Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[Marksmu]

In your effort to dodge the point you didn't bother to imagine that anyone else has actually been to city center and knows you're absolutely wrong about the number of ways to get in and out of the place. Nice effort though.

 

He is right, City Centre has at least 6 ways in/out with streets on both sides of the main boulevard.  Just at the moment several of them are not open due to ongoing construction from the amazing success of the chain stores that draw people into the area to shop/eat.

[s3mh]

In your effort to dodge the point you didn't bother to imagine that anyone else has actually been to city center and knows you're absolutely wrong about the number of ways to get in and out of the place.Nice effort though.

Except that I am right. When you enter the development on Town and Country Blvd from the north, you cannot exit the development by turning left until you get to the far end of the development. Both left turns are dead ends. The first left (east) turn dead ends into a parking garage. The second dead ends into the apartment complex. There is no east/west street grid. You can get out by turning right (west), but that only gets you to a one way north bound feeder road. Anyone who wants to head south will have to go all the way through the development down to Kimberly if they do not want to have to do a u-turn at the I-10/Beltway 8 interchange. And when traffic is bad on the NB Beltway 8 feeder, it backs up into the development. The could have easily built the east side of the development to allow street connection, but didn't. A big screw up in what is otherwise a very excellent development.

[JJxvi]

Uh I don't think there is anywhere to get to by connecting up the East side is there? All that would do is shove you in a neighborhood which also restricts north south flow and is cut off from major streets on the east by the car dealership, the church, and middle school.  I fail to see how they could have set up a street grid to add much beyond simply adding a second north south corridor, is that what you are advocating?

[samagon]

It's really neither here, nor there, if you were to put the number of cars that access city centre onto Yale (which is the only 'major' road that the land that walmart is on borders), you'd need at least 3 lanes in each direction, or more.

 

And it's moot anyway, the comparison with city centre and walmart was brought up cause someone believed that city centre was the catalyst for an office building going up in the area.

 

However, now there's news released of an office building going up in the Walmart area (http://swamplot.com/a-25-story-office-tower-aimed-for-washington-and-waugh/2013-06-28/), and I submit that this office building's placement is influenced as much by the walmart as the placement of the new office building that will be going up near city centre, that is to say, little to none.

[s3mh]

Uh I don't think there is anywhere to get to by connecting up the East side is there? All that would do is shove you in a neighborhood which also restricts north south flow and is cut off from major streets on the east by the car dealership, the church, and middle school.  I fail to see how they could have set up a street grid to add much beyond simply adding a second north south corridor, is that what you are advocating?

Are you even looking at a map? If the east/west streets connected through to the east, you could get people out of the development and up to the I-10 feeder without having to deal with traffic at the I-10/Beltway 8 interchange. You would also give people wanting to go south an alternative instead of having to drive through the entire development. It is traffic engineering 101.

[s3mh]

It's really neither here, nor there, if you were to put the number of cars that access city centre onto Yale (which is the only 'major' road that the land that walmart is on borders), you'd need at least 3 lanes in each direction, or more.

 

And it's moot anyway, the comparison with city centre and walmart was brought up cause someone believed that city centre was the catalyst for an office building going up in the area.

 

However, now there's news released of an office building going up in the Walmart area (http://swamplot.com/a-25-story-office-tower-aimed-for-washington-and-waugh/2013-06-28/), and I submit that this office building's placement is influenced as much by the walmart as the placement of the new office building that will be going up near city centre, that is to say, little to none.

Three lanes in each direction? That is just silly. You have absolutely no basis to make that assertion and you know it. The volume of traffic at City Centre does not require a six lane road. It just needs a better planned street grid.

The new office building is nowhere even close to the Walmart development. The new office building I pointed out at City Centre is right next door. People using the office building will be able to walk to City Centre and people using City Centre will be able to access the ground floor retail and theater space at the new building. The two developments will be virtually seemless. If you cannot see the difference in the two, you are intentionally trying not to.

The placement of that new office building is idiotic. There is no access from the south. Anyone coming from downtown or Upper Kirby would have to either worm through the neighborhood to the west of the lot or go past the development and make a uturn at Waugh and Washington (no easy feat). That building could have been the centerpiece of a mixed use development on the Walmart tract. But we were all supposed to jump up and down with joy because we got a big parking lot instead of a vacant lot. Now, office buildings and apartment complexes are going to be crammed into all kinds of odd spots all over the neighborhood because 35+ acres of prime open land were wasted on a Walmart. Worst land use decision ever. Markets do not work.

