Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[samagon]

sidenote: living in an old steel mill could be sweet.

aside from the possibility of getting cancer from some chemicals that invariably were leeched into the soil, I agree.

you could set up a really sweet go cart track, have an awesome party deck, a really awesome big screen tv area. I imagine the heating cooling bill would suck, plus keeping the windows clean would be a huge hassle. you could set up a sweet garden too.

I think there was a rail spur so you could conceivably buy a rail car as a water feature or something, or maybe an old caboose and set it up as your living quarters and use the steel mill as storage for your lawnmower and weedeater...

[Ross]

So, you are both a traffic engineer and a hydrologist? Or do you think that we shouldn't bother those people with important issues like that and leave it up to you because you have a computer and an internet connection?

To part one of your question, the answer is "possibly, but then again I could be a dog". To part two, the answer is "absolutely".

[VicMan]

In this case it was a waste of time to protest this Wal-Mart, knowing everything stated earlier in the thread. s3mh, please don't promote jousting at windmills. Please don't promote Don Quixote-ism.

Knowing that Houston is not a Spring Valley, and that it is not a Helotes, and knowing that all of the evidence points to the development being 100% within the law and regulations, it would not be possible to oppose this Wal-Mart.

1. It is never a waste of time to advocate for what you believe is best for your community. Plenty of Walmarts have been defeated across the country, including two recent examples in Helotes and Spring Valley.

2. You don't need a lawsuit to stop a Walmart. This development has major problems with traffic and drainage. If the City is held to its promise to "hold the developers feet to the fire", the development may not happen in its current form. But if everyone just walks away and leaves it up to the City, the favors will come pouring in for the developer and Walmart and everything will be rubber stamped. If people are vigilant and organized, then the City may have political cover to put their foot down and take real action that may reduce the size of the Walmart, which would probably send them packing.

3. Any attempt at reform will be shot down by the deep pocketed developers. But, if people make developer's lives very difficult every time they come up with a tower or supercenter in a residential/urban neighborhood or whatever stupid and irresponsible development they will come up with next, then developers may see some sort of reform as a better way to do business than to have to deal with all the ill will, delay and expense that comes with each land use fight.

[s3mh]

In this case it was a waste of time to protest this Wal-Mart, knowing everything stated earlier in the thread. s3mh, please don't promote jousting at windmills. Please don't promote Don Quixote-ism.

Knowing that Houston is not a Spring Valley, and that it is not a Helotes, and knowing that all of the evidence points to the development being 100% within the law and regulations, it would not be possible to oppose this Wal-Mart.

What evidence? Do you have the traffic counts? Have you done the traffic impact analysis? Does the drainage plan meet the standards of the city's design manual? Is there no diversion of floodwaters that will impact surrounding residents? Are you just going to trust the City's bureacracy to protect the citizens from an incompatible development? Or would it be better to have someone who really has the community's interest at heart analyzing these issues with qualified professionals to make sure the City bureacracy doesn't rubber stamp a Walmart because the City is afraid of developers after getting sued by the Ashby developers and has too many connections with the developer and Walmart to be trusted? If you don't believe me, go around town and look at where all the Walmart's are sited. You do not need to be a traffic engineer to see that putting a supercenter in the Heights with a street like Yale as the only thoroughfare access is completely unprecedented in Houston. Most Walmart supercenters are sited on two thoroughfares or directly off of a feeder road, not on a single road (Yale) that may end up with 5 traffic signals in just over a half mile and a grade separation just a few hundred feet from the main entrance.

So, no. I am not promoting Don Quixote-ism. Houston does not have zoning, but does have standards. Those opposing this development have every right and an important duty to see that these standards are properly applied. If the traffic problems can't be mitigated, they can't get permits. If they drainage plan does not meet the design manual's standards, they can't get permits. The idea that you can do whatever you want on your land without zoning is just flatly false. If you want to trust the City with how this will all turn out, that is your problem. Don't go around telling people that everything is going to be fine just because you think it is and trust the City.

