The Grid: Mixed-Use Development In Stafford

[texas911]

I moved offices close by this project and they are making fast progress since the winter/spring delays. Four restaurants are in various phases of construction with In'n'Out closest to being completed. They've also graded the grounds for what looks to be parking lots for the rest of the structures. I don't see any progress on the actual original TI building from the outside but they could be doing interior work (like asbestos abatement). Overall looking good for Stafford!

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

there's another In N Out close to opening at the Katy freeway and Katy/FtBend Rd

[hindesky]

54 minutes ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

there's another In N Out close to opening at the Katy freeway and Katy/FtBend Rd

Never had the chance to try and In N Out burger but I know several people who have tried them and they love them. Worked with a guy who lived in California for years and asked him to compare them to Whataburger and he said there was no competition. Another friend who goes to Vegas and California all the time says the first thing he does is go to In N Out as soon as he lands. I want to try them so I can see for myself.

[J Money]

40 minutes ago, hindesky said:

Never had the chance to try and In N Out burger but I know several people who have tried them and they love them. Worked with a guy who lived in California for years and asked him to compare them to Whataburger and he said there was no competition. Another friend who goes to Vegas and California all the time says the first thing he does is go to In N Out as soon as he lands. I want to try them so I can see for myself.

 

Prepare yourself for disappointment. 

[Darb64]

1 hour ago, hindesky said:

Never had the chance to try and In N Out burger but I know several people who have tried them and they love them. Worked with a guy who lived in California for years and asked him to compare them to Whataburger and he said there was no competition. Another friend who goes to Vegas and California all the time says the first thing he does is go to In N Out as soon as he lands. I want to try them so I can see for myself.

I was raised on Whataburger but having lived for 30+ years in California, I seldom get to partake anymore.  I think In N Out is perfectly good burger although not really worth it to me to wait in the very long lines.  It is much a much smaller burger than W so that's a negative.  On more recent visits back to Texas and W, I always seem to be a little disappointed in the quality of my burger, usually it's the stale bun.  I still love the taste though and I give it the edge over the other, probably because its such a part of my youth. 

[mkultra25]

4 hours ago, hindesky said:

Never had the chance to try and In N Out burger but I know several people who have tried them and they love them. Worked with a guy who lived in California for years and asked him to compare them to Whataburger and he said there was no competition. Another friend who goes to Vegas and California all the time says the first thing he does is go to In N Out as soon as he lands. I want to try them so I can see for myself.

 

An eternal debate between equally partisan camps, which will never be resolved. Which side you land on usually depends on whether you grew up in California or Texas. I eat at Whataburger more often than I should, so I'm partial to it, but on the occasions I've had In-N-Out in California, I thought it was a pretty good burger, definitely a place I'd patronize regularly if they ever build one here that's more convenient to me than Stafford or Katy. 

 

The best burger I've ever had was the chili cheeseburger with a fried egg on top at the late, lamented Jay's Jayburger in LA, the backstory of which can be found here.

 

[ArtNsf]

On 8/24/2019 at 11:05 PM, mkultra25 said:

 

An eternal debate between equally partisan camps, which will never be resolved. Which side you land on usually depends on whether you grew up in California or Texas. I eat at Whataburger more often than I should, so I'm partial to it, but on the occasions I've had In-N-Out in California, I thought it was a pretty good burger, definitely a place I'd patronize regularly if they ever build one here that's more convenient to me than Stafford or Katy. 

 

The best burger I've ever had was the chili cheeseburger with a fried egg on top at the late, lamented Jay's Jayburger in LA, the backstory of which can be found here.

 

Whataburger rules ! IN and Out ?  Gag me totally, and they are small and overpriced.

[Texasota]

In-N-Out's fries are inedible...

 

...but their burgers taste almost exactly the same as Whataburgers...

Edited August 27, 2019 by Texasota

[august948]

On 8/24/2019 at 7:22 PM, hindesky said:

Never had the chance to try and In N Out burger but I know several people who have tried them and they love them. Worked with a guy who lived in California for years and asked him to compare them to Whataburger and he said there was no competition. Another friend who goes to Vegas and California all the time says the first thing he does is go to In N Out as soon as he lands. I want to try them so I can see for myself.

