GreenStreet: Mixed-Use Development At 1201 Fannin St.

[dbigtex56]

Municipalities generally have parking space requirements that differ for the type of development; hotel, office building, retail, (i presume apartment?), etc., will differ. Requirements can break down as simply as "2 parking spots per hotel room unit".

Yes, and it's my impression that even Houston has such requirements. Anyone know what they are, and if they vary (depending on location)?

Not sure what you are asking, ricco. HP IS working a deal for a nearby garage. They have not built one. They leased the existing garage south of HP. I would also point out that City ordinance prohibits double use of the same parking spaces. Since HP will be open for lunch, the spaces would be double use during the day.

Could you steer us to said ordinance(s)? Please stop before billing hours kick in.

Niche, you take the complaints about garages far too literally. These complaints largely arise from the perceived goals of the new urbanist. Note that I said "perceived", as I doubt most of the complaints here come from those who have seriously studied new urbanism. The complaints arise from an ideal, one that cannot be achieved under Houston's current structure. A development like HP, which will be open until 2 am, needs customers to survive. Ideally, those customers would come from the surrounding neighborhood by foot. But, there are few neighbors, at least within walking distance. Mass transit could produce more customers. But, the transit system is largely shut down by 2 am. A developer who spent $200 million on his project cannot give up several hours of business per day for years or decades waiting for the day that the transit system can deliver the volume of customers he needs. So he builds a parking garage to accomodate his driving customers. Makes perfect business sense.

But, the urban posters are not interested in this common sense reality. Their urban bona fides require them to rail against anything that does not comport with their limited grasp of new urbanist principles. So, ANY accomodation of the automobile must be condemned, even though it is a garage, as opposed to a surface lot, and even though the new development would not even be built without it. Further, EVERY new development must be condemned if it is not "mixed use" with ground floor retail", even though most ground floor retail in similar settings....i.e., Dallas....sits empty. The fact that a retail development with a parking garage across the street from an apartment building is every bit as walkable and urban as a "mixed use" development is lost on them, because they are parrotting phrases they read on some other forum, without reading the theory behind the term or phrase.

It is annoying, but there is little you can do about it. Even explaining it will sail over their heads. Best to nod and agree that a "mixed use" development would go great on that block, and that parking garage is ugly and Houston should outlaw them. Much easier that way.

You're painting New Urbanists (whatever that means) with rather a broad brush, Red; one more suitable to battleships than portraiture.

The caricature you've drawn is amusing, so long as it's acknowleged as such. The legitimate questions of how new development affects property values, and transportation, and aesthetic concerns, and lifestyle options, and return on investment, and enviromental impact, and access by pedestrians and the handicapped and anything else that might spring to mind ought to be asked about ANY [sic] and EVERY [sic] new development in our city. I might also point out that you responded to a comment about surface parking by defending parking garages against some (unattributed) slam. Quit beatin' that poor straw man!

To expect investors and developers to cheerfully lose money is ludicrous, and anyone who thinks he can force them to do so is both naive and annoying. However, to show an interest in responsible development doen't rigidly define one as a New Urbanist. For some, it's considered a civic duty. Public sentiment can be - should be - powerful. We're the ones who'll have to live with the crap.

[RedScare]

Tex, I am not dissing the New Urbanists. While there are raging debates whether New Urbanism actually helps or hurts, and also whether their ideas are too restrictive, their ideas and plans at least come from a great deal of study and thought. No, my ire is directed at HAIF posters who haven't read or studied New Urbanism whatsoever. They have heard a couple of buzzwords, such as 'mixed use' and'walkability', and toss them into every post without regard to whether it is even appropriate for the topic. I could give a long explanation of what the terms mean, and why New Urbanists consider them important, but that is not the point. The point is that those HAIF posters who use the terms the most DO NOT know what they mean and why they are important.

EDIT: Oh, and the parking regs are in the City Code. There is a specific chapter (26, I think) that covers most parking regs. The double usage rule allows a business to lease parking from another business' lot, but only if the spaces will be in use at different times. Another requirement is one space per bedroom in apartments and condos.

