s3mh
-
Posts
2,134 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by s3mh
-
For each alleged travesty your little internet think tank can come up with about Portland, there are two dozen real travesties happening in Houston every day. Highrises in the back yards of single family houses. Big box suburban stores subsidized in wealthy urban areas. But you fail to see the difference between Portland and Houston and how Houston can learn from Portland. In Portland, density was encouraged and managed well. If the density in Portland was so awful, no one would be paying the huge premium needed to buy/rent near the city. As your little internet posts indicate, there is affordable housing in the suburbs and across the border in Vancouver WA. Density created value that people are very willing to pay to have. The rules encouraged more building close to Portland, not less. And the density created a lifestyle that is very desirable. In Houston, density is coming just because the cheap land is running out very quickly. The question then is whether you are just going to sit there and hope that everything comes out alright (like the City did when there was densification in the Gulfton area during the last major boom--didn't turn out so well) or whether you are going to manage the density to minimize the externalities and maximize the benefits. Failure to do the latter runs the potential risk of repeating Gulfton.
-
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to jump up and down at the HAHC and advocate for its demise, you cannot claim to be in favor of preservation because you would be ok with some other sort of regulation. HAHC is what we've got. If the anti-preservationists succeed and get it repealed, nothing is going to replace it. You know that and your claim that you can be for preservation but against the ordinance is plainly disingenuous.
-
No. What is weird is that you have to continually make ad hominem attacks in every post you make because you offer so little in the form of intelligent dialog on any issue. It is always "I am right, everyone else is a complete retard" with you. That is actually more sad than weird. But, since you are obsessed with me, I will let you know that the addition is about 4-5 years out when I have a very good equity cushion to make financing easy. Also, need to get schools settled, wife back into the work force and would definitely want to not build during a boom when trades are in short supply and charging top dollar. Also hoping for a softer rental market for the time I would have to be out of the house. No fear of the HAHC as I will be using one of the builders who has tons of experience with the HAHC and does not have to go to the planning commission to get an approval.
-
If you want to repeal the ordinance instead of working to make it better, you are not a preservationist. The historic houses in the Heights were getting mowed down as fast as they were in Oak Forrest before the ordinance. Without the ordinance, it would be back to losing historic housing stock by the hundreds every year. If that is what you consider preservation, then you have a very warped concept of what it means to be a preservationist.
-
Link? Where did they get the density on the north side of downtown?
-
I don't want to live in Portland. You never see the sun. But, I am not so close minded that I cannot see that Portland has done some very good things that could be a great benefit to Houston. I could afford to live in Portland because I would get paid better in Portland. The myth of Houston's cost of living is that Houstonians generally make less than people in areas considered to have a high cost of living. And Portland's real estate is expensive because there is real value that is protected. People are willing to pay more to be in a walkable neighborhood close to downtown. And people value knowing that some idiot developer isn't going to drop a highrise in their back yard and will pay more for living in an area that is well planned.
-
So, you previously wrote: "Further, the entire Portland metro area comprises a population of 2,289,000 within an area of 6,684 square miles. Houston, on the other hand, squeezes its entire city population of 2.25 million into only 600 square miles, making Houston 11 times as dense as Portland. In other words, as far as density and walkability goes, Houston has it all over Portland. Living in Portland is like living in a rural town. No wonder people love it so. It is small and quaint." In less than a few hours, Houston has gone from being 11 times as dense as Portland to being less dense than Portland, but admirably only 6% less density. How embarrassing for you. And you completely ignore what density really means, which is not surprising as it does not fit in with your narrative that Houston is better than Portland when it comes to urban density. You completely ignore the fact that Portland has density where it matters. Downtown Portland has at least four times the number of housing units as Houston (and climbing). Portland's main urban neighborhood the NW district has about twice the density as similar neighborhoods in Houston. What zoning did for Portland was create density by restricting density in the suburban areas where density isn't needed and encouraging it in the urban areas where it is needed (and by supporting it with pedestrian friendly retail, bike access and public transportation). Houston's density is spread out with blotches of big garden style complexes and random high rises thrown up wherever developers want. No connection to public transportation. No connection to walkable retail. Only benefit goes to the developers who get bigger profit margins for doing less with the land.
-
My point wasn't that if you support someone's appeal you are not for "historic preservation". My point was that people do not know whether to trust Brie or not because she has never articulated her position on the preservation ordinance. What we do know is that she has done some things that are in line with what opponents of the ordinance have done. That raises concerns. I have given her an opportunity to state what her position on the ordinance is and have not concluded one way or the other about her.
