Avenue Station: Multifamily At 2010 N. Main St.

[Triton]

I've been given the go-ahead to finally announce this project. 

 

Here comes the development on the Northside of the city on light rail!

 

 

 

 

 

The location:

 

 

More details:

 

 

 

 

 

Avenue Station will be a 68-unit apartment complex located at 2010 N Main Street, Houston Texas 77009. 

Access to the site from the nearest freeway (I-45) is from the Quitman Exit. Due to the light rail line on Main 

Street, when travelling south from Quitman on Main, it is necessary to pass the site and then turn at Hogan. 

The development will consist of 1 residential building. 

 

 

Full details of the project (Hundreds of documents about the project) are here: https://app.box.com/s/3glyf64elksso0xnspyx

[Purdueenginerd]

I like the little castle tower at the corner. 

[houstontexasjack]

I've been given the go-ahead to finally announce this project.

Here comes the development on the Northside of the city on light rail!

The location:

More details:

Full details of the project (Hundreds of documents about the project) are here: https://app.box.com/s/3glyf64elksso0xnspyx

What sort of rents ($ per square foot) is this looking to command? I am not aware of other such MF developments in the Near Northside.

[Triton]

What sort of rents ($ per square foot) is this looking to command? I am not aware of other such MF developments in the Near Northside.

 

There's no other new multi-family unit this massive on the Northside, especially on light rail. That's what makes this so significant. Yes, there is the senior-living Fulton Gardens on light rail but this project will have a much more dramatic effect on the area. I do not have the rent numbers but they may be in the Box link.

[largeTEXAS]

I wish Avenue CDC would choose better architects and program retail in their projects. Mary Lawler is amazing and I have a ton of respect for her. On the light rail on Main St, though, TOD should be the focus. Even with the workforce and low income housing above.

Thanks for posting, Triton!

[Montrose1100]

...and so it begins.

 

Boring design, but as you said this project is significant for the area.

[xsatyr]

Def a boring design and it will probably end up looking worse than that but that's okay. This is a first for this neighborhood so I'll take it. I doubt this building is going to attract that many people from outside the neighborhood though. This area prob still looks ominous to the average person.

Edited July 13, 2014 by xsatyr

[Subdude]

Glad to see new development in this neighborhood.  I really like the angled shape.

 

 

[lockmat]

...and so it begins.

 

 

 

my exact thought. Development in every direction now...

[Sparrow]

The minimal setback along Main street is a plus--will help begin to create a proper streetscape with ideal building placement. If you have to have a parking lot, put it out back. Too bad they didn't go for structured parking, perhaps a second phase will reduce the size of that parking lot in the future. Very good step forward for Northside.

[phillip_white]

I can't tell if those are supposed to be rooftop decks or just an out-of-sight place for the A/C condensers.  And I definitely agree with Sparrow about the parking lot.

[Texasota]

They are not rooftop decks. This is pretty clearly being built as cheaply as possible. Hopefully that will translate into low rents.

[houstontexasjack]

Because this is the first development in the area, cheaper development costs would make sense to minimize risk. I don't think this will command the rents seen in Montrose or closer to the Heights (I'd be surprised to see occupancy at rates north of $2.00 per square foot). I don't think this will be the last of what we'll see on the Near Northside.

[Triton]

I don't think this will be the last of what we'll see on the Near Northside.

You'd be right. There's more on the way. There's also a major music venue coming to the area which I have (inappropriately?) put in the Heights forum.

 

 

 

And the residents know this as well... that's why there's this also this battle with the townhomes that are trying to come to the area: http://swamplot.com/the-very-near-northsides-battle-of-the-minimum-lot-size-signs/2014-05-07/

 

I'm actually in a semi-Woodland Heights area/semi-Northside neighborhood, and our neighborhood actually has a meeting this Tuesday at 6pm about all the development coming to the area (The first such meeting that's EVER happened). Now, my neighborhood doesn't actually look that bad compared to most of the Northside but they are still concerned that their bungalow homes are going to be torn down for tomehome development. We even have an Avenue CDC/GO Neighborhoods representative coming to the meeting to discuss the neighborhood's options. Most of my neighbors want to pass a minimum lot size ordinance for our area.

[houstontexasjack]

You'd be right. There's more on the way. There's also a major music venue coming to the area which I have (inappropriately?) put in the Heights forum.

