Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[RedScare]

I'm a libertarian that loves capitalism and hates Walmart. Loving an economic system doesn't mean you love all the companies operating in it.

Do you support Walmart's right to buy that lot and build a store, or did you support RUDH's attempt at getting the City to block Walmart from building this store?

[kylejack]

Do you support Walmart's right to buy that lot and build a store, or did you support RUDH's attempt at getting the City to block Walmart from building this store?

Sure, but not the 380.

[RedScare]

What's that got to do with Walmart?

[kylejack]

I thought we were discussing the 380 in this thread. If this isn't the thread for it, fine with me!

[RedScare]

Walmart was not given a 380. Suggesting Walmart is at fault because the City worked a 380 deal with Ainbinder is s3mhspeak.

[kylejack]

Walmart was not given a 380. Suggesting Walmart is at fault because the City worked a 380 deal with Ainbinder is s3mhspeak.

Then why don't you argue with s3mh about it, because I didn't suggest that.

[RedScare]

Nah, I believe that I will go enjoy my newly paved streets instead.

[TonyM]

I'm a libertarian that loves capitalism and hates Walmart. Loving an economic system doesn't mean you love all the companies operating in it.

Couldn't agree more. I'm not a Walmart fan, but I'm not going to begrudge them for improving a derelict lot. Good for them, more improved land on the tax register. Win-win.

[RedScare]

Speaking of improving derelict lots, I drove through there this morning, and things are moving along. The retail is pretty much all built, the road work is near completion, and it appears that construction has started on the apartment complex. In a few months this formerly barren wasteland will be completely built out. Interestingly, for all of the complaints about pedestrian friendly developments and mixed use, a person will be able to live in one of over 600 apartments in this area without a vehicle. With METRO and the Wave, one can live, shop, play and get to work from this location with relative ease. I realize that walking to Walmart might not feel as authentic as the mixed use fanatics would like, but that's kinda the point. It is not enough to these supporters to produce something that meets their goals. It must also LOOK the way they want it to, and contain the stores they want it to. In short, they demand too much, and then they become annoying.

[barracuda]

I bicycled by the Sawyer Target last weekend and was surprised by the amount of traffic. Folks were circling the parking lot looking for spaces for Target and the surrounding strip mall stores. If this is any indication, the new Walmart development should probably do pretty well.

Both shopping centers do seem focused primarily on retail chains, but maybe something unique will pop up on account of the revenue potential. What I really wish is that Fadi's, Crave, and a good Indian restaurant would decide to setup shop there so I wouldn't have to drive across town. But I'll keep my expectations low for now to avoid disappointment.

[RedScare]

That's life in today's America. Retail is only profitable in volume. Volume means chain stores. Sure, there is the occasional specialty store, but they have a limited market. Houston supports non-chain restaurants, so we may see a few go in here, especially in light of its location next to Washington Avenue. But, expecting a mixed use development full of sole proprietor stores is a pipe dream. Today's economy doesn't allow it.

This development will do extremely well. The inner loop is very underserved by big box retail stores, and despite the general hatred for them, the overwhelming majority of shoppers will still frequent them. Walmart is not at all concerned by the couple of hundred people who claim they will never shop there. The apartment building going up across the street will provide more than enough replacement shoppers.

Edited August 31, 2012 by RedScare

[kylejack]

Nah, I believe that I will go enjoy my newly paved streets instead.

And not just paving either, maybe get the money's worth by jogging on the 2.5 block trail.

I don't know if it's true that a majority of people will shop there, but I don't really think it matters. They'll have plenty of customers and do fine.

Edited August 31, 2012 by kylejack

[s3mh]

That's life in today's America. Retail is only profitable in volume. Volume means chain stores. Sure, there is the occasional specialty store, but they have a limited market. Houston supports non-chain restaurants, so we may see a few go in here, especially in light of its location next to Washington Avenue. But, expecting a mixed use development full of sole proprietor stores is a pipe dream. Today's economy doesn't allow it.

Except that no one ever expected that. You are combining two valid critiques into one in order to make a winning argument against something that no one ever argued. This property could have been a spectacular mixed use development. The reason it did not happen was because the developer wanted to move ahead in a bad market and could only get a big box stripmall done. The rental market in Houston is more than sufficient to support having some apartments on the same site with ground floor retail. West Ave, City Centre, and Post Apts on W Gray all have shown that the model is more than just viable.

The critique about small business is that Walmart and national strip mall chains should not be getting preferential tax treatment (380 agreements) and City of Houston permitting rubber stamping when the small businesses in the Heights who compete with them directly and indirectly get no financial help from the City and frequently are subjected to huge delays from the City as a result of trying to redevelop old spaces in the Heights that do not fit into the City's permitting preference for strip malls and lots of parking spaces. Thus, Hub Cab, Sale Sucre, Zelko, Ruggles Green and others have had major delays (and major expenses) in getting their spaces ready due to City permitting issues.

So, if you buy into the City of Houston's lame PR that the Walmart site is some derilict and festering pit that no one in their right mind would want to develop, then you would certainly be tickled to see anything go in their. But, if you have the capability to think for yourself, you would realize that this was a prized tract of land because of its size and potential to connect with the existing neighborhood that could have become a new destination in Houston that would have ensured that Washington Ave would continue to grow and improve instead of marking time until it implodes the same way the Richmond strip did 10 years ago.