Edited June 24, 2008 by RedScare

[ricco67]

EDIT: Oh, and the parking regs are in the City Code. There is a specific chapter (26, I think) that covers most parking regs. The double usage rule allows a business to lease parking from another business' lot, but only if the spaces will be in use at different times. Another requirement is one space per bedroom in apartments and condos.

Which is why I referred to hotels. So there!

I agree there are quite a few users that throw around "mixed use" fairly frequently. I'm not sure if I have, but I like to think I am a more centrist of that mix.

[N Judah]

EDIT: Oh, and the parking regs are in the City Code. There is a specific chapter (26, I think) that covers most parking regs. The double usage rule allows a business to lease parking from another business' lot, but only if the spaces will be in use at different times. Another requirement is one space per bedroom in apartments and condos.

So can we have a referendum to make those go away (the one space per bedroom rule) ? I'd hate to think that developers are scaling down because of crap like that.

Edited June 24, 2008 by N Judah

[musicman]

So can we have a referendum to make those go away (the one space per bedroom rule) ? I'd hate to think that developers are scaling down because of crap like that.

start the signature process to have it put on the ballot. i think you'd be underwhelmed with volunteers.

[RedScare]

There are actually discussions taking place to make the rules more flexible. Another, possibly worse rule is the number of spaces required for retail centers. In areas such as midtown, where there are transit options, the suggestion has been made that not as many parking spaces are needed. Additionally, street parking is not included in the calculation of how many spaces are needed. A referendum is not needed. City Council can change the parking ordinance to reflect different needs for different areas. These same discussions are being had regarding building setbacks, as well.

[Houston19514]

EDIT: Oh, and the parking regs are in the City Code. There is a specific chapter (26, I think) that covers most parking regs. The double usage rule allows a business to lease parking from another business' lot, but only if the spaces will be in use at different times. Another requirement is one space per bedroom in apartments and condos.

I think it's actually one space per BATHroom for apartments and condos. (At least that's what I was told by a realtor when looking at some lofts downtown... and the parking that came with the lofts comported with that ratio).

[RedScare]

I think it's actually one space per BATHroom for apartments and condos. (At least that's what I was told by a realtor when looking at some lofts downtown... and the parking that came with the lofts comported with that ratio).

I'm just going off what my architect friend told me. I haven't looked it up personally.

[feufoma]

I say that it is a yuppie playground precisely because it fits the young 20-35 bracket, but mostly because of the customers' household buying power and consumption patterns, their level of educational attainment, and other factors that feed into my intuitive psychographic profile of what constitutes a 'yuppie'.

Mayor White made it clear in no uncertain terms that he would never endorse subsidies for downtown housing built to serve wealthy people. But he does endorse subsidies for retail that caters almost exclusively to the upper class...apparently it isn't immoral so long as po' people are able to walk around (somewhat) freely amongst the yuppie masses and see what they can't afford...or occasionally blow their money on an expensive impulse.

Yes, HP could have been better scoped and designed. I certainly agree with you on that point. I also agree that HP will undoubtedly cater to those with more means to gain access to HP's retail and service offerings. So what? Those of more limited means can always take advantage of DiscoGreen. I'm sick and tired of some people always pulling the "but what about the poor" card. You know what, those people could have gotten off their collective aXXes in school and made something of themselves. I'm not going to apologize for making a great salary and having alot of discretionary income. Let them eat cake! If places like HP cater to people in my socioeconomic strata then so be it.

[crunchtastic]

Some people look upon a parking lot with contempt. They exist in and for the present; if it does not benefit them--and directly--it is hurting them. It is a false bifurcation.

I see buildings, skyscrapers of every shape and function. I reject the very notion of 'present'. I see only opportunity. I live for the totality of existence, an existence that is not perceived but for the tiniest fraction of a second after the future has come to pass, and therefore I exist wholly for the future. A vacant site is not a puzzle to be solved. It does not require my intervention. And the outcome need not please me; the moment I ask someone to sacrifice their future for mine is the moment that I set a deadly precedent, for what will become of me when my karmic debt comes due? And in what currency shall it be paid?

[/endrant]

Has someone been hitting the Ayn Rand again?

So let's forget that the development did not end up as promised and just take HP for what it is--a mall. I have pretty strong yuppie tendencies and I am not excited. I look forward to shows at the HOB, but the retail tenants are lame. L-a-m-e. Actually, there are hardly any retail tenants. A couple of nail salons, BCBG, Forever 21. Lids. Not exciting.

