Jump to content

Holiday Inn Express/Staybridge Suites Hotel At 1319 Texas Ave.


downtownian

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Triton said:

Hmmmm... Haven't we been hearing something about the parking lots across 59? One lot is gone to the new expansion. I know it sucks but maybe this parking garage actually makes sense.

 

parking garage here absolutely makes sense - a lot of astros lots will be meeting their maker soon, especially when the 59 construction begins. i would think a garage isn't simply a luxury for them at this point but an absolute necessity, especially one on the main thoroughfare leading to the ballpark. curious if this is one of the lots crane owns around MMP or as someone else mentioned if they're ground leasing this. 

 

although i'd certainly wish we'd start paying more attention to the aesthetic of these structures. they may be a necessary evil but that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to make them an interesting part of the streetscape. like why not continue the red brick motif to create a stronger sense of place? it's amazing to me that the developers in this city willingly ignore obvious details like this so routinely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, swtsig said:

although i'd certainly wish we'd start paying more attention to the aesthetic of these structures. they may be a necessary evil but that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to make them an interesting part of the streetscape. like why not continue the red brick motif to create a stronger sense of place? it's amazing to me that the developers in this city willingly ignore obvious details like this so routinely.

 

 

Oh I'm sure they notice then they notice how much they can save by not using a nice facade. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jmitch94 said:

 

 

Oh I'm sure they notice then they notice how much they can save by not using a nice facade. 

 

the price differential to add brick facade, at least just to the Texas Ave facing side and around both southern corners would not be significant. i'm certainly not opposed to being pragmatic about costs but these types of missed opportunities are really inexplicable in situations like this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to hold out hope that this is an interim use until freeway construction is finished and downtown residential market improves. 10 year ground lease to Astros, then tear down and build a high rise. That is my hope.

 

The typical cheerful throng of pedestrians along Texas Avenue on game day is going to have a lot of cars pushing through them as they enter and exit the garage. There is a reason why the big boy cities do not allow curb cuts on nice pedestrian streets.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If building a garage on one property means getting rid of a parking lot or two on others, I can get behind it.

 

Frankly, I almost wish the next Downtown initiative would be just that--build about a dozen large parking garages Downtown to reduce the "it's too expensive to park Downtown" barrier. If the empty lots keep making heaps of money by being a surface parking lot, where's the incentive to improve the land? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing downtown needs is more parking garages. For one thing, there is still a subset of suburbanites who will look for surface parking first, and only consider a parking garage if they have no other choice. Surface lots will always make money.

 

There are ways to discourage hanging on to surface lots (beyond just market forces), but they'd have to come from the city. And even then, some people are just stubborn and don't like change. As long as their nasty surface lot is making money, they'll keep sitting on it until they die.

 

 

Edited by Texasota
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems irrational that a lot of buildings get demo'd and replaced with surface lots while waiting to construct something new. Sometimes for several years. Usually if a seemlingly irrational thing happens frequently, it's probably to do with taxation or regulation. (One of) the reason(s) you see buildings get knocked down and replaced with surface lots is that the property tax on a vacant building is a lot higher than the property tax on a surface parking lot.

 

There are ways to deal with this kind of under-development. One is to use a land-value tax rather than a tax based on the land plus improvements. That way, every square foot of land is taxed at the same rate, independent of what's built on it, which incentives land owners to develop to the highest and best use.

 

Another way would be a special assessment on any land area dedicated to parking, exempted if it's structured parking with non-parking uses fronting the sidewalk. Something like $5/sf/year would make structured parking economically attractive compared to surface parking.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2018 at 6:47 PM, KinkaidAlum said:

Two steps forward... getting run over by someone exiting an ugly garage to speed back to the burbs. 

 

Are you saying that people from the suburbs shouldn't go to Astros games?

 

13 hours ago, Angostura said:

It seems irrational that a lot of buildings get demo'd and replaced with surface lots while waiting to construct something new. Sometimes for several years. Usually if a seemlingly irrational thing happens frequently, it's probably to do with taxation or regulation. (One of) the reason(s) you see buildings get knocked down and replaced with surface lots is that the property tax on a vacant building is a lot higher than the property tax on a surface parking lot.

