SEARCH Homeless Services At 2505 Fannin St.

[H-Town Man]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 1:17 PM, Urbannizer said:

Midtown is going wild. 30-story residnetial high-rise with ~10,000 sq feet of retail (former SEARCH Homeless Services site).

 

 

 

Isn't this the design for Camden's downtown property but with reflective glass?

 

[X.R.]

This is the surprise of the year for me. Thought "oh, gonna get some nice 10-12 story red brick apartments like the one near 45 in midtown" and then see a baby Caydon sprouting out with GFR. Ridiculous.

 

Who would have thought the opportunity zone designation would create this type of affordable housing/apartments? Not I! If this starts a trend of affordable development because of the long-term money designation, then I owe people apologies.

 

And the problem with buying the "undesirable" land is those lots most often times have immense situational value to the owners (concrete plant can't move, the junkyard land has been in the family for 40 years, etc), the land is more expensive than one would expect, or, and you see this alot with downtown/midtown lots, the land is owned by some random oil and gas or international company that is holding the land for the big, big payday. In my experience every commercial real estate developer in-town, and quite a few out of town investment funds, are just trying to buy whatever lot they can (in Midtown/Montrose/Museum/Downtown), however they can but sometimes its too expensive even for them. Can't just snap those fingers!

[thatguysly]

17 hours ago, zaphod said:

 

I never suggested that we would house the poor next to junkyards and concrete plants. Instead I am suggesting that we buy the land from under the junkyards and ready mix plants and tear them all down. So those things would be gone(their owners would presumably take the city's offer and move to Crosby)Then replace them with affordable housing development. This kills two birds with one stone - it removes blight AND it adds affordable housing.

 

 

But there is no reason to push the poor to the worst areas of town. Many poor people live in this area now and have jobs in this area. To push them away can cause some to no longer be able to access their jobs and assume they could find a new one. There are low paying jobs in this area and they need work staff that can fill those jobs. This allows that to happen. Also, the affordable housing typically has vouchers and they can be lost if tenants aren't following rules of the complex. So fears of it becoming ghetto or some other fear of poor people is often misfounded. Isn't the Hamilton Apartment complex and the 45/59 interchange affordable housing as well?

 

I said this in another thread but it is amazing how the park that was built in the area has attracted so many massive projects. It is sort of like of Discovery Green ended up surrounded by a lot of residential towers. This project looks great and I hope it happens.

Edited December 16, 2019 by thatguysly

[ChannelTwoNews]

The design isn't entirely dissimilar from the San Felipe Tower plan a few years back. Same architect's work on both proposals.

 

 

[thedistrict84]

20 hours ago, thatguysly said:

But there is no reason to push the poor to the worst areas of town. Many poor people live in this area now and have jobs in this area. To push them away can cause some to no longer be able to access their jobs and assume they could find a new one. There are low paying jobs in this area and they need work staff that can fill those jobs. This allows that to happen.

Exactly this. These types of developments need to be established all throughout the city instead of just concentrated in one area.

 

It’s also important to note that this isn’t just housing for “the poor.” This is intended to be affordable housing for people such as teachers and first year HPD and HFD cadets, and people working other similar jobs that otherwise meet the income limits. Those jobs exist all throughout the city and it makes sense to allow the opportunity for people to live close to where they work.

[Texasota]

This particular building isn't proving housing for "the poor" *at all.* It's geared toward people making 80% of area median income, so around $50,000 for a couple (regionally at least): http://houstontx.gov/housing/flyers/Area-Median-Income-AMI-19.pdf

[thedistrict84]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

This particular building isn't proving housing for "the poor" *at all.* It's geared toward people making 80% of area median income, so around $50,000 for a couple (regionally at least): http://houstontx.gov/housing/flyers/Area-Median-Income-AMI-19.pdf

It’s technically providing housing for those “at or below” the 80% AMI figure. There is an income ceiling, but some leeway in terms of allowing for people with lower incomes. 

[Texasota]

True. But basically it's meant as workforce housing (as you indicated) - housing for people working normal, pretty traditional jobs that just haven't kept up with the cost of living.

[Luminare]

Site Plan:

 

 

Street Sections (some of them):

 

 

 

Elevations (some of them):

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Luminare

[TheSirDingle]

Calculated about 342.4' excluding the tippy top, so a little over 350' I would say. Damn this is going to be such a nice addition. 

[Howard Huge]

[por favor gracias]

1 hour ago, Howard Huge said:

 

Welcome back!

[brijonmang]

On 12/16/2019 at 11:27 PM, ChannelTwoNews said:

The design isn't entirely dissimilar from the San Felipe Tower plan a few years back. Same architect's work on both proposals.

 

 

It’s actually a carbon copy of Lvl 29 in Plano. Same architect, different developer, one more floor. 
 

[EllenOlenska]

The tower looks better there! 

[astrohip]

Catty-corner from the old Herbert's Ritz, if anyone remembers that.

[Howard Huge]

Amazing how this building will go up so close to Midtown's blossoming skyline.

 

It will definitely add to the density and hopefully inspire more copycats in the area.

[Ross]

I must say it's a much better building than the parking garage and SEARCH building.