And the residents know this as well... that's why there's this also this battle with the townhomes that are trying to come to the area: http://swamplot.com/the-very-near-northsides-battle-of-the-minimum-lot-size-signs/2014-05-07/

I'm actually in a semi-Woodland Heights area/semi-Northside neighborhood, and our neighborhood actually has a meeting this Tuesday at 6pm about all the development coming to the area (The first such meeting that's EVER happened). Now, my neighborhood doesn't actually look that bad compared to most of the Northside but they are still concerned that their bungalow homes are going to be torn down for tomehome development. We even have an Avenue CDC/GO Neighborhoods representative coming to the meeting to discuss the neighborhood's options. Most of my neighbors want to pass a minimum lot size ordinance for our area.

That would price me out, so I'd hope your neighbors could see the light (so to speak). Townhome development drives up tax valuations for the land, but can bring in plenty of amenities (e.g. more restaurants).

[largeTEXAS]

Because this is the first development in the area, cheaper development costs would make sense to minimize risk. I don't think this will command the rents seen in Montrose or closer to the Heights (I'd be surprised to see occupancy at rates north of $2.00 per square foot). I don't think this will be the last of what we'll see on the Near Northside.

 

Avenue CDC doesn't do market-rate housing. It's a non-profit that develops affordable housing: http://avenuecdc.org/ 

[monarch]

this is a rather interesting development.

[Slick Vik]

I wonder if that means you have to be lower income to qualify to live there

[Angostura]

Avenue CDC doesn't do market-rate housing. It's a non-profit that develops affordable housing: http://avenuecdc.org/ 

 

 

Reference to Davis-Bacon requirements in the ITB document would seem to imply that this project has at least some federal funding.

 

That, and there are very few 3-BR apartments in new market-rate developments.

[totheskies]

Why are Houston builders so incredibly afraid of mixed-use?!?! 

[mollusk]

I like the building placement and density.  OTOH, every time I look at this place's name, I think it's on Washington. 

[xsatyr]

Why are Houston builders so incredibly afraid of mixed-use?!?! 

 

It's not a great idea for this building to be mix-use. I've seen so many small businesses come and go along N Main and Fulton. It's not worth the risk. There is already a Fiesta, Walgreens, Payless and some eateries in the area. I would just focus on density for now especially since this is supposedly for lower income tenants.

Edited July 14, 2014 by xsatyr

[fernz]

Why are Houston builders so incredibly afraid of mixed-use?!?!

Maybe for good reason. There's an article this morning of yet another business closing in west ave. Gables is probably wishing they had built more apartments instead of all that retail space.

[Angostura]

Why are Houston builders so incredibly afraid of mixed-use?!?! 

 

 

Because it makes things a lot more difficult. 

 

Even oft-cited mixed use models like City Centre or Woodlands Town center have very little vertical mixed use. Instead they have purely commercial use adjacent to residential uses.  West Ave and (most of) Post Midtown are vertical mixed use, but these are much larger than this site, which means the cost of additional complication from mixed use can be spread over a larger base.

 

Adding retail (esp. bars/restaurants, which are the most common tenant in mixed-use developments) also means you need a lot more parking, and it has to be segregated from resident parking. Most areas with prevalent ground-floor retail have very low or zero parking minimums for retail development.

 

Even in very dense areas, only a small proportion of residential buildings have ground floor retail. In Manhattan, for example, only about 1/3 of residential acreage is mixed use.

[Luminare]

parking requirements is the main reason. Houston has one of the most archaic parking doctrines of any other city and until you diversify transportation (yes that means that cars still exist, but you have more variety to get to places) it will be a hard sell for some of these developers to install bottom retail.

 

Another is just a general lack of knowledge in how mixed-use works and that it's more than just the site you are building on but it's something that you add to the overall community. It also doesn't help that they price the leases for these new retail spaces extremely high from something you would find in a strip mall. When that paradigm reverses it will certainly help.

[IronTiger]

Well, mixed use is a lot more complicated than many think. It has to be commercial and residential area, the location has to be good, there needs to be enough parking (no way does ANY mixed use building rely mostly on people living above) or in a relatively dense area anyway.

[Angostura]

Well, mixed use is a lot more complicated than many think. It has to be commercial and residential area, the location has to be good, there needs to be enough parking (no way does ANY mixed use building rely mostly on people living above) or in a relatively dense area anyway.

 

 

Try parking at City Centre on a weekend night.