 

First time I had an in n out cheeseburger was in California about 10 years ago.  At the time I thought i was about the same as a whataburger.  Had another one a couple of weeks ago in Austin and thought that was a little better than whataburger.  You just have to try it and see.

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

When you live in a town with a Whataburger, In N Out gets the nod because it means you're away from home hopefully enjoying the vacation/travel/whatever.

When you live in a town with In N Out Burger, Whataburger is better for the same reason.

When you live in a town with both (Phoenix, Tucson, Austin, San Antonio, and DFW), Whataburger proves itself to be the better burger.

[august948]

1 hour ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

When you live in a town with a Whataburger, In N Out gets the nod because it means you're away from home hopefully enjoying the vacation/travel/whatever.

When you live in a town with In N Out Burger, Whataburger is better for the same reason.

When you live in a town with both (Phoenix, Tucson, Austin, San Antonio, and DFW), Whataburger proves itself to be the better burger.

 

That sounds like we need some side by side taste tests once in n out is here. 

 

Challenge accepted.

[cspwal]

I'm planning some blind taste testing of fries

[mkultra25]

9 hours ago, cspwal said:

I'm planning some blind taste testing of fries

 

This important research may call for HAIF peer review. Maybe we could get an NSF grant. 

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

11 hours ago, cspwal said:

I'm planning some blind taste testing of fries

 

eww, In N Out fries are terrible, unless you get them with cheese

[DNAguy]

29 minutes ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

Update on the Grid development, the mixed-use project replacing the Texas Instruments campus in Stafford.


From Fort Bend Star today:


 

Though it was previously said to be behind schedule, “The Grid” continues to take shape in Stafford. Signs are now up for some of the soon-to-open tenants, such as the Greater Houston area’s first In-N-Out Burger.
 

Construction of the California-based fast-food restaurant  – which is expected to be completed this fall...

...Construction continues on the 192-acre development positioned on what used to be the campus for Texas Instruments between West Airport Boulevard and South Kirkwood Road off Highway 59, which developers hope will help make Stafford a destination city. 
 

...In addition to a diverse mix of retail shops and entertainment venues, The Grid will also include 500,000 square feet of office space and a network of pocket parks, jogging and bike trails upon completion, which developers hope is by 2021. There are also plans for a dual-concept hotel split between Aloft Hotels and Element. Work on the hotels began in June, with a targeted completion date of early 2020.
 

Chipotle and a Verizon store are already open on the West Airport side of the development. On the Kirkwood side, there are already signs up for In-N-Out and Outback Steakhouse, which also is expected to open this fall. Additionally, the Houston area’s third Whiskey Cake Kitchen & Bar location and the Drive Shack – a driving range and golf shop – are both expected open in November and September, respectively, as Phase 1 of the project takes shape, according to multiple media reports.

Pluckers Wing Bar is another confirmed tenant, while StreetLevel Investments – the developer on the project – remain in negotiations with other tenants for the development, such as movie theatres and craft breweries, according to the project’s website.


More: http://www.fortbendstar.com/inching-along-anticipation-building-for-staffords-grid-projects/

 

A nice upgrade for an area that's on the battle line between suburban and the 'ring of decay' around Houston.

 

El Tiempo's addition to the Fountains, the Grid, and hopefully the Sugar Refinery develop will create a bulwark against any further progression of the 'decay'.

 

On another aside, thank god the TI site was in another municipality and not in Houston. If this was Houston proper, the site would have just decayed and the whole area would have suffered. If this particular example and Dallas [ducks!] can teach us anything, it might be that a dominate world class city w/ larger surrounding suburban cities might be a better for development than just Huge city + mostly unincorporated county + only 2-3 major suburban cities + more unincorporated further out county land.

Edited September 3, 2019 by DNAguy

[Texasota]

...what are you talking about?

[texas911]

Yea, what's he talking about? Houston is full of repurposed projects all around the city.

[X.R.]

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

...what are you talking about?

 

I believe he or she is referring to the perceived sporadic and stagnant development that goes on between the 610 loop and Beltway 8. Or in this case, the area between 610 and Sugarland.

[DNAguy]

57 minutes ago, texas911 said:

Yea, what's he talking about? Houston is full of repurposed projects all around the city.

 

Maybe within 610.

Every other major redevelopment is within 610... or at least immediately adjacent to 610. 

 

What are examples of anything other than that?

