treblelino Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 (edited) I wonder if Astoria will really be built. It would be cool to see cranes for Astoria, Belfore, the 30-story tower where 24 hour fitness is, in addition to Boulevard Place. Edited June 8, 2013 by treblelino 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
por favor gracias Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 (edited) Sign says 50% sold now...I wonder at what point do they start construction? Edited June 8, 2013 by por favor gracias 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed_Tx Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 when the McDonalds is open so the workers can walk to lunch... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golyadkin Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Just had a conversation about this with my parents. They were thinking of getting a unit here and went by the sales office today and found just the right floorplan... then saw the view it would have.The wanted to get one that would be the corner pointing directly towards the 24-Hour Fitness. The fact that they'd have offices looking in at them from half of the living room was enough for them to back out of the deal. Paying that much for a unit that has more than half of its view blocked was not something they were willing to do. One thing they learned from the sales office though that was a little interesting: no assigned parking spaces and no self parking. All of the parking at the building will be valet only. Not something I've ever heard of a place doing before. Also, apparently the penthouse unit will be 5,000 sq.ft. interior space and 5,000 sq.ft. of patio. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purdueenginerd Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 10,000 sq feet in a mid rise. Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchFan Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 My guess (and it's just a guess, albeit with data of some kind behind it) is that the 24-Hour Fitness site will not be blocking anyone's view from The Astoria as soon as you might think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchCity Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) Has there always been a fence between the two properties? Edited June 13, 2013 by ClutchCity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkylineView Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 No, they built it over the weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkylineView Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 2013 06 15: Â Weekly update. Â 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brijonmang Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 I think the future Astoria residents can take solace in the fact there is a wooden privacy fence between the properties now. I feel sales will skyrocket immediately. Probably get to 100% within the next week if I had to guess! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Once they landscape the McDonald's, the ambiance will sell the remaining units. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arternative Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Yes. Nothing better than looking at super bright, freshly poured concrete on a sunny summer day (with no sunglasses.) It is quite the challenge! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinite_jim Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Is the tower keeping the same curb cuts as shown in post #220? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golyadkin Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Is the tower keeping the same curb cuts as shown in post #220?Good question. I just checked the renderings, and they seem to have forgotten to have drawn in an entrance for the garage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkylineView Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 2013 06 22 Weekly Update: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
por favor gracias Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 This McDonald's is just ridiculous. They couldn't have just put one on the ground floor of some other type of building? They HAVE to put in a drive thru here and take up all that space for itself? Like all those drive thru banks nearby (and places like midtown, also), this needs to be demolished (again). This is nothing short of "embarrassing" at this point. There is so much more that we can do with this land at this location. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 We? Do we own that land? You seem to think that someone other than McDonalds (or a franchisee) owned that property and did something bad. What you do not seem to realize is that McDonalds owned the ENTIRE parcel, and sold half of it to the developer of the highrise. They could have not sold any of the parcel at all. I am "embarrassed" at your lack of knowledge of how these things work. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WshfulThnkn Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 Thanks for the weekly updates on McDonalds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortune Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 There is so much more that we can do with this land at this location.Is there ? Like what ? There are huge vacant lots not to far from this site that just sit vacant and have been for quite some time. There is even the older apartment building behind this building that could be redeveloped. So apparently the demand in that area isn't that high and this is the best and highest use the owner has for the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt16 Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 "We" don't live in a communist country. We respect and protect individual property rights which is why we live in the most prosperous country in human history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) The dichotomy here *is* pretty ridiculous, but if there's no market impetus to make "better" use of the site, then McDonald's will do whatever is in their best interest. "We" only have a say in the matter insofar as we're willing to change city ordinances, and "we" have pretty routinely voted against zoning of any kind, for better and for worse.  *Although, wouldn't this be subject to transit corridor regulations? I realize that, as written, those are really more suggestions than hard requirements, but... Edited June 22, 2013 by Texasota 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasGeneral Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 I don't see how a tower this size can fit on that small of a lot. The McDonald's will have a bigger footprint than this tower, if it ever gets built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swtsig Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 Is there ? Like what ? There are huge vacant lots not to far from this site that just sit vacant and have been for quite some time. There is even the older apartment building behind this building that could be redeveloped. So apparently the demand in that area isn't that high and this is the best and highest use the owner has for the site.The old apartments lot is currently on the market. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
