Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[LegacyTree]

From the RDA:

http://blogs.chron.c...n_for_site.html

I like how everyone ignores the issues brought up in this article, how very Houston.

addressing issues such as energy use, storm water management, urban heat island, pedestrian scaling, neighborhood compatibility, shared parking, and connection to public transportation. For instance, a tighter site plan with wide sidewalks and a door by the street, rather than one at the end of a long parking lot, would help pedestrians. While some progress has been made, the distance between the community that endorses sustainable urban development and the developers appears great. In a meeting with the developer, neighborhood resident and architect Monica Savino asked if they had considered vertical parking. "They just sat there for a long time without saying anything," recalls Savino. Finally, they just said "no."

This hesitation is incredibly disturbing. It suggests two equally bad scenarios: either the developers have actually never considered even the most basic motion toward a project that might ultimately be called "sustainable" OR they are coyly answering the uncomfortable questions posed by concerned citizens, knowing ultimately they are unchecked and may proceed as they desire. This situation positions those interested in realizing the vision of a more thoughtful and planned city against those obligated to do what makes business sense. In Houston, virtually all the power is given to the latter.

Perhaps 380 agreements could put some teeth to these issues.

[samagon]

I like how everyone ignores the issues brought up in this article, how very Houston.

such as the obvious bias displayed by the writer?

Opposition to the new Washington Heights development argues that it is a troubling and regressive chapter in the development of Houston's urban core. Instead of high-density, mixed-use, neighborhood-scaled planning that would strengthen the character of the city, Washington Heights represents the low-density, box-and-strip retail that dominates and defines suburbia.

Calling the area the 'urban core' of the city is hardly accurate.

in the article they call the walmart development the 'washington heights development' and it is represented above.

So right away, by making it seem like that area is the urban core, it makes the reader feel like the area is high density living, walkable, and very urban, and that this development will bring it a step back towards suburbia.

Anyone that knows the area knows that it is suburban (especially the area that houses the loudest opponents to the development).

They want high density, mixed use, lets knock down some of those houses at heights and 11th and build a nice midrise with ground level retail, in fact, lets do that in multiple places in that area. so long as the facade looks like it is victorian, and it isn't walmart, it'll be alright, amirite?

The site itself is somewhat enigmatic. Historically industrial, it is a transitional node between several neighborhoods. While technically in the West End, it has a strong relationship to the Heights and serves as a primary thoroughfare connecting that neighborhood with Washington Avenue and Montrose. Relatively quiet residences and light industry lie to the west and I-10 is directly north.

'between several neighborhoods' heh, downtown is technically 'between several neighborhoods' as well. So's the target that was recently built a few years ago, just down the street.

'it serves as the primary thoroughfare' yale is hardly used as a primary thoroughfare, except maybe by 300 people a day. quiet residents and to the west and light industry, what about the railroad track directly to the south, and the businesses to the east?

Finally, the piece references there are 2 camps of people that want to have input (one by asking them to go somewhere else, and the other asking for input). There is a link to the FB page of the stop heights walmart, and a written link to the .org page, as well as an outline of the purpose of the page.

Where's the same for the second group?

The second camp consists of community activists and design professionals seeking a way to make Washington Heights more positive for all parties by better addressing issues such as energy use, storm water management, urban heat island, pedestrian scaling, neighborhood compatibility, shared parking, and connection to public transportation. For instance, a tighter site plan with wide sidewalks and a door by the street, rather than one at the end of a long parking lot, would help pedestrians. While some progress has been made, the distance between the community that endorses sustainable urban development and the developers appears great. In a meeting with the developer, neighborhood resident and architect Monica Savino asked if they had considered vertical parking. "They just sat there for a long time without saying anything," recalls Savino. Finally, they just said "no."

All that's said is that the group consists of 'activists and design professionals'

what's the name of the group, how can I contact them? There's plenty of contact notes for the first group, and nothing for the second?

what if I want to become an active participant? You'll show me how to fight it directly, but not how to work with it?

I'm sure I have better ideas of better fitting in with that area than 'vertical parking'!

From that point on, it seems to focus in on the fact that for a specific visionary site plan they didn't spend time accurately representing the surrounding area (like anyone wants to have railroad tracks and old industrial complexes in their renderings).

