Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[s3mh]

Interesting.

I wonder if you filter out the areas that are common to both stores (gen merch, checkout lanes, storerooms, etc.) and just compare the Yale Walmart to the 11th St. Kroger, how similar they'd be in the square footage dedicated to food.

Take out the fancy booze, cheese, international and organic food at the W11/Shep Kroger, as well as what you mentioned, and the two stores are probably pretty close in terms of shelf space for groceries. I cannot recall whether Walmart was going to offer a full service butcher or seafood. They sometimes leave that out of supercenters.

[IronTiger]

Take out the fancy booze, cheese, international and organic food at the W11/Shep Kroger, as well as what you mentioned, and the two stores are probably pretty close in terms of shelf space for groceries. I cannot recall whether Walmart was going to offer a full service butcher or seafood. They sometimes leave that out of supercenters.

They do not offer in-house butchers or seafood (they unionized in the early 1990s, so they did away with them). As a result, you get pre-packaged meat that is low-quality (it may or may not even come from America). Another reason to support a real supermarket.

[Firebird65]

The Walmart on Yale will also have a fast food restaurant (not chef driven)

OMG! Not "chef driven"?!?

You've convinced me. If only you had found this key bit of info out and told us dozens of posts ago rather than waste precious words on silly nonsensical and circular arguments. Nonetheless, I have now done a total 180 and completely support you. I'm going to Facebook right now to join the anti-Wal Mart group. I only hope they still have signs left for my yard. This thing has got to be stopped.

[J008]

Take out the fancy booze, cheese, international and organic food at the W11/Shep Kroger, as well as what you mentioned, and the two stores are probably pretty close in terms of shelf space for groceries. I cannot recall whether Walmart was going to offer a full service butcher or seafood. They sometimes leave that out of supercenters.

I have still not figured out what it is about the 11th/Shep Kroger that makes it such a black hole, it takes triple the amount of time to go there than anywhere else. It is ungodly big I still think there are corners of it that have yet to be discovered. I imagine it would indeed compare well with a walmart (though thankfully they don't have the fried potato stink that I envision the WM having)

[s3mh]

OMG! Not "chef driven"?!?

You've convinced me. If only you had found this key bit of info out and told us dozens of posts ago rather than waste precious words on silly nonsensical and circular arguments. Nonetheless, I have now done a total 180 and completely support you. I'm going to Facebook right now to join the anti-Wal Mart group. I only hope they still have signs left for my yard. This thing has got to be stopped.

Sorry to trip you up with a bit of an inside joke. The leasing agent for the rest of the development (Moody Rambin/Lance Gilliam) told a reporter that he was hoping to fill the pads at the Walmart development with boutiques and (exact words) "chef driven restaurants". Thus, I made a joke when I commented that the fast food restaurant at Walmart was not chef driven.

-->

. .

o

That is an emoticon I just invented to replicate the gesture of waiving one's hand over one's head to symbolize a joke that went over someone's head.

[samagon]

Sorry to trip you up with a bit of an inside joke. The leasing agent for the rest of the development (Moody Rambin/Lance Gilliam) told a reporter that he was hoping to fill the pads at the Walmart development with boutiques and (exact words) "chef driven restaurants". Thus, I made a joke when I commented that the fast food restaurant at Walmart was not chef driven.

-->

. .

o

That is an emoticon I just invented to replicate the gesture of waiving one's hand over one's head to symbolize a joke that went over someone's head.

probably a bad joke, more than an inside one.

I suppose once the announcement is made that all of the available space has been leased out, it may be funny,

but it's doubtful because as much as the developer may have wanted to entice a "chef driven restaurant" if there's nobody willing to sign a lease except for fast food, should they just leave that space un-leased until the "chef driven restaurant" decides to make the move?

besides, since you're the only person that has said fast food, I'm left waiting for confirmation from another user that hasn't been known historically as someone who either lies or doesn't validate the information they have heard from others before treating it as fact.

not that I don't want to believe you, a burger king would fit nicely in that location.

Regardless, I think your understanding of "chef driven" is a bit of a misunderstanding, you're thinking of a designer burger shack, or maybe a Mediterranean grill, or something, but I think the developer meant Taco Truck, as nothing else really fits the description of "Chef Driven" like a restaurant that is driven around by the chef.

Edited April 5, 2011 by samagon

[Jesse]

Don't Wallyworlds usually have a McDonalds in them?

