Atma At McGowen: Condominiums At 1403 McGowen St.

[corbs315]

[corbs315]

Changed to meeting first week of August.

[phillip_white]

Any updates on this? I pulled up the Planning web recording from the 4th, but they didn't address these variances.  Was this postponed again?

[corbs315]

No. Got a notice inviting me to comment at the 8/18 meeting since I live within the requisite distance.

Edited August 31, 2016 by corbs315

[phillip_white]

What we know from the mailer:

 

Planning Meeting is 8/18 at 2:30 PM

Applicant is Knudson, LP

Planned off-street parking spaces: 142 (more than the 110 required by the City)

Approximate lot size: 100ft x 250ft

Proposed structure: 81,773 sq ft

71 individually owned units

Ground floor appears to be parking and storage.

Their intention is to keep all existing mature trees bordering the property.  (If loading dock requirement is not waived, two large trees will be removed.)

Any guesses on floor count?  I'm thinking 6 (including the garage).  edit: Urbannizer already noted 8 floors above.

Edited August 10, 2016 by phillip_white

[corbs315]

Enough!

Edited August 31, 2016 by corbs315

[Urbannizer]

SubdivisionPlatPDF_McGowen Project Subdivision Plat.pdf

[phillip_white]

More information from an additional mailer:

 

The developers are hoping to get 0 ft setback as well as no visibility triangles.  Planning Office said they would support these variances if ground floor commercial or residential units were included.  Developer apparently did a market review that determined neither would not be supported by the current neighborhood makeup. (BOO!)

Green screens for the parking garage are being proposed instead.

Three levels of parking.  Five levels of residential.

Parking garage entrance on Austin St.

Renderings are referenced in the documents, but were not included.  I have requested them via e-mail from the developer.

[Urbannizer]

Developer of the project is Allied Orion Group, they're currently working on Block 384 in Downtown.

 

[temp]

Seems like the ground floor would be perfect for a coffee shop or bar, especially with the large trees providing shade for a small patio.

[MarathonMan]

1 hour ago, temp said:

Seems like the ground floor would be perfect for a coffee shop or bar, especially with the large trees providing shade for a small patio.

Agreed!  Weights and Measures, Thien An Sandwiches are close to this block and do very well.  A well-managed coffee shop and/or other business could do very well here, especially with the continued residential development in the vacinity.  It seems like not adding retail is a lost opportunity.

 

McGowan, in general, could be a nice little retail business strip if people give it a chance.

 

On a side note, the pool seems I'll-placed on the north side...

[phillip_white]

Rendering and reasoning behind lack of GFR.

1403 McGowen_McGowen Project Option 2.pdf

Market Review Prepared by Minich Strategic Services.pdf

 

edit: forgot to mention that planning meeting has been delayed again to September 1st.

Edited August 16, 2016 by phillip_white

[kbates2]

I like that they layed out their considerations so reasonably.  If there is such a requirement though, why couldn't they build some of the ground floor in a method that is convertible to retail at some point in the future?  They could argue that much easier. 

[Urbannizer]

Now known as Atma at McGowen. More details to come next week.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2016/08/30/houston-apartment-developer-plans-new-project-in.html

[bobruss]

When the Post properties were built 15 years ago there was nothing in the area at all except a lot of empty derelict buildings. 

That didn't stop them from realizing the power and importance of how building pedestrian oriented developments would help in their early marketing. Now that area is teeming with people walking from home to breakfast or shopping for clothes or dining at one of the many restaurants and bars in the immediate neighborhood. They created their own magnet and look how many people it caught.

 

Until developers begin to realize that they are building for the future, a future that will see the midtown area as a walkable desirable midtown environment and  they don't plan for the future they will be creating areas that aren't as popular or desirable. As long as suburban car oriented projects are built this will continue to be a car zone. People who want to live in this area want to be able to walk out their door and go to shops or services just around the corner. Attitudes are changing with the younger more connected.

Now here is a little treat for those who like guacamole. Its a link to a  short film 1:41 minutes from the academy award nominations a few years ago.

I promise you'll get a kick out of it.  http://digg.com/video/fresh-guacamole-pes

[Luminare]

The problem is still the city itself. Fine, I get it...we all get it that this city isn't going to dedicate time to manufacture proper zoning measures, but what it can do is set guidlines and restrictions, zones of influence, designate areas of focused development (designate streets that will be retail/res mix and others that are pure res), then find ways to create incentives for accomplishing those goals. You won't get developers on board until the city backs these streets or areas as retail corridors or zones. If not the city then Midtown TIRZ should create these themselves. McGowan would be an excellent retail corridor, but that have to designate that from the beginning as a requirement for developing there that any part of the property that faces that street will have "x" amount of dedicated retail space.

 

The TIRZ already function like this, but they should be given more power by the city to essentially become self run districts that make their own general laws if Houston doesn't want to grow a pair and issue requirements themselves.

[phillip_white]

19 hours ago, Luminare said:

The problem is still the city itself. Fine, I get it...we all get it that this city isn't going to dedicate time to manufacture proper zoning measures, but what it can do is set guidlines and restrictions, zones of influence, designate areas of focused development (designate streets that will be retail/res mix and others that are pure res), then find ways to create incentives for accomplishing those goals. You won't get developers on board until the city backs these streets or areas as retail corridors or zones. If not the city then Midtown TIRZ should create these themselves. McGowan would be an excellent retail corridor, but that have to designate that from the beginning as a requirement for developing there that any part of the property that faces that street will have "x" amount of dedicated retail space.

 

The TIRZ already function like this, but they should be given more power by the city to essentially become self run districts that make their own general laws if Houston doesn't want to grow a pair and issue requirements themselves.