[RedScare]

Are you just going to trust the City's bureacracy to protect the citizens from an incompatible development? Or would it be better to have someone who really has the community's interest at heart analyzing these issues with qualified professionals to make sure the City bureacracy doesn't rubber stamp a Walmart because the City is afraid of developers after getting sued by the Ashby developers and has too many connections with the developer and Walmart to be trusted?

Yeah, this is what I said about the historic districts. However, a few of my neighbors are advocately exactly that.

[SilverJK]

What evidence? Do you have the traffic counts? Have you done the traffic impact analysis? Does the drainage plan meet the standards of the city's design manual? Is there no diversion of floodwaters that will impact surrounding residents? Are you just going to trust the City's bureacracy to protect the citizens from an incompatible development? Or would it be better to have someone who really has the community's interest at heart analyzing these issues with qualified professionals to make sure the City bureacracy doesn't rubber stamp a Walmart because the City is afraid of developers after getting sued by the Ashby developers and has too many connections with the developer and Walmart to be trusted? If you don't believe me, go around town and look at where all the Walmart's are sited. You do not need to be a traffic engineer to see that putting a supercenter in the Heights with a street like Yale as the only thoroughfare access is completely unprecedented in Houston. Most Walmart supercenters are sited on two thoroughfares or directly off of a feeder road, not on a single road (Yale) that may end up with 5 traffic signals in just over a half mile and a grade separation just a few hundred feet from the main entrance.

So, no. I am not promoting Don Quixote-ism. Houston does not have zoning, but does have standards. Those opposing this development have every right and an important duty to see that these standards are properly applied. If the traffic problems can't be mitigated, they can't get permits. If they drainage plan does not meet the design manual's standards, they can't get permits. The idea that you can do whatever you want on your land without zoning is just flatly false. If you want to trust the City with how this will all turn out, that is your problem. Don't go around telling people that everything is going to be fine just because you think it is and trust the City.

What evidence? Do you have the traffic counts? Have you done the traffic impact analysis? Does the drainage plan not meet the standards of the city's design manual? Is there no diversion of floodwaters that will impact surrounding residents?

Seriously... just because you don't like walmart, you don't get to make things up. Incompatitble development, are you kidding me? If you live in the Heights, and hate walmart, I don't see why you would EVER even come in contact with this section of Yale. It is ENTIRELY avoidable. But keep up the good fight, you don't have a mayor to strong arm this one.

[Marksmu]

Yeah, this is what I said about the historic districts. However, a few of my neighbors are advocately exactly that.

The Hypocrisy is killing me!!!! .

If S3MH is looking out for out best interests we are in much bigger trouble than I thought possible! My best interests are definitely served by being able to use my own property as I see fit....even if that means tearing down a house that you like solely because it is old, or shopping at a store that someone else despises...your best interests are NOT the same as mine. We do not share common values, political beliefs, or anything other than a zip code...So I would appreciate it if you would stop advocating as if the community as a whole is agreeing with you, and the city is just forging ahead against the will of the people.

There is a small group...very small, who oppose this Walmart, and support historic districts. They are loud, they are whiney, they are obnoxious. They think they get to tell us our business because they have nothing better in their life to do than be in everyone else's business. It is obnoxious...its like the small annoying clicks in High School who think they are better than everyone else.

[samagon]

There is a small group...very small, who oppose this Walmart, and support historic districts. They are loud, they are whiney, they are obnoxious. They think they get to tell us our business because they have nothing better in their life to do than be in everyone else's business. It is obnoxious...its like the small annoying clicks in High School who think they are better than everyone else.

Well, the good thing about the high school clicks was that you could completely ignore the high school click cause they had no say in anything, and even if they did have any kind of authority, who cares cause high school was only 4 years of your life. This is more than just 3 heathers and a veronica nattering about their rules, this crap they pull affects our lives, and our investments.

