Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[RedScare]

Looks like the pedestrian friendly density that RUDH demanded is coming to the Walmart neighborhood...

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2012/04/inner-loop-apartments-to-go-up-near-proposed-wal-mart/

...and the RUDH people are COMPLAINING about it!

Just a little more proof...as if we needed any...that they are dishonest in their gripes.

[SilverJK]

HAHAHA, did you read all the people saying the apartments are going to kill the home values in the Heights... gimme a break. This is a rather good location for an apartment complex as there currently isn't much in the immediate surrounding areas. Urbanization!

[samagon]

I love how everyone that responded reads apartments and naturally assumes low income housing.

Edited April 27, 2012 by samagon

[LTAWACS]

as longs as it's not in my back yard... it's irrelevant.

[JJxvi]

Ha. yeah, apartment complexes are going to destroy the area. I live in the Heights. Like right in the middle of the Houston Heights subdivision, in a single family house on a residential lot. There are at least 5 apartment complexes within 2 blocks of my house that are right in the middle of residential blocks similar to mine. They have been there for years and years...

[s3mh]

Ha. yeah, apartment complexes are going to destroy the area. I live in the Heights. Like right in the middle of the Houston Heights subdivision, in a single family house on a residential lot. There are at least 5 apartment complexes within 2 blocks of my house that are right in the middle of residential blocks similar to mine. They have been there for years and years...

I also live within three blocks of an apartment complex in the Houston Heights subdivision. I saw someone from the complex buy drugs from a pusher who drove up in broad daylight while I was walking my child down the street. The complex is filthy and is constantly checkered with red tags from the City.

The apartments proposed on Yale do not bother me except that everyone who has come in after Walmart has been getting a free ride on their traffic impact. If the Orr, Ainbinder and apartment traffic impacts were all considered in a single study, no traffic engineer would have ever been able to sign off on the study without requiring some pretty radical mitigation measures.

[west20th]

I also live within three blocks of an apartment complex in the Houston Heights subdivision. I saw someone from the complex buy drugs from a pusher who drove up in broad daylight while I was walking my child down the street. The complex is filthy and is constantly checkered with red tags from the City.

The apartments proposed on Yale do not bother me except that everyone who has come in after Walmart has been getting a free ride on their traffic impact. If the Orr, Ainbinder and apartment traffic impacts were all considered in a single study, no traffic engineer would have ever been able to sign off on the study without requiring some pretty radical mitigation measures.

Maybe you would be better off focusing your efforts on this complex instead of every new project that comes up.

Edited April 27, 2012 by west20th

[RedScare]

I saw someone from the complex buy drugs from a pusher...

Man, I dig that 70s lingo!

[JJxvi]

Pretty sure this particular development actually involved, gasp, tearing down an old ratty apartment project.

[JCR]

I saw someone from the complex buy drugs from a pusher who drove up in broad daylight while I was walking my child down the street.

Man, I dig that 70s lingo!

[SilverJK]

wait... walking your child down the street... strollers.... pushing strollers, pusher.... I see whats going on here... j/k

I live about a half block down from some of the most terrible apartments in all of the heights. They are the root of a lot of crime in my area; I've seen the police arrest several people there, and one time a lady with a knife chasing her babies daddy who was holding their baby (although I'm sure there are also plenty of good people living there as well). I really feel that it would be much more serving and directly beneficial for all the anti walmart or pro historic district folks to put their efforts into getting rid of these rundown apartments instead of their current plights.

[samagon]

it's obvious that the RUDH needs to step up their game.

http://houston.culturemap.com/newsdetail/04-25-12-09-30-stop-ashby-high-rise-group-lays-out-plans-to-stop-construction-tells-developers-weve-only-begun-to-fight/

the stop ashby folks are just a tad more aggressive, they may have lost, but they haven't given up yet.

some tactics that might be able to be modified for the heights walmart...

We will post unfavorable reviews of your restaurant tenant on dining websites.

We will appear at the homes of the owners, investors, and chef of your restaurant tenant and demonstrate our opposition to their presence in our neighborhood.

We will boycott your restaurant and encourage our friends and neighbors to do the same. We will appear at your tenant’s restaurant and demonstrate our opposition to their presence in our neighborhood.

When your tenants walk in or through our neighborhood, we will let them know that they are not welcome.

We will identify your tenants and send regular communications to them at their units and their places of business to let them know that they are not welcome in our neighborhood.

If they would tweak some of this stuff to better fit walmart, it could be worth trying!

or at least funny to watch.

[happytown]

I have nothing to add, except to say that this is one of my all-time favorite HAIF threads. I hope it keeps on going.

