s3mh

Man, you're all over the map with this post. Clearly, I nailed you between the eyes, as you never even addressed my point.

 

Oh, and Houston is not in Chicago's shadow. They lead the nation in murders, are losing population, and is a generally unpleasant place to live for much of the year. This is a new century, and Houston is on top of it. I do have a question for you and a couple of other haters, though. If Houston's QoL is so bad, how miserable is your life that you feel that you must stay and suffer in it. At least I am where I want to be. You are clearly sentenced to hell. Do you blame your parents?

So, if Chicago is such a hell hole, why did United drop Houston like a hot potato in favor of Chicago? It should have been the complete opposite result.  Why is so much more venture capital going to the extremely business unfriendly states like Massachussetts and California?  The answer is obvious to anyone who has any ability to look at Houston objectively without lazily falling into the small minded nativism that keeps Houston from becoming the world class city that is should be.  Houston is fortuitously located at the center of the US oil and gas industry.  Most of the major refining and production in the US is located in the Gulf Coast area.  Business comes to Houston because it has to, not because it wants too.  A friend of mine who is from the West Coast and working for Chevron on assignment considers Houston to be like an exotic assignment abroad.  When his time is up, he is headed back to the Bay area to work at Chevron's corporate head quarters.  He could probably jump ship and get a big bonus to work for another oil company in Houston, but will go back to California for high taxes, cost of living, etc. because the quality of life is better.  Californians realized that good planning means good quality of life, higher property values and the ability to attract top talent.  I want to see Houston grow by taking non-energy industry corporate headquarters away from Chicago, NY, San Fran, Boston, etc.  It should be a no brainer to relocated to Houston.  Even with the recent run up in real estate prices, Houston is a bargain in comparison.  But, it is well known that Houston cannot compete in terms of quality of life with the aforementioned cities because Houston has chosen to let developers do as they please instead of planning to enhance quality of life.  The current boom in multifamily will just give way to impossible traffic and over crowded retail areas.  With a little planning, areas inside the loop that are seeing growth could become highly desireable neighborhoods like the Back Bay, Greenwich Village, Lincoln Park or Pacific Heights. 

I think that it's interesting that the discussion about "quality of life" always seems to be so single threaded. I think that if you talk to individual people in this forum, you'll find that there's a pretty wide definition of what they would like to have in their life. The same is true for the general populous as well.

I like Portland. It's a nice place and it has aspects that I like better than Houston. Doesn't mean that I want Houston to be Portland, because the opposite is true too. There are things about Houston that I like better than Portland.

This isn't a winner takes all situation. Houston and Portland can both succeed with reasonably different visions of how a city should function.

The argument that quality of life is completely subjective is just a way of conceding that Houston doesn't have what it takes to be on par with the great metropolitan areas of the world without having to admit failure.  It is a defeatist agrument.  I think Houston could be on par with many of the great cities of the world, if not better in terms of quality of life (we will never have to deal with all the issues that come with tourism).  Development and density that improves quality of life can put Houston ahead of many other cities when it comes to attracting new investment and industries.  Development that only meets the immediate demands of the day without thinking about the impacts on quality of life will just doom Houston to more boom and bust cycles with the energy industry and potentially a Detroit-esque future should the energy industry decide to move on the way the auto industry did in Detroit.

I'll tell you so what. In deciding whether a particular poster is worthy of reading, and whether the poster is intelligent, one looks to see if that poster is logical and consistent in his arguments. So, when we see a poster go ballistic about putting ground floor retail in an imminently walkable area such as 11 1/2 and Studewood, yet that same poster demands ground floor retail in a pedestrian desert like Yale, it severely impacts that poster's credibility. Further, when that same poster tries to claim that Houston is a second class city among some imaginary group of people who apparently decide these things, all because of a lack of ground floor retail on Yale, one gets the impression that the poster is trying too hard...and failing.

And when a poster demands some sort of all or nothing logic, thinks that nuance is hypocrisy, and makes every argument into a personal attack with a bunch of junk about how people arguing X are all tax and spend liberals, etc., and always takes a very clear point and retools it to show the poster's agenda (i.e. Houston not being competitive with world class cities like Chicago, Paris, NY, London, etc. means that Houston is "second class" and on par with Flint, Michigan), it shows that the poster had no credibility to begin with. 