 

 

Let's say you have a project like the Alexan apartments at 6th and Yale, with 350 units; say, 550 residents. Let's 60% of those residents opt to go out for a sit-down meal on a given Saturday. If that building had a restaurant, and the residents really liked it, they might choose to go there one out of every five times they eat out. So that's 66 patrons who don't need to arrive by car. But a lot of those people will have someone meet them there, so let's say a third of those people split a table with someone who arrives by car, so it's really 44 truly car-free arrivals.

 

To survive in a high-rent, mixed-use building, a restaurant needs to be successful. Let's say on a Saturday night, they do 2.5 turns of their 200 seat dining room. That 500 patrons, fewer than 10% of whom (based on pretty generous assumptions) came from the residential building above.

 

 

I have 5-6 restaurants within convenient walking distance of my house (3-5 blocks) that are open for dinner. Cumulatively, those restaurants probably represent less than 10% of our dinners out. Less if you only count peak (weekend) nights.

 

Locating a restaurant underneath a residential building doesn't really have an appreciable impact on parking demand. Locating a restuarant in an area with a lot of very dense multi-family buildings does, whether or not the restaurant itself is in a mixed-use building.

[IronTiger]

Try parking at City Centre on a weekend night.

 

 

Let's say you have a project like the Alexan apartments at 6th and Yale, with 350 units; say, 550 residents. Let's 60% of those residents opt to go out for a sit-down meal on a given Saturday. If that building had a restaurant, and the residents really liked it, they might choose to go there one out of every five times they eat out. So that's 66 patrons who don't need to arrive by car. But a lot of those people will have someone meet them there, so let's say a third of those people split a table with someone who arrives by car, so it's really 44 truly car-free arrivals.

 

To survive in a high-rent, mixed-use building, a restaurant needs to be successful. Let's say on a Saturday night, they do 2.5 turns of their 200 seat dining room. That 500 patrons, fewer than 10% of whom (based on pretty generous assumptions) came from the residential building above.

 

 

I have 5-6 restaurants within convenient walking distance of my house (3-5 blocks) that are open for dinner. Cumulatively, those restaurants probably represent less than 10% of our dinners out. Less if you only count peak (weekend) nights.

 

Locating a restaurant underneath a residential building doesn't really have an appreciable impact on parking demand. Locating a restuarant in an area with a lot of very dense multi-family buildings does, whether or not the restaurant itself is in a mixed-use building.

Well, with CityCentre, you run into one problem of mixed-use: you're relying on a base outside of what you have inside. CityCentre, as I understand it, has a variety of great shops and restaurants that people want to go to. This results in overflowing parking. The parking garages seem like a good solution but I've heard that it's locked up with valet parking. At least they have the parking garages to begin with (courtesy of Town & Country Mall) because they need 'em.

So let's go back to your theory. If a restaurant is in a pretty dense area to begin with (not necessarily cramped NYC style stuff but some place that has a substantial residential area to draw from), then it might work, especially if it's big enough of a draw for the immediate neighborhood but not destination dining/shopping. But even in your "restaurant theory", that's still a pretty generous assumption to assume that even the 60% of them that do go out will take it one out of every 5 times they'll go out to eat.

One effective way is to try to get high-turnover tenants: coffee shops, dry cleaners, stuff that will appeal to people on a regular basis. Shops and restaurants not so much because people will likely get tired of them. I know that in everyone's favorite satellite college town, a new CVS/pharmacy is working out quite nicely at the base of a student living complex because they know they're not just trying to feed off the students there but because it's across the street from Texas A&M and they can get a lot of walk-in traffic that way. But it also works as a full neighborhood CVS, so there's a bit of shared parking lot between the CVS and a walk-in medical clinic. A denser neighborhood would not necessarily eliminate the need for parking either.

While I haven't gone into what happens when you have mixed-use in relatively isolated areas (hint: it's not pretty, unless you can pull it off amazingly well).

The magic issue is of course, parking. How do you build enough (or have enough) so that it can reasonably attract who you want to frequent the business but not enough that it just becomes wasteful?

[fernz]

The golden rule for mixed use, is that each use has to be able to stand on its own. The retail needs to be successful without counting on the residents or office workers in the same building.

[IronTiger]

The golden rule for mixed use, is that each use has to be able to stand on its own. The retail needs to be successful without counting on the residents or office workers in the same building.

Which is what I've been saying before...a business won't survive from the sole occupants, unless you want the residents to subsidize it or something.