Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[s3mh]

Channel 2 is also supposed to run a story on the Wal-Mart at Yale.

[77007]

ABC13 is supposed to run a story on the burgeoning Yale St. Wal-Mart resistance tonight at 5:30.

Thanks for the heads up. Good job Nick with the interview on Channel 13.

[LookyHere]

Just curious, because it was a done deal when I moved here, but did the Heights show this much opposition to the Target development? I suppose it was more a Woodland Heights/Norhill issue, since our neighborhoods are closest.

Seems to me they are very similar in location and aesthetics. And my neighbors were thrilled when that Target opened.

As far as Sawyer Heights, the traffic is pretty contained. Everybody gets off 10, goes shopping, gets back on 10. Not too terrible. It can get backed up during weekends, holidays, but it seems that the parking lot is where most of the traffic gets stuck. I even biked on Watson/Taylor to shop at Target before the completion of the bike path, and traffic wasn't that awful.

I have trouble buying the argument that a big box development will kill the Washington corridor revival. Big Boxes don't tend to stray more than 1/2 mile from the freeway frontage. If anything, I'd argue that Washington Ave businesses might do better, if Joe and Jane Wal-Mart shopper decide to go explore the neighborhood a bit and decide to check out some of the eating establishments, for instance.

It may seem like a small difference but the location is not the same at all. I would bet my bottom dollar that if this Walmart was going to be built where they tore down warehouses on Studewood, back by Arne's, there would be a lot less resistance. Studewood is a pretty big, busy street and the Taylor/Sawyer exit was barely used by neighborhood residents before the Target was built. In contrast, this development will be right in the middle in an area with noticeable, existing congestion issues relative to the rest of the area. North bound at Washington, Yale is only one lane. There are several different factions at work here: I hate everything Walmart-ers; I don't want any big box development in the neighborhood-ers, and I don't like the idea of that development in this location-ers.

[LookyHere]

Traffic is WAY better in the loop. Because the streets are grid patterns, not planned communities with one entrance/exit. Backup or accident on one street? Move a block over and drive around. Find different through-streets. Everyone has their favorite option, this keeps traffic spread out.

In contrast, go out to Cypress and try to drive north. You have two road options. One is under construction. That's it. Wait in line with everyone else who needs to use the same road to get home to their subdivision. Yes, it's faster to zip around in the suburbs where there are fewer lights, but not if everyone else is trying to do the same thing!

I could not agree more. My sister, bless her heart, lives in Humble. We go out there a lot because she has a pool but I nearly grind my teeth flat every time. There are some areas where the feeder road is 5 lanes wide but every commuter needs to go right and you can only turn from one lane. It takes 3-5 red light cycles to make a right hand turn. That has never happened to me in Houston, even in the worst Galleria rush hour traffic.

[Gooch]

I would bet my bottom dollar that if this Walmart was going to be built where they tore down warehouses on Studewood, back by Arne's, there would be a lot less resistance.

I agree. Would have zero problem with Walmart in that location.

[RedScare]

It may seem like a small difference but the location is not the same at all. I would bet my bottom dollar that if this Walmart was going to be built where they tore down warehouses on Studewood, back by Arne's, there would be a lot less resistance. Studewood is a pretty big, busy street and the Taylor/Sawyer exit was barely used by neighborhood residents before the Target was built. In contrast, this development will be right in the middle in an area with noticeable, existing congestion issues relative to the rest of the area. North bound at Washington, Yale is only one lane. There are several different factions at work here: I hate everything Walmart-ers; I don't want any big box development in the neighborhood-ers, and I don't like the idea of that development in this location-ers.

I suppose if you set your mind to it, you can convince yourself of anything. The Sawyer Target development, which is much larger than the proposed Walmart development, is situated on a 2 lane road (expanded to 4 lanes right in front of the development), yet no one has a problem with traffic. Studewood is 4 lanes, but is a major thoroughfare that becomes extremely congested at Washington and I-10, yet the suggestion is that no one would complain of a Walmart there. The Yale location fronts a 4 lane road, with an additional 4 lane road only 1 block away, yet traffic will be a nightmare. No traffic counts are provided to supoort this claim, no traffic studies have yet been completed, but these aposters are SURE that traffic will be terrible.