These same people also scream and whine about 5 story mixed use with ground floor retail!  See 11.5th and Studwood building  (which they said was ugly, yet I find attractive). 

So what?  This is real estate, not solid-state electronics.  Each development presents different issues.  People who want to see mixed use are not required to approve of every mixed use development and ignore issues like scale and proximity to single family homes (or ghastly architecture).  I am glad that 1111 Studewood included ground floor retail, but think the building is out of scale for the surrounding neighborhood.  I think that Trammell Crow's development presents significant infrastructure issues, but is a more appropriate land use that 1111 Studewood given the existing conditions.  But using your circuitry logic, you are a hypocrite if you support 1111 Studewood, but don't think that Trammell Crow's development should have ground floor retail. 

I would trade a requirement for ground floor retail on multi-family developments over, say, 100 units in select districts (Heights, Midtown, Montrose, R.O., Washington corridor) in exchange for a blanket waiver of parking minimums and building setbacks for retail developments under, say, 50,000 s.f. in those same districts.

We have a deal.  I would add some sort of TIRZ/managment district/380 to let developers pool together the taxes generated by the new development to build some centralized/shared structured parking in each of the districts. 

Isn't it great to read these posts from people who went somewhere on vacation, liked it, only to return home and trash the town that made them enough money to go on vacation in the first place? And, we all know that they would be gone in a heartbeat if they could find a job that paid as well, or even find a job at all! Do I feel sorry for these people? Not a chance! All these posts reveal is inability of these people to lead fulfilling lives, instead needing a "vibrant cityscape", or a mountain, or a coast, or even a river or lake to fulfill their lives.

 

I could taunt these unfulfilled posters with the fact that I can get on my bike and ride the bayou trails, or kayak the bayou, or take a day trip to the coast or lake. They would then respond that our bayou is ugly, our beach sand is ugly, our lakes suck, we have no mountains, or some other remark that proves how unfulfilling their lives are. And because they cannot admit this, they would then accuse me of being a "homer". Well, you know what? I AM a homer! And, I am a much happier Houston homer than you Houston whiners, who spend your days whining about trains, cars, highways, Walmarts, historic preservation, apartment buildings, walkability and, of course, ground floor retail! What can I say? Sucks to be you!    

 

 

 

Oh, to bring this back on topic, ground floor retail at this location is a TERRIBLE idea! People complain about the 4 lane traffic ruining the ability to cross Yale, then claim we need ground floor retail on Yale? That is pretty much the definition of new urbanist groupthink, not Trammel Crow. Ground floor retail could work in Rice Village, Midtown, or even 19th Street. But, Yale and 7th Street? Please.

Nativist arguments sound great on the internet, but make for terrible policy.  Rejecting great ideas just because they come from outside of Houston and are not compatible with the narrow interests of local real estate developers is what keeps Houston a second class city to the major international world centers.  United Airlines did not even think twice when deciding whether to locate the merged operations in Chicago or Houston.  California and Massachussetts are a basket case of regulations and taxes.  But both vastly out perform Texas when it comes to venture capital funding (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/venture-capital-deals-and-investment-on-track-to-reach-record-levels_n_1018713.html#s418518&title=4_Texas_34  and http://www.rockiesventureclub.org/2013/05/venture-capital-bloggers/).  Why?  Because quality of life does matter.  If you want to attract the best companies who hire the best and brightest in the world, you have to provide more than half-assed urban planning.  Otherwise, Houston is as good as it will every get. 

And ground floor retail could definitely work on Yale St. The Trammell Crow development is probably going to be the first of several along that stretch of Yale St.  There are already two very popular restaurants right nearby (Revival and Dry Creek) and retail just north of 7th.  The area around Rutland/Allston south of 7th is seeing lots of construction with about two dozen townhomes and single family homes being built.  And, the bike path on 7th gives most of the Heights easy access on foot or bike to that section of Yale St. 

The thing about ground floor retail is you are required to provide commercial parking and currently are not granted any parking credits from the potential customers above who would walk. You can use a limited ratio of off-site parking credits but good luck with getting an exception >20% anywhere outside of downtown or midtown, especially adjacent to a single family nab with inferior infrastructure. Likewise the fire ratings and security measures to keep tenants from committing inside jobs means that you're going to spend a lot of money over-engineering the ground floor envelope. This building is simply too small for such intricacies, unless you're just talking about a pocket dry cleaners storefront with 4 spaces out front.