[RedScare]

The new office building is nowhere even close to the Walmart development. 

 

If "nowhere even close" means the same as "walking distance", then I agree.

[s3mh]

If "nowhere even close" means the same as "walking distance", then I agree.

You won't see a single worker from that building trying to cross Washington at Waugh. And the issue is synergy between one development and the next. It is undeniable when a building shares a property line with City Centre that there is synergy. When a building goes up on an awkward corner on a one way street with no good access from the south and contributes nothing to the street scape of a strip mall a half mile down the street, it is undeniable that there is absolutely no synergy between the two. And it is also undeniable that it is an embarassing mess of urban development and exactly what I predicted (i.e. underbuilding readily available land leads to overbuilding in the odd remaining awkward parcels). If the Walmart land was still vacant, it could have been developed into the best mixed use development in the City. Demand is there for office, retail, and residential. But, all of that will have to get crammed into the odd nooks and crannies of the area because Walmart had to saturate the Houston market to try to steal market share from its competitors.

[SilverJK]

I bet the workers of that office will find that walmart to be rather conveinent.   Also you WILL see workers crossing washington at Waugh I gaurantee, not to go to Walmart, but to go to Star Pizza.

 

I can't even wrap my mind around the rest of your statement... as it is dizzying the mental gymnasitcs one will go through to imagine a legitimate reason why a business shouldn't have been developed.

 

 

Btw,  what you call an "embarassing mess of urban development" we call Houston.  Unplanned vibrant culture mix. 

 

 

[livincinco]

You won't see a single worker from that building trying to cross Washington at Waugh. And the issue is synergy between one development and the next. It is undeniable when a building shares a property line with City Centre that there is synergy. When a building goes up on an awkward corner on a one way street with no good access from the south and contributes nothing to the street scape of a strip mall a half mile down the street, it is undeniable that there is absolutely no synergy between the two. And it is also undeniable that it is an embarassing mess of urban development and exactly what I predicted (i.e. underbuilding readily available land leads to overbuilding in the odd remaining awkward parcels). If the Walmart land was still vacant, it could have been developed into the best mixed use development in the City. Demand is there for office, retail, and residential. But, all of that will have to get crammed into the odd nooks and crannies of the area because Walmart had to saturate the Houston market to try to steal market share from its competitors.

Your comment reminds me of the classic Winston Churchill quote. "Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others."

[Leonard]

Crony capitalism. 

[JJxvi]

WTF? Taco Cabana is 1300 feet along Yale from this proposed office building. Taco Cabana is the same 1300 feet from I-10.  On one hand I hear that sidewalks are vital along this 1300ft stretch of frontage coming to Taco C from the north.  Then later on, I hear that from the south 1300 feet is much too far and there is too much of a barrier for people to walk this distance, presumably because you have to cross one street.  One street being the same number of streets that someone must cross coming from I-10 from the other direction. And of course if you happen to make it to I-10 and Yale, you will probably have just crossed a pair of 6 lane access roads and walked under a major freeway bridge just to get to the starting point.

[Leonard]

walking under major freeway bridges is HAAAARRRRRDDDDD!!!!!

[s3mh]

WTF? Taco Cabana is 1300 feet along Yale from this proposed office building. Taco Cabana is the same 1300 feet from I-10.  On one hand I hear that sidewalks are vital along this 1300ft stretch of frontage coming to Taco C from the north.  Then later on, I hear that from the south 1300 feet is much too far and there is too much of a barrier for people to walk this distance, presumably because you have to cross one street.  One street being the same number of streets that someone must cross coming from I-10 from the other direction. And of course if you happen to make it to I-10 and Yale, you will probably have just crossed a pair of 6 lane access roads and walked under a major freeway bridge just to get to the starting point.

Only on HAIF would the two separate and distinct issues be slapped together to make a point. The developers were obligated to put in sidewalks and did not. That is wrong regardless of whether there are a lot of people using the sidewalks or just a few. Plus, there was a big PR push on the public from the developer, walmart and the City about how the 380 money would help make the development pedestrian friendly with wider sidewalks. To do that and not even put in a segment of sidewalk is inexcuseable.