por favor gracias Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) We? Do we own that land? You seem to think that someone other than McDonalds (or a franchisee) owned that property and did something bad. What you do not seem to realize is that McDonalds owned the ENTIRE parcel, and sold half of it to the developer of the highrise. They could have not sold any of the parcel at all. I am "embarrassed" at your lack of knowledge of how these things work.  Really RedScare? Okay..."they." MY BAD!!! I would be "embarrassed" for your lack of understanding that "sometimes" people misuse a pronoun or two. It seems pretty obvious to me what I was trying to say. "Thanks" for ignoring that, though, and then...without even bothering to clarify (even though I used "they" twice beforehand) that I don't "think that I actually own part of that land" (or whatever you're trying to make it sound like)...commenting on that and only that part of my comment. Did you "not see" the other two "they's" I wrote before the "we?" Gosh...that must be so "embarrassing." Edited June 23, 2013 by por favor gracias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Actually, the embarrassment is the notion that somehow McDonald's should be forced to sell or give away their land so that your idea of a good use can be implemented. Are you unaware that McDonalds has owned that parcel for decades? Or, do you simply not care, and instead, advocate eminent domain for any property that you think should be repurposed? Do landowner have no rights in your world? They sold off half of it. How much should they be forced to sell? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
por favor gracias Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Is there ? Like what ? There are huge vacant lots not to far from this site that just sit vacant and have been for quite some time. There is even the older apartment building behind this building that could be redeveloped. So apparently the demand in that area isn't that high and this is the best and highest use the owner has for the site. Just because there are empty lots nearby doesn't mean there is or isn't demand for SOMETHING. There are a number of things we...I'm sorry...THEY can do with that land that would make it more productive than this lone McDonald's. They could put a gym or something like the old 24 hour fitness that closed across the street there with it, or perhaps some shops like a book store, or a souvenir shop, or a nice barber shop or a cigar/smoke shop (especially if it meant they could get rid of that hideous Zone D' Erotica @ 610 and Westheimer), or it could be mixed-use...there are a number of ways to get more use out of this location. Shit, you could feasibly put a museum here."We" don't live in a communist country. We respect and protect individual property rights which is why we live in the most prosperous country in human history Not that anyone asked...but "thanks for clearing that up." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
por favor gracias Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Actually, the embarrassment is the notion that somehow McDonald's should be forced to sell or give away their land so that your idea of a good use can be implemented. Are you unaware that McDonalds has owned that parcel for decades? Or, do you simply not care, and instead, advocate eminent domain for any property that you think should be repurposed? Do landowner have no rights in your world? They sold off half of it. How much should they be forced to sell? I'm not saying or suggesting any of that. I just wish this land was used differently. Good Lord, man...lay off would you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Why are you entitled to completely go off on this piece of land, yet I am not at all entitled to respond? Has this forum been banned for realists? Are only fantasies allowed? Jesus, bunch of crybabies on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
por favor gracias Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Why are you entitled to completely go off on this piece of land, yet I am not at all entitled to respond? Has this forum been banned for realists? Are only fantasies allowed? Jesus, bunch of crybabies on this board.  I never said or suggested that you are or aren't "entitled to respond." You put a bunch of words in my mouth, and I asked you to lay off. What's the big deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortune Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Just because there are empty lots nearby doesn't mean there is or isn't demand for SOMETHING. There are a number of things we...I'm sorry...THEY can do with that land that would make it more productive than this lone McDonald's. They could put a gym or something like the old 24 hour fitness that closed across the street there with it, or perhaps some shops like a book store, or a souvenir shop, or a nice barber shop or a cigar/smoke shop (especially if it meant they could get rid of that hideous Zone D' Erotica @ 610 and Westheimer), or it could be mixed-use...there are a number of ways to get more use out of this location. Shit, you could feasibly put a museum here."There is a demand there ... A demand for a McDonald's that's why it is being built there. Why do you think the things that you stated have more of a demand then McDonald's? I mean the gym went out of business, if there was that much of a demand for a gym it would still be open but it closed because there was demand for a office building to be built on the site. A book store, I don't think new book stores are in great demand anymore. A souvenir shop, this is houston. A museum, it's uptown not the museum district. 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.