Btw it got approved.

Certainly, if the City were to require ground floor retail, they would have to be more willing to bend on parking and look at using management districts to create some central parking facilities if an area really gets built up. 

The cost of constructing a concrete first floor has always been the main complaint against doing ground floor retail.  But a lot of the new complexes are building out with a concrete first floor in order to support private amenities like a coffee shop or health club.  And more and more are building tall enough that they have to do a concrete first floor anyway.  The apartments on Sawyer and Washington are retail ready on the ground floor, but they put in private amenities instead. 

The best reason I have heard from developers for not doing ground floor retail is that you shouldn't try to do ground floor retail where it would not succeed on its own without the apartments.  But while that is sound business judgment, it creates a chicken and egg issue where everyone keeps building more multifamily without ground floor retail and then we wake up and find that there is now density to support ground floor retail, but all the land is used up.

This spot development isn't small.  It is a full block long.  It is already a good spot for retail/restaurants with some galleries and furniture stores just to the north and Dry Creek just across the street.

Requiring ground floor retail is just good urban planning to maximize the benefits of density.  Inside the loop, especially just south of the bayou between Shepherd and Studemont, along Dallas and W. Gray, there are just over 1,000 new multifamily units on the way.  Probably over another thousand on the other side of the bayou and south of I-10 between TC Jester and Sawyer.  None of those developments will put in any ground floor retail.  The increased demand for restaurants and shops will result in trying to cram new development into existing retail space, basically doubling down on car dependency and traffic/parking problems.  With ground floor retail, you spread out some of the traffic and give people the option to walk to stores/restaurants. 

Word on the street is that Alexan might be the first of several multi-family developments on that stretch of Yale.  Had they put in some ground floor retail, you would have a nice corridor of restaurants and shops from where Coltivare is going to be to where Dry Creek is. 

http://marketedge.reiwise.com/default.aspx?propID=55727

I would always prefer to see these little complexes demoed and replaced with single family, but looking at this I can understand how good money can be made with a renovation.  This complex was one of the worst in the Heights.  The investors on this project did some nice work gutting it and renovating.  Rents are 1000-1200ish for 1-2 beds and they claim to be fully leased.  Unless the multifamily building boom radically exceeds demand inside the loop and rental prices collapse, there will be plenty of people looking for this price point in the Heights.  In any event, it is interesting to see the financials on this project and take a peek at the work they did.

Property is held by a company that has ties with a custom home builder.  Best guess would be a residential project of some sort. Townhomes seem to be in fashion in that neighborhood.

You're right about price inflation for single family homes. New-build 3/2's <2500 s.f. now start over $500k. The 6 houses going up on 18th near Ashland will be priced from $700 to $900k.  For example: http://search.har.com/engine/418-W-18th-Houston-77008_HAR72446627.htm (priced at $300/s.f.).  

 

I'm guessing a lot of townhouse buyers are looking at Shady Acres and the fringes of the Heights because they've been priced out of Montrose and Rice Military, where 3-BR townhouses are approaching $500k.

 

That said, the demographic in the townhouse market is different than that for the single family market.  Most couples prefer to leave the townhouse before the 2nd kid arrives (usually before the 1st, really).

 

Ultimately, developers will have to decide whether it's easier to sell, say 12 townhouses at $350k, or 4 single family at $700k.  I think the market in most of the Heights (say, at least one block from Shepherd or Main, at least 3 blocks from I-10 or 610), will still support single family over townhouses, but I don't see the market remaining virtually 100% single family as it was up until a few years ago.

 

My dream buyer of the double-block bordered by Nicholson, Rutland, 25th and 26th would be someone like Sullivan Brothers.  Their large projects on 17th and 23rd are both finishing up, and look great.

The InTown Homes Sunset Heights is right in the shadow of 610 (barely a half block).  That would probably militate towards town homes than high-end single family.  Rutland/25th has enough of a buffer between it and 610 that it wouldn't be as big of a concern.  I thought someone was moving ahead on developing Rutland and 25th, but have not seen any signs in a long time. 