Anyway, I certainly wasn't ignoring the issues brought up by the article, I just had a hard time seeing through the obvious propaganda to see the issues that are presented.

[LegacyTree]

such as the obvious bias displayed by the writer?

Calling the area the 'urban core' of the city is hardly accurate.

in the article they call the walmart development the 'washington heights development' and it is represented above.

A.) So right away, by making it seem like that area is the urban core, it makes the reader feel like the area is high density living, walkable, and very urban, and that this development will bring it a step back towards suburbia.

Anyone that knows the area knows that it is suburban (especially the area that houses the loudest opponents to the development).

They want high density, mixed use, lets knock down some of those houses at heights and 11th and build a nice midrise with ground level retail, in fact, lets do that in multiple places in that area. so long as the facade looks like it is victorian, and it isn't walmart, it'll be alright, amirite?

'between several neighborhoods' heh, downtown is technically 'between several neighborhoods' as well. So's the target that was recently built a few years ago, just down the street.

'it serves as the primary thoroughfare' yale is hardly used as a primary thoroughfare, except maybe by 300 people a day. quiet residents and to the west and light industry, what about the railroad track directly to the south, and the businesses to the east?

Finally, the piece references there are 2 camps of people that want to have input (one by asking them to go somewhere else, and the other asking for input). There is a link to the FB page of the stop heights walmart, and a written link to the .org page, as well as an outline of the purpose of the page.

Where's the same for the second group?

All that's said is that the group consists of 'activists and design professionals'

B.) what's the name of the group, how can I contact them? There's plenty of contact notes for the first group, and nothing for the second?

what if I want to become an active participant? You'll show me how to fight it directly, but not how to work with it?

I'm sure I have better ideas of better fitting in with that area than 'vertical parking'!

From that point on, it seems to focus in on the fact that for a specific visionary site plan they didn't spend time accurately representing the surrounding area (like anyone wants to have railroad tracks and old industrial complexes in their renderings).

Anyway, I certainly wasn't ignoring the issues brought up by the article, I just had a hard time seeing through the obvious propaganda to see the issues that are presented.

1st off, this is a trashy post which is why I gave you a neg. I generally appreciate your posts but I expect better from you.

A.) Washington Ave is middle density and walkable, this is simply the midtown/4th ward CVS all over again. Yes, they have a legal right to develop as they are but it is short-sighted with an strong undercurrent of spiteful envy to develop a suburban site plan in context to mid-density residential. Further this is not in the Heights, don't try to decontextualize it. It's the equivalent to the deadening of downtown by parking lot zones, which is say Houston's foolish pride and flag waving for almighty individual freedom is a false justification for being a willfully ignorant neighbor. You get what you deserve.

B.)Your sarcasm is not appreciated, if you look at the top of the page you will see it was written by a Rice Grad student representing the RDA.

Edited September 23, 2010 by LegacyTree

[samagon]

1st off, this is a trashy post which is why I gave you a neg.

A .) Washington Ave is middle density and walkable, this is simply the midtown/4th ward CVS all over again. Yes, they have a legal right to develop as they are but it is short-sighted with an strong undercurrent of spiteful envy to develop a suburban site plan in context to mid-density residential. It's a equivalent to the deadening of downtown by parking lots zones.

B .)Your sarcasm is not appreciated, if you look at the top of the page you will see it was written by a Rice Grad student representing the RDA.

Trashy? Sorry if I offended you, I imagine the only person that would be offended by that would be the author of the article.

I should give you a neg because you gave me a neg, but then where would it end?

The article was very obviously biased and misleading, doesn't matter who wrote it.

A .) Washington avenue may be closer to middle density than most areas of town, but it is absolutely not the 'urban core' that the article makes it out to be. Heights is not urban in any way, in fact, as the first suburb of Houston, I'd say it is downright suburban despite the close proximity to downtown. if you want to argue that, I suggest going back a few pages and find notes from others regarding the population density of the area vs other areas of town.

B .) While I can say I would not join the second group, is it possible that others that read the article were genuinely interested in joining the second group to have positive input? While I may have been somewhat sarcastic in suggesting that I wanted to join the group, it is a very fair statement to say that others may be interested, and that the article doesn't afford the same contact information for the second group as it does for the first, one has very limited means from that article to make contact. If you're trying to say that the RDA is the second group, that is a really hard dot to connect based on the article itself, and I don't doubt I'm the only one who is very confused.

edited to change B .) from a smiley back to a B...