Edited November 19, 2010 by samagon

[aggie92]

It's obnoxious but somewhat entertaining. I look forward each evening when I log in to seeing what new posts are in this section to see what new "ideas" that s3mh can come up with to tell all of us how our lives will never be the same. I just don't want to go back thru 27 pages but it would be great to roll together all of the "ideas" and see how they have continued to evolve - especially these mysterious traffic counts that went from 7-8000 to now more than 22,000 per day for a supercenter. And now this statement about being incompatible for an area that was a steel mill and not even in the Heights. Just always entertaining.

[dbigtex56]

"As a noun, click refers to a brief, sharp noise. The verb click means to produce a clicking sound or to press down and release a button on a mouse or other pointing device. The noun clique refers to an exclusive group of friends or associates."

(Definition courtesy of About.com.)

Edited November 20, 2010 by dbigtex56

[TheNiche]

"As a noun, click refers to a brief, sharp noise. The verb click means to produce a clicking sound or to press down and release a button on a mouse or other pointing device. The noun clique refers to an exclusive group of friends or associates."

(Definition courtesy of About.com.)

[s3mh]

It's obnoxious but somewhat entertaining. I look forward each evening when I log in to seeing what new posts are in this section to see what new "ideas" that s3mh can come up with to tell all of us how our lives will never be the same. I just don't want to go back thru 27 pages but it would be great to roll together all of the "ideas" and see how they have continued to evolve - especially these mysterious traffic counts that went from 7-8000 to now more than 22,000 per day for a supercenter. And now this statement about being incompatible for an area that was a steel mill and not even in the Heights. Just always entertaining.

According to the 8th edition whatever you call it traffic manual, a Walmart supercenter generates 10,000 car trips a day. This number has been controversial because it is based on the assumption that a 24 hour store will have fewer trips than a store with limited hours. Thus, a CNBC documentary about Walmart stated that the real number of car trips for a Walmart supercenter is 22,000. Both figures are well sourced and not made up. The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

And thanks for saying that it isn't in the Heights. So what? Really, so what? And just because it used to be a steel mill doesn't mean that any use for the site is compatible. The neighborhood has changed immensely since the site was industrial. The immediately surrounding neighborhood is seeing a lot of new residential construction in an area that was a no-go zone just a few years ago. Put in a giant Walmart and you kill off a neighborhood that is in the midst of a revival. Put in a responsible develoment (mixed use/smaller grocer), and you compliment the neighborhood and spur further investment. It is a simple choice, stuff a suburban Walmart supercenter and watch all the dollars get sucked out to Arkansas or develop something that will be a benefit to the neighborhood.

[OutfieldDan]

According to the 8th edition whatever you call it traffic manual, a Walmart supercenter generates 10,000 car trips a day. This number has been controversial because it is based on the assumption that a 24 hour store will have fewer trips than a store with limited hours. Thus, a CNBC documentary about Walmart stated that the real number of car trips for a Walmart supercenter is 22,000. Both figures are well sourced and not made up. The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

Let's use our common sense and try to estimate the real traffic burden. We don't have to be "authorities" to use arithmetic and our own traffic experience.

In El Paso, a traffic study by an anti-Wal-Mart organization concluded 10,968 additional trips to a proposed new Wal-Mart supercenter. Wal-Mart estimated 7,598. Both estimates are "new traffic additions." It isn't the total number of car trips to the store that's important. It's the increase in traffic that matters. It would be silly to assume that all patrons of Wal-Mart are from outside the area and represent new traffic on Yale.

Let's assume there will be 9,000 new cars on Yale in a 24 hour period and that most of them (66% = 6000) are between the hours of 10:00am to 9:00pm (11 hours). During the busy hours, there will be 545 more cars/hour = 9 more cars/minute. Yale goes both North and South, so the traffic burden is about 5 more cars/minute each direction. Because each direction has two lanes, the burden becomes 2.5 more cars/minute in each lane.