Does the world really need another Au Bon Pain? For those of you pining for airport food, here's your chance.

Edited June 24, 2008 by crunchtastic

[musicman]

So let's forget that the development did not end up as promised and just take HP for what it is--a mall.

you've just singlehandedly crushed the psyches of the haif urbanistas by mentioning the word MALL!!!

[KinkaidAlum]

I will tell you that I am one person who won't be afraid to step forward and say I am unhappy about the parking situation.

However, what I am unhappy about is that the developers of the H.P. were too cheap to build their own garage. They leased an existing one. And then they claimed parking requirements were the reason they cut back on things like possible apartments, condos, and hotel rooms.

It blows my mind that these guys were able to land millions in public support and then took the cheap route.

In the end, compare the Pavilions (which received public assistance) with Finger's One Park Place. Which one will make the biggest impact on downtown?

I'd be willing to argue it will be O.P.P.

To me, 400 plus residents, a small grocery store, a wine bar overlooking a brand new park, and such > the lame lineup at the Pavilions. This is especially true because if Finger is successful, watch the rest of the apartment builders follow their path to downtown.

[totheskies]

Which adults in the 20-35 bracket? Are they from Gulfton? No. Are they from Spring? No. Are they from Pasadena? Kashmere? An decrepit apartment plaguing Inwood Forest? No, no, no. I say that it is a yuppie playground precisely because it fits the young 20-35 bracket, but mostly because of the customers' household buying power and consumption patterns, their level of educational attainment, and other factors that feed into my intuitive psychographic profile of what constitutes a 'yuppie'.

Yes, and considering that the whole developed world is growing an exponential amount of "yuppies", it seems that we should probably have them in mind when we design new developments. I'm 26, have a Masters' degree, single, and making 45k a year, so I guess that I fall into this particular category as well. Shame on me for wanting more retail downtown. And considering that UH and TSU-- a combined student population of almost 50,000-- is less than 3 miles away, they might be interested in HP also. Oh and last time I checked, The Heights, East End, museum district, and Greater Third Ward were all within biking/short transit distances from downtown, and all of these neighborhoods are under increased "yuppie influence"

Mayor White made it clear in no uncertain terms that he would never endorse subsidies for downtown housing built to serve wealthy people. But he does endorse subsidies for retail that caters almost exclusively to the upper class...apparently it isn't immoral so long as po' people are able to walk around (somewhat) freely amongst the yuppie masses and see what they can't afford...or occasionally blow their money on an expensive impulse.

Maybe I'm missing something having to do with economic implication. Last time I checked, Books-a-Million wasn't any more expensive than the other large chain bookstores, and Lucky Strike sounds like it might not be super expensive for bowling. HP is bringing some high end restaurants to downtown, yes. But it's also bringing some activities that will be affordable for virtually everyone. I'm smart enough to get coffee at Books-a-million, then go over to Quizno's for a meal instead of pay $50 a plate at some over-priced steakhouse.

Hey, I'm only annoyed at the opportunity cost of such a teriffic and irreplacable site. HP is totally out of scale with the rest of downtown. It should've been so much more...if only the City had been more patient.

Keep telling yourself that.

Edited June 24, 2008 by totheskies

[totheskies]

As far as parking is concerned...

I am excited that they have not built a parking garage. Bell station on the light rail provides acces to endless swaths of surface parking. If they want to go to HP, they can hop the train, ride it one station, then walk the block over there. I for one will be taking my bike.

[Mister X]

Cut HP a break. They are charting new territory. If more apts follow OPP, then more than likely more developments like HP will follow. There is certainly no shortage of surface lots to build on. HP may not be everything that everybody was hoping for, but you have to start somewhere. Some of us are still amazed that a project like this was ever able to get of the ground at all.

Some of you guys might be right that HP could have and should have been more than it is. But it is also true that those 3 blocks could have remained parking lots for the next 20 years while the powers that be were arguing over the 'best' way to do it. Or waiting endlessly for someone to take a risk.