I do know a lot of couples who fall out of love with their town homes when kids arrive.  Pregnant moms and babies/toddlers do not go well with three sets of stairs.  But I also know couples who regret their move to the burbs as the commute eats up a lot of family time.  Weekley, InTown and Ryland look to be offering some community amenities (pool, at least) and have interior streets that are free of neighborhood traffic.  They may be a bit more family friendly than the little honeycombs of town homes squeezed in between warehouses and teardowns in Shady Acres.

It may seem trite, but if the demand wasn't there, the builders wouldn't be building them. When the two options in the Heights are old non-remodeled homes in the Heights versus new townhomes nearby, you'll likely find a much bigger market for the new and clean over the old and needing renovation. It takes a special breed to redo these old homes, especially in light of the added time and red tape that we now have. For proof, look at the price renovated homes command over non.

Never said demand wasn't there to support what is currently going up.  I am just wondering whether the big influx of @200 new town homes will bring some equilibrium to the market or whether demand is so great that builders will continue to do big 50-60 unit townhome developments.  There are definitely opportunities as the area west of Timbergrove de-industrializes along with a few spots in Heights proper.  But, to date, townhome development has been a steady stream small developments and not a big wave of large developments (in addition to the existing market).  It will be interesting to see whether the market digests the influx and has hunger for more or whether supply will finally catch up with demand.

The options in the Heights proper are whether you want to pay a lot of money or a ton of money.  350k will get a bungalow that needs extensive renovation and a bidding war with investors and builders.  Move in ready properties are pushing 400k.  The issue of the HAHC doesn't come up because people are priced out the market before they ever get a property to take to the HAHC.  If 300-350k is your max, you are basically priced out of the Heights proper, especially if you want more than 1200 sq ft. 

You do realize that capital gains, are gains on income that has already been taxed once at the marginal rate, right?  I make $100 at my day job and I pay $39.6 to the government and get to keep $61.4...from that I take $50 and re-invest so that I wont be on welfare later in life....more than 1 year later (yes 1 whole year) I that $50 is worth $100 b/c I'm not an idiot, and when I want to take that $100 and move it to another smart investment, I now get to pay another 20% in capital gains (that was changed from 15%)...so my original $100 has now been taxed to the tune of $39.60 (regular income) + $10 (capital gains $50 basis, $50 gain)....so I have paid $49.60 on $100 - that is nearly 50%...

 

$100 Oridinary income - $39.60 taxes, $61.4 remaining (this ignores SS, & medicare & employer payroll taxes)

$50 reinvested, $50 gain  - $10 capital gains Taxes

Total cash remaining after all  taxes paid $101.40

Total paid in Taxes $49.60, effective tax rate of this person 48.9%  and of that $101.4, 50% was at risk of total loss AND untouchable for a whole year..but thats too low!?  When SS & Medicare are factored in the effective tax rate easily tops 50%, but you love listening to the lame stream media & Warren Buffett and the whole BS surrounding the I pay less than my secretary argument.

 

Raising the capital gains rate only accomplishes one thing - it reduces the incentive for people to save/reinvest & increases the likelihood of future government

dependence...which is exactly what liberals want....We should not be raising capital gains taxes, we should be abolishing them all together to encourage savings.

 

We don't need government insurance either - just allow employers, & trade groups to join up and buy insurance across state lines...imagine the National Association of Manufactures, Realtors, Nurses, all being able to group together with their industry to buy health care in bulk volume... competition will solve the problem...only thing is the lobbyists, all loyal democrats, have effectively shut that down too b/c the end game has always been government care & government control. 

 

I wont start into how wrong you are on food/agriculture, something I am involved in daily - but suffice it to say, very little in your post shows any real grasp at all about economics, taxes, or even basic understanding of what has taken place to get us where we are.

I was just showing that it was not necessary to be aligned with the Tea Party/libertarians in order to be concerned over government spending.  I knew you would freak out, but it was worth it to make the simple point that the world is not divided into Tea Party/libertarians and free spending liberals.  You can have very liberal view points and still be concerned about government spending.  I will agree to disagree on those issues, but not on the claim that only Tea Party/libertarians can be concerned about the 380 agreement and liberals concern is nothing more than a pretext for their hate for Walmart.