2-3 more cars/minute in each lane doesn't sound like it's a big deal. Most of this traffic will be on and off at the new intersection of Yale and I-10, so little additional traffic can be expected on greater Yale.

[SilverJK]

According to the 8th edition whatever you call it traffic manual, a Walmart supercenter generates 10,000 car trips a day. This number has been controversial because it is based on the assumption that a 24 hour store will have fewer trips than a store with limited hours. Thus, a CNBC documentary about Walmart stated that the real number of car trips for a Walmart supercenter is 22,000. Both figures are well sourced and not made up. The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

And thanks for saying that it isn't in the Heights. So what? Really, so what? And just because it used to be a steel mill doesn't mean that any use for the site is compatible. The neighborhood has changed immensely since the site was industrial. The immediately surrounding neighborhood is seeing a lot of new residential construction in an area that was a no-go zone just a few years ago. Put in a giant Walmart and you kill off a neighborhood that is in the midst of a revival. Put in a responsible develoment (mixed use/smaller grocer), and you compliment the neighborhood and spur further investment. It is a simple choice, stuff a suburban Walmart supercenter and watch all the dollars get sucked out to Arkansas or develop something that will be a benefit to the neighborhood.

Yes, those are the ONLY two options that are possible. (give me a break)

What are the traffic counts for walmart supercenters that do not have tire/auto departments or gas stations?

Why does an increase in traffic really matter to you anyway, as I've said before, this is an easily avoidable street to the residents in the heights... one could argue that this will decrease the amount of rush hour traffic on yale North of I-10 because it will no longer be a quick cuthrough (coming from anywhere south of washington or heading to south of washington) to bypass I-10/610 traffic.

[LTAWACS]

What's going on around here?

[RedScare]

According to the 8th edition whatever you call it traffic manual, a Walmart supercenter generates 10,000 car trips a day. This number has been controversial because it is based on the assumption that a 24 hour store will have fewer trips than a store with limited hours. Thus, a CNBC documentary about Walmart stated that the real number of car trips for a Walmart supercenter is 22,000. Both figures are well sourced and not made up. The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

And thanks for saying that it isn't in the Heights. So what? Really, so what? And just because it used to be a steel mill doesn't mean that any use for the site is compatible. The neighborhood has changed immensely since the site was industrial. The immediately surrounding neighborhood is seeing a lot of new residential construction in an area that was a no-go zone just a few years ago. Put in a giant Walmart and you kill off a neighborhood that is in the midst of a revival. Put in a responsible develoment (mixed use/smaller grocer), and you compliment the neighborhood and spur further investment. It is a simple choice, stuff a suburban Walmart supercenter and watch all the dollars get sucked out to Arkansas or develop something that will be a benefit to the neighborhood.

This is a great example of the intellectual dishonesty of the anti-Walmart crowd, and sm3h in particular. He claims that a "giant" Walmart will kill investment as dollars go to Arkansas, yet a Target was not a problem, even though the dollars go to Minneapolis. Neither would be a HEB or Whole Foods, though those corporate dollars go to San Antonio and Austin. Even a Kroger would be OK with this crowd, with their Cincinnati bound dollars. The fact is these people live in denial. Houston has one of the most competitive grocery markets in the country. Every grocer that operates here is building larger and more complete stores with more selection. No one is getting smaller. Why? Because the consumer demands it. HEB closed their small Heights store because business was going to Kroger's Signature store.

What would happen if the 152,000 square foot Walmart was not built? There would be 152,000 square feet of stores that sell the same things. It would take up the same space, require the same parking, and draw the same traffic. Would the anti-Walmarters oppose that? No! In fact, they are proposing that as an alternative. Just look at the post I quoted. Sm3h proposes "mixed use/smaller grocer". What does that mean? It means he is proposing even more square footage, drawing more traffic into the same space. He calls that "responsible development". And perhaps it is. But, it makes clear that he is not worried about traffic on Yale so much as a Walmart on Yale.

