Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[little frau]

Here's what I don't get:

When I went to Houston (the Heights, actually) in December 2011, I noticed there was a "Restaurant Depot" on 18th and T.C. Jester on the White Oak Bayou. Further research showed this was a Kmart until 2002-2003. So, my question is, why are people making a huge deal of the Wal-Mart (a few blocks south of the Heights, plus a highway between it) but (to my knowledge, at least) never complained about the Kmart as much, a few blocks west of the Heights, without a highway separating it?

TS Allison and the demise of Kmart was quite a while ago.

Many of the folks fighting the (new) Walmart located south of their neighborhood did not even live in the Heights area when Kmart was alive and well. They are "newbies".......so to speak. And yet they know best what is good for the 'hood.....

[RedScare]

TS Allison and the demise of Kmart was quite a while ago.

Many of the folks fighting the (new) Walmart located south of their neighborhood did not even live in the Heights area when Kmart was alive and well. They are "newbies".......so to speak. And yet they know best what is good for the 'hood.....

Yeah, most have only been here a few years, including the most vocal opponent on this forum. Sure is nice to know there are people who know so much more than me, and can make decisions in my best interest for me. I'd hate to make decisions on my own.

[TGM]

Yeah, most have only been here a few years, including the most vocal opponent on this forum. Sure is nice to know there are people who know so much more than me, and can make decisions in my best interest for me. I'd hate to make decisions on my own.

Red, statements like that are the gateway-drugs to Libertarianism. (no pun intended on the drug part)

Set the Fountainhead down! ;-)

[s3mh]

TS Allison and the demise of Kmart was quite a while ago.

Many of the folks fighting the (new) Walmart located south of their neighborhood did not even live in the Heights area when Kmart was alive and well. They are "newbies".......so to speak. And yet they know best what is good for the 'hood.....

No one is fighting the Walmart anymore. It has been built and will open in a few weeks. What people are doing now is making sure that the City keep its word that they will "hold the developer's feet to the fire" on all the negative impacts that the development will bring to the area (crime, traffic, flooding, etc.). The Yale St. bridge must be fixed. The truck route on Heights/Koehler does not work and plenty of truckers will ignore the restrictions and take the bridge anyway. There are a whole boat load of other road improvement projects in the West End neighborhood that are needed once the Walmart starts sending cut through traffic down 18' wide streets with on street parking. There may also be other traffic mitigation measures needed considering just how bad the new feeders have made N/S traffic.

The idea that people have to have a certain number of years as a resident of the Heights in order to know what is right for the neighborhood is complete garbage. It is just a way of dodging the real issues. And, frankly, I am glad that a lot of the newer residents, and plenty of the older residents, are outspoken about this issue and about quality of life issues in the Heights because too many of the older residents are too complacent and are still of the mindset that anything is better than the way things were in the 1980s.

Lastly, no one in the Heights today complained about the K-Mart when it was built because most of us were either just little kids when it was built or were not even alive. The K-Mart building is from the late 60s. There were also oil refineries down near I-10 and Santa Anna's army may have had an encampment near the Heights in the 1830s. No one alive today complained about either of those, so I guess that means we cannot complain about Walmart.

[samagon]

Santa Anna's army may have had an encampment near the Heights.

Santa Anna's army camped in Sealy, cause they had the best outlet mall at the time.

I imagine they would have stopped in the Heights, but with no Walmart, and only trendy overpriced 'mom and pop' places, they chose to skip the experience and went down Washington to hit some of the bars on the way.

Edited October 8, 2012 by samagon

[RedScare]

These same "defenders" of Heights quality of life applauded the Target development with more strip center footage, and far worse traffic patterns. The garbage here are the do-gooders with a warped sense of quality of life.

[SilverJK]

The idea that people have to have a certain number of years as a resident of the Heights in order to know what is right for the neighborhood is complete garbage. It is just a way of dodging the real issues.

The idea that a small group of people who mostly just moved to the neighborhood try to tell everyone else how the neighborhood should be sounds pretty significant to me (not garbage). The people who move in to places like the soon to be built 84 condos will have opinions but I bet you will try to use the "you just moved here" approach with them, or you'll probably say something like "WE" know whats best, and the condos aren't part of the neighborhood.

[heights]

The idea that people have to have a certain number of years as a resident of the Heights in order to know what is right for the neighborhood is complete garbage.

The idea that you think you can move into this neighborhood and then push your stupid ideas on others while acting like you founded the Heights is what is complete garbage.

[s3mh]

These same "defenders" of Heights quality of life applauded the Target development with more strip center footage, and far worse traffic patterns. The garbage here are the do-gooders with a warped sense of quality of life.

