UrbaNerd Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/busine...ff/3956173.html "A lot of the transformation so far has taken place in Midtown, where a prime block of land just sold at the corner of Main and Elgin. A CVS Pharmacy will be built on the southeast corner, according to Marshall Davidson of Cushman & Wakefield, who was involved in the land sale." This can go two ways. They can either make a pedestrian friendly design, or plop another suburban CVS there. Now, tell me which one is more likely. *beats head into table repeatedly* 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovernorAggie Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 (edited) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/busine...ff/3956173.html"A lot of the transformation so far has taken place in Midtown, where a prime block of land just sold at the corner of Main and Elgin. A CVS Pharmacy will be built on the southeast corner, according to Marshall Davidson of Cushman & Wakefield, who was involved in the land sale." This can go two ways. They can either make a pedestrian friendly design, or plop another suburban CVS there. Now, tell me which one is more likely. *beats head into table repeatedly* lol, well I guess the bright side could be that it'll be the CVS with the best hours along the rail line. But I will agree that the chances of this thing being pedestrian-oriented are.....is there anything less than nil?? I think the extent of "pedestrian" access will be a painted path through the parking lot. What does this mean when a CVS--one where the parking lot will be bigger than the building--can be put in an area with supposedly rising land values? Edited June 11, 2006 by GovernorAggie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGraspo Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Great another one on the rail...just what we need Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 What does this mean when a CVS--one where the parking lot will be bigger than the building--can be put in an area with supposedly rising land values?It means that the land value is based upon demand from non-residential uses, which are apparently the higher and better uses of the site from a financial position. Despite all the hype devoted to new residential construction in the area, Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction. So its short-run growth prospectives are weak in comparison with the East End, where cheap land and less fractured ownership allows for the rapid proliferation of relatively-inexpensive townhomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 It means that the land value is based upon demand from non-residential uses, which are apparently the higher and better uses of the site from a financial position. Despite all the hype devoted to new residential construction in the area, Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction. So its short-run growth prospectives are weak in comparison with the East End, where cheap land and less fractured ownership allows for the rapid proliferation of relatively-inexpensive townhomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 It'd perhaps be more effective if you'd provide a cogent argument against my assertion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 This can go two ways. They can either make a pedestrian friendly design, or plop another suburban CVS there. Now, tell me which one is more likely. It's about a 3 block walk to the nearest station and a couple of blocks from HCC but I'm guessing it will be another run of the mill CVS facing Fannin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalparadise Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 This will most certainly be a suburban-style location. If CVS had wanted to open a pedestrian store in that location, they would have put it in the ground-floor of that newly remodeled parking garage for HCC that's there. That would have been a welcomed and much needed addition, in my estimation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 "It means that the land value is based upon demand from non-residential uses, which are apparently the higher and better uses of the site from a financial position. Despite all the hype devoted to new residential construction in the area, Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction. So its short-run growth prospectives are weak in comparison with the East End, where cheap land and less fractured ownership allows for the rapid proliferation of relatively-inexpensive townhomes"No.It means Houston is still unzoned and that anything can be built anywhere and at any price to the community as long as the developers think they can make a buck.Sure, it's capitalism at work and sure it may be the market doing its thing, but it isn't the best thing for the city at large and Midtown in particular. As for only the Upper classes being able to afford anything in Midtown, that's a joke. Yes, there are some $400,000 town homes, but there are MANY more priced under $200,000 and there are thousands of rental apartments in new developments as well as older properties in the area. CVS will likely build a suburban style site with a front parking lot and a drive-thru pharmacy lane because they can and because it is CHEAPER. That's all this decision means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebra Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 (edited) i agre it wil more like be a suburbin stile CVS i find it depresing that Houston cant get the urbin/pedistrian consept down they