Knowing that the City will not deny Walmart on false traffic claims, and City Council is FAR more interested in the increase in property taxes from the current $80,000 per year to the future $200,000 per year, in addition to the 1% sales tax on $50 million in annual sales, or $500,000, I am confident that there is a local neighborhood Walmart in my future. The industrial look architecture sounds interesting, the repaved streets in and around the store sounds good, and knowing that I can load up on hurricane supplies at one store a mile away sounds great. I'm thinking the Walmart opponents better start asking for extra trees in the parking lot, because this store is getting built.

[RedScare]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7555265

Interesting...

And the city of Houston seems open to the Wal-Mart idea. Eyewitness News has learned the city is negotiating with the developer to give them tax incentive if they improve the infrastructure surrounding the property.

[aggie92]

As for the location, just look at a map. The proposed Yale location is roughly 4 miles from I-10 and Silber and 4 miles from I-45 and Crosstimbers. Take a compass and draw circles around each location, and you will see the overlap is generally around 2-3 miles out. That means that most people living near the proposed Yale location will still have a Wal-Mart within a few miles.

Actually it is 6.1 miles to Northline location if you "look at a map" and stick with the roads that you have to drive/bike. You can make it in 5.7 miles if you go up Yale to 610 and even in 5.4 miles if you take Yale all the way to Crosstimbers, but neither of these routes is practical when you have I-10 and I-45 available. BTW, this is from directly from Google Maps. Your stating that it is 4 miles would be stretching it.

The distance to Silber is roughly 4.2 miles as previously stated.

[Subdude]

Note some posts about Walmart resistance were moved to the "confrontational" topic.

[OutfieldDan]

http://abclocal.go.c...ocal&id=7555265

Interesting...

Channel 2 had a story about the proposed Wal-Mart. The story ended with a quote from someone who called the Heights residents that oppose the development "snobs."

It does appear that way, actually.

[s3mh]

Actually it is 6.1 miles to Northline location if you "look at a map" and stick with the roads that you have to drive/bike. You can make it in 5.7 miles if you go up Yale to 610 and even in 5.4 miles if you take Yale all the way to Crosstimbers, but neither of these routes is practical when you have I-10 and I-45 available. BTW, this is from directly from Google Maps. Your stating that it is 4 miles would be stretching it.

The distance to Silber is roughly 4.2 miles as previously stated.

I drove yale to Crosstimbers and got just over 4.5 Anyone living north of 20th is closer to that location. Anyone living south of 20th would have an extra few minutes to drive to either Silber or Crosstimbers. The point is that the burden of the Yale location is unwarranted when there will be two new locations within very close proximity. We are not talking about making people drive 30-40 minutes to have access to a Wal-Mart supercenter. We are talking about an extra 5-10 minutes max.

[AtticaFlinch]

From my experience, traffic inside the loop is dramatically better than in the suburbs. I'd take a flood or train wreck in Montrose/Heights over the average day in woodlands/katy/pearland.

I feel that by not having a walmart and half a dozen redlights at every interstate exit that traffic is better inside the loop.

Traffic is WAY better in the loop. Because the streets are grid patterns, not planned communities with one entrance/exit. Backup or accident on one street? Move a block over and drive around. Find different through-streets. Everyone has their favorite option, this keeps traffic spread out.

In contrast, go out to Cypress and try to drive north. You have two road options. One is under construction. That's it. Wait in line with everyone else who needs to use the same road to get home to their subdivision. Yes, it's faster to zip around in the suburbs where there are fewer lights, but not if everyone else is trying to do the same thing!

Well good. Considering traffic is so much better in the loop and alternative routes are readily available everywhere, then it appears to me the traffic congestion argument can be finally put to bed.

[J008]

Well good. Considering traffic is so much better in the loop and alternative routes are readily available everywhere, then it appears to me the traffic congestion argument can be finally put to bed.

Traffic is better because there are not Wal Marts with half a dozen red lights at every interstate exit. Developments like this will bring the suburban traffic congestion to an area that currently doesn't have it.

[gto250us]

This is what happens without zoning, folks.

[AtticaFlinch]

Traffic is better because there are not Wal Marts with half a dozen red lights at every interstate exit. Developments like this will bring the suburban traffic congestion to an area that currently doesn't have it.