Not breaking news as the sewer/water lines have been put in recently and a sign has been up for a while.  But, I just noticed that they put up information on the configuration of the community and the models they are building:  http://www.intown-homes.com/Csiteplan.aspx?idcia=101&webcia=(101)&wlink=163

63 units, 2100-2700 sq ft.  "From the 350s".  Communtiy pool.

Weekley has two similar projects going up at 6th and Shep and TC Jester in Cottage Grove.  Ryland Homes has a big project in Shady Acres on W 26th (the "Reserve").  Probably will end up with close to an additional 200-250 town homes between those three projects (there is also supposed to be another big InTown project on 11th @ Ella, but not sure how big it will be).  All that in addition to lots of town home building in Shady Acres and Cottage Grove. 

I know a lot of people are getting priced out of single family homes in the greater Heights and are looking at town homes instead.  Frank Liu has mostly sold out all of his inner loop developments.  I just wonder whether demand is great enough to see more of these projects (like on the old steel mill site on 25th/Rutland or out west around 11th and Ella in the declining industrial area) or whether some equilibrium will set in with enough turnover in existing town homes to keep the big players from doing more big projects.  Town homes are not for everyone and are priced at what a typical 3000 sq ft home in the burbs are going for.

I believe that this thread is illustrative of who is obsessed over what. FWIW, I do not think that poking fun at the faux outrage of you and Leonard over your obsession with Walmart (see Leonard's posts #2951,3,5,7), caliper inches, and unfinished sidewalks qualifies as obsession. It may, however, qualify as taunting the mentally challenged, so perhaps I should lay off, lest mako get disgusted with me.

 

You may be wondering why I think this is faux outrage. Well, when a couple of liberals suddenly claim outrage at $6 million government spending (minor government spending at that), yet have no problems with trillion dollar deficits, massive entitlement programs or any of the other myriad gripes expressed by libertarians and Tea Partiers, it is a good bet that the outrage expressed is cover for something else. In this case, that would be hatred of Walmart, which is expressed throughout this thread by the two of you.

 

That is all.  

 I have big problems with trillion dollar deficits.  The majority of the deficits are from unnecessary wars, a bloated defense department that does more to destablize the world that defend the United States, an un-funded medicare drug benefit that is nothing more than a wealth transfer to the pharmacuetical industry (could have saved billions by allowing the US gov't to negotiate prescription drug prices), tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% (15% cap gains is absurdly low), tax loopholes for billions in corporate taxes that are avoided by off-shoring and silly tax gifts to the energy industry and farm subsidies that are just wealth transfer payments to big AG to produce junk food and cheap meat instead of supporting healthy produce, which is not even eligible for crop insurance.  I am bothered by the solvency of medicare, but would fix it by nationalizing health insurance into a medicare for all program that would immediately save billions by eliminating the wasteful advertising budgets, corporate profits, bloated executive compensation of big insurance and would negotiate an end to the endless inflation in health care by making sure that all services are covered so providers do not have to overcharge one group in order to make up for non-payment or underpayment by another.  So,  unfortunately for you, the world is not such a simple place where you are either with the Tea Party or you are just suffering from irrational hatred for Walmart.  In fact, your obsession with the anti-Walmart folks is basically your frustration that the world does not fit into your neat little categories.  There are complicated issues out there that require more than name calling and selfserving presumptions of bad intent. 

I have a buddy who lives literally within a stones throw of Sprouts on S Lamar in Austin (formerly Sun Harvest) and Ive been in there. Also been in revival.  Whole Foods is also a competitor for Revival. There are direct dollars spent both places among the same customer base that could choose to spend in either one.  Wal*Mart is not even in the discussion.

So you are admitting that there is no direct competition between Sprouts and Revival, just the same general customer base that might go to either store, but for very different needs.  I guess you are not LMOAing anymore.  Sprouts does not carry anything that you would find at Revival.  No heritage meats and in-house salumi from the same, no artisan cheeses, no small batch local ice cream, no local small farm produce, no in-house gourmet condiments, no Fluff bakery, no rotating Saturday breakfast menu, no gourmet prepared foods or catering, and so on.  Thus, they are not in direct competition, unless you consider selling $30 a lb salumi the same product as $5.99 a lb salami.  If that is your standard, then Walmart and Sprouts are very much direct comptetitors.