[curley1733]

I am literally praying for a Chick-fil-a in one of those pad sites!

[ricco67]

I am literally praying for a Chick-fil-a in one of those pad sites!

Ooo...that would rock!

My diet would be in serious jeopardy, though.

I just request no more banks, though.

[s3mh]

probably a bad joke, more than an inside one.

I suppose once the announcement is made that all of the available space has been leased out, it may be funny,

but it's doubtful because as much as the developer may have wanted to entice a "chef driven restaurant" if there's nobody willing to sign a lease except for fast food, should they just leave that space un-leased until the "chef driven restaurant" decides to make the move?

besides, since you're the only person that has said fast food, I'm left waiting for confirmation from another user that hasn't been known historically as someone who either lies or doesn't validate the information they have heard from others before treating it as fact.

not that I don't want to believe you, a burger king would fit nicely in that location.

Regardless, I think your understanding of "chef driven" is a bit of a misunderstanding, you're thinking of a designer burger shack, or maybe a Mediterranean grill, or something, but I think the developer meant Taco Truck, as nothing else really fits the description of "Chef Driven" like a restaurant that is driven around by the chef.

If you do not see the irony of a commercial leasing agent talking about bringing chef driven restaurants to a strip center that includes a Walmart, you are dripping with pro-Walmart bias that pales in comparison to the worst of the anti-Walmart bias. In the article, the developers talked up the development as being an upscale extension of the restaurant district in the Washington Corridor. Eight months later, they have yet to announce a single tenant, save Walmart. Whether this was PR talk to try to calm the rage in the Heights over the development or whether these people are actually dumb enough to think that Brian Caswell or Monica Pope would be interested in a pres de Walmart concept is debatable. But to think that this development will fill up with tenants any time soon, if ever, is pretty funny. Even with all of the traffic at the Sawyer Target, there are still over a half dozen pads that have yet to be leased. Granted the Yale location is more attractive for leasing, but if you include the neighboring Orr development, you have a ton of sq footage to fill in a development that has pissed off a lot of people in the area. There are only so many Walmart tag a long tenants out there, and not enough to fill up both Ainbinder's pads and Orr's.

[JJxvi]

So what are our options? Leave them vacant...or leave the whole development vacant because it might take a while to sign someone up for one or two pads?

[Fringe]

I went to the Walyworld by my house over the weekend for dog food and bird food and as I entered the store there was a large display of Huggies diapers on my right and a display of Slim Fast on my left. They definitely know their customers.

[samagon]

blah blah blah.

I don't see much from you that shows proof of your statements.

I don't doubt for one second that you are right and there is a fast food going in, HOWEVER your track record is very bad for hearing a rumor and then stating it as a fact. All I'm saying is, give us some proof.

I also don't doubt that the developer WANTED to put in something more than fast food. Just like you WANTED that entire location to not be a WalMart. As my mom used to say: "s*** in one hand, want in the other and see which one is full" you can want whatever you want, but if there's no substance to it, either because you don't own the land, or because owners of chef driven restaurants don't want to lease the space, it won't happen.

truth is, I haven't seen what they tried (or didn't try) to do to entice certain establishments, and neither did you.

[LTAWACS]

Get ready for increased crime, more 24-hour check cashing places, cricKet, worksource, and assorted filth.

[s3mh]

I don't see much from you that shows proof of your statements.

I don't doubt for one second that you are right and there is a fast food going in, HOWEVER your track record is very bad for hearing a rumor and then stating it as a fact. All I'm saying is, give us some proof.

I also don't doubt that the developer WANTED to put in something more than fast food. Just like you WANTED that entire location to not be a WalMart. As my mom used to say: "s*** in one hand, want in the other and see which one is full" you can want whatever you want, but if there's no substance to it, either because you don't own the land, or because owners of chef driven restaurants don't want to lease the space, it won't happen.

truth is, I haven't seen what they tried (or didn't try) to do to entice certain establishments, and neither did you.

Above I was referring to fast food going inside the Walmart, not on the pads. But their will be fast food on the pads too. As for your objection to everything I say as lacking verification, I would respond that you shouldn't accuse someone of being a liar unless you are willing to do your own work. If you get on the internet (which by posting on here you concede that you can do so), you will find things like this:

http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/site_plan.html

AH HA!!! Yes, it shows a pad designated for fast food. So much for the upscale development. And don't start a bunch of crud parsing the term "fast food" as meaning anything with counter service, like Paulies or Cafe Express. We all know that this development is going get the usual strip mall crud thanks to the presence of Walmart. So, next time you call someone a liar, be prepared to back it up, or shut up. Burden is on you, not me. I am free to say what I want.