I'm not quite certain how you arrived at the number of six traffic light for EACH exit. Regardless, you have to encounter a traffic light to get from one side of 10 to the other now anyhow. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I really don't see how adding a Walmart will affect your life any more than any other development... most especially with traffic. Just take one of the numerous alternative routes available to you if traffic gets out of control.

[J008]

I'm not quite certain how you arrived at the number of six traffic light for EACH exit. Regardless, you have to encounter a traffic light to get from one side of 10 to the other now anyhow. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I really don't see how adding a Walmart will affect your life any more than any other development... most especially with traffic. Just take one of the numerous alternative routes available to you if traffic gets out of control.

[/

The new street connecting Koehler and 2nd will have lights at yale and heights and the new feeder road will add some lights to Yale and I-10 which would bring the total lights up to four I guess instead of six.

I bicycle to work and this is the bike trail, I am not aware of a safe alternative route to cross I-10. This stretch of Heights is already the most dangerous part of my commute and I feel that putting a wal mart on top of it without adequately considering the bike trail would adversely affect me.

On the other hand if they did not build the connector road and made Heights Blvd south of I-10 look like Heigths Blvd north of I-10 I would be all for it. I simply do not believe the bike trail will be adequately considered.

Edited July 16, 2010 by J008

[20thStDad]

The new street connecting Koehler and 2nd will have lights at yale and heights and the new feeder road will add some lights to Yale and I-10 which would bring the total lights up to four I guess instead of six.

I bicycle to work and this is the bike trail, I am not aware of a safe alternative route to cross I-10. This stretch of Heights is already the most dangerous part of my commute and I feel that putting a wal mart on top of it without adequately considering the bike trail would adversely affect me.

On the other hand if they did not build the connector road and made Heights Blvd south of I-10 look like Heigths Blvd north of I-10 I would be all for it. I simply do not believe the bike trail will be adequately considered.

Crossing under I-10 on the hike & bike trail is way easier, unless you aren't heading toward downtown.

[AtticaFlinch]

I simply do not believe the bike trail will be adequately considered.

On what do you base this presumption? Walmart has no construction within the inner loop on which to determine precedent. Your presumption is based purely on emotional conceit and contains zero facts.

As for the lights, I still don't get it. How is this different than any other thru street connecting Heights to Washington across I-10? Besides (and again), your argument with regards to traffic is against development in general, not against Walmart. Any development on the lot in question will affect traffic, whether it's a Walmart, an HEB or some mixed-use pseudo-urban mid-rise housing development with ground floor retail. It really doesn't matter what it is. You should just be grateful the developers and Walmart are on the hook for most of the costs of infrastructure upgrades. If Yale, which is a cruddy, pothole-filled stretch of pavement, will be redone with no costs further than tax abatements to the Houston resident, then good for us and good for Walmart. It already sounds like they're acting like more than responsible neighbors.

And while I've never used it, I'm almost certain there's a dedicated bike trail just for people like you who wish to cross I-10 without risking their lives. Isn't it over by Studemont? I'm certain there's a thread about it somewhere on HAIF. (Edit: Nevermind, 20th filled in the gaps here.)

Edited July 16, 2010 by AtticaFlinch

[J008]

Crossing under I-10 on the hike & bike trail is way easier, unless you aren't heading toward downtown.

Agree, I am heading to Greenway and previously to Galleria so no luck for me.

[AlexTx]

This might sound silly, but I emailed Trader's Joe and asked them to come to Houston, TX. I think they would do well near the Heights as opposed to Wal-Mart. You never know, it might work

If you want to suggest a location for Trader's Joe, go here: http://www.traderjoes.com/about/location-requests-form.asp

If you have never heard of Trader's Joe, it's kind of like a Whole Foods, but will more reasonable prices. They have locatoins in about 20 states, but none in Texas. People rave about it.

[20thStDad]

Agree, I am heading to Greenway and previously to Galleria so no luck for me.

If the feeder additions include sidewalks you could take that down to Shepherd, other than that I think heights is your safest crossing. Crossing at Shepherd now sucks because you have to cross it at some point, either over the ROW on Durham or over the bayou on Shepherd. There aren't sidewalks on both sides there, it makes it suck. Past that it's easy to shoot down one of the small streets parallel to Shepherd and get anywhere. I kind of doubt the feeders will have sidewalks the whole way though, since it'll be elevated most of the way.