-
Read what and weep? I originally cited census figures that showed Portland was more dense. I also have shown that Portland has built 11,000 residential units downtown since 1997 where Houston only has just over 3,000 total. You have obviously never set foot in Portland and have to cherry pick statistics to try to make the laughable argument that Houston is more dense than Portland. Lets look at neighborhoods: Houston: Upper Kirby: 4,841 Midtown: 3871 Portland equivalent: NW District: 8600 (and they even have an evil historic district!)
-
When you use the same metric, Portland is more dense. When you manipulate metrics by comparing apples to oranges (in your case, urban core of Houston compared to urban and suburban Portland), then you can find a way for Houston to be more dense than Portland. But, if you are actually talking about "density" as being the concept of building up the urban core with increased population to minimize dependency of cars and promoting the convenience of being able to live, work, shop and play within the same area and without needed a car, then Portland is light years ahead of Houston. Portland has built 11,000 downtown residential units since 1997. Houston has just over 3,000 total and is paying developers $15,000 a unit to add a few hundred more. When Portland redevelops brown fields, they do a 1.9 billion South Waterfront project, with 2,700 residential units. In Houston, we do Walmarts and strip malls.
-
Houston is actually 672. By your measure, that would mean 3,508. Portland is 145 sq mi with a population of 593,820 for a density of 4095. You are still wrong. And Portland is actually more dense because a large section of the NW side of the city is a park.
-
So, is your goal to reform the HAHC so that all bad projects can get approved? I know you do not like it that people wrote CM Cohen to let her know that they did not support you getting nominated to HAHC. But the reason people are concerned is that no one has any idea what you actually want to do or what you stand for when it comes to the historic districts. What we do know is that you wrote a letter to the Leader stating that you are friends with your builder. You hired an architect who has been an opponent of the historic ordinance. You are out advocating for an appeal of a denial of a COA from a project that was designed by the same architect's firm. You mounted a very public campaign against the HAHC to try to get your plans approved on appeal with the Planning Commission. These are all things that suggest that you do not support the historic ordinance. On the other hand, you have told us that you like historic homes; own and are renovating one, and go to antique stores. That is all great, but some of the most vocal opponents of the historic ordinance have said and done the same thing. So, in all fairness, this is you chance to let us know where you really stand. 1. Would you support a repeal of the Historic Ordinance? 2. Do you think the Historic Ordinance should be strengthened to prevent the projects like the one on 1600 Cortland? Or should it be weakened to just set a few objective standards for height, size, preservation of original structure, etc. and have no say in the subjective elements? Or something in between? 3. What specifically would you do if selected to serve on the HAHC to try to reform the process (specifics, not "I would be fair and consistent, yada yada")? 4. If you could make amendments to the ordinance, what would you change?
-
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/population-density-census-data-map.html No. You are wrong. Portland is more dense than Houston according to real statistics. Portland's urban density is 3,527 per square mile, while Houston is 2,978 per square mile. You are comparing apples to oranges. Portland's incorporated area has a population of 593,820. Houston in 2.145 mil. The greater metropolitan area for Houston is @6.2 mil. Portland is @2.29 mil. So, when you compare Portland's greater metro with Houston's incorporated area, it looks like Houston is more dense. But, when you actually compare apples to apples, Portland is more dense. But that isn't really the issue. The issue is who does a better job of managing density. Portland is light years ahead of Houston in terms of public transportation, bike access and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. That has allowed Portland to become more dense without sacrificing quality of life.
-
If St. Thomas expanded to K-12, HISD will lose some students. How many? Who knows. But, HISD claims that students cost @$7,000 a year. So, if St. Thomas takes away 100 students, HISD arguably saves $700,000 a year. 100 students is not a bad guess assuming that a k-8 program would probably be at least as large as the high school (700-800 students). Or even if they stayed with just high school and added 400-500 students, 100 pulled from HISD is not an unreasonable guess. I suspect HISD will just take the bigger money and the tax revenues. But, you have to wonder whether they are trying to factor in the cost savings of an expanded St. Thomas. Anything other than a large multifamily development on that tract is a tough fit. Very poor traffic access. Mixed use would probably have minimal retail and be more concentrated on office and residential, especially considering that Regent Square will have a lot of retail just across the bayou. If they built a Sam's club it would be a waste of space and a very bad sign for Houston's real estate market.
-
When was the last time you shopped at Woolworth's? Everything you have been saying about Walmart, people used to say about Woolworth.
-
Here is probably the last large tract available inside the loop with a similar trade area, but pretty iffy traffic access: http://www.theleadernews.com/?p=10795. If HISD decides to sell to St. Thomas (math question: is potential number of students taken out of HISD as a result of St. Thomas expansion times $7,000 greater than the 7.5 mil difference in lease payments and $450k in additional tax revenues?), then the loss of the Yale St property to strip malls hits really hard.