 

Just FYI, the city and Midtown are actually standing their ground on this one.  I talked to someone in the planning department that said enough neighbors have contacted them opposing the project that they will not let them move forward without some sort of street presence.  I'm looking forward to seeing how the meeting goes tomorrow.

[Luminare]

4 hours ago, phillip_white said:

 

Just FYI, the city and Midtown are actually standing their ground on this one.  I talked to someone in the planning department that said enough neighbors have contacted them opposing the project that they will not let them move forward without some sort of street presence.  I'm looking forward to seeing how the meeting goes tomorrow.

The beginning of change right there! That is what it takes. People making an effort and the districts putting their foot down.

[Luminare]

Looked at the renderings again. There is no reason why their can't be at least 2-3 retail lease locations at ground level.

[Diaspora]

The residents actually yearn for a retail presence, whether coffee shop, dry cleaner, or noodle house, we are asking the COH to deny the variances (both set back and visibility triangle) sought for establishing the current plans.  The developers have put forward a "study" by Minich that encapsulates that they are designing for yesterday and not tomorrow.  They have not taken into account the Surge Homes development a block away or the Caroline Street Redevelopment that will begin in 2017, all of which will take the pedestrian into account, unlike the current, foreboding three-story garage proposed to run the entire block along McGowen.   

[Ross]

6 hours ago, Diaspora said:

The residents actually yearn for a retail presence, whether coffee shop, dry cleaner, or noodle house, we are asking the COH to deny the variances (both set back and visibility triangle) sought for establishing the current plans.  The developers have put forward a "study" by Minich that encapsulates that they are designing for yesterday and not tomorrow.  They have not taken into account the Surge Homes development a block away or the Caroline Street Redevelopment that will begin in 2017, all of which will take the pedestrian into account, unlike the current, foreboding three-story garage proposed to run the entire block along McGowen.   

How much are you personally willing to invest in opening a retail establishment in that location? If you aren't ready to invest, why do you want to force others to do so?

 

[Diaspora]

ah yes, if only my mere yearning for a retail space in this development could force such an outcome. And if I don't open it myself I guess I'll just have to accept any development proposal.  Suffice it to say, beyond this improperly imposed binary, that I want the variance requests denied for reasons of safety and future pedestrian considerations. We use the leverage we have. 

[Urbannizer]

What's the verdict from today's meeting?

 

Edit: Deffered again for another two weeks

[phillip_white]

5 hours ago, Urbannizer said:

What's the verdict from today's meeting?

 

Edit: Deffered again for another two weeks

 

The city and Midtown Mgmt District stated their disapproval of the project lacking GFR and mentioned that a large number of stakeholders had contacted them addressing concerns.  One nearby resident spoke against approving the variances without requiring GFR and I believe three nearby residents chose to defer their comments until the actual presentation in two weeks.

 

I'm interested to see if the developer will fold to the pressure to add a street presence or just sell the property and move on.  You've gotta wonder how much they have tied up in taxes, interest payments, and architect fees at this point.

[HoustonIsHome]

On 8/31/2016 at 7:59 PM, Ross said:

How much are you personally willing to invest in opening a retail establishment in that location? If you aren't ready to invest, why do you want to force others to do so?

 

Statements Like these are why we are so backwards.

 

So why do you think cities all across the world can have a say in the development of their city, but we can't? 

 

 

[Diaspora]

A number of residents will be speaking on 9/15 in opposition to the developers proposed design, deferring yesterday so as to follow the developer's presentation, and a number of residents who have been unable to attend these planning hearings have submitted their opposition to the project in writing to the Department of Planning.  The purchasing entity for this project, ATMA at McGowen should have the resources to reconfigure and submit an acceptable design proposal, they have a number of ongoing and completed projects in the area, including the ATMA at Midtown townhouse project on Elgin between La Branch and Crawford, varianced in for 17 townhouses with 4 build and on the market.  My understanding is that the 1403 McGowen project is fueled by EB5 investors.  That the investors are in it for a return but also for a shot at a visa makes me wonder if they care what design form their investment takes, but then I'm not that familiar with the full panoply of the EB5 landscape.

[Ross]

11 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

Statements Like these are why we are so backwards.

 

So why do you think cities all across the world can have a say in the development of their city, but we can't? 

 

 

I'm just not in favor of making a property owner risk money for the sake of my feelz. I really don't give a crap what other cities do, they aren't Houston. And, yes, I've been to many of the major cities of the world, and lived in several.

[Texasota]

It's not about feelz, it's about what a city prioritizes when in it grants a permit. A city is a public entity, and its ability to grant permits is based in its ability to represent the public at large. Obviously there's a line there, but the question is really not whether the city or members of the public have any input on private development, its what exactly that input is and how the interests of the public are best balanced against the interest of the private developer that is, at the end of the day, entirely dependent on *public* resources like roads, utilities, etc. 

[HoustonIsHome]

19 hours ago, Ross said:

I'm just not in favor of making a property owner risk money for the sake of my feelz. I really don't give a crap what other cities do, they aren't Houston. And, yes, I've been to many of the major cities of the world, and lived in several.

You think increasing the value of the community as a whole by improving cohesivity in retail and improving walkability is feelz?

 

Helping improve the feel of  a city is a tangible benefit. Allowing developers to offer crap will result in them delivering crap which will result in a crappily designed city.

 

Making our city better depends on us.

Leave it up to developers and 9 out of 10 they will do just enough to make the product marketable.

 

Further, it's not like we are asking these developers for an arm and a leg here.  It's a couple of store fronts. These can be used for leasing offices or amenity areas until a retail tenant can be secured. 

[htownboy]

there's gfr here!!!

nahh jk but i bet a lot of y'all would love this license plate lol