On the other hand, whether one development has created synergy with the surrounding properties or not is a completely different issue. If you think the developers of this tower will put "walking distance to Taco Cabana and Walmart" in their leasing flyers, you are nuts. Most everyone working in that building will jump in their car for lunch, adding more traffic. But the City Centre development doesn't even need to mention the proximity because it is right next door. Workers in that development won't get in their car to go to City Centre for lunch because it would be more of a hassle to drive over there than walk.

[RedScare]

This is the same guy that busted a vein over not putting ground floor retail in a proposed apartment complex on Yale, claiming it could make the street a walkable area. Now, he guarantees that no one will walk 3 blocks up Yale to a Walmart or any other store.

 

Dude is priceless. He opens his mouth, and legions of words march out looking for an idea, and upon finding one, promptly trample it to death.

[Angostura]

Apparently Walmart WILL do mixed use, it just costs $70M in taxpayer money: http://feedly.com/k/12CVxFf

I appreciate the desire by some people to want a say in how development in the city happens. However, one should always work under the assumption that those doing the regulating are as likely to be in the pocket of developers as they are to listen to the opinions of the residents of affected areas. All too often those that want zoning assume that land use regulation will be carried out by enlightened planners to create an urban utopia, but more often than not, it's carried out by political hacks to benefit their cronies.

[RedScare]

Our $6 million 380 agreement looks like an absolute bargain! It appears that mixed use and pedestrian friendliness is a bit more expensive than the elitists would have us believe.

[s3mh]

Our $6 million 380 agreement looks like an absolute bargain! It appears that mixed use and pedestrian friendliness is a bit more expensive than the elitists would have us believe.

Actually, the two projects provide a very interesting look at how Houston abuses tax incentives to developers. That section of DC is mostly a low-lower middle income/working class area. But it is not a bad area. Under normal conditions, no one would do a major project like this in this area. The main challenge of the project was that there were so many different property owners that it was very expensive to get them to sell what many residents considered a derilict property. It cost about 30 mil to acquire the property and deal with all the eminent domain issues. 40 mil has been proposed in TIF funding to ensure that investment comes in and businesses open up and stay. If all goes as planned, they will get a great town center-style development, a big boost in employment and development in an area that would not see any of this without government intervention (http://www.skylandtowncenter.com/vision.html).

By contrast, the Walmart property is in the middle of one of the fastest appreciating, in demand real estate markets in Houston, if not Texas, if not the entire US. The property was going to get redeveloped whether the City offered 6 mil or 6 cents. While DC is going to get 342k SF of retail and 476 residential units over 18 acres, Houston gets a 152 SF Walmart and @21k SF of strip mall and bank/restaurant pads over @20 acres. Houston puts 6 mil into a development that does not need a penny and gets half the retail SF and no residential units over about the same acreage. It is one thing that the Galleria area, Upper Kirby, Midtown and the Memorial/West Houston area gets the great mixed use developments instead of the Heights. It is totally pathetic that a lower-middle class neighborhood in DC gets a better project than the Heights does.

The Walmart project had none of the barriers that existed in DC (high cost to assemble land, no interest in the area absent major tax incentives, very weak demographics for trade area in terms of house hold income). Yet, the City put out 6 mil and got the lowest possible use for the land. I would much rather see the City actually get something for its money instead of just making a wealth transfer payment. But, oh yeah, I forgot the motto: "It's Houston. You should have seen how bad it used to be."

[RedScare]

Yeah, like I said, it was a steal at $6 million!

[august948]

Actually, the two projects provide a very interesting look at how Houston abuses tax incentives to developers. That section of DC is mostly a low-lower middle income/working class area. But it is not a bad area. Under normal conditions, no one would do a major project like this in this area. The main challenge of the project was that there were so many different property owners that it was very expensive to get them to sell what many residents considered a derilict property. It cost about 30 mil to acquire the property and deal with all the eminent domain issues. 40 mil has been proposed in TIF funding to ensure that investment comes in and businesses open up and stay. If all goes as planned, they will get a great town center-style development, a big boost in employment and development in an area that would not see any of this without government intervention (http://www.skylandtowncenter.com/vision.html).

