Lumen: Apartments At 2400 West Dallas St.

[hindesky]

[hindesky]

[Luminare]

On 2/6/2023 at 10:18 AM, ErickEdgar said:

Question in reference to the wasted space.

Does anyone know if it would have been more expensive to do 2-3 levels of parking across the property and apartments above, similar to the Urban Genesis projects? It seems like it would have better utilized the space and they could have added more apartments, which means more income.

Yes. Very expensive. PT Slabs are more expensive than slab on grade. You then have to consider the expense of firewalls which a PT partly functions as. While its ideal to do a podium structure to fully integrate the parking instead of just slapping the parking on the side, it is way more expensive than what you see done here. You still have to fire separate the two uses because the parking garage and residential building are different uses code wise, but its again at a cheaper cost.

On 2/5/2023 at 3:15 PM, NB_Brendan said:

So much space wasted on a parking garage :/ 

If you don't like it then push for change at the local level. Bring in leadership who will get rid of some of the worst and strictest parking ordinances in the country. Our parking ordinances is basically defacto zoning, but for cars and not people. If you want a true market in regards to the amount of parking that would be required then change that which would see more flexibility and over time as the market supplies more options then parking will change with what is needed.

People need to realize that the state does not mandate how cities are supposed to organize themselves or even what code they should have. All codes are "adopted" by vote on city councils. All ordinances are voted on by city councils. All parking requirements are a function of ordinances passed by city council. If you want change then affect it at the local level, yet everyone complains about this all the time and do not make the effort to actually change leadership to reflect their wishes, needs, and wants.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Luminare

[Triton]

On 2/5/2023 at 2:28 PM, hindesky said:

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it seems pretty obvious they envision a second phase where more units would wrap around the rest of this parking garage, thus making this garage central to the entire complex. 

But I don't know, maybe that will never happen.

[bookey23]

On 3/2/2023 at 10:46 PM, Triton said:

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it seems pretty obvious they envision a second phase where more units would wrap around the rest of this parking garage, thus making this garage central to the entire complex. 

But I don't know, maybe that will never happen.

I don't think they own any of that land to the west of the development. Based on the HCAD Parcel Viewer, the humongous swath of land from Waugh to Montrose along Allen (and stretching nearly all the way down to Dallas) is owned by 2929 Real Estate Holdings. 

 

I'd love for that area (I guess it's called the American General Center) to be redeveloped, since it's just a bunch of office buildings from the 1980s on incredibly prime real estate along Buffalo Bayou, but I'm sure nothing will ever happen there...

Edited March 6, 2023 by bookey23

[Houston19514]

On 3/2/2023 at 4:47 PM, Luminare said:

If you don't like it then push for change at the local level. Bring in leadership who will get rid of some of the worst and strictest parking ordinances in the country. Our parking ordinances is basically defacto zoning, but for cars and not people. If you want a true market in regards to the amount of parking that would be required then change that which would see more flexibility and over time as the market supplies more options then parking will change with what is needed.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure the bolded statement is just false.

Edited March 6, 2023 by Houston19514

[Luminare]

4 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure the bolded statement is just false.

I mean sure believe what you want I guess. Its not like I ever worked on projects in Houston or anything, or heard clients complain about it, or contractors, or architects, or designers. Yeah totally not the worst or strictest. I mean what do I know. Its not like I work in Architecture or anything...

[j_cuevas713]

5 minutes ago, Luminare said:

I mean sure believe what you want I guess. Its not like I ever worked on projects in Houston or anything, or heard clients complain about it, or contractors, or architects, or designers. Yeah totally not the worst or strictest. I mean what do I know. Its not like I work in Architecture or anything...

I wish they would remove parking minimums for anything inside the Loop. Anything between the Loop and Beltway can continue with parking minimums but also have flexibility to opt in to TOD or WP. 

[Luminare]

2 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I wish they would remove parking minimums for anything inside the Loop. Anything between the Loop and Beltway can continue with parking minimums but also have flexibility to opt in to TOD or WP. 

I agree, and I'm not even an anti-car guy. I'm more of a, the government should have as little interaction with what you do with your property, how you configure it, and what you provide on it as much as humanly possible. That is also the ethos of Houston as a city.

[Houston19514]

21 hours ago, Luminare said:

I mean sure believe what you want I guess. Its not like I ever worked on projects in Houston or anything, or heard clients complain about it, or contractors, or architects, or designers. Yeah totally not the worst or strictest. I mean what do I know. Its not like I work in Architecture or anything...

Instead of your butthurt rant, how about an explanation how Houston's parking ordinances are some of the worst and strictest in the country  and maybe some examples of  how other cities do it.

[Luminare]

6 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Instead of your butthurt rant, how about an explanation how Houston's parking ordinances are some of the worst and strictest in the country  and maybe some examples of  how other cities do it.