Edited September 23, 2010 by samagon

[J008]

, but it is absolutely not the 'urban core' that the article makes it out to be. Heights is not urban in any way, in fact, as the first suburb of Houston, I'd say it is downright suburban despite the close proximity to downtown.

I imagine Wal Mart will spin it as part of their urban store strategy. Since they know what is best for us anyways we should defer to their wisdom and call it an urban store.

[samagon]

Whether walmart, or that article calls it urban won't make it so.

it may serve some urban areas of town, if people are willing to drive to it, but urban it won't be.

Edited September 23, 2010 by samagon

[J008]

Interesting article regarding emails planning for the 'grocery' store.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7712351

[JJxvi]

I, for one, am outraged. We, the citizens of this fine city have a right to know IMMEDIATELY when something as dangerous and vile as a new retail box store is planned within a 5 mile radius of our homes, children, pets, and salons.

[samagon]

Very interesting indeed.

It shows that the City was very proactive concerning issues that people used as their scapegoats for why they didn't want the Walmart.

And the article itself makes it hard to tell, but it seems that Ms. Reed was more unhappy that the city knew the development was going to be a Walmart in June, than the fact that there were plans for a development at all. Maybe I misread it.

Is there some kind of controversy that those emails bring to light?

[s3mh]

Very interesting indeed.

It shows that the City was very proactive concerning issues that people used as their scapegoats for why they didn't want the Walmart.

And the article itself makes it hard to tell, but it seems that Ms. Reed was more unhappy that the city knew the development was going to be a Walmart in June, than the fact that there were plans for a development at all. Maybe I misread it.

Is there some kind of controversy that those emails bring to light?

It shows a city government that doesn't care what the community thinks. It shows a city government that knew Walmart would be controversial with the community and wanted to do everything they could to help the developer weather the storm rather then represent the concerns of the community (almost to the point of misrepresenting the anchor of the development after the news leak about Walmart). It shows a city government that is bought by the developers.

And if you think the city has been proactive, you are nuts. Even to this day, no one has said a word about how traffic will work. The developer claims that he can magically add a left turn lane to Yale St. for Koehler while putting in extra wide side walks, not moving the City's right of way a single inch and not backing up traffic onto the new feeder road. All of the noise, light pollution, crime issue were supposed to be addressed in an operating agreement with Walmart. Seen any sign of that agreement?

But what do we, the silly people of the Heights, know. We are not a brilliant developer like Ainbinder. Just look at his amazing development on Kirby and W Alabama. You know, the one with the Borders and Pesce. You know, the one with the parking spaces that are so tight you can't open your door to get out of your car (much less to get back in if you manage the former). But we should just trust a guy that can't put parking spaces far enough apart to cram a Walmart Supercenter in the middle of a residential neighborhood with only a four lane road for access because developers are special human beings with magical powers. And we shouldn't expect our government to look out for us. Our taxes don't pay their salaries, developer's campaign contributions do. We should all just go back to the Heights and wait and see what marvelous faux victorian townhome cluster the developers try to cram into our neighborhood.

[LTAWACS]

I will never go there. In fact, I dont go to any walmart.

[RedScare]

It shows a city government that doesn't care what the community thinks. It shows a city government that knew Walmart would be controversial with the community and wanted to do everything they could to help the developer weather the storm rather then represent the concerns of the community (almost to the point of misrepresenting the anchor of the development after the news leak about Walmart). It shows a city government that is bought by the developers.

And if you think the city has been proactive, you are nuts. Even to this day, no one has said a word about how traffic will work. The developer claims that he can magically add a left turn lane to Yale St. for Koehler while putting in extra wide side walks, not moving the City's right of way a single inch and not backing up traffic onto the new feeder road. All of the noise, light pollution, crime issue were supposed to be addressed in an operating agreement with Walmart. Seen any sign of that agreement?