By contrast, the Walmart property is in the middle of one of the fastest appreciating, in demand real estate markets in Houston, if not Texas, if not the entire US. The property was going to get redeveloped whether the City offered 6 mil or 6 cents. While DC is going to get 342k SF of retail and 476 residential units over 18 acres, Houston gets a 152 SF Walmart and @21k SF of strip mall and bank/restaurant pads over @20 acres. Houston puts 6 mil into a development that does not need a penny and gets half the retail SF and no residential units over about the same acreage. It is one thing that the Galleria area, Upper Kirby, Midtown and the Memorial/West Houston area gets the great mixed use developments instead of the Heights. It is totally pathetic that a lower-middle class neighborhood in DC gets a better project than the Heights does.

The Walmart project had none of the barriers that existed in DC (high cost to assemble land, no interest in the area absent major tax incentives, very weak demographics for trade area in terms of house hold income). Yet, the City put out 6 mil and got the lowest possible use for the land. I would much rather see the City actually get something for its money instead of just making a wealth transfer payment. But, oh yeah, I forgot the motto: "It's Houston. You should have seen how bad it used to be."

So in DC the government spends $70M and gets a Walmart and in Houston we spend $6M and get a Walmart? And the DC project is better why? Because it's "mixed use"?

[SilverJK]

 It is one thing that the Galleria area, Upper Kirby, Midtown and the Memorial/West Houston area gets the great mixed use developments instead of the Heights. It is totally pathetic that a lower-middle class neighborhood in DC gets a better project than the Heights does.

 

I would think government funding improvements in "lower-middle class" neighborhoods would fit in to your "best use" your always preaching.  Besides the one current mixed use development being built in the Heights you and your cronies complain about nonstop.

 

Oh yeah, THE WALMART IS NOT IN THE HEIGHTS!  You would moan and complain like crazy if any thing close to the DC project happened in the Heights Proper, but you want it to happen in the fringe neighborhoods nearby  becasue they are lower-middle class neighborhoods?  Disgusting.

[s3mh]

So in DC the government spends $70M and gets a Walmart and in Houston we spend $6M and get a Walmart? And the DC project is better why? Because it's "mixed use"?

 

You didn't read the article or my comments.  Typical HAIF oversimplification to avoid any intelligent discussion of a complicated issue.  DC spent 70 mil to get rid of a derelict shopping center, buy out over a dozen different property owners, bring in new investment that would never touch that area without government intervention and get a landmark development that will spark development in an area that would otherwise get passed over and that was in desperate need for grocery and big box discount stores.  If it goes well, a neighborhood that is potentially in transition, will get a huge economic boost instead of stagnating and probably decaying.  And DC got more than just a Walmart.  They got twice as much retail SF and 475 residential units all in an acre and a half smaller space than the property the Walmart in the Heights sits on.

 

By contrast, Houston spends 6 mil to get a half the retail SF, no residential units on a property that was cleared, assembled and ready to be developed in an area that was bursting at the seems with new development and in an area that already had two Walmarts, four Krogers, a Whole Foods and a Target within the trade area.  The property was the subject of a bidding war between Walmart and HEB and was going to be developed with or without tax dollars being given to the developers. 

 

DC gets a great development in an area that would normally see no new development and gets to replace a derelict property that was a drain on the area.  Houston makes a gift of 6 million and gets about half the retail SF, no multifamily on a piece of property that everyone was fighting over to develop.  If you cannot see the difference, you are not looking. 

[s3mh]

I would think government funding improvements in "lower-middle class" neighborhoods would fit in to your "best use" your always preaching.  Besides the one current mixed use development being built in the Heights you and your cronies complain about nonstop.

 

Oh yeah, THE WALMART IS NOT IN THE HEIGHTS!  You would moan and complain like crazy if any thing close to the DC project happened in the Heights Proper, but you want it to happen in the fringe neighborhoods nearby  becasue they are lower-middle class neighborhoods?  Disgusting.

 

And the other idiotic HAIF method of argument is the "you like X, therefore you have to always support X".  Just because a development is mixed use doesn't mean that it is appropriate.  1111 Studewood is out of scale.  It is build right up to the property line of a single family home.  Anyone living next to a half acre or more of old warehouses or garden style apartments in the Heights may end up with 5-6 stories next door.  That is out of scale and a bad thing even if it is mixed use. 