need to increse residnt pop and then things like pedistrian stiles will come. the mistake houston make was jacking up the price in midtown before it had the strong residint base to suport. now we have a lifeliss downtown. i'm still afrade the houston pavilion wont go becus its not showin good signs. Edited June 11, 2006 by zebra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 This one may be more "urban" than you think.The parking will most likely be in back or on the side just like the old Vietnam Restaurant. Does this also include the block with the old Hardware Store?Anyway, seems like a bad location. One of those "one-way-in, one-way-out kinda places". Which is why I think it has to be more "urban" than "suburban".I don't shop at CVS becuase they have terrible customer service. They could learn a thing or two from Walgreens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groovehouse Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 (edited) Walgreens 4 Life! Edited June 12, 2006 by groovehouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovernorAggie Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Agreed on Walgreen's vs. CVS. I also forgot about the drive thru. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 "It means that the land value is based upon demand from non-residential uses, which are apparently the higher and better uses of the site from a financial position. Despite all the hype devoted to new residential construction in the area, Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction. So its short-run growth prospectives are weak in comparison with the East End, where cheap land and less fractured ownership allows for the rapid proliferation of relatively-inexpensive townhomes"No. It means Houston is still unzoned and that anything can be built anywhere and at any price to the community as long as the developers think they can make a buck. Sure, it's capitalism at work and sure it may be the market doing its thing, but it isn't the best thing for the city at large and Midtown in particular. As for only the Upper classes being able to afford anything in Midtown, that's a joke. Yes, there are some $400,000 town homes, but there are MANY more priced under $200,000 and there are thousands of rental apartments in new developments as well as older properties in the area. CVS will likely build a suburban style site with a front parking lot and a drive-thru pharmacy lane because they can and because it is CHEAPER. That's all this decision means. You pretty much nailed it. No zoning so build what you want. Capitalism at it's nastiness. Screw the neighborhood and throw up that drugstore. My goonie-face reply to niches absurd delusion that mid-town is only for Upper classes made me laugh into my coffee cup. I "fractured." BTW, Kinkade, are you in Boston still? BTW part two: Walgreens is no better. If they had their way you would have been looking at dumpsters from the rose garden on Heights Blvd. At least CVS worked with the neighborhood on that one. Check it out at 20th and Heights. Even our sometimes overbearing HHA gave them an award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Actually, not still in Boston. I am back in Boston.Moved to Houston last summer. Found a great place in Cherryhurst. About a month later, an opportunity arose here that was just too good to pass up. Was lucky enough to be able to sell my Cherryhurst digs after one day on the market and I moved back here full time this past fall.I missed Houston all winter. Now, not so much. It was 73 and sunny today with a nice breeze off the Bay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Actually, not still in Boston. I am back in Boston.Moved to Houston last summer. Found a great place in Cherryhurst. About a month later, an opportunity arose here that was just too good to pass up. Was lucky enough to be able to sell my Cherryhurst digs after one day on the market and I moved back here full time this past fall. I missed Houston all winter. Now, not so much. It was 73 and sunny today with a nice breeze off the Bay. Good for you. My dad grew up in Brookline and I have 3 aunts, an uncle and almost 40 cousins still in the Boston area. A great place. [bTW, a balmy 93 degrees here this afternoon on my back porch ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 You pretty much nailed it. No zoning so build what you want. Capitalism at it's nastiness. Screw the neighborhood and throw up that drugstore.My goonie-face reply to niches absurd delusion that mid-town is only for Upper classes made me laugh into my coffee cup. I "fractured." BTW, Kinkade, are you in Boston still? BTW part two: Walgreens is no better. If they had their way you would have been looking at dumpsters from the rose garden on Heights Blvd. At least CVS worked with the neighborhood on that one. Check it out at 20th and Heights. Even our sometimes overbearing HHA gave them an award. I don't think he said that Midtown is only for upper classes. I think what he was trying to say is that the only people that could afford new construction with those land prices are the upper class, and since the upper class for the most part is not interested in Midtown, we are not going to see anything along the rail line for awhile except the occasional drug store. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I don't think he said that Midtown is only for upper classes. I think what he was trying to say is that the only people that could afford new construction with those land prices are the upper class, and since the upper class for the most part is not interested in Midtown, we are not going to see anything along the rail line for awhile except the occasional drug store. He/she said: Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction.Kinkaid pointed out-rightly so-As for only the Upper classes being able to afford anything in Midtown, that's a joke. Yes, there are some $400,000 town homes, but there are MANY more priced under $200,000 and there are thousands of rental apartments in new developments as well as older properties in the area. You clearly don't need the "upper class" for redevelopment in Midtown. If CVS, Walgreens and Randals thought so, they never would have built there. When was the last time you saw Ken Lay or Mrs. Oscar "Oil for Food" Lynn Wyatt slumming in a CVS? CVS isn't catering to that ilk. They are catering to the average Joe. That's why they are building a drive up store on Fannin. The "upper class" has nothing to do with it-as you so aptly implyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 "It means that the land value is based upon demand from non-residential uses, which are apparently the higher and better uses of the site from a financial position. Despite all the hype devoted to new residential construction in the area, Midtown is still far from being a wildly-popular residential enclave among the upper class--the only class that can afford the new construction. So its short-run growth prospectives are weak in comparison with the East End, where cheap land and less fractured ownership allows for the rapid proliferation of relatively-inexpensive townhomes"No.It means Houston is still unzoned and that anything can be built anywhere and at any price to the community as long as the developers think they can make a buck.Sure, it's capitalism at work and sure it may be the market doing its thing, but it isn't the best thing for the city at large and Midtown in particular. As for only the Upper classes being able to afford anything in Midtown, that's a joke. Yes, there are some $400,000 town homes, but there are MANY more priced under $200,000 and there are thousands of rental apartments in new developments as well as older properties in the area. CVS will likely build a suburban style site with a front parking lot and a drive-thru pharmacy lane because they can and because it is CHEAPER. That's all this decision means.Perhaps I should have more precisely defined "upper class". See, in my estimation, "upper class" means any household that has a combined gross income (inclusive of benefits) at or above approximately $100,000, which (depending upon a number of factors) typically translates to residences in the mid-200's and higher. I'm not talking about millionaires, here. Many of them have many tens of thousands of dollars of outstanding student loans or other debt obligations.I know that there are cheaper housing products in certain parts of Midtown, particularly the eastern and southern fringe, where land can sometimes be acquired for about $20psf, but the issue at hand pertains to development near the light rail line, where land is typically about $40+ psf and new construction is typically necessary. In these high-value locations, the economics of development dictate luxury housing products...but if the greater demand for land is originating from commercial non-residential uses, then that's what will be built, and I think that that's pretty self-evident.By the way, CVS does not simply "build a suburban style site with a front parking lot and a drive-thru pharmacy lane because they can"...they do so because it is more convenient format for drivers and has been statistically shown to boost sales. There is no arbitrariness about it. Everything is completely planned and very little is ever left to chance. Also, it is no more or less expensive to build a store with parking in front or in back of the structure...how on earth would the position of the structure within an entirely-concrete pad change the cost of construction?I'd be appreciative if you could explain how "it isn't the best thing for the city at large and Midtown in particular." Aside from the petty semantic conundrums that I might pick at if I were so inclined, it would seem that the proportion of foot traffic into the store will originate considerably more from private vehicles rather than public transportation or other alternative forms regardless of the physical form of this single CVS store. So it seems as though they are serving their customer base to the greatest extent possible...even if they certainly cannot please everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 This one may be more "urban" than you think.The parking will most likely be in back or on the side just like the old Vietnam Restaurant. Does this also include the block with the old Hardware Store? Anyway, seems like a bad location. One of those "one-way-in, one-way-out kinda places". Which is why I think it has to be more "urban" than "suburban". I don't shop at CVS becuase they have terrible customer service. They could learn a thing or two from Walgreens. I get where you are coming from but my educated guess is it won't be much different than the Montrose/Richmond store. It will probably face Fannin and/or maybe Elgin with the drive-thru behind or to the side. I don't know if they bought the entire block so I can't tell you if the former hardware store will go. Buildings like this are somewhat disposable in other cities. You build them knowing you'll pocket the bucks when RE values pick up. In the meantime you expand your brand and sell all the NyQuil you can. BTW, I avoid dealing with the help at CVS or Walgreens...or anywhere for that matter. I'm more of an in-and-out kinda guy who trys to do his research upfront. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovernorAggie Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I can say that there is a young lady at the Walgreens at Smith and Elgin who is very attentive and very good. She's likely 18-20, but seems to care pretty good about her job--at least in my dealings with her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Can you really not figure that out on your own? Do you really have trouble understanding why most folks would find suburban development right outside of downtown and on the region's first light rail line a bad thing?As for serving their customer base, give me a break. CVS is worried about one thing and one thing only; market saturation. There is no local need for this CVS considering there is one just a couple blocks away and a new Walgreens even closer. This is about capturing whatever commuter traffic they can, especially the east-west Elgin traffic. If they capture some foot traffic or the occasional office worker at HCC's Comtech Center, that's just gravy.I never said it cost more to hide parking in the rear of a facility. It would however cost more to NOT build their prototypical suburban crap box complete with drive thru lanes. They might also save time avoiding the City of Houston's permitting process by having to petition to go against the stupid set-back rules that almost mandate the type of crappy development our city sees.I am not sure how even you can think that encouraging more vehicular traffic along Main Street can be a good thing? It truly boggles my mind. It's not as if there aren't hundreds of other CVS Pharmacies that can cater to the Chevy Tahoe driving crowd that are "too busy" to get out of their damn cars and deal with a person face-to-face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Timmy Chan's Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Walgreens 4 Life! EFIL4SNEERGLAW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Perhaps I should have more precisely defined "upper class". See, in my estimation, "upper class" means any household that has a combined gross income (inclusive of benefits) at or above approximately $100,000, which (depending upon a number of factors) typically translates to residences in the mid-200's and higher. I'm not talking about millionaires, here. Many of them have many tens of thousands of dollars of outstanding student loans or other debt obligations.I know that there are cheaper housing products in certain parts of Midtown, particularly the eastern and southern fringe, where land can sometimes be acquired for about $20psf, but the issue at hand pertains to development near the light rail line, where land is typically about $40+ psf and new construction is typically necessary. In these high-value locations, the economics of development dictate luxury housing products...but if the greater demand for land is originating from commercial non-residential uses, then that's what will be built, and I think that that's pretty self-evident.I'd be appreciative if you could explain how "it isn't the best thing for the city at large and Midtown in particular." Aside from the petty semantic conundrums that I might pick at if I were so inclined, it would seem that the proportion of foot traffic into the store will originate considerably more from private vehicles rather than public transportation or other alternative forms regardless of the physical form of this single CVS store. So it seems as though they are serving their customer base to the greatest extent possible...even if they certainly cannot please everyone.$100K is not upper class. It is upper middle class. $100K households still have to budget, and still have to concern themselves with outspending their means.As to your blind insistence that the layout of a commercial outlet doesn't affect the neighborhood, you are incorrect. While adding 75 feet to the walk to get in the front door of THIS store is insignificant, as each store adds 75 feet, it deadens the walkable effect desired. Eventually, nothing is close enough to encourage walking. In fact, it is interesting that you feel that a parking lot behind a store is such an inconvenience to DRIVERS, who must now drive an extra 75 feet, but a lot in front of a store is not an inconvenience to pedestrians, who must navigate the parking lot to get to the front door.As for why it is good for the city at large, and Midtown in particular? If Midtown is successful, the city benefits from increased taxes. Midtown is attempting to provide a unique living environment, one that allows a denser, walkable neighborhood. Stores built at the back of a parking lot make that objective harder to achieve. Doing its small part to contribute to the neighborhood is in CVS' interest as well. If the neighbors appreciate the attempt to fit in, they will patronize the store. If they do not, they will avoid it. This is the part of unrestricted development that you do not understand. Just because the government does not outlaw it, doesn't mean it is the best use of the property. And the developer's right to build does not take away the neighborhood's right to punish the developer economically for ignoring the neighbors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 He/she said: Kinkaid pointed out-rightly so- You clearly don't need the "upper class" for redevelopment in Midtown. If