Bull. There was a lot of concern about the Target. The developer met with concerned residents and made lots of promises to appease the neighborhood. Many of those same residents are now the same people fighting for the issues surrounding the Walmart because they learned that you cannot just sit back and trust developers to look out for the interests of the community. The real people with the warped sense of quality of life are those who think that it is a good thing to drop a Walmart supercenter that no one wants and no one needs in the middle of an urban community that had a half decent chance to kick the shortsighted car-centric model of development that has been imposed on the community.

[TheNiche]

No one is fighting the Walmart anymore. It has been built and will open in a few weeks. What people are doing now is making sure that the City keep its word that they will "hold the developer's feet to the fire" on all the negative impacts that the development will bring to the area (crime, traffic, flooding, etc.). The Yale St. bridge must be fixed. The truck route on Heights/Koehler does not work and plenty of truckers will ignore the restrictions and take the bridge anyway. There are a whole boat load of other road improvement projects in the West End neighborhood that are needed once the Walmart starts sending cut through traffic down 18' wide streets with on street parking. There may also be other traffic mitigation measures needed considering just how bad the new feeders have made N/S traffic.

Presuming that the developer abides by the improvements specified in the 380 Agreement, they will be reimbursed by the City. The City knew what was being proposed by the developer and agreed to it, and even if the City was unaware of the condition of its own bridge at the time, that is their problem...not the developer's. Both parties to the deal should have done due diligence. You seem to have a beef with the City. That's fantastic. I'm not pleased with the way that they've administered 380 Agreements either, and this instance was one of the better-written ones if you can believe it.

Send them a message by voting Republican in 2012.

[Leonard]

The Ainbinder 380 was NOT one of the "better written" ones. Borrowing money at unknown and uncapped interest? Ridiculous. Nothing in the 380 is required, except for the Walmat to open. If the developer doesn't do an item, they simply don't get paid for that item. Case in point - thicker trees. There is no penalty on the developer for not planting thicker trees on Yale. They already maxed out the 380 (which the people got capped) so they simply don't care.

And DUH the issue is with the City for the 380. DUH DUH DUH.

DUH the CITY should have done due diligence with the bridge. DUH DUH DUH.

The City doesn't ADMINISTER 380's, they just pass them.

[J008]

Send them a message by voting Republican in 2012.

Then we'd have 2 walmarts and a sub par bridge

[RedScare]

Bull. There was a lot of concern about the Target. The developer met with concerned residents and made lots of promises to appease the neighborhood. Many of those same residents are now the same people fighting for the issues surrounding the Walmart because they learned that you cannot just sit back and trust developers to look out for the interests of the community. The real people with the warped sense of quality of life are those who think that it is a good thing to drop a Walmart supercenter that no one wants and no one needs in the middle of an urban community that had a half decent chance to kick the shortsighted car-centric model of development that has been imposed on the community.

Sure doesn't sound like a lot of opposition in this thread...

http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/474-more-target-info/

But, what would you know. You didn't live here then. Once again, you simply make up what you want, and expect us to believe it. Once again, we know better.

[TheNiche]

Bull. There was a lot of concern about the Target. The developer met with concerned residents and made lots of promises to appease the neighborhood. Many of those same residents are now the same people fighting for the issues surrounding the Walmart because they learned that you cannot just sit back and trust developers to look out for the interests of the community. The real people with the warped sense of quality of life are those who think that it is a good thing to drop a Walmart supercenter that no one wants and no one needs in the middle of an urban community that had a half decent chance to kick the shortsighted car-centric model of development that has been imposed on the community.

There used to be a small collection of perhaps a half-dozen houses mixed in with mostly commercial properties. The developer of the Target dealt with the discontented neighborhood by literally blockbusting it into oblivion. There was even one holdout that absolutely refused to sell out, and so the developer surrounded and beseiged that house by the pavement for the Target store's parking lot. (You can see it in the April 2006 imagery on Google Earth. It's almost comical.) Eventually even the holdout gave up and sold out. So there is no neighborhood to be adversely impacted. I vaguely recall that Woodland Heights was concerned about traffic going up Watson, but obviously that concern was unwarranted.

By comparison, Ainbinder and Wal-Mart have been good corporate citizens. They worked alongside City officials to transform overgrown brownfield sites into a viable shopping center alongside dense new housing with improved civic infrastructure whereas no other proposal could have been brought to fruition within any forseeable time horizon. And now, in only a few weeks time, I will be showing my appreciation for their presence in my urban community by shopping there regularly. Unless of course, I am "no one" persuant to your statement. Am I "no one" to you? Am I less than human, perhaps even verging on the non-sentient on account of my desire to purchase and consume pre-cooked sliced chorizo in deli meat form from the 'Not-Quite-Heights Wal-Mart'?