Since the 380 doesn't involve Walmart, you'll pardon us for not believing your statement that you wouldn't be discussing Walmart. The fact is, this is ALL about Walmart. The City pisses away millions of dollars daily. However, you and your RUDE friends have fixated on THIS 380 because it is the closest that you can get to complain about Walmart.

 

Not that I'm upset about it. I enjoy watching the faux outrage that you and s3mh spew. It amuses me. And, I don't mean that sarcastically. You really do amuse me!

Actually, at this point, the focus on Walmart is all but gone.  The RUDH facebook page has had very little about Walmart for the past year.  The facebook page with the "stopheightswalmart" address is gone.  The current facebook page is mostly stuff about urban development, issues on other developments in town and stuff about the 380 agreement and Yale St. bridge.  In fact, what is really happening is that the pro-Walmart folks have no good argument as to why it is ok for the 380 infrastructure work to come up short and are having to accuse the 380 critics of making the issue a pretext for Walmart.  Thus, the anti-Walmart group has actually moved on and are making constructive criticisms that are leading to real results for the community (Yale St. bridge funding, some of the Fox news issues are going to be addressed, etc.).  But the pro-Walmart group is stuck with their obsession over the anti-Walmart group and cannot see that there are some very real and obvious failures in building out the improvements.  Thus, it amuses me that you are so obsessed with what RUDH and others are doing that you cannot admit that the infrastructure work is not complete at this site. 

LMAO. I find it just absolutely fascinating that we are hoping that Sprouts can give evil Wal*Mart a run for its money in the critical produce department with no mention that Sprouts would be a national (or at least regional?) chain store, going into direct competition with a local/neighborhood owned mom and pop place just 3 blocks away.

You may want to actually set foot in a Sprouts and Revival Market before you say that they are going into "direct" competition with each other.  Revival Market sells high-end "heritage" meats and artisan cheeses.  The produce is all from local producers who mostly sell exclusively to local farmer's markets, restaurants and CSAs.  Sprouts is basically a version of Whole Foods priced more for the middle of the market.  Sprouts is where you go to get decent roast beef for $6 a lb.  Revival Market is where you go to get amazing roast beef for $16 a lb (worth every penny). 

And the claim was never that Walmart would put Revival Market out of business.  The claim was that Walmart would put Fiesta, Michoacana and other small independent discount grocers out of business, creating a monopoly within the trade area for the discount grocery market.  The verdict is still out on that as Walmart has only been open for just over 6 months.  And given their recent ad campaign, Walmart appears to be more concerned with Kroger than the discount grocery market.   

Leonard, I did pay attention to how the crosswalk is configured, and while yes, it does cross towards where there are no sidewalk, I still don't see a problem with it. I can point you to a whole slew of other signals in other parts of town that are far worse, even some in town, like downtown. imagine, sidewalks are there, but they are in such disrepair that they cannot be used, and then there are sidewalks which are in perfect health, but stop at the intersection with no crosswalk at all! this is near the basketball arena, can you believe it, a place where walking is promoted as a way to get from your car to the arena and sidewalks and crosswalks are either unsafe, or don't exist? 

 

At least with this walmart I've only ever seen one person walking, and they managed it just fine with only 2 crosswalks.

Again, if it was the City operating on scarce funds to try to keep up with development, we could understand if corners were cut.  But, the entire justification for the 380 agreement was that it would take care of the needed infrastructure, including sidewalks and crosswalks.  Had the City and the developer told City Council that they were going to blow off a sidewalk, only have two cross walks at an intersection, leave a fire hydrant in the middle of the sidewalk and blow off the tree mitigation, City Council would have never approved the 380 agreement or insisted that it be modified to make funds available to do the extra work needed.  But during debate at City Council, the propnents of the 380 agreement didn't say "this won't fix everything, but that is ok because it will be better than it was before and other parts of town are worse.  People will manage just fine with a below standard development." 

So, let me make sure I understand this....

 

Because there is no room thanks to making the street being wider, a sidewalk cannot be put in.

 

But, walmart should have put in a sidewalk anyway? On land they don't own?