I hope they build a good bike/walk path to cross I-10 and the bayou on Yale, and connect it to the trail along 7th. Why ride farther to Target to pay more when I can ride to Walmart for more interesting people-watching?

[Jesse]

This might sound silly, but I emailed Trader's Joe and asked them to come to Houston, TX. I think they would do well near the Heights as opposed to Wal-Mart. You never know, it might work

If you want to suggest a location for Trader's Joe, go here: http://www.traderjoe...quests-form.asp

If you have never heard of Trader's Joe, it's kind of like a Whole Foods, but will more reasonable prices. They have locatoins in about 20 states, but none in Texas. People rave about it.

Greatest. Store. Ever.

I'd let them build in my backyard if I thought they'd come to town. Literally, my backyard.

[AlexTx]

Greatest. Store. Ever.

I'd let them build in my backyard if I thought they'd come to town. Literally, my backyard.

Well email Trader Joes and tell them that!!! http://www.traderjoe...quests-form.asp

You have a large lot, right?

Edited July 16, 2010 by AlexTx

[kat_zor]

This might sound silly, but I emailed Trader's Joe and asked them to come to Houston, TX. I think they would do well near the Heights as opposed to Wal-Mart. You never know, it might work

BTW, there's also a "Houston Wants a Trader Joe's" Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=45801548627&ref=ts

Every time we go back to Oakland we pick up Thai cashews, olive tapenade and "magic cheese" (some kind of cheese with shallots in it.

[RedScare]

The Houston Press seems to be agreeing with those of us who don't believe the Walmart will change anything in the Heights.

http://www.houstonpress.com/2010-07-15/news/battle-in-the-heights/

[TheNiche]

This is what happens without zoning, folks.

Oh of course! Zoning was effective at keeping Wal-Mart out of Austin and San Antonio. Surely it would've been effective in Houston.

[OutfieldDan]

Oh of course! Zoning was effective at keeping Wal-Mart out of Austin and San Antonio. Surely it would've been effective in Houston.

The property that's being developed was a steel mill and a 1960's shopping mall. I don't think that zoning is an issue because it is clearly a commercial area historically.

Incidentally, this is one instance where McMansions are not the ones making the fuss. It's almost certainly the historic bungalow fanatics, who are deluded into believing that thier utopia might be ruined.

[Marksmu]

The property that's being developed was a steel mill and a 1960's shopping mall. I don't think that zoning is an issue because it is clearly a commercial area historically.

Incidentally, this is one instance where McMansions are not the ones making the fuss. It's almost certainly the historic bungalow fanatics, who are deluded into believing that thier utopia might be ruined.

Those historic bungalow people are some of the most hypocritical, short sighted, snotty people out there. They think they get to control every aspect of everyone's lives. They have an idea of what they think something should be, and by god they have nothing better to do at all (they have no lives) than to sit around all the time, go door to door, write letters, petitions, start stupid face book pages, hire lawyers, etc, etc....

Every time I see a historic district sign or bumper sticker, I want to tear it up, but I refrain because unlike them, I know its not my business what they do with their property. More power to them if they want to save their tiny little cottage... but when you start telling me what to do with my land, you cross the line into none of your dang ole business.

[Jesse]

Those historic bungalow people are some of the most hypocritical, short sighted, snotty people out there. They think they get to control every aspect of everyone's lives. They have an idea of what they think something should be, and by god they have nothing better to do at all (they have no lives) than to sit around all the time, go door to door, write letters, petitions, start stupid face book pages, hire lawyers, etc, etc....

FYI I've flagged your post to the moderators. There's really no need to make such an ignorant, generalized, obtuse statement like that. Hope you edit and remove it before they do.

[TheNiche]

FYI I've flagged your post to the moderators. There's really no need to make such an ignorant, generalized, obtuse statement like that. Hope you edit and remove it before they do.

Even if he is promulgating a stereotype, its not as though there isn't a seed of truth. He's ignorantly, generally, and obtusely correct, if only because whiny authoritarian historic preservationists overwhelm the conversation and marginalize the reasonable preservationists.

It'd make me feel all warm and fuzzy if only a preservationist with political clout would promote incentives for tasteful preservation rather than outright bans on demolition, on particular business models, or on non-conformist new construction. (And yes, I know that some such incentives already exist, but I used the word "promote" very deliberately.)

Edited July 19, 2010 by TheNiche