kylejack Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) Wow. Way to misquote, dude. "They should require ground floor retail space, preferably on all sides of the project, but most definitely along the Prairie pedestrian path and along Crawford and Texas."It's a paraphrase, not a misquote. You think they should require ground floor retail space, and you prefer that they require it on all sides of the project. I prefer that the city not abandon Prairie at all. Edited July 15, 2012 by kylejack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkylineView Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 The outcry against this perplexes me. Wouldn't it be better to reduce street traffic immediately adjacent to the ballpark and create a dense street-level pedestrian experience? I for one will miss parking in these lots for $20 and walking across the street to the ballpark, but it never really seemed like a long term situation. It would be a bonus to approach the park around or through something other than an empty parking lot with homeless dudes. As an aside, the last game I attended I parked across the street in one of the lots taken up by this development. I showed up in the 3rd inning and there was half the lot full. Most people aren't parking here anyway, and are walking from further afield. Given the size of the ballpark and multiple entrances, I can't imagine many scenarios that would increase the walking distance more than 1/2 a block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolie Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Close the street, make it a pedestrian plaza between two buildings with retail and restaurants/patios on both sides. Easy choice. If the rest of the sides have no retail, whatever. One fourth of the perimeter on the right side is more than enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolie Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 This is great news. I was convinced that with the Penn's demise, the Milam was sure to become another asphalt lot...Now, here's to it's success!Well, makes me sad to quote a six year old post. But a modern 8 story 400 unit mixed use (probably) building is nicer than another boutique hotel. I'd rather see residential than hotel. Get another thousand units in the area and we might start to see a critical mass, like in Post Midtown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Editor - these threads should probably be merged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJxvi Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) RE: A view into MMPHow tall is Union Station? It seems like with the added distance (the further away from a wall you are the taller higher you have to be to see over it), that is the absolute minimum possible height that could offer a view into MMP, and it would possibly need to be slightly taller than that. Edited July 16, 2012 by JJxvi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Union Station is about 5 floorsRE: A view into MMPHow tall is Union Station? It seems like with the added distance (the further away from a wall you are the taller higher you have to be to see over it), that is the absolute minimum possible height that could offer a view into MMP, and it would possibly need to be slightly taller than that.Union Station is about 5 stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Owl Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 right, but Finger's block extends farther north past Union Station. Perhaps from the northern block you could see in, if it's tall enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Yes, I've seen people on the roof of Union Station watching the game before. Would need to be quite a bit taller a block out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 The bigger question is... why would anyone go see the astros these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The bigger question is... why would anyone go see the astros these days? I believe that they intend to offer lower rent on apartments with a view of field. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryDierker Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The bigger question is... why would anyone go see the astros these days? I prefer the games now that the team is rebuilding, rather than when the team was good. I don't have to be bothered by overweight fair weather fans in flip flops and their fat boorish kids crawling over me in the middle of an inning to get more hot dogs and ice cream in a mini helmet. Now I can get an entire row to myself. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I prefer the games now that the team is rebuilding, rather than when the team was good. I don't have to be bothered by overweight fair weather fans in flip flops and their fat boorish kids crawling over me in the middle of an inning to get more hot dogs and ice cream in a mini helmet.Now I can get an entire row to myself.But... wouldnt you get to sit in the radio booth? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 Also on Wednesday, the council approved a plan to abandon and grant a portion of Prairie Street across from Minute Maid Park, allowing developer Marvy Finger to build 380 upscale apartments there. An outside appraiser valued the portion of the street at about $2 million, Icken said.http://www.chron.com/business/article/City-plans-incentives-for-downtown-homes-3791742.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 RE: A view into MMPHow tall is Union Station? It seems like with the added distance (the further away from a wall you are the taller higher you have to be to see over it), that is the absolute minimum possible height that could offer a view into MMP, and it would possibly need to be slightly taller than that. Just for reference, this is the view from the roof of Ben Milam (the current roof doesn't go too far from Texas Ave., though): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 The Finger apartments are planned to include 10,000 square feet of retail. That's about as much as is in Post Midtown Phase III. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 The Finger apartments are planned to include 10,000 square feet of retail. That's about as much as is in Post Midtown Phase III.Is this a lot or a litte? I'm not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbates2 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Not too much. The post midtown phase III only covers one side of the building and not the entire block. I am guessing it would be enough for a restauant or two and a couple of small stores. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 This is great news. Finger will definitely cause other developers to add retail to their developments. Just a giant snowball effect. Slowly but surely downtown is heading in the right direction after many years of city planning. I think once rail on the east end is complete we are going to see more of these mixed-used developments. Whats great is how dense developers are building in our city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigereye Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Just for reference, this is the view from the roof of Ben Milam (the current roof doesn't go too far from Texas Ave., though): That view ....could be blocked by these new billboards. But with the ballpark view being a possible selling point to high end units near the top, does Marvy's project have enough clought to convince Crane to dismantle the new billboards in favor of a Wrigley Field-like neighborhood view in left?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 You wouldn't be able to see enough of the field to even make it worth anyone's time. Look at the outfield wall. It is roughly 30 feet above street level. However, the field is roughly 30 below street level. The apartments will be roughly 200 feet from the outfield wall arches. Even if the roof of the apartments are 80 feet above street level, they will only be 50 feet above that wall, and 200 feet from it. This would leave a viewing angle of 14 degrees to the top of that wall arch. If you extended that viewing angle down the 60 feet to the field, the wall would block the first 240 feet of the field from the outfield wall into the infield. The left centerfield wall is 362 feet from home plate, so you might see 122 feet of the field, essentially the infield and right field, but none of left field and nearly none of centerfield.EDIT: It appears that the field is only 25 feet below street level, so this would improve sight lines slightly, but the arched walls still appear to extend 30 feet above street level. At best, 220 feet of the outfield would be obstructed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pleak Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 I bet that won't stop them from being advertised with "ballpark field views". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shasta Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 I am thinking that something similar to the scale and density of West Avenue would work great in this site. That would look great downtown, especially next to the ballpark and all that is going around it.Do we have any renders yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 I am thinking that something similar to the scale and density of West Avenue would work great in this site. That would look great downtown, especially next to the ballpark and all that is going around it.Did the abysmal failure of Houston Pavilions teach us nothing!? No, absolutely not. HP had a far superior location to this one, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shasta Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Did the abysmal failure of Houston Pavilions teach us nothing!? No, absolutely not. HP had a far superior location to this one, too.Part of the reason why the Houston Pavilions underperformed is because the developers decided to pull the residential component from the project, at the last minute. They also pulled the hotel component. The city was NOT pleased with this at all. The residential component would have included a customer base and possibly would have changed the type of tenant in the complex.This Finger's project, is in response to an initiative created by the city. They are focusing on increasing the residential presence in the city, which will lead to more residential supporting needs:http://www.chron.com/business/article/City-plans-incentives-for-downtown-homes-3791742.phpIn fact, in the last 10-15 years the city has been the major figure in charge of downtown development. They have built 3 stadiums/arenas, convention center expansions, 2 hotels (one in the works), 2 parks for its residents (DG and Market Sq.), 2 rail lines branching out, and have worked with a number other entities to improve the downtown district from a n attraction/ quality of life standpoint.No one is expecting this thing to turn around overnight but it reassuring to see that the city has identified what ingredient is missing from downtown and are focused on how to fix it. They are focused...So far One developer has taken the bait......let's see if other developers follow and build more residential structures in the sea of empty lots downtown.If you know a multi-family housing developer, please make them aware of this credit. According to my calculations, Fingers could receive $5.7 if they build this project.AS far as spending city money. the city has to make intelligent decisions on what investment would lead to further returns. Building Discovery Green created development opportunities (residential, hotel, office) bordering the park which the city can now recoup additional tax revenue form those property. they probably have already calculated how long it will take for that decision, Discovery Green, the pay for itself, while benefiting the city in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Part of the reason why the Houston Pavilions underperformed is because the developers decided to pull the residential component from the project, at the last minute. They also pulled the hotel component. The city was NOT pleased with this at all. The residential component would have included a customer base and possibly would have changed the type of tenant in the complex.This Finger's project, is in response to an initiative created by the city. They are focusing on increasing the residential presence in the city, which will lead to more residential supporting needs:http://www.chron.com...mes-3791742.phpIn fact, in the last 10-15 years the city has been the major figure in charge of downtown development. They have built 3 stadiums/arenas, convention center expansions, 2 hotels (one in the works), 2 parks for its residents (DG and Market Sq.), 2 rail lines branching out, and have worked with a number other entities to improve the downtown district from a n attraction/ quality of life standpoint.No one is expecting this thing to turn around overnight but it reassuring to see that the city has identified what ingredient is missing from downtown and are focused on how to fix it. They are focused...So far One developer has taken the bait......let's see if other developers follow and build more residential structures in the sea of empty lots downtown.If you know a multi-family housing developer, please make them aware of this credit. According to my calculations, Fingers could receive $5.7 if they build this project.AS far as spending city money. the city has to make intelligent decisions on what investment would lead to further returns. Building Discovery Green created development opportunities (residential, hotel, office) bordering the park which the city can now recoup additional tax revenue form those property. they probably have already calculated how long it will take for that decision, Discovery Green, the pay for itself, while benefiting the city in return.The incentive seems to have followed Finger rather than the other way around, so has Finger taken the bait or has the City? Who's the cat and who's the mouse in this game?Whatever the case, I see the most powerful application of this incentive as being the creation of more residential in that area. Only with more residents (many complexes, thousands of units) will retail ever become viable. Do not fool yourself that a stadium and one apartment project can support any significant quantity of retail. The demand is insufficient to support it. Upper Kirby, yes. Northeast downtown, absolutely not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shasta Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 The incentive seems to have followed Finger rather than the other way around, so has Finger taken the bait or has the City? Who's the cat and who's the mouse in this game?Here's a link to the Downtown Management Districts 2011-2015 Service Plan dated November 2010:http://www.downtowndistrict.org/Home/AboutUs/ServicePlan/2011-2015DraftServiceP/2011-2015%20Service%20Plan.PDFOn page 18 they detail their Goal #4 of (making downtown) a Vibrant Sustainable Mixed use Place with (4b) Exciting neighborhoods to live in.They continue;Action: Consistent with newly prepared neighborhood plans for downtown, work toattract more residential development at various price points including findingways to bridge economic and physical challenges. This includes requiredmarket research and analyses.Operating: $30,000/ $150,000Action: In collaboration with other entities, work to expand open space, park &recreational offerings for downtown residents as well as addressing thecurrent functionality of existing spaces.Operating: $20,000/ $100,000Action: Working with others, pursue school/ educational opportunities in orimmediately adjacent to downtown to meet the needs of a youngerresidential population.Operating: $10,000/ $50,000Whatever the case....its a win win because the city WANTS residential so it can further develop a mixed-use environment. before you bash understand that this is a process and compared to what this portion of downtown looked like 15 years ago (almost ALL surface parking lots) I'd say they are making progress. Let them continue to build a customer base that will make downtown attractive for outside investors and developers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Here's a link to the Downtown Management Districts 2011-2015 Service Plan dated November 2010:http://www.downtownd...ervice Plan.PDFOn page 18 they detail their Goal #4 of (making downtown) a Vibrant Sustainable Mixed use Place with (4b) Exciting neighborhoods to live in.They continue;Action: Consistent with newly prepared neighborhood plans for downtown, work toattract more residential development at various price points including findingways to bridge economic and physical challenges. This includes requiredmarket research and analyses.Operating: $30,000/ $150,000Action: In collaboration with other entities, work to expand open space, park &recreational offerings for downtown residents as well as addressing thecurrent functionality of existing spaces.Operating: $20,000/ $100,000Action: Working with others, pursue school/ educational opportunities in orimmediately adjacent to downtown to meet the needs of a youngerresidential population.Operating: $10,000/ $50,000Whatever the case....its a win win because the city WANTS residential so it can further develop a mixed-use environment. before you bash understand that this is a process and compared to what this portion of downtown looked like 15 years ago (almost ALL surface parking lots) I'd say they are making progress. Let them continue to build a customer base that will make downtown attractive for outside investors and developers.I'm not sure how your excerpt proves the timeline of events. The program you mentioned is clearly larger/newer than their budget. And that's okay. They're just shifting some funds around. I just want to be sure that you've got your facts straight.I do understand that this is a process, which is precisely my point. Residential is the horse and retail is the cart. Let's not get their order confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJxvi Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Did the abysmal failure of Houston Pavilions teach us nothing!? No, absolutely not. HP had a far superior location to this one, too. Out of curiosity. What makes that location so much more attractive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Out of curiosity. What makes that location so much more attractive?The HP site is more attractive than northeast downtown because it is a more densely developed and more highly visible part of downtown. There is more of everything there. Right there.By contrast, NE downtown has a baseball stadium and charitable venues, most notably homeless shelters, vast surface parking lots, and low-traffic streets. There are 81 home games per year played by the Astros, but many of those games aren't in an ideal time slot for entertainment-oriented retail; and many of their seasons suffer from droughts of wins and attendance. They aren't the White Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.