 

Walmart should have stolen property from another person to build the sidewalk for you so you could complain that they took land from another landowner to build a sidewalk?

 

And then they only put in crosswalks where there are sidewalks? I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked! I am shocked and outraged! I am outraged and shocked! I am outraged!!!! This is preposterous!!! I am preposterously outraged! I am preposterously outraged and shocked!

 

I am glad there wasn't money wasted putting in crosswalks to sidewalks that don't exist which walmart should have put on land it doesn't own.

 

excellent points all around s3mh, as usual.

Yale had to be widened in order to put in a left turn lane to serve the development.  That work had to be done per the TIA.  When they did the plans, they forgot to actually go out to the site and look at where the big utility poles were.  They thought that they were going to be able to build a sidewalk on what was left of the ROW after widening Yale.  They built the new road and then learned that there was no room for a sidewalk because of the utility poles.  Then, they just blew off building the sidewalk because the only way to build a sidewalk was to extend the ROW by eminent domain. 

If you believe that sidewalks are not needed in an area heavy with retail development, including a retailer that caters to low income folks who use public transportation and walk to shopping, then you hold an opinion that is not shared by the vast majority of the public.  The reality is that the way it works is that the City requires anyone widening a road to build a new sidewalk if the existing sidewalk is demolished by the new road construction.  If there is not enough ROW to rebuild the sidewalk, the developer will have to pay the City to get additional land through eminent domain or change their plans so that there is no need to widen the street.  Ainbinder had a 6 mil head start on building this development.  Getting a thin strip of land by eminent domain for a sidewalk would not have cost more than $200k max (@8x400x$50 to 60).  This would be chicken change compared to the overal cost that taxpayers were shelling out for the improvements.  The developer should have assumed the risk of this kind of cost overrun if the 380 agreement was actually intended to deliver the infrastructure promised.  But, that is not what happened.  No sidewalks were built.  No right turn lane on Yale St.  Inadequate crosswalks on Koehler.  Inadequate tree cover mitigation.  Failure to relocate fire hydrant in the middle of the sidewalk.  Without a 380 agreement, the City would have come down and red tagged all of this and hammered the developer for failing to build according to city standards.  But, with the 380 agreement, the inadequacies become a political liability and are swept under the rug.  The standard goes from getting the best infrastructure with a 380 agreement to "well, sure they screwed up stuff, but shut up.  It isn't a big deal." 

Confirmed with developer. LA Fitness and Sprouts are for sure with another 50k sq ft still available.

LA Fitness was looking at the property that is now the apartment complex under construction by the railroad tracks and also talked early on a mixed use version of what is now Walmart.  Makes sense that they are finally going in.  However, I wonder how the market for the big box fitness centers has been affected by the popularity of small group programs like CrossFit and the zillion odd boot camp/Seal/Swat training variations.

I have only been to Sprouts a few times out of curiousity.  They are a bit of a mixed bag.  Produce can be very good compared to Whole Foods/Kroger/HEB, but varies by item.  The competition will be welcome as it seems as though Kroger and Whole Foods are just phoning it in when it comes to produce.  Kroger can be pretty awful.  Whole Foods can be very disappointing for the price premium you have to pay.  Of course this will be a kick in the pants for Walmart.  They even admitted recently that their produce was not fresh and are trying to improve delivery times.  Sprouts will siphon off business from Walmart's grocery section.

This sidewalk talk is a bunch of crap.  There will be sidewalks on both sides of Yale from bridge of death, to railroad graffiti pit of night terror once development by all developers is complete. I have no idea why this is even an issue.  Even right now, thanks to Ainbender north of Koehler, and Orr south, that stretch of Yale on the east side has a sidewalk when it was just broken up parking lot, old sidewalks overgrown with grass, and stretches without sidewalk at all, prior to development.

 

The fact that thee is a big stink about a couple hundred feet is still left without a sidewalk in an area where it would likely be about to be closed for construction of the new development, have curb cuts added, and have it all torn up anyway to fit the new developers site plan, etc is ludicrous.