 

There are ways to deal with this kind of under-development. One is to use a land-value tax rather than a tax based on the land plus improvements. That way, every square foot of land is taxed at the same rate, independent of what's built on it, which incentives land owners to develop to the highest and best use.

 

Another way would be a special assessment on any land area dedicated to parking, exempted if it's structured parking with non-parking uses fronting the sidewalk. Something like $5/sf/year would make structured parking economically attractive compared to surface parking.

 

If you have a building that requires significant improvements to make it rentable, then demolition and use as a parking lot makes sense. The types of buildings that get demolished are usually a fraction of the value of the entire property. Everyone's recent favorite, 1621 Milam, for example, has a lot value of $16 million, and the building was valued at $1.4 million. Demolition didn't reduce the taxable value by much, but does make revenue from parking possible, and without the headache of a short term lease that requires a bunch of renovation to make possible.

 

I don't think the City can create special assessments under the current laws, nor can they impose special assessments based on usage. I could be wrong, since I haven't dug through the relevant statutes lately.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Hogan-Allnoch Building: Demolished For Botique Hotel
  • 10 months later...
  • The title was changed to Hogan-Allnoch Building: Demolished For Holiday Inn/Staybridge Suites
1 hour ago, Urbannizer said:

This is wonderful! I just walked by this parking lot the other day and was hoping a hotel would fill it before long. I think American Liberty Hospitality had some stake in this lot a few years ago when the old warehouse was torn down, something like a ROFR to purchase, but this is better than their designs (though not by much). I guess we are going to lose the trees along that stretch of Texas, but maybe they just didn't put them in the rendering? Not likely, but maybe?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • The title was changed to Holiday Inn Express/Staybridge Suites Hotel At 1319 Texas Ave.
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Saw this posted at the property when walking by today. Alpha Hotel Management/Neway Hospitality are the guys behind the adaptive reuse of the Stowers Furniture building into the Aloft downtown back in 2016, only 5 blocks from this lot. They sold the Aloft to MCR earlier this year. Excited to see this get off the ground in 2023.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Downtown-Aloft-hotel-trades-hands-16830373.php#photo-21987651

5B045C0A-49F5-4F64-A7E4-95BD2E63BA65.jpeg.36da5cf4b9aff01a84d67aa67b51c32e.jpeg

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...
On 2/11/2023 at 2:20 PM, hindesky said:

I stopped to talk with the workers who said they were repaving the parking lot for the building next to it which is owned by  Harris County and is the Domestic Relations office.

Yeah this was a major bummer, love to see Harris county spending taxpayer money to replace a surface lot.. with another surface lot. 

In all seriousness though, the pictures you sent got me interested in that building Harris County occupies, the Anderson Clayton Building. I couldn't find any real info on here, but I'm curious of what the details of this building are. It's clear it was the headquarters of Anderson Clayton and Co., who were at one time the largest cotton traders in the world. Though the building has two entirely different facades when looking from Caroline St or Austin St. Does anybody know if this is how it was originally built? Or is there some separate reason the building is this way?

image.png.2964ca1b41716dc7295300b92aee6e04.png

image.png.6bdf02acbd6626a80a4845adc02686c7.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, jhjones74 said:

Yeah this was a major bummer, love to see Harris county spending taxpayer money to replace a surface lot.. with another surface lot. 

In all seriousness though, the pictures you sent got me interested in that building Harris County occupies, the Anderson Clayton Building. I couldn't find any real info on here, but I'm curious of what the details of this building are. It's clear it was the headquarters of Anderson Clayton and Co., who were at one time the largest cotton traders in the world. Though the building has two entirely different facades when looking from Caroline St or Austin St. Does anybody know if this is how it was originally built? Or is there some separate reason the building is this way?

image.png.2964ca1b41716dc7295300b92aee6e04.png

image.png.6bdf02acbd6626a80a4845adc02686c7.png

A few details here https://www.harriscountyarchives.com/Portals/1/Documents/Manuscript/FA-Houston Cotton Exchange MC005.pdf

https://texashistoricalmarkers.weebly.com/anderson-clayton--co.html

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...