Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[Pleak]

When did a liquor store become a bad thing?

I'm thinking if the Heights had more of them, there would be less worrying about Hardiplank and Wal-mart.

But then HAIF would only have 47 posts.

[RedScare]

Actually, there are two within walking distance of my house. This likely explains why I have no concerns about either Hardie or Walmart. However, it appears that only beer and liquor have this effect. Wine appears to cause tight sphincters, thus lowering tolerance for Walmarts and James Hardie products. As more wine bars open in and near the Heights, sphincter tightening has risen to epidemic levels, causing much fear and loathing of James Hardie and Sam Walton.

[Pleak]

^{Which has correspondingly driven tirade-posting on HAIF. Which can be entertaining after one frequents a liquor store.}

[Ross]

So the new meme should be that Wal-Mart closed down an American Steel Mill and built a store that imports steel bicycles made by Chinese kids beaten twice daily.

Which would be wrong, since the steel plant was closed for years before WalMart came along

[TGM]

Which would be wrong, since the steel plant was closed for years before WalMart came along

Yes, but the untold story is that Sam Walton in a Galt-like move visited the steel mill and convinced the owner to quit and join him up in the Ozarks.

[TGM]

Must be wine-related.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/19134939/police-respond-to-two-separate-walmart-bomb-threats

[Ross]

Yes, but the untold story is that Sam Walton in a Galt-like move visited the steel mill and convinced the owner to quit and join him up in the Ozarks.

That makes sense. I just had not considered the possibility. I am no match for those stratgic thinkers in Bentonville.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Ross

[J008]

When did a liquor store become a bad thing?

Its not a bad thing and for the folks who live under the yale street bridge, they have more potent options than what is sold at the gas station.

I am only contrasting the idea that was initially proposed ( tree lined biking and walking trails with unique shopping and dining) to what actually gets built ( a standard crappy stip mall copied and pasted from some anonymous place).

[J008]

Feels almost like it's some strip center in a craptastic Towne Centre way the eff out in Woodlands, Katy, Sealy, SugarLand, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

Don't worry. In a few years the 24-hour check cashing place, used mattress store, criKet, work source, 24-hour game room, and touristas americanos will set up shop within or directly across the street from this place.

The check cashing store is called "Loan Depot", their sign is up already.

[RedScare]

Its not a bad thing and for the folks who live under the yale street bridge, they have more potent options than what is sold at the gas station.

I am only contrasting the idea that was initially proposed ( tree lined biking and walking trails with unique shopping and dining) to what actually gets built ( a standard crappy stip mall copied and pasted from some anonymous place).

I realize that Ainbinder said that he hoped to get those types of tenants, but after a very vocal group promised to boycott any store or restaurant that located there, is it any surprise that the tenants that signed leases are those that can afford to weather a threatened boycott and those who cater to a clientele different from those who threatened to boycott? Are you suggesting that the boycott threats were not sincere, or are you suggesting that no one should pay any attention to those who threaten boycotts? Didn't RUDH and its supporters get exactly what they bargained for, a bunch of stores that they will never shop at?

I suggested way back when this all started that a better approach would be to negotiate improvements, since there was no legal way to keep Ainbinder or Walmart out. The enlightened set ignored me. They are now getting what they deserved. They really have no on else to blame. Even zoning would not have kept that development out. So, enjoy the fruits of your labor.

[TonyM]

I realize that Ainbinder said that he hoped to get those types of tenants, but after a very vocal group promised to boycott any store or restaurant that located there, is it any surprise that the tenants that signed leases are those that can afford to weather a threatened boycott and those who cater to a clientele different from those who threatened to boycott? Are you suggesting that the boycott threats were not sincere, or are you suggesting that no one should pay any attention to those who threaten boycotts? Didn't RUDH and its supporters get exactly what they bargained for, a bunch of stores that they will never shop at?

I suggested way back when this all started that a better approach would be to negotiate improvements, since there was no legal way to keep Ainbinder or Walmart out. The enlightened set ignored me. They are now getting what they deserved. They really have no on else to blame. Even zoning would not have kept that development out. So, enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Agreed.

And I think it is interesting that the set of folks who abhor this development likely don't live within a proximity where they will be directly impacted for better or worse. In speaking with my brother over the weekend, who could throw a rock from his apartment and hit the Walmart, he's pretty excited about it. He doesn't own a vehicle and the prospect of more dining options and a grocery he can walk to is great.