 

And oh yeah, it doesn't matter whether the Walmart is actually in the official subdivision map for the Heights.  It is for all practical purposes in the same neighborhood.  The ads for Walmart on the radio talk with "Heights Moms".  So, obviously they are intending to serve the Heights.  But in your weak rhetoric silly things like this have to have some weight because it is so plainly obvious that the Walmart development is an inferior development for the area and the 380 agreement is a wealth transfer agreement. 

 

As for the "disgusting" comment, it would help if you actually made a coherent argument before calling someone disgusting.  First, I think a large mixed use development could be done in the Heights proper where all the warehouses are south of the hike and bike path and north of the I-10 feeder.  That would be an excellent development for the Heights.  Second, I am all for supporting redevelopment projects in neighborhoods that actually need the support.  The DC project is a great idea.  Not terribly efficient in execution.  But, by East Coast standards, 70 mil is not unheard of for a redevelopment incentive package. 

 

What is really disgusting is supporting developer candy in wealthy neighborhoods where there are no economic barriers to redevelopment.  The 6 mil for the Walmart development should be going to redevelopment projects north or east of downtown where the money would really make a difference instead of just fattened already fat profits for a wealthy developer. 

[JJxvi]

So we spent 6 mil for half the retail that Washington spent 70 mil for. I am outraged.

[RedScare]

I am confident that, for another $64 million, we could have gotten everything that DC got. Would that have made s3mh happy? What about Leonard?

 

You never made much sense in your arguments. Now, you've gone full retard. Never go full retard.

[Angostura]

I am confident that, for another $64 million, we could have gotten everything that DC got. Would that have made s3mh happy? What about Leonard?

 

 

In fairness, without the eminent domain issues, it'd only cost $40M on this site. There'd still be a Walmart, so I imagine there would still be more than a few unsatisfied folks.

 

Turns out, if DC puts in place their $12 min wage for large retailers, Walmart will likely pull out of this deal.

[Leonard]

Red, thanks for your concern for my happiness.  I'm touched, but I would not be happier with a bigger 380. 

 

The City does seem to have some eminent domain issues with the Washington Heights development.  The missing sidewalk where SJS used to be.  What is up with that? 

 

As far as this DC one goes, Walmart is very skilled at getting governments to pay for their stuff. 

[RedScare]

Well, Leonard, you just need to read s3mh's posts a little closer. After you do, he assures us we will wish the City had upped the ante $64 million or so, in order to get more retail and apartments.

[JJxvi]

So long as it was closer over there with "those people" and not in the Heights, wanyway. He'd prefer they axe the WalMart portion on this pristine tract which was destined for high density glory.

[s3mh]

I am confident that, for another $64 million, we could have gotten everything that DC got. Would that have made s3mh happy? What about Leonard?

 

You never made much sense in your arguments. Now, you've gone full retard. Never go full retard.

 

Heaven forbid you should have to read what I said and contribute intelligently.  Of course, when you know that I am right and have nothing to offer in response, you resort to your childish name calling. 

 

First, comparing the cost of the government assistance in the DC project to the Houston development is idiotic.  DC had to pay a premium on buyouts to get rid of property owners who were ruining the neighborhood with their run down development.  The steel plant and armature works were closing up shop and happy to sell to the highest bidder.  Walmart and the developer would not touch that area without a sizeable redevelopment incentive.  The DC development is a "build it and they will come" development.  Community leaders, Walmart and the developer are speculating that the development will improve the area and bring in consumers for the development.  The existing market demographics will not support that development.  The Heights development is a "they are already here, what are you waiting for" development.  There is more than a sufficient market to support lots of retail, office, and multifamily expansion inside the loop.  Planners in DC are making sure that they get the highest possible use of the land in exchange for government assistance.  In Houston, the City is making a tax gift to a development that is putting in the lowest possible use of the land.  At the end of the day, DC gets a huge return on its investment.  It turns a run down retail development that is a major detriment into a landmark development that will help bring in additional investment and jobs that would not be seen without government intervention.  Houston kisses 6 mil good bye and get exactly what it would get had it not spent 6 mil.