It's like the light rail situation. I like to think of HP as a start of something great. Sure, it may be not large enough or have enough amenities to serve everyone's needs when it opens, but there is a bigger picture here. In this case, creating a little vibrancy in a CBD that is known nationally, for being completely void of life after dark. If HP helps to change that perception, even by a little, just to get the ball rolling, then I am glad the city did what it could to help land this project.

[GovernorAggie]

You actually think comparing Houston to KC is a good thing?

There was probably a day when that was a valid statement. But today's Houston is, IMO, a gun-shy shell of the bravado-filled town that it once was. We've gone from the Magnolia City to the Space City to the Cost-Benefit Analysis Capital of the World. Comparisons with Kansas City, definitely Charlotte, and maybe even Norfolk are valid for Houston.

Maybe what we should be saying is, "You actually think comparing KC to Houston is a good thing?"

I know I may get sliced and diced as a financially irresponsible, impractical, and unrealistic person with my sentiments, but I can daydream can't I?

[Mister X]

There was probably a day when that was a valid statement. But today's Houston is, IMO, a gun-shy shell of the bravado-filled town that it once was. We've gone from the Magnolia City to the Space City to the Cost-Benefit Analysis Capital of the World. Comparisons with Kansas City, definitely Charlotte, and maybe even Norfolk are valid for Houston.

Maybe what we should be saying is, "You actually think comparing KC to Houston is a good thing?"

I know I may get sliced and diced as a financially irresponsible, impractical, and unrealistic person with my sentiments, but I can daydream can't I?

Unfortunately, people have to eventually grow up, hopefully learn from past mistakes and try not to make them again (especially at the risk of losing their shirts). But hey, this boom just started. Give our developers a few years of raking in the cash and I'm sure we will return to the days of irresponsible, grandiose and excessive building.

At any rate, comparing the optimistic, dynamic energy in Houston these days to ANY city in America is unfair and just plain dumb. Look around you. This city is rockin' with positive vibes, high paying jobs, 70's style growth, building cranes, light rail expansion and mixed use projects. And you want to talk about KC, Charlotte and Norfolk. Give me a break.

No offense.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Mister X

[CHiPs]

I will tell you that I am one person who won't be afraid to step forward and say I am unhappy about the parking situation.

However, what I am unhappy about is that the developers of the H.P. were too cheap to build their own garage. They leased an existing one. And then they claimed parking requirements were the reason they cut back on things like possible apartments, condos, and hotel rooms.

It blows my mind that these guys were able to land millions in public support and then took the cheap route.

In the end, compare the Pavilions (which received public assistance) with Finger's One Park Place. Which one will make the biggest impact on downtown?

I'd be willing to argue it will be O.P.P.

To me, 400 plus residents, a small grocery store, a wine bar overlooking a brand new park, and such > the lame lineup at the Pavilions. This is especially true because if Finger is successful, watch the rest of the apartment builders follow their path to downtown.

Maybe they will build one (garage) eventually.

[MyEvilTwin]

As a glass-half-full kind of guy, here's the way I look at the various criticisms we've seen of HP in this thread:

1. Yes, the architecture is a little bland.

2. And yes, a little patience might have led to a bigger & better use of these 3 blocks decades in the future.

But at least point #1 suggests that the preservationists shouldn't have much objection to the wrecking ball when somebody decides to replace HP with something taller & prettier in the Houston of Tomorrow.

[TheNiche]

Yes, HP could have been better scoped and designed. I certainly agree with you on that point. I also agree that HP will undoubtedly cater to those with more means to gain access to HP's retail and service offerings. So what? Those of more limited means can always take advantage of DiscoGreen. I'm sick and tired of some people always pulling the "but what about the poor" card. You know what, those people could have gotten off their collective aXXes in school and made something of themselves. I'm not going to apologize for making a great salary and having alot of discretionary income. Let them eat cake! If places like HP cater to people in my socioeconomic strata then so be it.

I don't complain that it is serving a yuppie crowd. I complain that subsidy policies are internally inconsistent, inequitible, or nonsensical to begin with.

[TheNiche]

As a glass-half-full kind of guy, here's the way I look at the various criticisms we've seen of HP in this thread:

1. Yes, the architecture is a little bland.

2. And yes, a little patience might have led to a bigger & better use of these 3 blocks decades in the future.

But at least point #1 suggests that the preservationists shouldn't have much objection to the wrecking ball when somebody decides to replace HP with something taller & prettier in the Houston of Tomorrow.