[SilverJK]

I remember everyone being rejoiced when that target opened... weird. I didn't see a single ashby esque sign anywhere.

[RedScare]

I remember everyone being rejoiced when that target opened... weird. I didn't see a single ashby esque sign anywhere.

Because there were none. As evidenced by the thread that I linked, virtually everyone in the Heights welcomed the Target. Non-resident s3mh was not here to complain. Not that it matters, because even he would have applauded Minneapolis based big box Target. It is only hillbilly Arkansas based Walmart that offends him.

[TheNiche]

The Ainbinder 380 was NOT one of the "better written" ones. Borrowing money at unknown and uncapped interest? Ridiculous. Nothing in the 380 is required, except for the Walmat to open. If the developer doesn't do an item, they simply don't get paid for that item. Case in point - thicker trees. There is no penalty on the developer for not planting thicker trees on Yale. They already maxed out the 380 (which the people got capped) so they simply don't care.

I am not disputing that this was poorly written, only that many of the other 380 Agreements are worse.

The City doesn't ADMINISTER 380's, they just pass them.

If all that a government ever did was to make paper agreements, then those agreements would be worthless. The threat or promise that those agreements shall be kept and enforced are what makes them valuable and worthwhile.

[s3mh]

Presuming that the developer abides by the improvements specified in the 380 Agreement, they will be reimbursed by the City. The City knew what was being proposed by the developer and agreed to it, and even if the City was unaware of the condition of its own bridge at the time, that is their problem...not the developer's. Both parties to the deal should have done due diligence. You seem to have a beef with the City. That's fantastic. I'm not pleased with the way that they've administered 380 Agreements either, and this instance was one of the better-written ones if you can believe it.

Send them a message by voting Republican in 2012.

City elections are not partisan, but the conservatives on council did a crappy job on the Walmart 380 agreement. And, the conservatives on city counsel (Pennington, Sullivan, Costello, and Clutterbuck) voted for it. Only the liberal democrats voted against it (Gonzalez, Jones, Adams, and Rodriguez-to the best of my recollection). To his credit, Sullivan has turned against the deals on his way out of the door to run for Tax Assessor. Of course, Sullivan's conversion came long after RUDH and others raised cain about the 380 agreements. And I have not heard anything from the Harris County Republicans about reforming the 380 process.

The developer did not have to fix the bridge to get permits, but it should have. The traffic impact analysis should have considered truck routes. But the City has let that process become a welfare project for traffic engineers.

It was a bad move on both the part of the City and the developer to completely miss the issue. The developer is now going to have important access denied to the development in part and in whole for years. Tenants are going to lose business as a result. But the big losers are the folks that live north of the development. We went through lots of closures when they did the I-10 feeder. The bridge should have been reconstructed at that time. The City did there best to ignore the issue and the developer did nothing to move the process along. Now, the community will have to deal with lots of closures and restrictions until 2016, when the bridge is finally fixed.

This 380 Agreement was not one of the better written ones. The City has virtually conceded this by radically updating the form they have been using to one that is more in line with other municipalities. The list of improvements on the 380 agreement could be and were changed only by agreement between the Mayor's office and the developer. Just imagine any other city contract where the scope of work could be completely changed without going back to council. There were no claw back provisions if the developer failed to meet its obligations after repayment began (standard in tax abatement/reimbursement agreements). And so on.

[TheNiche]

The developer did not have to fix the bridge to get permits, but it should have. The traffic impact analysis should have considered truck routes. But the City has let that process become a welfare project for traffic engineers.

It was a bad move on both the part of the City and the developer to completely miss the issue. The developer is now going to have important access denied to the development in part and in whole for years. Tenants are going to lose business as a result. But the big losers are the folks that live north of the development. We went through lots of closures when they did the I-10 feeder. The bridge should have been reconstructed at that time. The City did there best to ignore the issue and the developer did nothing to move the process along. Now, the community will have to deal with lots of closures and restrictions until 2016, when the bridge is finally fixed.

Wouldn't a welfare project for traffic engineers entail lots of critical feedback so as to require revision after revision? If so, then that would cause the traffic engineering firms to bid out new projects at a higher fee and to have to hire more traffic engineers.

And besides, it isn't as though the development is located on an island with only one shoddy bridge across to it. There are lots of alternative routes. When I shop there, I'm going to drive across the bridge of despair in my deceptively-heavy passenger car. And I shall not care. When the bridge is tore up, I'll drive on down to Heights and turn right at the new intersection at Kohler. If a one-block detour ruins your day, then perhaps yours is such a charmed life that I should envy you; I shall not allow such a trifling nuisance to ruin my day however.