 

Town and Country mall? Memorial City Mall area? both of which seem to be one-offs due to the fact that they are adjacent to super wealthy municipalities themselves.

 

 

28 minutes ago, X.R. said:

 

I believe he or she is referring to the perceived sporadic and stagnant development that goes on between the 610 loop and Beltway 8. Or in this case, the area between 610 and Sugarland.

 

This.

 

What once was the 'donut hole' has now become a 'ring' in the city where older neighborhoods are on the decline w/ minimal development. That's all I was trying to point out. I have a hard time believing this project would have gone forward if this was Houston as Stafford could provide the incentives to make completely redeveloping a corporate campus into a mix-use development.

[Texasota]

I stand by my question.

 

For reference:  

 

[DNAguy]

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

I stand by my question.

 

For reference:  

 

And I stand by my statement.

 

What is your argument? That because of this one development at the Beltway (actually outside but close enough) that there is not an expanding area between 610 and the suburbs that is in need of re-investment / revitalization? This development also doesn't happen without City Centre which I referenced above.

 

Outside of this one development, please list all the other ones between 610 and @/around the Beltway.

 

I'll wait.

[Texasota]

Obviously there is, but that's also true inside the loop and outside the beltway. I don't think the issue is "in Houston" vs. "in some other city." I think the issue is that specific localities within those cities are going to develop faster due to immediate existing conditions.

 

There are other examples between the loop and the beltway, but I have a feeling that you'll argue that they don't count because they're too close to Uptown or Bellaire or the Loop itself. 

 

Anyway, I also don't actually think this development is all that impressive. It's *fine*, but it's it's still a pretty low density- suburban oriented development where the "mixed" uses are mostly actually separated. 

 

Edit: What I'm basically trying to say is: it makes no sense to say that x wouldn't happen in Houston, and then narrow your definition, not just to between 610 and 8, but between 610 and 8 except greater Uptown, greater City Center/ Memorial, Garden Oaks/Oak Forest, and any other neighborhoods that are seeing development don't count.

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by Texasota

[DNAguy]

4 hours ago, Texasota said:

Obviously there is, but that's also true inside the loop and outside the beltway. I don't think the issue is "in Houston" vs. "in some other city." I think the issue is that specific localities within those cities are going to develop faster due to immediate existing conditions.

 

There are other examples between the loop and the beltway, but I have a feeling that you'll argue that they don't count because they're too close to Uptown or Bellaire or the Loop itself. 

 

Anyway, I also don't actually think this development is all that impressive. It's *fine*, but it's it's still a pretty low density- suburban oriented development where the "mixed" uses are mostly actually separated. 

 

Edit: What I'm basically trying to say is: it makes no sense to say that x wouldn't happen in Houston, and then narrow your definition, not just to between 610 and 8, but between 610 and 8 except greater Uptown, greater City Center/ Memorial, Garden Oaks/Oak Forest, and any other neighborhoods that are seeing development don't count.

 

 

If it's so obvious I don't understand why you can't give an example.

 

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. 

 

Look, the parts of Stafford / Meadows Place / Houston that is close by this development aren't all that nice. Heck, you're a 5 minute drive from Beachnut …. where you see actual street walking ladies of night. It's across the street from a Walmart where people have been shot in the parking lot.

 

Maybe I'm way off, but if this area was in Houston I just think don't think there would have been the incentives in place to develop this plot in the manner they are.

 

Again, I could just be way off base.

[texas911]

Why would you arbitrarily set the boundary between 610 and the beltway? That's selective. 610 is still the city of Houston and a huge area!

Edited September 4, 2019 by texas911

[DNAguy]

15 hours ago, texas911 said:

Why would you arbitrarily set the boundary between 610 and the beltway? That's selective. 610 is still the city of Houston and a huge area!

 

Because that's the reality. There is a huge gulf of development and decay between 610 and the Beltway almost 360 degrees around Houston. I didn't make this up. That's what the reality is. The only area where this is not the case is along I10... where it just so happens that there a small, mostly wealthy cities abut. Is that an accident?

 

The city of Houston is very large. 

The out parts of Houston are not growing.

My argument is that regionally southeast Texas might be better served by smaller Houston with more mid-sized cities surrounding it. Cities competing against one another would help to invest in areas that might not get investment if they were all in one large city.