Oh, and if you keep clicking around that website thingamajig you will also find the list of tenants under "retailers". You will see that only Walmart comes up. Sure, they may be waiting for a big announcement where they proudly tell residents that they will be even closer to a Sally Beauty Supply, a Payless Shoes, and Chick-fil-A than ever before. But right now, they don't have squat up on their website.

[samagon]

Above I was referring to fast food going inside the Walmart, not on the pads. But their will be fast food on the pads too. As for your objection to everything I say as lacking verification, I would respond that you shouldn't accuse someone of being a liar unless you are willing to do your own work. If you get on the internet (which by posting on here you concede that you can do so), you will find things like this:

http://www.washingto.../site_plan.html

AH HA!!! Yes, it shows a pad designated for fast food. So much for the upscale development. And don't start a bunch of crud parsing the term "fast food" as meaning anything with counter service, like Paulies or Cafe Express. We all know that this development is going get the usual strip mall crud thanks to the presence of Walmart. So, next time you call someone a liar, be prepared to back it up, or shut up. Burden is on you, not me. I am free to say what I want.

Oh, and if you keep clicking around that website thingamajig you will also find the list of tenants under "retailers". You will see that only Walmart comes up. Sure, they may be waiting for a big announcement where they proudly tell residents that they will be even closer to a Sally Beauty Supply, a Payless Shoes, and Chick-fil-A than ever before. But right now, they don't have squat up on their website.

Thank you for validating your data. Was that so hard for you to do? You could have saved yourself, and me 3 whole posts just by offering that link in your first post about fast food, rather than expecting me (or others) to fish out the answer that you already found, but chose not to link. As far as expecting others to validate/invalidate your claims.

More often than not, your claims are invalid and as such people are in the habit of just not trusting what you write.

You really should post up links to trusted sources more often.

[LTAWACS]

Well said. On a brighter note... how can we stop this thing?

[curley1733]

Sure, they may be waiting for a big announcement where they proudly tell residents that they will be even closer to a Sally Beauty Supply, a Payless Shoes, and Chick-fil-A than ever before.

Blasphemy to bundle Chick-fil-A in with that riff-raff...

Edited April 6, 2011 by curley1733

[Fringe]

Well said. On a brighter note... how can we stop this thing?

You can't stop it. Just embrace it and look at the bright side. Soon you can play Walmart Bingo.

[LTAWACS]

AWESOME

[s3mh]

Thank you for validating your data. Was that so hard for you to do? You could have saved yourself, and me 3 whole posts just by offering that link in your first post about fast food, rather than expecting me (or others) to fish out the answer that you already found, but chose not to link. As far as expecting others to validate/invalidate your claims.

More often than not, your claims are invalid and as such people are in the habit of just not trusting what you write.

You really should post up links to trusted sources more often.

I am not wrong more often than not. I just take a point of view that is contrary to the prevailing pro-developer/anti-preservation view that is prevalent on this message board. Thus, plenty of people say things that are completely wrong (HAHC being able to control political content of yard signs--actual post in Historic Ordinance thread) and get a pass. But, I make a reasonable argument/observation (Bungalows in good condition at a certain price point sell quickly in the Heights) based on my personal experience of being in the market for over two years (and friends being in the market for another year beyond that), and I get a pile of responses because I do not share the anti-preservation view. Just because my arguments and observations start a debate doesn't mean that they are invalid. I do not have to post links to every sale of a bungalow in the Heights just because someone knows of an overpriced bungalow with a horrible rennovation that won't move. And I do not have to see a link to the bungalow that won't move and won't call that person a liar for not posting one because it is just an argument on a message board. Many who are pro-preservation and/or anti-Walmart have been bullied off this message board by people who pick apart their posts and call them all kinds of names. Debate is what makes message boards interesting. I am all for that. But discounting opposing viewpoints as being invalid because they do not share the prevailing bias is lame.