 

A part of me (the oppositional, sarcastic part) does want to say "I can't believe you want to get rid of that beautiful eyesore of a  parking garage and classic generic 1960's midrise. Do we really want to lose the awesome details on the garage, like the teal safety rails, and the drains that create magic patterns of crap on the vertical facades?"

[Avossos]

58 minutes ago, brijonmang said:

It’s actually a carbon copy of Lvl 29 in Plano. Same architect, different developer, one more floor. 
 

 

looks good to me.

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, brijonmang said:

It’s actually a carbon copy of Lvl 29 in Plano. Same architect, different developer, one more floor. 
 

 

Very similar but not a carbon copy.

[HoustonIsHome]

On 12/17/2019 at 1:23 PM, Texasota said:

True. But basically it's meant as workforce housing (as you indicated) - housing for people working normal, pretty traditional jobs that just haven't kept up with the cost of living.

And that is exactly what we need more of in the city's core of Downtown is to keep improving. 

 

I know this is an architecture forum but most conversations delve into urban design/ planning and functionality.

 

Pretty buildings check the architectural aspects but function pleases me more.

 

Yeah we wet or undies fantasizing about supertalls, Mandarin Orientals, Ritz... But to me a beautiful building that adds to the residential population excites me way more.

 

Workers love suburban campuses because there is more parking, the homes near by are newer and usually more affordable. There is usually talk about less traffic... If we want all these vacant lots and decaying buildings to be made into better use we need to change that line of reasoning. But if all the housing is higher priced units like the bulk of new developments popping up around downtown in all directions then what is there for the everyday man? 

 

The corporations are who benefits the most from suburban campuses. The land is far cheaper, building low- mid rises are more feasible on the larger plots and lower buildings are cheaper to build. Plus the cheaper land allows for abundant surface parking which is loads cheaper than garages. So these corporations boost the benefits of the suburban campuses. 

 

A renewal of urban housing stock however increases the critical mass required to attract more grocery options, bars, restaurants, retail...

Business cannot thrive on just the upper earners and occasional visitor to downtown. You can clearly see the difference between before and after 5pm downtown. 

 

We won't be getting the Exxons and other part companies back in downtown but the smaller relocations can breathe new life in downtown. But it starts with bringing the people closer to these jobs. 

 

I miss my easy commute to downtown. Working on the westside is killing my soul. Yes it's newer, lots of parking etc. But the traffic is horrible, the culture is lacking and the outdoor activities are near zero. 

 

To me, the more people who can walk, bike or take a quick bus ride to work means less cars on the street during rush hour= less time looking at the rear of the car in front of me while such in traffic. 

 

So while the flashy ROD developments or the fancy hotels may wet other posters undies, I for one would rather a pleasant looking building like this one that makes it easier to attract the fancy developments. Sometimes we luck out and manage to make the cart before the horse work but we can get there easier if we put the horse first.

 

[j_cuevas713]

I'm curious as to how the eliminated parking mins affected this development. In a good way of course. 

[Houston19514]

50 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I'm curious as to how the eliminated parking mins affected this development. In a good way of course. 

 

Just a quick glance at the number of levels of parking suggests not very much, if any affect.

[Avossos]

4 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Just a quick glance at the number of levels of parking suggests not very much, if any affect.

@j_cuevas713

 

My guess is this plan was in the works before parking mins went away... Although I have no idea IF that will make a dent.

[X.R.]

For stuff like this, parking mins going away would primarily affect the amount of parking allocated to any retail within the building, right? 

[Texasota]

No. I'm not sure what the minimum reqs for residential parking are, but I'm pretty sure they average out to more than one parking spot per apartment.

 

In a building like this, especially at this location, less than one parking spot per apartment starts to make a lot of sense. They could also price the parking separately to incentivize *not* taking a space.

[Houston19514]

9 minutes ago, Texasota said:

No. I'm not sure what the minimum reqs for residential parking are, but I'm pretty sure they average out to more than one parking spot per apartment.

 

In a building like this, especially at this location, less than one parking spot per apartment starts to make a lot of sense. They could also price the parking separately to incentivize *not* taking a space.

 

1.250 parking spaces for each efficiency dwelling unit

1.333 parking spaces for each one-bedroom dwelling unit

1.666 parking spaces for each two-bedroom dwelling unit

2.0 parking spaces for each dwelling unit with 3 or more bedrooms

[Texasota]

Yeah that's absurdly high. 1.25 for an efficiency? Ridiculous. 

[phillip_white]

6 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I'm curious as to how the eliminated parking mins affected this development. In a good way of course. 

 

If I'm not mistaken, most of Midtown north of McGowen was already exempted from parking minimums. That change had no effect on this project.

[houstontexasjack]

3 hours ago, Texasota said:

In a building like this, especially at this location, less than one parking spot per apartment starts to make a lot of sense. They could also price the parking separately to incentivize *not* taking a space.

The issue with parking pricing is that, where a residential landlord issues a parking permit, the term of the permit must extend through the term of the lease after this past legislative session’s amendments to the Texas Property Code (Tex. Prop. Code 92.0132)

 

From a compliance standpoint, this makes tying a parking spot to a unit the easier way to avoid running afoul of the statute if a landlord is going to provide parking to tenants.

[Texasota]

I was not aware of that particular instance of the state preempting local control. How unhelpful.