This is what happens when people do not know why they are opposed to something. Sm3h doesn't like Walmart. That is his prerogative. The problem is, it is illegal to deny Walmart the right to operate just because he doesn't like them. So, he must come up with a legal justification. So, the traffic, crime and other Trojan Horses appear. These claims might have merit if sm3h was consistent in his objections. But, he isn't. He supports traffic and crime inducing alternatives to Walmart. He supports denser development, just like the townhomes crammed on former single family lots behind the Walmart. He labels the Walmart "suburban", as if that means something bad. The problem is that a suburban Walmart uses more land, meaning less square footage on the available land. This results in LESS traffic, not more. Dense development would cause more traffic, as there would be more stores attracting more people.

This is why the intelligent posters enjoy sm3h's posts. It is fun to pick them apart, exposing his hypocritical argument. The only constant is that sm3h does not like Walmart. This is fine, except that dislike of a retailer does not prevent its coming to the neighborhood.

Speaking of killing off investment in a neighborhood, wait til sm3h sees what his little historic district does to investment in the Heights.

[aggie92]

The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

I never claimed being an authority as YOU claim I was attempting to be - I was rehashing what others have posted over 27 pages and NOT making my own claims or attempting to give information about traffic studies. And how do you know that I don't know about the traffic issue? I might just be a traffic engineer - I'm not nor claim to be. However, I do live near by and drive Yale regularly along with Heights so I'm as much an expert as most on this forum.

You need to relax a little and realize that this is a bulletin board forum and is used by many of us to stay informed or entertained and quit attacking.

[samagon]

You need to relax a little and realize that this is a bulletin board forum and is used by many of us to stay informed or entertained and quit attacking.

heh, his posts are pretty entertaining, so it isn't all a loss.

a bit redundant, and predictable, but entertaining still.

Edited November 23, 2010 by samagon

[WAZ]

The only constant is that sm3h does not like Walmart. This is fine, except that dislike of a retailer does not prevent its coming to the neighborhood.

So wait a minute. Now the WalMart IS coming to the neighborhood.

Earlier you said it wasn't.

As soon as someone puts a supercenter in a neighborhood I'll be all over it. So far, though, that hasn't happened. They've only proposed a supercenter on Yale, on the site of a former steel mill. But, if they ever put one in a neighborhood, let me know.

This is an important distinction to make. In Houston, you can't build a SuperCenter on a site where deed restrictions prohibit it. But legally you CAN build it on a site next door, that doesn't have deed restrictions. The frustrating thing is - a development doesn't have to be officially in a neighborhood, to have a negative impact on that neighborhood.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that WalMart necessarily has a negative impact on neighborhoods. I am simply pointing out a major weakness in land-use regulation in Houston.

Edited November 23, 2010 by WAZ

[HTX]

What? No gas station at this one? I want the gas station! Is there a petition some where to make Walmart put one in as a requirement to building on this site?

[RedScare]

So wait a minute. Now the WalMart IS coming to the neighborhood.

Earlier you said it wasn't.

This is an important distinction to make. In Houston, you can't build a SuperCenter on a site where deed restrictions prohibit it. But legally you CAN build it on a site next door, that doesn't have deed restrictions. The frustrating thing is - a development doesn't have to be officially in a neighborhood, to have a negative impact on that neighborhood.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that WalMart necessarily has a negative impact on neighborhoods. I am simply pointing out a major weakness in land-use regulation in Houston.

Nice try, but I was using his words. While sm3h is certainly entitled to his (tainted) opinion, the fact is, he, and virtually all other Walmart opponents, are not opposed to development of the site, and further, are not opposed to retail development of the site, or even big box retailers, such as Target. They only want to oppose Walmart. The more reasonable among us recognize that there is no practical difference between an acceptable Target and an unacceptable Walmart. We also recognize that a development fronted by 2 4 lane roads with a freeway next to it is a perfect location for a retail center. Every land use regulation in the country would zone this parcel for retail development. There is no need for you to throw out vague generalities when we have a specific site to look at. This development will improve the area, regardless whether a few dozen protesters don't like it.