This 380 Agreement was not one of the better written ones. The City has virtually conceded this by radically updating the form they have been using to one that is more in line with other municipalities. The list of improvements on the 380 agreement could be and were changed only by agreement between the Mayor's office and the developer. Just imagine any other city contract where the scope of work could be completely changed without going back to council. There were no claw back provisions if the developer failed to meet its obligations after repayment began (standard in tax abatement/reimbursement agreements). And so on.

Yeah, it's wasn't well written. Okay, so go and read the one for the Gulfgate HEB. At least the scope of work in the case of Ainbinder was such that it would improve infrastructure that Ainbinder was not otherwise required to improve on their own. With Gulfgate...jeez, I'm not going to make a direct accusation, but I sense that it could've bordered on the criminal. The public got nothing.

[Leonard]

ALL the 380's are horrible. The HEB one is an undisguised giveaway.

Just because the disguise of the Ainbinder 380 fools you, does not mean it is not a giveaway.

Just because you think Walmart can build without connecting to sewer doesn't make it true.

[HTX]

Because there were none. As evidenced by the thread that I linked, virtually everyone in the Heights welcomed the Target. Non-resident s3mh was not here to complain. Not that it matters, because even he would have applauded Minneapolis based big box Target. It is only hillbilly Arkansas based Walmart that offends him.

I don't think that the "hillbilly Arkansas" is what galls the anti Walmart crowd. Walmart is the villain because they were targeted by unions and Walmart won that battle. Ever since then the progressive left has done every in their power to vilify a company that is one of the greatest American success stories of all time never mind our time. Google "Ben Franklin + Sam Walton" if you don't know the connection you might be surprised.

Htx

[RedScare]

It is easy to tell when one engages in a faux outrage when he complains about government wasting money while at the same time demanding that government spend more money. This 380 conspiracy is faking out no one.

[Leonard]

Oh, come on Red - you can't mean to say that you think the government never wastes money.

[RedScare]

No, I'm saying that protesters who normally want more government spending fool no one. Your complaints are that you want bigger trees...which would make the 380 expense larger...and replacement of a bridge...which costs millions, and would never be the responsibility of a developer to replace. Your sudden conversion to fiscal conservatism has gaping holes in it.

[Leonard]

The 380 expense was capped due to protests from the community - they've reached the cap I would guess. However, it did call for bigger trees on Yale which they did not do. It was one of the things that Parker went on about. It's not wrong to point out we did not end up with bigger trees as a result of the 380. We got exactly the same trees we would have gotten without the 380.

I don't think the developer should pay to replace the bridge. The bridge is over 80 years old. Bridges are built to last for 50. It's time for it to be replaced. It should not come as a surprise to the City that infrastructure doesn't last forever.

I do think it's odd that everyone that supports the 380 sees no problem at all with a bridge on a 4 lane major road in Houston having a 6000 lb load limit. I guess if the government tells you it's good, you believe it.

[TheNiche]

ALL the 380's are horrible. The HEB one is an undisguised giveaway.

Well, we agree on that much at least. Some actually are worse than others.

Just because the disguise of the Ainbinder 380 fools you, does not mean it is not a giveaway.

Just because you think Walmart can build without connecting to sewer doesn't make it true.

Red already dissected this issue. And even if you have a point or a partial point, it only comprises a relatively small portion of the total project cost.

[Leonard]

Niche, I guess I don't hold Red's dissection of the 380 in the same high esteem you do. But you are right, it's pointless to discuss.

[RedScare]

The 380 expense was capped due to protests from the community - they've reached the cap I would guess. However, it did call for bigger trees on Yale which they did not do. It was one of the things that Parker went on about. It's not wrong to point out we did not end up with bigger trees as a result of the 380. We got exactly the same trees we would have gotten without the 380.

I don't think the developer should pay to replace the bridge. The bridge is over 80 years old. Bridges are built to last for 50. It's time for it to be replaced. It should not come as a surprise to the City that infrastructure doesn't last forever.

I do think it's odd that everyone that supports the 380 sees no problem at all with a bridge on a 4 lane major road in Houston having a 6000 lb load limit. I guess if the government tells you it's good, you believe it.

I find it more odd that you try to link an old bridge to a 380 and to Ainbinder and ultimately to Walmart. The bridge is old. Fine. Replace it. But, it has nothing to do with Walmart or 380s. Even the City has agreed it needs replacement. You are complaining that the City did its job.

You are simply complaining for the sake of complaining. And I am simply pointing out the absurdity of your complaints.

[Leonard]

Uh - the 380 links the bridge and Walmart. We get to reimburse the nice new balusters, lights and paint on the bridge 15 months after the Walmart opens via the 380.

[RedScare]

You amuse me.