[VicMan]

I bet that the Ashby folks would just counter-demonstrate and cause traffic in the surrounding area to really snarl to a halt. They can counter-demonstrate to Chris Amandes's home and the other co-chair. They can counter everything those guys can dream up with. They can spam "You are not welcome in our neighborhood. We are now a part of the neighborhood and we tell you that you are not welcome, and you can't say we aren't a part of the neighborhood; we are the neighborhood now" letters to the anti-Ashby folks. And on top of that the Ashby folks could try to buy out or take over neighborhood institutions important to folks in the surrounding area.

Perhaps it's something to tell to the anti-Wal-Mart crowd: sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something, because that something will make things worse.

it's obvious that the RUDH needs to step up their game.

http://houston.cultu...begun-to-fight/

the stop ashby folks are just a tad more aggressive, they may have lost, but they haven't given up yet.

some tactics that might be able to be modified for the heights walmart...

If they would tweak some of this stuff to better fit walmart, it could be worth trying!

or at least funny to watch.

Edited May 1, 2012 by VicMan

[bababooey]

So does anyone have any idea when this project will be completed and who the tenants will be?

[s3mh]

So does anyone have any idea when this project will be completed and who the tenants will be?

I have heard something about a Walmart going in. Not sure it is anything other than gossup.

http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/leasing_plan.html

Otherwise, the usual suspects. Cell phones, subs, eye glasses, GNC, Starbucks, bank . . . you know the drill.

Orr's development will round out the strip mall regulars with cleaners, pay day lender, Lovett dental and so on.

http://www.orrcommercial.com/properties/pdf/Heights-Marketplace.pdf

[TheNiche]

At great peril to myself, I drove across the Yale bridge and past this development yesterday. It's a vast improvement to the area.

I sincerely look forward to saving money and living better. And I especially like that there is a liquor store going in right across the street. It'll make my grocery and household shopping trips far more efficient.

[RedScare]

Batteries+ is going in. I will gladly trad my semi-annual trip out 290 to buy batteries for my driveway gate opener for a treacherous drive across the Yale bridge of death.

[samagon]

Well here's an interesting article!

http://www.nctimes.c...255cb1ed19.html

A paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that houses within a half-mile of a Walmart increase 2-3 percent, or an average of $7,000, after a Walmart opens. A house a half-mile to a mile away increases in price by 1-2 percent, or an average of $4,000.

It does go on to say later in the article that they only studied walmart, and that other places like Target might do better for property values, but they didn't study that...

Edited May 30, 2012 by samagon

[s3mh]

Well here's an interesting article!

http://www.nctimes.c...255cb1ed19.html

It does go on to say later in the article that they only studied walmart, and that other places like Target might do better for property values, but they didn't study that...

From the study:

"Furthermore, our findings provide evidence that Walmarts

increase housing values on average, but it is possible that in certain cases a new store

may actually decrease housing values due to externalities."

The study only looked at housing data from 2000-2006. This is the heart of the housing bubble. The study does not do a good job of validating that the observed price appreciation was above and beyond the appreciation that was already taking place in the market. It could very well have been the fact that homes would have appreciated more without the new Walmart.

[RedScare]

From the study:

"Furthermore, our findings provide evidence that Walmarts

increase housing values on average, but it is possible that in certain cases a new store

may actually decrease housing values due to externalities."

The study only looked at housing data from 2000-2006. This is the heart of the housing bubble. The study does not do a good job of validating that the observed price appreciation was above and beyond the appreciation that was already taking place in the market. It could very well have been the fact that homes would have appreciated more without the new Walmart.

Except that the increase in average price was in relation to those homes further than one mile away. The housing bubble would have had no effect on increases in value wtihin one mile versus those further away.

The fact is that 86% of Americans shop at Walmart. Many of those who do not do so live too far away from a Walmart. So, the percentage of people who could shop at Walmart, but do not, is tiny. Most people appreciate having a Walmart nearby. This would necessarily make those homes within a mile of a Walmart more valuable to the overwhelming majority of people who shop there.

In other words, the number of people who think like you do is so small as to be statistically insignificant as it relates to Walmart and home values.

[JJxvi]

There are very few homes in the Heights within a mile of this particular Wal*Mart. Perhaps opposition comes from the fact that this WalMart just isnt close enough.

[barracuda]

I wonder how much is due to them hunting for ideal locations. Being a large retailer, they are going to study and seek out areas where population, consumer demand, and purchasing power are expected to increase. And based on population trends and predictions, it's almost a given that average home prices in the areas surrounding this Walmart are going to increase, with or without this development. But the good news is this disproves the myth that a Walmart causes nearby home prices to tank dramatically.