But what do we, the silly people of the Heights, know. We are not a brilliant developer like Ainbinder. Just look at his amazing development on Kirby and W Alabama. You know, the one with the Borders and Pesce. You know, the one with the parking spaces that are so tight you can't open your door to get out of your car (much less to get back in if you manage the former). But we should just trust a guy that can't put parking spaces far enough apart to cram a Walmart Supercenter in the middle of a residential neighborhood with only a four lane road for access because developers are special human beings with magical powers. And we shouldn't expect our government to look out for us. Our taxes don't pay their salaries, developer's campaign contributions do. We should all just go back to the Heights and wait and see what marvelous faux victorian townhome cluster the developers try to cram into our neighborhood.

Interesting that you are so offended when the City "sneaks" a Walmart into the neighborhood, but wholeheartedly support the same mayor's attempt to "sneak" a severely restrictive historic district ordinance into the very same neighborhood. Pardon me for not sharing your outrage, as I am too busy fighting other battles to worry about your Walmart.

[Marksmu]

Interesting that you are so offended when the City "sneaks" a Walmart into the neighborhood, but wholeheartedly support the same mayor's attempt to "sneak" a severely restrictive historic district ordinance into the very same neighborhood. Pardon me for not sharing your outrage, as I am too busy fighting other battles to worry about your Walmart.

I hate being late to a thread because this exact same thought came up when I read that post....when it offends her (even though it does not harm her) she is all up in arms, but when the city comes in with something she approves of (even though she may be too short sighted to see how devastating it will be) its the city knows best.

You dont get to have it both ways. Either you are for individual freedoms and people having choices, or you are against them and you think the government in its all knowing wisdom knows better...you seem to think you get to pick and choose what the government decides is right or wrong. Bwahaha its typical - you dont get to give all your rights away and then ask for some back when the government finally steps on your foot. Wake up - the Wal Mart is coming, and I am still planning on posting the picture and a huge I told you so!

[TheNiche]

I hate being late to a thread because this exact same thought came up when I read that post....when it offends her (even though it does not harm her) she is all up in arms, but when the city comes in with something she approves of (even though she may be too short sighted to see how devastating it will be) its the city knows best.

You dont get to have it both ways. Either you are for individual freedoms and people having choices, or you are against them and you think the government in its all knowing wisdom knows better...you seem to think you get to pick and choose what the government decides is right or wrong. Bwahaha its typical - you dont get to give all your rights away and then ask for some back when the government finally steps on your foot. Wake up - the Wal Mart is coming, and I am still planning on posting the picture and a huge I told you so!

Nope. False bifurcation. It is indeed possible to think that the government decides right and wrong. She does. You are welcome to disagree with her for reasons that--to you and I--seem obvious, but you cannot deny the possibility that she thinks something that is quite plainly illogical.

[samagon]

It shows a city government that doesn't care what the community thinks. It shows a city government that knew Walmart would be controversial with the community and wanted to do everything they could to help the developer weather the storm rather then represent the concerns of the community (almost to the point of misrepresenting the anchor of the development after the news leak about Walmart). It shows a city government that is bought by the developers.

Guess it is easy to read things differently depending on whether you want a walmart close to your house or not.

I read that the city wanted to ensure that things were done correctly so that when the inevitable few people who are against walmart wouldn't have much to argue against.

It should be rather obvious to you that the city is not a fan of representing the general community, or they would not be pushing as hard for the historic districts as they are. I can't remember ever having a city government that hasn't been ruled by special interests, and not the community. It just so happens, that in this case, they city has been wise in their actions, but you disagree, so oh well?

I also deleted your second paragraph as I didn't see anything to show that it was indeed the case, so it's kind of pointless to even write it, and it would be even more pointless to respond to it.

But what do we, the silly people of the Heights, know. We are not a brilliant developer like Ainbinder. Just look at his amazing development on Kirby and W Alabama. You know, the one with the Borders and Pesce. You know, the one with the parking spaces that are so tight you can't open your door to get out of your car (much less to get back in if you manage the former). But we should just trust a guy that can't put parking spaces far enough apart to cram a Walmart Supercenter in the middle of a residential neighborhood with only a four lane road for access because developers are special human beings with magical powers. And we shouldn't expect our government to look out for us. Our taxes don't pay their salaries, developer's campaign contributions do. We should all just go back to the Heights and wait and see what marvelous faux victorian townhome cluster the developers try to cram into our neighborhood.