I'm no Walmart fan but it's redevelopment of some unused old land, big deal. Not like we needed more townhouses crammed in there anyway.

Edited August 6, 2012 by TonyM

[s3mh]

I realize that Ainbinder said that he hoped to get those types of tenants, but after a very vocal group promised to boycott any store or restaurant that located there, is it any surprise that the tenants that signed leases are those that can afford to weather a threatened boycott and those who cater to a clientele different from those who threatened to boycott? Are you suggesting that the boycott threats were not sincere, or are you suggesting that no one should pay any attention to those who threaten boycotts? Didn't RUDH and its supporters get exactly what they bargained for, a bunch of stores that they will never shop at?

I suggested way back when this all started that a better approach would be to negotiate improvements, since there was no legal way to keep Ainbinder or Walmart out. The enlightened set ignored me. They are now getting what they deserved. They really have no on else to blame. Even zoning would not have kept that development out. So, enjoy the fruits of your labor.

The developer is 100% responsible for how this thing turned out. All those involved with the development have been in Houston for decades and have no excuse for not knowing that the neighborhood would not welcome a Walmart. Further, the development is probably getting the same tenants it would have gotten with or without any pushback on the Walmart. No "chef-driven" restaurant in the world would share a development with a Walmart. It is telling that Ruggles Green and Sonoma are willing to go through all of the trouble with building out space in the Heights that does not have much parking and running into all kinds of permitting delays when all those issues could be avoided by taking a spot in the Walmart development. It is not just the threat of a boycott that is keeping tenants out. It is the fact that the development is anchored by a big ugly Walmart with all of the traffic, crime and litter that come with a Walmart that is keeping anything decent out of that development.

There has never been any kind of organized boycott aside from an occasional comment on a facebook page or message board. Many of the tenants announced recently in the press release have been up on Orr and Ainbinder's website for months. Opponents could have started campaigns to get those tenants to reconsider, but have instead been working to make sure the Yale St. bridge is eventually made safe for Walmart's 18 wheeler traffic.

No one bothered to negotiate for improvements because the developer and Walmart were going to do whatever they wanted to do. The City supposedly had 6 mil in leverage to get "improvements" to the development. What did they get? Brick facade? Whooppppeee. Some trees that are a smidge wider than required? Wowsers. If the City can't get squat with 6 mil what in the world are a bunch of residents supposed to be able to get?

[fwki]

...If the City can't get squat with 6 mil what in the world are a bunch of residents supposed to be able to get?

Heights-Norhill Little League sponsors, that's what. You don't hate kids too, right?

Edit: And jobs! Got two teenagers who need gas money.

Edited August 6, 2012 by fwki

[JJxvi]

There is almost nothing negative at all about this development, whichas far as I can tell is why the primary opponents have had to turn magnifying glasses and complaints onto a bridge which has always been there.

[fwki]

There is almost nothing negative at all about this development, whichas far as I can tell is why the primary opponents have had to turn magnifying glasses and complaints onto a bridge which has always been there.

I have to agree, 74 pages of posts that amount to nothing, although I do appreciate the progress reports and photos since I have used alternate routes during construction. We used to call that neighborhood west of the steel mill Crackton. That mill made many of the bridge super structures around Houston until it got hemmed-in and couldn't easily transport the wide and tall loads to job sites. And Crackton made many of the crimes in the Heights. But here I go again waxing on about the good ole days.....

[RedScare]

It's important to realize that s3mh only moved here a couple of years ago, so he is completely unaware of the thrill that was cruising Crackton. He didn't know what the steel mill looked like, as it was gone when he arrived. I guess he can be forgiven his ignorance, as he is a newbie.

What is strange is that such a newb can claim to be an expert on the hoods we've lived in for years before he got here.

[JJxvi]

The only real "negative" is that there is a ridiculous perceived opportunity cost that something "really, really super awesome that everyone in the Heights would love and would make this the premiere place in the entire city to go to!" would have been built there instead

[TGM]

The only real "negative" is that there is a ridiculous perceived opportunity cost that something "really, really super awesome that everyone in the Heights would love and would make this the premiere place in the entire city to go to!" would have been built there instead

So you're saying we missed out on a year round Renaissance village selling turkey legs, patchouli oil, and featuring a Trebuchet that could target Oxford? Darn.