Last I looked, you called me out, and said I was false. Yet you didn't bring any evidence either. If you are saying I'm false then you probably know exactly what you are talking about right? You didn't say I was overselling this, or using hyperbole. You said plainly that I was false. I'm more than willing to let you fall on this sword, and have no obligation to do anything. Plus you really aren't very good at inferring emotion from how text is worded do you? I don't know anyone who would look at what I said as butthurt. Before you go around claiming people are false for what they say YOU need to bring the evidence. The accessor is the one responsible for making the case. I'll gladly present evidence once you prove/present your case first. How's that? Please do the honors my accessor. State your case since you are the bold one here.

[Houston19514]

I looked into this a few years back and to my surprise found that Houston was rather in the lead, at least as to the downtown area where we have no parking requirements.  

Here are just a few quick comparisons I was able to pull up for typical parking requirements (not applicable to special districts in some cases (such as Houston's downtown/midtown/eado).  I'll do more as I find the time; but so far, only Seattle has clearly less stringent parking requirements:

Office:  

• Houston:  2.5/1,000 square feet of GFA
• Dallas:  1/333 Sq ft (3/1000)
• Austin:  1/275 Sq ft. (3.64/1,000)
• Los Angeles:  1/500 Sq Ft (2/1,000) and they require 1/1,000 in their downtown area, where Houston requires zero.
• Seattle:  1/1,000 Sq Ft

Apartments:

• Houston:  1.25/efficiency; 1.333/1 BR; 1.666/2 BR; 2/3 BR+
• Dallas:  1/500 Sq Ft.
• Austin:  1/efficiency; 1.5/1 BR; Larger than 1 BR- 1.5+0.5 per additional BR (so a 2 BR apt requires 2 spaces - 3 Br 2.5 spaces etc)
• Los Angeles: less than 3 habitable rooms (eg. efficiency): 1 space.  3 habitable rooms (typical 1 BR):  1.5 spaces.  More than 3 habitable rooms (typical 2 BR):  2 spaces (and these requirements appear to apply in their downtown area as well)
• Seattle:  1 space per unit (but only 1 for each 2 small efficiency units).

Edited March 7, 2023 by Houston19514

[Luminare]

8 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

I looked into this a few years back and to my surprise found that Houston was rather in the lead, at least as to the downtown area where we have no parking requirements.  

Here are just a few quick comparisons I was able to pull up for typical parking requirements (not applicable to special districts in some cases (such as Houston's downtown/midtown/eado).  I'll do more as I find the time; but so far, only Seattle has clearly less stringent parking requirements:

Office:  

• Houston:  2.5/1,000 square feet of GFA
• Dallas:  1/333 Sq ft (3/1000)
• Austin:  1/275 Sq ft. (3.64/1,000)
• Los Angeles:  1/500 Sq Ft (2/1,000) and they require 1/1,000 in their downtown area, where Houston requires zero.
• Seattle:  1/1,000 Sq Ft

Apartments:

• Houston:  1.25/efficiency; 1.333/1 BR; 1.666/2 BR; 2/3 BR+
• Dallas:  1/500 Sq Ft.
• Austin:  1/efficiency; 1.5/1 BR; Larger than 1 BR- 1.5+0.5 per additional BR (so a 2 BR apt requires 2 spaces - 3 Br 2.5 spaces etc)
• Los Angeles: less than 3 habitable rooms (eg. efficiency): 1 space.  3 habitable rooms (typical 1 BR):  1.5 spaces.  More than 3 habitable rooms (typical 2 BR):  2 spaces (and these requirements appear to apply in their downtown area as well)
• Seattle:  1 space per unit (but only 1 for each 2 small efficiency units).

A good overview thus far. One thing of note is that the other cities incorporate these parking minimums into their zoning while Houston has always based parking minimums on ordinances (since of course Houston doesn't have zoning). Many of these other cities are also better at granting variance requests or lessening parking requirements if you trade the city for something else. Typically its with adding bike storage options or finding a site next to transportation options, or adding public space.

We also have to remember that in context with how Houston works geologically Houston's requirements are dumb when you account for the expense it takes to do below grade parking in terrible clay soils. These other cities do not have that problem. Yes its always expensive anywhere, but with Houston's flood problems and clay problems its really difficult to plan under-grade parking with our requirements. Now include the cities push for sites to include water retention on site. Now add in the fact that a lot of Houston property in town are in very small blocks. Houston has some of the smallest average block sizes of the cities you list which makes the parking requirements really difficult and on some sites, impossible depending on the use.

A clear case example of numbers don't always tell the story. Also the difference between knowledge and experience. Its clear you have done some research and have an interest in this, of which I applaud you, but if you talk to anyone in the industry in Houston they will grip about this all the time, and with all factors included it makes Houston's requirements pretty strict (which by the way is why I said "some" of the most stringent...some.) I was being very careful with my words because I know this data too.

[hindesky]

[hindesky]

[jmitch94]

I wonder what will come of that parcel that was used during construction but is now empty?

[hindesky]