A lot of people seem to be saying that this could kick off a trend. If it does, then in their eyes it becomes a significant development like the RO Shopping Center is supposed to be...even though it really is only a strip center. And if it doesn't, then it is unique, in their eyes deserving protection that much more.

[wernicke]

Some people sure are prolific posters on something they deem "only a strip center".

[houston-development]

There are actually discussions taking place to make the rules more flexible. Another, possibly worse rule is the number of spaces required for retail centers. In areas such as midtown, where there are transit options, the suggestion has been made that not as many parking spaces are needed. Additionally, street parking is not included in the calculation of how many spaces are needed. A referendum is not needed. City Council can change the parking ordinance to reflect different needs for different areas. These same discussions are being had regarding building setbacks, as well.

for example, morgan's 2222 smith deal. they leased the parking garage land from specs (50 years, i think).

they believe once the lease is up, midtown parking requirements will vanish, and there will not be a need to renegotiate a lease with specs.

or at least that's what they tell perspective buyers.

[GovernorAggie]

Unfortunately, people have to eventually grow up, hopefully learn from past mistakes and try not to make them again (especially at the risk of losing their shirts). But hey, this boom just started. Give our developers a few years of raking in the cash and I'm sure we will return to the days of irresponsible, grandiose and excessive building.

At any rate, comparing the optimistic, dynamic energy in Houston these days to ANY city in America is unfair and just plain dumb. Look around you. This city is rockin' with positive vibes, high paying jobs, 70's style growth, building cranes, light rail expansion and mixed use projects. And you want to talk about KC, Charlotte and Norfolk. Give me a break.

No offense.

None taken. I did say that I was daydreaming.

By the way, I think that a comparison with Charlotte is more fair than we may think, especially given its current size. The level of activity in their downtown alone would even make big 'ol Houston proud if we had that activity regionwide. That's not to say that our activity isn't also great, because it is.

[Trae]

What?! Charlotte's Downtown is not that active.

[GovernorAggie]

I think we agree to disagree. Don't want to drive the thread off topic though,,,

I look forward to HP opening. Does anyone think they'll meet he October opening date seeing that it's roughly 3 months away?

[diggity]

for example, morgan's 2222 smith deal. they leased the parking garage land from specs (50 years, i think).

they believe once the lease is up, midtown parking requirements will vanish, and there will not be a need to renegotiate a lease with specs.

how do they plan on leasing apartment units with no parking garage?

Hell, in 50 years 2222 Smith will be class C rental property (or more likely bulldozed).

[TheNiche]

for example, morgan's 2222 smith deal. they leased the parking garage land from specs (50 years, i think).

they believe once the lease is up, midtown parking requirements will vanish, and there will not be a need to renegotiate a lease with specs.

or at least that's what they tell perspective buyers.

I really doubt that the parking regs in Midtown and some other neighborhoods will survive very much more than a few years. If developers could limit the number of spaces developed and charge tenants to cover the cost only of what the tenants actually demand, that'd reduce hard costs and potentially be another source of cash flow. Able to make deals more feasible, competition for land would increase, land prices would adjust upward, and the tax base for the City and applicable TIRZs or Management Districts would increase.

It makes for a pretty compelling case.

[TheNiche]

how do they plan on leasing apartment units with no parking garage?

Hell, in 50 years 2222 Smith will be class C rental property (or more likely bulldozed).

With a time horizon of 50 years...nobody really much cares. A dollar 50 years from now--assuming no inflation--at a discount rate of 5%--is only worth $0.09. And most appraisers work on a 45-year life expectancy for new buildings, anyway.

[Trae]

I think we agree to disagree. Don't want to drive the thread off topic though,,,

I look forward to HP opening. Does anyone think they'll meet he October opening date seeing that it's roughly 3 months away?

Go to UrbanPlanet. There, they have the largest Charlotte forum on the web (it is actually run out of Charlotte). There, they are always complaining on Downtown Charlotte activity (well, it is actually called Uptown Charlotte; Charlotte has no Downtown).