgrades, interest rate offers and other things, but as previously said, not on sales price.

The people I know that have purchased their houses have liked them.

Check it out if you get a chance, and admire the remaining pine tree in the middle of the block which is just as big. Hat tip to the builder/homeowner of that lot who built around the tree.

I am all for savings trees, but pine trees are weeds.

Does anyone know if a summary of this meeting was posted anywhere? Or was anyone on this board at the meeting? Thoughts?

For my taste, any new building is better than (insert lot filled with broken down cars and metal)