I'm still wondering why any Heights resident would join forces with a group of people who razed a single family neighborhood so that they could build a 3 townhome per lot development in its place. I'm further amazed that these townhome residents can claim Walmart ruins the neighborhood with a straight face.

[little frau]

Yeah, with sm3h and that whole stop the Walmart crowd, it's never really been about the traffic or the 380 or walkability or any of the other "issues" they throw around. It's always been about their blatant hatred of Walmart.

Not any other store. Only Walmart. And most of them say they've never been inside one.

I used to never shop Walmart mainly because there wasn't one nearby. It wasn't until HEB stopped carrying so many items that I liked/purchased that I ventured outside the loop to find that hated Arkansas chain. HEB in my area has gotten so bad that they've quit stocking many national brands in favor of their house brands.

And I agree with Red. How can folks in their townhomes (and McVics, imo) claim that Walmart will ruin their 'neighborhood'??

[s3mh]

We also recognize that a development fronted by 2 4 lane roads with a freeway next to it is a perfect location for a retail center. Every land use regulation in the country would zone this parcel for retail development. There is no need for you to throw out vague generalities when we have a specific site to look at. This development will improve the area, regardless whether a few dozen protesters don't like it.

I'm still wondering why any Heights resident would join forces with a group of people who razed a single family neighborhood so that they could build a 3 townhome per lot development in its place. I'm further amazed that these townhome residents can claim Walmart ruins the neighborhood with a straight face.

Yes, we do have a specific site to look at, but you do not even bother to look at it because you are so biased against community participation in the development process that you do not care about the facts. Since when is Koehler St. a 4 lane road? The proposed Walmart is not on the feeder. It is on Koehler (a two lane local connector) and Yale, one block south of the new feeder. Yale is classified as a major thoroughfare and has 4 lanes, but it will operate more like a 3 lane road because they are going to dedicate a northbound lane to turn traffic. That means only one through lane from Washington to the I-10 feeder.

And you know nothing about zoning. Zoning isn't just a question of residential v. commercial v. retail. Zoning regulates density within the allowed use. The major factor behind controlling density is the availability of road capacity to handle traffic. When completed as proposed, Yale St. will have 5 traffic lights in a space of just over a 1/2 mile between the I-10 feeder and Washington. Zoning would recognize the limited amount of traffic that can flow through the area and limit the amount of retail sq ft that can be built on the parcel. In fact, in most cases where Walmart gets beaten back, it is because they are unable to get a variance from local zoning to allow for a supercenter sized store in an area that is not zoned for that size of a retail outlet.

As for the last crack, I guess I am glad to hear that you are now on board with the historic preservation ordinance. The West End has followed the development model of Rice Military and Montrose. If you think that putting in town homes ruins a neighborhood in the same way a 24 hour Walmart Supercenter ruins a neighborhood, then you have completely lost touch with reality.

[Marksmu]

Yeah, with sm3h and that whole stop the Walmart crowd, it's never really been about the traffic or the 380 or walkability or any of the other "issues" they throw around. It's always been about their blatant hatred of Walmart.

Not any other store. Only Walmart. And most of them say they've never been inside one.

I used to never shop Walmart mainly because there wasn't one nearby. It wasn't until HEB stopped carrying so many items that I liked/purchased that I ventured outside the loop to find that hated Arkansas chain. HEB in my area has gotten so bad that they've quit stocking many national brands in favor of their house brands.

And I agree with Red. How can folks in their townhomes (and McVics, imo) claim that Walmart will ruin their 'neighborhood'??

Bungalows are an important part of keeping the Heights personality, so I fully support people doing tasteful remodels and there will always be a strong market for a beautiful old bungalow, but the McVics as you like to call them are what is driving the growth and value of the Heights.