It's about equity and distribution of investment. Having large areas of stagnant growth is bad. The grid is good because it is actually working against an area that is trendy downwards.

That's all I'm trying to say here. 

 

Have you never driven along 59 south, 59 north, 45 south and north, 288, I10 east, etc between 610 and the Beltway? There's almost nothing new.

[Luminare]

2 minutes ago, DNAguy said:

 

Because that's the reality. There is a huge gulf of development and decay between 610 and the Beltway almost 360 degrees around Houston. I didn't make this up. That's what the reality is. The only area where this is not the case is along I10... where it just so happens that there a small, mostly wealthy cities abut. Is that an accident?

 

The city of Houston is very large. 

The out parts of Houston are not growing.

My argument is that regionally southeast Texas might be better served by smaller Houston with more mid-sized cities surrounding it. Cities competing against one another would help to invest in areas that might not get investment if they were all in one large city.

It's about equity and distribution of investment. Having large areas of stagnant growth is bad. The grid is good because it is actually working against an area that is trendy downwards.

That's all I'm trying to say here. 

 

Have you never driven along 59 south, 59 north, 45 south and north, 288, I10 east, etc between 610 and the Beltway? There's almost nothing new.

 

"equity" and "distribution". You don't get competition through "equity" and "distribution". Instead you get the opposite. In fact, you would get what is already out there and that is "sameness". That is what equity is. Its radical sameness. These areas don't grow and don't get notice because for all intents and purposes (some might be a little better off than others) they all look and feel pretty much the same.

 

This is being solved by the free market and no equity or distribution is required to achieve what you want to achieve. This development itself is something which looks to break that kind of radical sameness by being somewhat unique which means they will have a unique product to sell which means it will put it in competition with other urban cores which will encourage more development. Competition doesn't come from us or anything being the same, but by being different. Instead of equity we need to be looking at equal opportunity. Each area should have the opportunity to make its own way and grow its own way.

[august948]

On 9/5/2019 at 8:45 AM, DNAguy said:

 

Because that's the reality. There is a huge gulf of development and decay between 610 and the Beltway almost 360 degrees around Houston. I didn't make this up. That's what the reality is. The only area where this is not the case is along I10... where it just so happens that there a small, mostly wealthy cities abut. Is that an accident?

 

The city of Houston is very large. 

The out parts of Houston are not growing.

My argument is that regionally southeast Texas might be better served by smaller Houston with more mid-sized cities surrounding it. Cities competing against one another would help to invest in areas that might not get investment if they were all in one large city.

It's about equity and distribution of investment. Having large areas of stagnant growth is bad. The grid is good because it is actually working against an area that is trendy downwards.

That's all I'm trying to say here. 

 

Have you never driven along 59 south, 59 north, 45 south and north, 288, I10 east, etc between 610 and the Beltway? There's almost nothing new.

 

I'm not sure why it would be surprising that there is less development between 610 and the beltway than there is inside and outside of that area.  That's an area roughly 3.5 to 4 times the size of the area inside the loop, built mostly after WW2 to the late 60's or 70's.  At such an age, the housing stock there is in a stage where it is attracting lower income residents relative to inside the loop.  Lower incomes means less money to spend on the things that attract lots of development to an area.  And, believe it or not, developers are attracted by higher incomes in the locality of the proposed development.  Infrastructure improvements may be warranted and may improve the quality of life in the area, but unless incomes improve, development will be retarded.

[DNAguy]

On ‎9‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 3:49 PM, august948 said:

 

I'm not sure why it would be surprising that there is less development between 610 and the beltway than there is inside and outside of that area.  That's an area roughly 3.5 to 4 times the size of the area inside the loop, built mostly after WW2 to the late 60's or 70's.  At such an age, the housing stock there is in a stage where it is attracting lower income residents relative to inside the loop.  Lower incomes means less money to spend on the things that attract lots of development to an area.  And, believe it or not, developers are attracted by higher incomes in the locality of the proposed development.  Infrastructure improvements may be warranted and may improve the quality of life in the area, but unless incomes improve, development will be retarded.

 

I guess that's why my argument is that in a climate like this.... maybe having these areas represented by a more local / more accountable municipality could hold this decline off or incentivize the developers to stem the tide.