CVS, Walgreens and Randals thought so, they never would have built there. When was the last time you saw Ken Lay or Mrs. Oscar "Oil for Food" Lynn Wyatt slumming in a CVS? CVS isn't catering to that ilk. They are catering to the average Joe. That's why they are building a drive up store on Fannin. The "upper class" has nothing to do with it-as you so aptly implyed. If it's a matter of he said/she said, and you're not sure what the original poster actually meant, why would you have referred to his "absurd delusions" that Midtown is only for the upper class? I get so sick of the way people look for fights on this forum, about something as innocuous as real estate, no less. Also, who says that CVS is catering solely to people who live in Midtown? They might just be catering to the hundreds of thousands of cars that pass through every day. As for Randall's, that was built to cater to the upper class - all those nice apartments and townhomes near West Gray. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always heard that for new construction to happen in Midtown, it will have to serve a higher income bracket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houston-development Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Perhaps I should have more precisely defined "upper class". See, in my estimation, "upper class" means any household that has a combined gross income (inclusive of benefits) at or above approximately $100,000, which (depending upon a number of factors) typically translates to residences in the mid-200's and higher. I'm not talking about millionaires, here. Many of them have many tens of thousands of dollars of outstanding student loans or other debt obligations.$100k is not upper class, it's middle to upper middle class. over $250k, you are looking more at upper class.I know that there are cheaper housing products in certain parts of Midtown, particularly the eastern and southern fringe, where land can sometimes be acquired for about $20psf, but the issue at hand pertains to development near the light rail line, where land is typically about $40+ psf and new construction is typically necessary. In these high-value locations, the economics of development dictate luxury housing products...but if the greater demand for land is originating from commercial non-residential uses, then that's what will be built, and I think that that's pretty self-evident.HUH? i will personally buy $40 psf midtown dirt on the rail all day long; you can't find anything under $50. on the east side, you are looking at a minimum of $30 and depending on the location, as much as $58. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) As for serving their customer base, give me a break. CVS is worried about one thing and one thing only; market saturation.They might also save time avoiding the City of Houston's permitting process by having to petition to go against the stupid set-back rules that almost mandate the type of crappy development our city sees.I think CVS is actually more "worried" about making a profit than they are about "market saturation." Market saturation is merely a means to an end. And a far more important means to that end is "serving (and growing) their customer base".Having said that, you hit the nail on the head re: the "stupid set-back rules." Why in the world do they still have those set-back rules in mid-town and the TMC areas? Query: Is anyone on this board active in the midtown organizations or any other organization that might work with the city to get rid of regulations that encourage inappropriate development for Midtown?NMainguy blames it on the lack of zoning. This case appears to have nothing to do with zoning or lack thereof. (Houston's lack of zoning gets the blame for an amazing amount of negative development that it would do nothing to stop or change.) In this case, I don't see or hear anyone objecting to a drug store locating on this site, which is all that a zoning code would do (either allow or disallow commercial usage). Houston already as other land-use regulations (such as set-back requirements, parking requirements, etc.), and as in so many cases, here those regulations hurt more than help. Edited June 12, 2006 by Houston19514 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy76 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) oooohhh, those evil suburban drive-thru lanes that made me laugh.are the bank drive thru lines evil too??? or are they not suburban enough, what the hell is that all about."...CVS Pharmacies that can cater to the Chevy Tahoe driving crowd that are "too busy" to get out of their damn cars and deal with a person face-to-face"that ones funny too, those evil club footed tahoe drivers they are just killing you're dream aren't they...funny stuff Edited June 12, 2006 by westguy76 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyps Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) I just don't get how all of these CVSs can be profitable. There are SO MANY of them, and they always seem to be void of customers...how is it that the Heights can't get a grocery store, but midtown can get two pharmacies??? Any one with the right type of business experience to explain it? Should we just start now prophesying what will go into all these boxes when they go bankrupt? (yes trophy, strip club, we know ) Edited June 12, 2006 by wendyps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 "stupid set-back rules."Set-backs on Main, Fannin and Elgin are 10' in that area. 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.