I do not think the McVics are ruining anything. Some are ugly, but most +/-90% are extremely attractive and well done.....I can tell you one thing for sure....the McVics as you like to call them are not ruining the neighborhood....they are the driving force behind its increase in quality from year to year.

Nor will the WalMart ruin the neighborhood. The only thing ruining the neighborhood in my opinion is a bunch of snobs who think they are better than everyone else who want to tell everyone else what to do with their money and their property. If the snobs, whether they be bungalow elitists, preservationist, or just some kind of Walmart hater, would just shut up and keep their opinion to themselves, the entire neighborhood would be a much better place.

[barracuda]

I don't understand why traffic keeps coming up as an argument against this development. Any development on that site is going to increase traffic.

With the other Walmarts being built in the area, I would suspect that this Walmart will primarily attract local residents and have a fairly compact radius of shoppers. Even if it does cause significant net-new traffic, the new feeders and on/off ramps on I-10 should mitigate neighborhood traffic through the Heights on Yale.

[s3mh]

I never claimed being an authority as YOU claim I was attempting to be - I was rehashing what others have posted over 27 pages and NOT making my own claims or attempting to give information about traffic studies. And how do you know that I don't know about the traffic issue? I might just be a traffic engineer - I'm not nor claim to be. However, I do live near by and drive Yale regularly along with Heights so I'm as much an expert as most on this forum.

You need to relax a little and realize that this is a bulletin board forum and is used by many of us to stay informed or entertained and quit attacking.

So, you get to attack me and call my posts "obnoxious" and ridicule the traffic numbers I have provided, but I am supposed to just sit back and take it? If you are not an authority on traffic and know nothing more than what you see out the window on your daily drive, then why are you slamming me by name on this issue? I have done the research, seen documents related to traffic analysis for the site and researched the traffic requirements in the city's design manual. But, I am just supposed to sit back and let you and everyone else ridicule me because you have driven down Yale St? I can take all the attacks from people on this forum. But, the idea that I am not allowed to return fire because I represent a minority view on this board is pretty offensive. I will relax when other relax. I will respond to attacks when attacked.

[JJxvi]

Yes, we do have a specific site to look at, but you do not even bother to look at it because you are so biased against community participation in the development process that you do not care about the facts. Since when is Koehler St. a 4 lane road? The proposed Walmart is not on the feeder. It is on Koehler (a two lane local connector) and Yale, one block south of the new feeder. Yale is classified as a major thoroughfare and has 4 lanes, but it will operate more like a 3 lane road because they are going to dedicate a northbound lane to turn traffic. That means only one through lane from Washington to the I-10 feeder.

And you know nothing about zoning. Zoning isn't just a question of residential v. commercial v. retail. Zoning regulates density within the allowed use. The major factor behind controlling density is the availability of road capacity to handle traffic. When completed as proposed, Yale St. will have 5 traffic lights in a space of just over a 1/2 mile between the I-10 feeder and Washington. Zoning would recognize the limited amount of traffic that can flow through the area and limit the amount of retail sq ft that can be built on the parcel. In fact, in most cases where Walmart gets beaten back, it is because they are unable to get a variance from local zoning to allow for a supercenter sized store in an area that is not zoned for that size of a retail outlet.

As for the last crack, I guess I am glad to hear that you are now on board with the historic preservation ordinance. The West End has followed the development model of Rice Military and Montrose. If you think that putting in town homes ruins a neighborhood in the same way a 24 hour Walmart Supercenter ruins a neighborhood, then you have completely lost touch with reality.

So what lower density use do you propose this 18 acre parcel be used for since, in your mind, it would clearly be too much of a traffic burden in this area?

[WAZ]

We also recognize that a development fronted by 2 4 lane roads with a freeway next to it is a perfect location for a retail center.