I have no problem parking at that location.

how do you feel about other developments they've developed? are you saying that everything this developer has made has small parking spaces? or are you just using one example that fits your fears and ignoring everything else that the developer has done?

The only thing I can say about the development on kirby and w. alabama is that I was disappointed when the pub that was on that corner closed to make room for the bank. they had some damn good food and a great atmosphere. but that's life, some things happen that I don't like, hell, there were a fair number of people that didn't like it. ultimately though, someone owns that property, and assuming they meet the rules and regulations set in place by the city, there is nothing I can do about it, cause they own it, and no matter how unhappy I am, or how much I whine, it ain't gonna change.

[JJxvi]

The parking lot at that center can be annoying, but I'm at that center (Borders) all the time and I love it.

Let's face a few facts, the bitching about that Ainbender center at Kirby and Alabama lays one thing to rest once and for all. The fact that "Responsible Urban Development for Houston" is really just "Whiners Whining Against WalMart With Whatever Random Factoids They Can Come Up With"

If these people were really interested in "responsible urban development" they would have to change their pants if Ainbender proposed something like what they have at Alabama and Kirby. I mean seriously? Whining about the parking lots? Here's a hint "urbanite" find another lot with an open spot, or heaven forbid, parallel park on one of the side streets. You're in the Upper Kirby district, its safe to walk half a block if you need to. The new group recommendations should add that "The surface parking is very important in front of the medium density, mixed use developments we prefer, even though that doesnt fit with all of our other ideas. Parking spots should be nice and wide, and there should be enough to guarantee that I do not have to park more than 40 yards from the door of any tenant space I wish to go into."

Edited October 11, 2010 by JJxvi

[samagon]

The parking lot at that center can be annoying, but I'm at that center (Borders) all the time and I love it.

Let's face a few facts, the bitching about that Ainbender center at Kirby and Alabama lays one thing to rest once and for all. The fact that "Responsible Urban Development for Houston" is really just "Whiners Whining Against WalMart With Whatever Random Factoids They Can Come Up With"

If these people were really interested in "responsible urban development" they would have to change their pants if Ainbender proposed something like what they have at Alabama and Kirby. I mean seriously? Whining about the parking lots? Here's a hint "urbanite" find another lot with an open spot, or heaven forbid, parallel park on one of the side streets. You're in the Upper Kirby district, its safe to walk half a block if you need to. The new group recommendations should add that "The surface parking is very important in front of the medium density, mixed use developments we prefer, even though that doesnt fit with all of our other ideas. Parking spots should be nice and wide, and there should be enough to guarantee that I do not have to park more than 40 yards from the door of any tenant space I wish to go into."

I personally find that development a treat for parking inside the loop. but then, most big sites like that have good parking. even when hurricane ike blew through and the bookstore was one of the only places with power to charge cell phones and stuff, the store was packed and finding an open plug for my charger was harder than finding an open parking spot.

[s3mh]

Sorry for the nuance. I will be explicit:

The City dismisses the concerns of people in the Heights in deference to a developer. Developers are not infallible. Just look at the Alabama/Kirby parking lot. Many of the parking spaces are too close together. Developers are people. They screw things up all the time. The City needs to listen to the public and not blindly jump on the developer's bandwagon. There. That wasn't so hard to understand.

[JJxvi]

Rest easy friend. I imagine Ainbender will put in adequate parking to satisfy their anchor tenant and their many customers.

Edited October 12, 2010 by JJxvi

[RedScare]

Sorry for the nuance. I will be explicit:

The City dismisses the concerns of people in the Heights in deference to a developer. Developers are not infallible. Just look at the Alabama/Kirby parking lot. Many of the parking spaces are too close together. Developers are people. They screw things up all the time. The City needs to listen to the public and not blindly jump on the developer's bandwagon. There. That wasn't so hard to understand.

Actually, the City IS listening to the citizens. The citizens demand that the City not waste money, so the City is not going to illegally block a development just because a few people who do not read city ordinances before complaining don't like it. By doing so, the City saved millions in legal fees and judgments.

I imagine that if you measured the parking spaces at this development, you'd find they comply with city code, but I am curious why you are demanding suburban width parking spaces. I thought you supported responsible URBAN development.