[SilverJK]

I am not wrong more often than not. I just take a point of view that is contrary to the prevailing pro-developer/anti-preservation view that is prevalent on this message board. Thus, plenty of people say things that are completely wrong (HAHC being able to control political content of yard signs--actual post in Historic Ordinance thread) and get a pass. But, I make a reasonable argument/observation (Bungalows in good condition at a certain price point sell quickly in the Heights) based on my personal experience of being in the market for over two years (and friends being in the market for another year beyond that), and I get a pile of responses because I do not share the anti-preservation view. Just because my arguments and observations start a debate doesn't mean that they are invalid. I do not have to post links to every sale of a bungalow in the Heights just because someone knows of an overpriced bungalow with a horrible rennovation that won't move. And I do not have to see a link to the bungalow that won't move and won't call that person a liar for not posting one because it is just an argument on a message board. Many who are pro-preservation and/or anti-Walmart have been bullied off this message board by people who pick apart their posts and call them all kinds of names. Debate is what makes message boards interesting. I am all for that. But discounting opposing viewpoints as being invalid because they do not share the prevailing bias is lame.

Yet you bring up the yard sign issue, which was posted back in June, before the revisions to the Historic Ordinance, and were admittingly made in jest to show the ordinance's flaws. Lame indeed.

You are wrong more often than not, as has been repeatedly shown. When proven/shown wrong you simply stop that argument and move on to another one, rinse/repeat. You get a pile of responses because of your blatant disregard for your neighbors, as shown by your manic threatening rant in your "we won you lost" post. You aren't here for debate, you are here to troll.

[Marksmu]

I am not wrong more often than not. I just take a point of view that is contrary to the prevailing pro-developer/anti-preservation view that is prevalent on this message board. Thus, plenty of people say things that are completely wrong (HAHC being able to control political content of yard signs--actual post in Historic Ordinance thread) and get a pass. But, I make a reasonable argument/observation (Bungalows in good condition at a certain price point sell quickly in the Heights) based on my personal experience of being in the market for over two years (and friends being in the market for another year beyond that), and I get a pile of responses because I do not share the anti-preservation view. Just because my arguments and observations start a debate doesn't mean that they are invalid. I do not have to post links to every sale of a bungalow in the Heights just because someone knows of an overpriced bungalow with a horrible rennovation that won't move. And I do not have to see a link to the bungalow that won't move and won't call that person a liar for not posting one because it is just an argument on a message board. Many who are pro-preservation and/or anti-Walmart have been bullied off this message board by people who pick apart their posts and call them all kinds of names. Debate is what makes message boards interesting. I am all for that. But discounting opposing viewpoints as being invalid because they do not share the prevailing bias is lame.

AGAIN with the political yard sign issue....have you not beat that horse to death yet? There are no fewer than 10 posts telling you that it was sarcastic and done with the intent to get a rise out of people, but you keep bringing it up.

And you actually ARE wrong more often that you are right, and 99.9% of the times when you are wrong and then someone proves you are wrong with facts and petty things like supporting evidence, you make no response, and then 5 posts later you repeat the same factual inaccuracy. It is frustrating beyond belief, because you seem to want debate, as long as the momentum of the debate is on your side. When the tides change, you no longer debate, you just ignore...that is not debating. It is sticking your head in the sand.

Nobody believes a liar even when he is telling the truth. That is why nobody believes you. Everything you say about Walmart may be true, but considering how often you were either lying or just completely wrong in the historic thread, it is not a giant leap to figure out why nobody believes you about walmart either...except for those people who obviously share your hatred of walmart....they might believe the sky is falling as long as we could blame Walmart.

[august948]

You can't stop it. Just embrace it and look at the bright side. Soon you can play Walmart Bingo.

Are these things you already see at other local merchants in the neighborhood (Kroger, Target, etc)? I had the impression the local neighborhoods were more upscale than that.

[20thStDad]

Hold on, did anyone hold the illusion that a chef-driven restaurant would be IN the Wal-Mart? Please. Anyway, it's gonna be trendy chains that fill the rest of it up anyway. That's what you (most) people want anyway. It's why Berryhill is the most happening restaurant in the hood already. Everyone just take off your uppity hats and admit you'll be eating at the PF Chang when it opens.

[s3mh]

And you actually ARE wrong more often that you are right, and 99.9% of the times when you are wrong and then someone proves you are wrong with facts and petty things like supporting evidence, you make no response, and then 5 posts later you repeat the same factual inaccuracy. It is frustrating beyond belief, because you seem to want debate, as long as the momentum of the debate is on your side. When the tides change, you no longer debate, you just ignore...that is not debating. It is sticking your head in the sand.