Where's the second 4 lane road? I'm only seeing one - Yale: and that's pretty narrow for a 4 lane road. No shoulders; no room for islands or center turn-lanes. It has buildings up to lot-lines on the sides, too. I don't know how they'd be able to widen the ROW without getting even more people angry.

Also, while I-10 runs past the site, there is no exit from I-10 to Yale. The nearest exit drops you onto Studemont, and you'd have to drive around the block to get to the site. Granted, TXDOT is apparently planning a new exit that would directly serve Yale - and I hope that's all the construction along the stretch of I-10.

Again, I'm not anti WalMart per-se (in fact, I'd like them to put a WalMart near me - to replace the old Sharpstown Macy's and anchor the PlazAmericas Mall). But now you've got me looking further at the Heights WalMart site, and I think the opposition has some valid points.

Every land use regulation in the country would zone this parcel for retail development.

Which is precisely why I don't support zoning in Houston. Zoning ordinances don't necessarily take into account the intricacies of specific neighborhood concerns. They don't prevent land-use battles either. The New York City zoning ordinance is 3,000 pages long, and includes detailed zoning maps of almost every block in the City. But there's still a war going on over the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards.

Edited November 23, 2010 by WAZ

[JJxvi]

Where's the second 4 lane road? I'm only seeing one - Yale: and that's pretty narrow for a 4 lane road. No shoulders; no room for islands or center turn-lanes. It has buildings up to lot-lines on the sides, too. I don't know how they'd be able to widen the ROW without getting even more people angry.

Also, while I-10 runs past the site, there is no exit from I-10 to Yale. The nearest exit drops you onto Studemont, and you'd have to drive around the block to get to the site. Granted, TXDOT is apparently planning a new exit that would directly serve Yale - and I hope that's all the construction along the stretch of I-10.

Koehler along the development is being widened to 44 feet (I assume thats 4 lanes) all the way from Bonner to Heights Blvd. I believe Bonner and Bass streets on the back side (assuming Yale is considered the frontage) are also being improved and widened. I think Bass was expected to be connect as an outlet/inlet from I-10 as well. And like you mention, they are building access to I-10 west from/to Yale now.

[RedScare]

Where's the second 4 lane road? I'm only seeing one - Yale: and that's pretty narrow for a 4 lane road. No shoulders; no room for islands or center turn-lanes. It has buildings up to lot-lines on the sides, too. I don't know how they'd be able to widen the ROW without getting even more people angry.

Also, while I-10 runs past the site, there is no exit from I-10 to Yale. The nearest exit drops you onto Studemont, and you'd have to drive around the block to get to the site. Granted, TXDOT is apparently planning a new exit that would directly serve Yale - and I hope that's all the construction along the stretch of I-10.

Again, I'm not anti WalMart per-se (in fact, I'd like them to put a WalMart near me - to replace the old Sharpstown Macy's and anchor the PlazAmericas Mall). But now you've got me looking further at the Heights WalMart site, and I think the opposition has some valid points.

I would've thought that someone who nitpicked my post so much in post #1330 would have paid just as much attention to my other posts. Note that I said "development", a term that includes the entire Ainbinder project. If you had spent a few seconds looking at the site plan before typing, you'd have realized that the development will front both Yale AND Heights, both of which are 4 lane streets. But, I guess since you decided to side with sm3h, you have also decided to adopt his tactic of ignoring pertinent information, such as access to a second 4 lane thoroughfare.

And, why would TxDOT add full frontage roads if they did not also plan to install entrance and exit ramps to them? And what are these buildings up to the edge of Yale that you describe? Every building on that stretch of Yale has been demolished for the impending development. I'm sure that if a few feet of ROW is needed, Ainbinder will happily donate it for access to his property.

So, two 4 lane thoroughfares with access to a third thoroughfare (Washington), brand new feeder roads and a massive freeway, and you want to join the 'there's no room' crowd? Knock yourself out. We need new arguments to make fun of.