[TheNiche]

Sorry for the nuance. I will be explicit:

The City dismisses the concerns of people in the Heights in deference to a developer. Developers are not infallible. Just look at the Alabama/Kirby parking lot. Many of the parking spaces are too close together. Developers are people. They screw things up all the time. The City needs to listen to the public and not blindly jump on the developer's bandwagon. There. That wasn't so hard to understand.

Wider parking spaces would have necessitated a larger surface parking lot or a tradeoff of retail space at a prime location like Kirby and Alabama. I don't see why either of those things would have been helpful.

If the parking spaces there are narrower than code, then the developer would've needed a variance to get around it; and if that was the case, then the City has rather explicitly agreed with me. It's also curious that nobody (including you) bothered to complain about the parking spaces until such time as it became convenient for you to criticize a different development for completely unrelated reasons.

Weak.

[sidegate]

If fewer people drove Panzers to the grocery store it would be less of a problem. I've shopped there many times and if you can't park in one of those spaces you need to retake your driving test.

[IronTiger]

Does anyone have a PDF of the plan?

Also, it's technically in West End, not the Heights.

[s3mh]

Does anyone have a PDF of the plan?

Also, it's technically in West End, not the Heights.

p. 33: http://www.houstontx.gov/koehler/koehler380.pdf

Or go to http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/

And thanks for pointing out that it is in the West End and not the Heights. I guess you will be opposed to the Walmart because of the traffic that will end up on 18' wide residential streets in the West End like Koehler. Funny how the 380 agreement did not provide for any infrastructure improvements for the abutting West End residential neighborhood. But I will be glad to hear some people stand up for the West End.

[TheNiche]

p. 33: http://www.houstontx.gov/koehler/koehler380.pdf

Or go to http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/

And thanks for pointing out that it is in the West End and not the Heights. I guess you will be opposed to the Walmart because of the traffic that will end up on 18' wide residential streets in the West End like Koehler. Funny how the 380 agreement did not provide for any infrastructure improvements for the abutting West End residential neighborhood. But I will be glad to hear some people stand up for the West End.

Is this what it has come to? Do you have to promulgate a bald-faced lie to make your arguments hold water?

According to page 34 of the pdf version of the 380 Agreement (the page right after the site plan), Koehler, Bonner, and Bass streets all get reconstructed as 44-foot-wide, 27-foot-wide, and 27-foot-wide roadways, respectively. Water, sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage capacity will also be added.

[s3mh]

Is this what it has come to? Do you have to promulgate a bald-faced lie to make your arguments hold water?

According to page 34 of the pdf version of the 380 Agreement (the page right after the site plan), Koehler, Bonner, and Bass streets all get reconstructed as 44-foot-wide, 27-foot-wide, and 27-foot-wide roadways, respectively. Water, sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage capacity will also be added.

It is only a bald face lie to someone who doesn't take the time to actually educate himself on what the agreement actually says. Koehler gets widened only up to Bonner on the western edge of the development (http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/public_infra.html). Then it goes right back to an 18' road with the same old drainage ditches through the residential neighborhood (last I checked 1150 feet was just enough pavement to get from Heights to Bonner--for those of us who actually pay attention to details). Anyone exiting the development who sees a long line of traffic at the Koehler/Yale intersection will turn left on Koehler to cut through to Shepherd or Patterson. As soon as they pass Bonner, they will be on an 18' wide road. There was talk with residents about widening Koehler all the way to Shepherd. But, Mr. Icken apparently doesn't think too highly of people in the area. So, it never got included in the 380 agreement. Thus, the rule in Houston is that big developers and multinational corporations get infrastructure improvements when they want it and on the taxpayers dime (even if they state publicly that they can afford to pay for it and would pay for it if necessary) and the residents and small business owners get infrastructure improvements when hell freezes over.

In the future, before you call someone a liar, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.

[RedScare]

...and the residents and small business owners get infrastructure improvements when hell freezes over.

In the future, before you call someone a liar, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.

Hell must have frozen over, because the City is repaving 11st Street (including new drainage) for me as we speak. They were also kind enough to repave N. Main, Studewood, Courtlandt, and other streets in my neighborhood. They also put in new water mains a few years back, giving me fantastic water pressure at the tap.