[SilverJK]

slightly off topic, but everytime I read "Yale Bridge of Death" I chuckle. Someone needs to take a photo of the bridge and photoshop it to have demon eyes and monster teeth, eating a school bus.

[TheNiche]

In fairness, I'd wholly expect that a new Wal-Mart would be an invaluable amenity in a part of the city that is poorly-served by other grocers or discounters due to low household incomes. For instance, I'm positive that the Northline Wal-Mart had a positive impact on that area. Since that's their sweet spot, it just sort of makes sense that home prices should rise.

I don't think that that would necessarily be true of the Heights, although...it's WAAAAAAY better than what was there before it. Nobody could argue against that with a straight face.

[Jesse]

Batteries+ is going in. I will gladly trad my semi-annual trip out 290 to buy batteries for my driveway gate opener for a treacherous drive across the Yale bridge of death.

[media=]

RedScare - our disagreements aside, that's a brilliantly relevant and funny clip you linked to

[s3mh]

Except that the increase in average price was in relation to those homes further than one mile away. The housing bubble would have had no effect on increases in value wtihin one mile versus those further away.

The fact is that 86% of Americans shop at Walmart. Many of those who do not do so live too far away from a Walmart. So, the percentage of people who could shop at Walmart, but do not, is tiny. Most people appreciate having a Walmart nearby. This would necessarily make those homes within a mile of a Walmart more valuable to the overwhelming majority of people who shop there.

In other words, the number of people who think like you do is so small as to be statistically insignificant as it relates to Walmart and home values.

But without data on the houses outside of the study zone, you cannot tell whether the increases in value outside the study zone could have been greater than the houses inside the study zone. Maybe housing values rose faster further away from the study area, meaning that houses inside the study area may have seen less growth because of the Walmart.

The quote about externalities is also a giveaway that the researchers have constructed a strawman argument in order to counter a common argument by Walmart opponents. If the study just looked at homes that experienced the externalities of a new Walmart (traffic, trash, shopping carts, crime, light pollution, etc.), the results would be entirely different. But they did nothing to discern whether there were externalities or not. So, a Walmart that may have been well planned on a street with ample capacity and with enough buffer from residential areas is counted with a Walmart that is crammed into an area that does not have sufficient street capacity and directly abuts a residential neighborhood.

[samagon]

But without data on the houses outside of the study zone, you cannot tell whether the increases in value outside the study zone could have been greater than the houses inside the study zone. Maybe housing values rose faster further away from the study area, meaning that houses inside the study area may have seen less growth because of the Walmart.

The quote about externalities is also a giveaway that the researchers have constructed a strawman argument in order to counter a common argument by Walmart opponents. If the study just looked at homes that experienced the externalities of a new Walmart (traffic, trash, shopping carts, crime, light pollution, etc.), the results would be entirely different. But they did nothing to discern whether there were externalities or not. So, a Walmart that may have been well planned on a street with ample capacity and with enough buffer from residential areas is counted with a Walmart that is crammed into an area that does not have sufficient street capacity and directly abuts a residential neighborhood.

Since it's getting built now, I guess there's nothing to it but to just see how it pans out, and whether their study proves to be accurate for that location or not.

I just thought it was an interesting study.

In fairness, I'd wholly expect that a new Wal-Mart would be an invaluable amenity in a part of the city that is poorly-served by other grocers or discounters due to low household incomes. For instance, I'm positive that the Northline Wal-Mart had a positive impact on that area. Since that's their sweet spot, it just sort of makes sense that home prices should rise.

I don't think that that would necessarily be true of the Heights, although...it's WAAAAAAY better than what was there before it. Nobody could argue against that with a straight face.

originally, when I saw it, I thought the same thing, but $7000 is 2% of $350,000, so maybe house poor, rather than low income.

Edited May 30, 2012 by samagon

[s3mh]

I don't think that that would necessarily be true of the Heights, although...it's WAAAAAAY better than what was there before it. Nobody could argue against that with a straight face.

I think you have hit on some good slogans for Houston:

"Houston: It is way better than an empty lot!"

"Houston: Don't expect the best. No, really. Don't."

"Houston: We're trying. Not too hard. But, at least we are trying."

The Walmart is already having an effect on development in the West End. Cruddy $200-250k townhomes are going up instead of the better $300k and up townhomes that have filled in the West End neighborhood west of TC Jester (northern Rice Military). If the development did not have a Walmart and was a walkable mixed use development with some street life like the Midtown Post Oak development, developers would flock to the adjacent West End neighborhood to do highend townhomes. Thus, with Walmart, you get a short term bump in value, but compared to a better development, a major loss of value in the neighborhood.

[samagon]

Rice Military has always been more desirable than West End.