Edited August 6, 2012 by TGM

[RedScare]

The only real "negative" is that there is a ridiculous perceived opportunity cost that something "really, really super awesome that everyone in the Heights would love and would make this the premiere place in the entire city to go to!" would have been built there instead

I absolutely do not get that belief. It is a terrible location for anything other than retail. It abuts a rail line, it was a hideous brownfield, and is surrounded by apartment parking garages and rundown buildings. No one complaining about this lost opportunity would have bought in that development. These complainers are simply trying to impress their friends with their Walmart hating. The arguments do not even make sense. Traffic? It is a 4 lane road next to a freeway. Trees? They actually complained about trees being planted in Walmart's parking lot. Strip centers? Even Kirby and Uptown has them. And it is not a walkable area, given the rail line, overpass, two four lane roads adjacent to each other, 10 lane freeway, and a 5 lane road to the south. It is really only useful for what was built there. But, being sensible in one's thought process does not earn one enviro-hipster street cred. Hating on Walmart and screaming "MIXED USE" is what it's all about.

[JJxvi]

I don't see why a heights resident would complain at all, either. Its convenient retail space where something you may need or want to go to might open just a simple trip down Yale and across a major freeway so it's buffered from the neighborhood. It's like almost a wet dream location if you understand that shopping centers you go to have to exist somewhere.

[JJxvi]

Now, maybe someone who lives in Crackton might have a complaint.

Edited August 6, 2012 by JJxvi

[TGM]

Hating on Walmart and screaming "MIXED USE" is what it's all about.

Wal-Mart has mixed use, just under one roof. Pringles, eyeglasses, clothing, Combo's, rod&reels, paint supplies, koolaid, mulch. The problem is they feature all of these items in a building that does not have the Target logo outside. Wal-Mart needs to move their HQ's to Portland or Williamsburg, NY if they ever want to be left alone.

[barracuda]

The problem is they feature all of these items in a building that does not have the Target logo outside. Wal-Mart needs to move their HQ's to Portland or Williamsburg, NY if they ever want to be left alone.

I'm sure that is exactly the problem and that there are absolutely no sensible reasons why a person would not shop at Walmart.

[TGM]

I'm sure that is exactly the problem and that there are absolutely no sensible reasons why a person would not shop at Walmart.

I'm sure. No one from the Heights would be caught dead at the new Wal-Mart, they'll just send the nanny.

* Tip * Always grab a few extra bulk bags at Whole Foods. They're great for pouring in Wal-Mart brand granola.

Edited August 7, 2012 by TGM

[samagon]

I'm sure that is exactly the problem and that there are absolutely no sensible reasons why a person would not shop at Walmart.

Such as?

Name one compelling difference between Target and Walmart.

The only thing I can think of is that when I was a kid I used to love the smell of their popcorn when my mom would drag me to Target.

[TGM]

Such as?

Name one compelling difference between Target and Walmart.

The only thing I can think of is that when I was a kid I used to love the smell of their popcorn when my mom would drag me to Target.

Ditto on the popcorn.

The only real difference (besides higher prices) is that Target aims for the metropolitan demographic with their IKEA-lite decor, product lines, and advertising. Wal-Mart is just way too NASCAR for the Sauternes sippers.

[TonyM]

Ditto on the popcorn.

The only real difference (besides higher prices) is that Target aims for the metropolitan demographic with their IKEA-lite decor, product lines, and advertising. Wal-Mart is just way too NASCAR for the Sauternes sippers.

Pretty much.

Not a Walmart fan at all, it's been years since I've been in one simply because I never had one convenient to me and the one I did go to was a dump. But this development is a good thing and I hope it does well.

I do love Target though. Something about that "Target smell" when you walk in the door - Cintas rubber mats and popcorn. You know you've arrived . . .

[HoustonMidtown]

There is almost nothing negative at all about this development, whichas far as I can tell is why the primary opponents have had to turn magnifying glasses and complaints onto a bridge which has always been there.

Funding secured to replace Yale St bridge

http://www.theleadernews.com/?p=716

[JJxvi]

ARE THEY GOING TO KEEP THE HISTORIC CEMENT COLUMN GUARDRAILS!!!????

[TGM]

ARE THEY GOING TO KEEP THE HISTORIC CEMENT COLUMN GUARDRAILS!!!????

I think HardiPlank makes a modern alternative.