There is no ROW left for a sidewalk on the old SJ Stone property.  The widening of Yale St. took up most of the ROW.  The City will have to take part of the old SJ Stone property in an eminent domain proceeding to get the needed ROW for a sidewalk.  The developer has no obligation to put a sidewalk on their own property if the City has made it impossible to build one in the ROW.  And it isn't just a few hundred feet of sidewalk.  It is an intersection with two crosswalks instead of four, crubling curbs, a sidewalks with a fire hydrant in the middle of the crosswalks, and failure to properly mitigate the loss of trees in the ROW.  If the City did this or the developer paid their own way, it would just be annoying.  But this was all stuff that was promised in order to get support for a tax deal that saved the developer millions in infrastructure upgrade costs.  And just because they built sidewalks on one side of the street where the sidewalks had previously deteriorated does not mean that they get to elect whether to build a sidewalk on the other side of the street.  It is a good thing that none of you are general contractors.  The subs would eat you alive with your attitude of "they did a good job over there  . . . it is only a small section they blew off." 

You know, I wasn't going to respond to your incessant whining, as it has grown tiresome to see a grown adult cry over and over and over about the same spilled milk. However, since you bring up the wheelchair angle again, I now must tell the story of how last Saturday (May 25) while riding my back on Yale I saw a guy in a chair at the exact corner you speak of. He crossed Yale at the crosswalk, and was none the worse for wear. I was on the other side of Yale and spoke to him when he crossed. He smiled and said hello back to me. For all of your carping and whining, I would have at least expected him to be angry at having to cross the street, but he wasn't.

 

The lesson to be learned here apparently is that those in wheelchairs have a much better outlook on life than those who hate Walmarts.

Fortunately, we lived in a civilized society where people who get pleasure out of seeing a handicapped person struggle with non-compliant sidewalks are not the same people who write and enforce the regulations for the Americans with Disabilities Act.  I used to work with high school kids and had a kid with MD.  He was wheel chair bound by age 10 and did not live long enought to graduate high school.  Every school trip we took with him presented mobility issues regardless of where we went.  For every well built and compliant facility, there are three that are either substandard or pre-ADA compliance.  He always seemed to have a great time on trips regarless of how many times he had to be lifted up an entry way or needed help getting in and out of a bathroom.  But his parents told me that he would always try to find a way to get out of going on field trips because he was embarassed whenever he needed help getting around.  Thus, the standard for the ADA is not whether one guy appears to be ok with the unnecessary trouble and inconvenience of having to cross a street and cross it back because a municipality and a developer were unwilling to put up the money to comply with the law. 

OMG! Oh the humanity!

 

 

 

I once saw someone in a handicapped scooted get stuck in the drainage ditch at Tulane and 11th street where there is no ADA curb cut there.  They tried to drive on the grass, but got a wheel stuck in the drainage ditch and almost tipped over.  Before I got to them, someone on 11th pulled over and helped push them out of the ditch and back on to the sidewalk.  Walking on the grass isn't a big deal (unless you are the one who took 6 mil in tax dollars and promised to build a sidewalk there).  But for someone who is handicapped who might try to get through that spot instead of crossing Yale and crossing back again (almost an equally dangerous move given the short time pedestrians have to cross Yale), it is a Hindenberg moment for them. 

My point is that the situation under discussion was not dependent on the developer. The City apparently did a poor job overseeing the Washington Heights 380 work. That is independent of the developer. I haven't made any comment on the Montrose HEB, as it isn't relevant here.

So, your argument is that developers are basically like little toddlers.  They cannot understand right from wrong and should not be held responsible for not doing the work correctly?  

The City is certainly to blame, but Walmart and the developer cannot just walk away from this mess.  Walmart and the developer both made public presentations at the big public meeting at the GRB.  Walmart and the developer both made a big public relations push with media campaigns and lobbying efforts to fight the opposition to the development and get the 380 passed.  A central point of that PR campaign was the promise to do infrastructure improvements.  (still up on the Ainbinder webstie: http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/public_infra.html).

The Montrose HEB is hugely relevant.  HEB went to great additional expense to serve the community.  They paid for road improvements out of pocket.  They offerred to do structured parking and dedicate a portion of the property to park space if funds could be raised to buy it at FMV (gee, why didn't the City do a 380 for that?).  They used a world class architect for the building design and let the community vote on the design.  In short, they lived up to their promises regardless of the cost without having to have the City hold their hand and make them do the right thing.