 

My original argument here, which I think is being lost, is that a development like the grid would not have happened at its location in an area surrounded by the housing stock / tax base around it without the fact that it was in a different city than the COH. That's it. Stafford wanted this for the sales tax $... even if it is a little out of place. It's still close enough to Sugar Land in their estimations (developers) to make this work. I looked at Dallas / the metroplex and its development to see if that might be a better model. Somehow I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about.

 

[august948]

I'm sure the incentives help, and developers will gobble those up if they're offered, but the economics have to work as well or the developers or their successors will end up with an albatross.  As for breaking up the areas into smaller municipalities, that's a double-edges sword in a metro like ours.  Local control can bring faster and finer-tuned  change, but the trade-off is increased balkanization and nimbyism.  I lived in Atlanta for a while and it's metro area is much more balkanized than we are.  That results in endless bickering about region-wide improvements.  The one of particular note in my mind was the MARTA rail system.  Rail system expansion there has been stymied by the surrounding municipalities so that it' doesn't go much further than the Perimeter (their version of the Loop here).  You think we have disagreements now about Metro expansion? Try making everything outside the loop into many separate municipalities.

[ArtNsf]

2 hours ago, august948 said:

I'm sure the incentives help, and developers will gobble those up if they're offered, but the economics have to work as well or the developers or their successors will end up with an albatross.  As for breaking up the areas into smaller municipalities, that's a double-edges sword in a metro like ours.  Local control can bring faster and finer-tuned  change, but the trade-off is increased balkanization and nimbyism.  I lived in Atlanta for a while and it's metro area is much more balkanized than we are.  That results in endless bickering about region-wide improvements.  The one of particular note in my mind was the MARTA rail system.  Rail system expansion there has been stymied by the surrounding municipalities so that it' doesn't go much further than the Perimeter (their version of the Loop here).  You think we have disagreements now about Metro expansion? Try making everything outside the loop into many separate municipalities.

Agreed !  This redevelopment in Stafford of an existing large site also shows that developers are willing to buy up and improve just about anywhere within the realm of the "Houston area" which bodes well for the entire area's future improvement.

 

Plus, I think Houston needs to really start annexing land and neighborhoods again like it used to in the 70's and 80's so there aren't as many outlying "towns" and "villages" all with unwieldy city governments and citizens to start complaining always about "Houston did this, or Houston does that" and "we don't want to be like Houston".  That is a bunch of B.S. IMHO.  If you don't want to be "like Houston" simply move far away.  This city has been in existence since 1836 and so it is a very old well established, yet dynamic and ever changing region.  Most locals know that after they've lived here a year or two.  That's the time to realize that this way of existing for our great city isn't going to change any time soon.  I for one, welcome one large municipality using local resources and talent to run the city with a large and broad vision for the future, not one of a bunch of small privileged towns and villages attached at the fringe that want to simply try to "keep Houston and Houstonians out" or worse.  Thanks goodness we can leave that old worn out multiple "cities" and "towns" making up an area to a place like DFW, a nightmare in itself and certainly not as much diversity, development, improvement or progress as we have, and always have had, in the greater Houston area.  Yes, there is some of that in the closer suburbs, but as we've witnessed in recent years, that model is dying and more and more people want to be a part of this bigger entity and even live downtown (OMG heaven forbid!).

 

I've read articles not long ago that the "brilliant" Texas legislature has made it more difficult for big cities to annex surrounding and adjacent areas where there is obviously no separate municipality in control and even where the residents would prefer to be a part of the larger city.  Where this came from is anybody's guess, but we are talking about the Texas legislative philosophy in the last few decades that has done little to improve life state wide.  Evidence appears to indicate that most if not all, positive changes innovations are being initiated by the big cities, especially Houston, and are then spreading as word of successes spread.  In this day and age of rapid information transfer, this is a good thing.  It means necessary and/or desired changes to the way we run our city(ies) happens much faster in response to the citizenry.

 

Sorry for the long rant, but all of this is important and necessary to weigh in considering the benefits of these mostly inner city building projects, AND in consideration of future expansion as the people desire and can be conveyed to the local governments.  I feel as though there are many more people out there in our region that desire inclusion in the bigger picture, instead of exclusivity and isolationism that goes with incorporating "new" cities or suburbs/subdivisions.  I think we have enough outlying municipalities already, it's time to expand the City as needed in the directions where there is a desire by the residents and room to grow, our currently legislative process allowing.