You should have moved into my hood. They take care of us.

[s3mh]

Hell must have frozen over, because the City is repaving 11st Street (including new drainage) for me as we speak. They were also kind enough to repave N. Main, Studewood, Courtlandt, and other streets in my neighborhood. They also put in new water mains a few years back, giving me fantastic water pressure at the tap.

You should have moved into my hood. They take care of us.

So, when will they widen Koehler all the way to Shepherd? The City said they did not have any room in the budget for the next five years to improve Yale or Heights (which is interesting because they did have money to do 11th--maybe the whole 380 agreement is just the City's CYA for its poor planning). So, it will be a minimum of 5 years. But by then, the City will start losing tax revenue from 380 agreements like the one for Walmart (the agreement, despite what the uninformed say, is not an increment reimbursement--it is a hand over of ALL ad valorem taxes). So, maybe Koehler residents will have to wait another 7-8 years for the tax reimbursement to run its course. It will still be rather warm in hell by that time, so it looks like I may have a point.

[samagon]

It is only a bald face lie to someone who doesn't take the time to actually educate himself on what the agreement actually says. Koehler gets widened only up to Bonner on the western edge of the development (http://www.washingto...blic_infra.html). Then it goes right back to an 18' road with the same old drainage ditches through the residential neighborhood (last I checked 1150 feet was just enough pavement to get from Heights to Bonner--for those of us who actually pay attention to details). Anyone exiting the development who sees a long line of traffic at the Koehler/Yale intersection will turn left on Koehler to cut through to Shepherd or Patterson. As soon as they pass Bonner, they will be on an 18' wide road. There was talk with residents about widening Koehler all the way to Shepherd. But, Mr. Icken apparently doesn't think too highly of people in the area. So, it never got included in the 380 agreement. Thus, the rule in Houston is that big developers and multinational corporations get infrastructure improvements when they want it and on the taxpayers dime (even if they state publicly that they can afford to pay for it and would pay for it if necessary) and the residents and small business owners get infrastructure improvements when hell freezes over.

In the future, before you call someone a liar, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.

I can think of countless retail developments that directly border residential developments, and guess what, they've all got the same thing, the street is bigger by the retail, but then goes back down to a residential street in the residential area.

This is done to make people feel less inclined to drive through residential areas, and direct people to go on the streets they are wanted on. Hell, in some cases, the city has blocked off certain streets from accessing certain roads to keep people from using residential streets as through streets.

To see some examples of what you fear in action, you only need to head over towards San Filipe and Sage. South of SF, Sage is 2 lanes in each direction, north of SF, Sage is 1 lane in each direction. People going northerly towards Memorial, or Woodway can and do travel down Sage, but it's much better if you use SF and go to chimney rock, or the loop.

Go over to W. Gray and Shepherd and you can see W. Gray turn into Inwood, which even though Inwood is a residential street, people use it as a through street all the time to get over to Kirby. and Inwood is a 1 lane in each direction kind of street, where W.Gray is a 2 lanes in each direction, with a suicide down the middle!

Go over to Memorial City Mall, Barryknoll across Gessner, 4 lane, drops to 2 lane residential that people use all the time.

Hit up Bunker Hill, north of Barryknoll it is 4 lane, south it drops to 2 lane with a suicide in the middle.

Hell, you don't even have to leave the Heights for this next one! Travel east down 11th street from Heights, pass by all of the shops and retail shops, and instead of using Studewood to get over to I-10 (of which there is no entrance to I-10 east from Studewood/Studemont) keep going, it turns into a street called Pecore, where the street drops from 2 lanes in each direction to 1 lane in each direction, and is absolutely a residential street!

I could go on for DAYS proving that what you are showing is being done all over this city already and is completely a normal practice that is not refutable or in any way a burden to the surrounding neighbors that live on those streets, but my lunch hour is over, and this Friday sure does feel like a Monday

[s3mh]

I could go on for DAYS proving that what you are showing is being done all over this city already and is completely a normal practice that is not refutable or in any way a burden to the surrounding neighbors that live on those streets, but my lunch hour is over, and this Friday sure does feel like a Monday

You are right. You could go on for days, but you would never find an example with a Walmart Supercenter.