So, you get to call me wrong 99.9% of the time without citing a single example and at the same time require me to substantiate everything I say? That is nothing more than crying "liar liar pants on fire" in the school yard.

And I do not ignore. I refuse to beat a dead horse. There is a time to argue and a time to move on. If you have interpreted my ability to move on as a concession that I am wrong, you are very wrong.

And the comment on yard signs was coming from someone holding himself out to be an attorney who made numerous interpretations of the ordinance that were beyond fantasy. He can't back track by claiming that he was not serious.

[s3mh]

Hold on, did anyone hold the illusion that a chef-driven restaurant would be IN the Wal-Mart? Please. Anyway, it's gonna be trendy chains that fill the rest of it up anyway. That's what you (most) people want anyway. It's why Berryhill is the most happening restaurant in the hood already. Everyone just take off your uppity hats and admit you'll be eating at the PF Chang when it opens.

Here is a great example of my point. This post will get a free pass because it takes a swing at the people in the Heights who are against the Walmart. But, there is absolutely no evidence of a single upscale restaurant even being interested in this development. Do I now get to call this person a liar? No. Of course not. It is just speculation. We all do this, but I am not allowed to because I do not fit in with the little club of pro-walmart/anti-preservation people. In fact, I initially posted what was simply a wise crack about the walmart having a fast food restaurant and everyone has picked that to pieces. Why? Not because they care about whether it is actually true whether the Walmart will have a fast food restaurant. It is because they want to shout down anyone who opposes the Walmart, just the same way anyone who opposes the preservation ordinance gets shouted down in that thread.

[little frau]

I am not wrong more often than not. I just take a point of view that is contrary to the prevailing pro-developer/anti-preservation view that is prevalent on this message board. Thus, plenty of people say things that are completely wrong (HAHC being able to control political content of yard signs--actual post in Historic Ordinance thread) and get a pass. But, I make a reasonable argument/observation (Bungalows in good condition at a certain price point sell quickly in the Heights) based on my personal experience of being in the market for over two years (and friends being in the market for another year beyond that), and I get a pile of responses because I do not share the anti-preservation view. Just because my arguments and observations start a debate doesn't mean that they are invalid. I do not have to post links to every sale of a bungalow in the Heights just because someone knows of an overpriced bungalow with a horrible rennovation that won't move. And I do not have to see a link to the bungalow that won't move and won't call that person a liar for not posting one because it is just an argument on a message board. Many who are pro-preservation and/or anti-Walmart have been bullied off this message board by people who pick apart their posts and call them all kinds of names. Debate is what makes message boards interesting. I am all for that. But discounting opposing viewpoints as being invalid because they do not share the prevailing bias is lame.

But the fact that you continue to use the term "anti preservation" instead of "anti ordinance" does diminish your credibility. It seems that you are "discounting opposing viewpoints" yourself.

We are preserving a home, several counties away from Houston, that is older than any that the Heights has to offer. It is in a rural area and thankfully no one is telling us how to do it. We could have torn it down and rebuilt for what it's costing us but we actually want to live in an old, somewhat historic home. We oppose the current historic ordinance but we are not at all anti preservation.

[samagon]

I am not wrong more often than not. I just take a point of view that is contrary to the prevailing pro-developer/anti-preservation view that is prevalent on this message board.

Actually, you are wrong. I mean, look at how you say in the same sentence as you are not wrong, yet you call quite a few people anti-preservation, when in fact, they are anti-ordinance, and have stated as much, and shown examples of it.

That may not be a boldfaced lie (pretty damn close though), but it borders on extreme disingenuousness.

I'll finish this statement for you....

Here is a great example of....

what is obviously a sarcastic statement that you have obviously taken as a statement of fact, just like the political yard sign sarcastic remark.

I guess from now on you are going to reference that statement as well as the yard signs.

[RedScare]

So, you get to call me wrong 99.9% of the time without citing a single example and at the same time require me to substantiate everything I say? That is nothing more than crying "liar liar pants on fire" in the school yard.

Here's an example where you were wrong...

You claimed the historic district vote was over and that we had lost. Two of the three Heights districts have since been voted down. The mayor will not let the third come to a vote for fear of the same result. You could not have been more wrong on that. Probably explains your lack of participation in that thread since then.