-
This is a very relevant and timely debate about development inside the loop and lessons learned or ignored by the Walmart. Costco is asking for a 2.5 mil 380 agreement to build outside the city limits. The lessons of the Walmart 380 are very much in play and worthy of discussion. The inner loop multifamily boom raises the issue of whether the Walmart was a lost opportunity to build mixed use inside the loop given the dwindling amount of land available. And then there is the fact that it is a free country and no one made you read this thread.
-
Different issues. The 50 acres does not have the opportunity to create an interconnected street grid with the rest of the neighborhood. It would be a big blob with only one point in and out. It would not integrate at all with the surrounding neighborhood. The Walmart site could have been divided up into several blocks, creating a street grid that would integrate well with the existing neighborhood. Instead, the west side of the development is a brick wall. Bonner does not even cross the RR tracks and nothing was done to improve Koehler to provide any connectivity to the west. And then there is simply the issue of location. Developers want big traffic counts and proximity to a thriving trade area. The 50 acres is next to a very industrial area that is very, very slowly being redeveloped. The Walmart tract is right off of a major highway and between to thriving trade areas (Heights/Upper Kirby).
-
And that is why I said that the property will end up being a town home farm and not a large mixed use project. Apparently you did not read my post at all.
-
Just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It is in the public record with the early submissions to the City. And just because some clowns talk up crazy development ideas does not mean that the ideas are feasible or that the land is appropriate. There is no reasonable argument that the magic 50 acres could be developed into a mixed use development in the current commercial environment and absent some sort of crazy Dubai-esque growth inside the loop. Thus, the Walmart acreage still stands as a huge opportunity lost with no comparable parcel available inside the loop that can serve both the Greater Heights and Upper Kirby area.
-
LA Fitness has a location under construction on N. Shep near Garden Oaks. They have been pre-selling that location at the Shep Kroger too. https://www.facebook.com/LAFitnessHoustonNorthSheperdDr?fref=ts Some people think that Lifetime fitness is going to have a location at the Yale St. market, but it is just talk at this point.
-
Except that isn't the magic 50 acres. That is a different tract (two tracts, one is @4-5 acres and looks to already be divided for townhome development, the other @20-21 acres). And even if it was, I do not think you will find many investors willing to put up the big money for a development that is only accessible through "back roads" through heavily industrial area of town. The traffic counts developers want to see aren't going to include trains and 18 wheelers. These tracts have no potential for mixed use development. They will either be another townhome farm or apartment complex. That far west towards 610 is still too industrial and does not have anywhere near the kind of residential and retail development that surrounds the Walmart tract. The magic 50 acres is this property: 0440820000565 (HCAD account no.). The only access to 11th is through a little Timbergrove subdivision. I already pointed out the futility of trying to construct a street grid to the south. There is simply no good way to get access to the west. It is pretty much land locked on the western side of the tract. Access to T C Jester is extremely difficult because the bridge goes right over the property. You would have to widen TC jester to get a turn lane in both directions. It would really be the only good entrance to the development and would be jammed with traffic.
-
Only a tiny finger of the NE corner of the Walmart property is in the 500 year flood plain. The Yale St. Market is in the 100 year flood plain and a little bit in the flood way, but will only have parking on that part of the property. None of the rest of the Walmart property is in the flood plain at all. So, yeah. Identical. More than half of one property is in the 100 year flood plain and almost none of the other is in any flood plain at all. The Walmart property could have potentially had a street grid that could have connected N/S via Bonner (they did not even bother to up grade the rail crossing at Bonner) and had additional E/W grid out what is the main entrance for the development out West on Shuler and cut through to Heights to the East. Koehler, whether Walmart or not should have been curbed and guttered all the way down to Shep to make that connection. And there is already access to both the EB and WB I-10 feeder. At the magic 50 acres, there isn't even a good place to put in a single turn lane to get people off of and back on to TC Jester. Any attempt to connect with the I-10 feeder WB would just connect you to a dead end.
-
Trammell Crow contacted CM Cohen. CM Cohen sent word out to those who were in touch with her about the Alexan Heights project. It is supposed to be on a 4.9 acre tract of land. I would assume that the warehouse on odd numbered side of Alllston is part of the deal as the tract on Yale St. is @154k SF. No idea what is going to happen to the single family house at the end of the street. TC is building around a hold out on the Alexan Heights property between 6th and 7th. So, I do not think that they are very concerned with holdouts once they get the SF they need.
-
The developer has the property to the south (Fixtures Int'l, 5th and 6th St. and Yale) under contract and is planning to do a 5 story multifamily with two floors of garage on the bottom (one floor under ground) and four floors of residential units on top.