[TheNiche]

Except that no one ever expected that. You are combining two valid critiques into one in order to make a winning argument against something that no one ever argued. This property could have been a spectacular mixed use development. The reason it did not happen was because the developer wanted to move ahead in a bad market and could only get a big box stripmall done. The rental market in Houston is more than sufficient to support having some apartments on the same site with ground floor retail. West Ave, City Centre, and Post Apts on W Gray all have shown that the model is more than just viable.

West Ave and CityCentre have vastly superior locations to this site, in areas that were underserved by new high-end retail. And the Post Midtown Apartments have a miniscule amount of retail; about the equivalent of one strip center. The Allen House site is also better than the subject, and look at how much difficulty they've faced pushing through even the first phase. Then consider Marvy Finger's site on Waugh and how much easier it was to let a big box retailer develop than to wait for the stars to align where each of the components of a mixed-use development were favored by the capital markets.

But that's the problem with a mixed-use development is that the stars must align for every component. That's why Pavillions was so many different things until the developer had to pull the trigger on one thing. The same principles are at work in any mixed-use development where the extra uses are more than just a design accent. A site like Ainbinder's can only prudently be developed as a multi-use site, and that is what has happened. And the fact is, people don't mind walking to the building next door. If it doesn't look contrived enough for you, that's your problem.

When's the opening date for this Wal-Mart? I'm looking forward to buying affordable pre-cooked chorizo in sliced deli meat form for my Red Barron Fire-Baked Original Crust Cheese Pizzas. Sprinkle with parmesean cheese. Yum!

[samagon]

Except that no one ever expected that. You are combining two valid critiques into one in order to make a winning argument against something that no one ever argued. This property could have been a spectacular mixed use development. The reason it did not happen was because the developer wanted to move ahead in a bad market and could only get a big box stripmall done. The rental market in Houston is more than sufficient to support having some apartments on the same site with ground floor retail. West Ave, City Centre, and Post Apts on W Gray all have shown that the model is more than just viable.

You're presuming that there aren't other more attractive bits of land, or that this land is every bit as attractive to developers as those you mentioned. It's not.

The critique about small business is that Walmart and national strip mall chains should not be getting preferential tax treatment (380 agreements) and City of Houston permitting rubber stamping when the small businesses in the Heights who compete with them directly and indirectly get no financial help from the City and frequently are subjected to huge delays from the City as a result of trying to redevelop old spaces in the Heights that do not fit into the City's permitting preference for strip malls and lots of parking spaces. Thus, Hub Cab, Sale Sucre, Zelko, Ruggles Green and others have had major delays (and major expenses) in getting their spaces ready due to City permitting issues.

http://www.walmartmovie.com/

it seems you're just parroting the interests of that movie, and while there are valid concerns voiced in the movie, what were the answers? I can tell you that Walmart has a lot of resources to be able to wade through the bureaucracy, and don't read that as they are greasing palms, they just have been through the process in various places and know the ins-outs of getting the system to work for them. Mom/Pop don't have those decades of experience to help them. Mom/Pop also don't have money to hire people that are specialists in navigating the waters. As the saying goes, you have to have money to make money.

This isn't a problem you should be angry with Walmart over though, or single them out, the process and procedure is made so difficult mom/pop can't easily apply.

So, if you buy into the City of Houston's lame PR that the Walmart site is some derilict and festering pit that no one in their right mind would want to develop, then you would certainly be tickled to see anything go in their. But, if you have the capability to think for yourself, you would realize that this was a prized tract of land because of its size and potential to connect with the existing neighborhood that could have become a new destination in Houston that would have ensured that Washington Ave would continue to grow and improve instead of marking time until it implodes the same way the Richmond strip did 10 years ago.

I don't think any of us have access to the environmental report from the site. They spent a lot of time building this site, so some of it could have been dedicated to clean up efforts to make it usable. I'd find it hard to believe that a site that was a steelmill didn't require much environmental cleanup. Could anyone have done the appropriate cleanup? If they have the money, sure, it just might have been that Walmart was the only one willing to spend the money to do so.

[fwki]

....The critique about small business is that Walmart and national strip mall chains should not be getting preferential tax treatment (380 agreements) and City of Houston permitting rubber stamping when the small businesses in the Heights who compete with them directly and indirectly get no financial help from the City and frequently are subjected to huge delays from the City as a result of trying to redevelop old spaces in the Heights that do not fit into the City's permitting preference for strip malls and lots of parking spaces. Thus, Hub Cab, Sale Sucre, Zelko, Ruggles Green and others have had major delays (and major expenses) in getting their spaces ready due to City permitting issues.

s3mh, is it your point that the City is wrong in its over-regulation and onerous permitting of small business or in its permit "rubber stamping" for national chains? Would it be better for the City to lower the permitting burden on small business in the Heights or keep the burden on small business as-is and stop all this "rubber stamping" you cited? And what about "major delays (and major expenses)" Heights homeowners face "in getting their spaces ready due to City permitting issues"? Be careful with your answer (or don't answer) because your duplicity is showing.

[RedScare]

The critique about small business is that Walmart and national strip mall chains should not be getting preferential tax treatment (380 agreements) and City of Houston permitting rubber stamping when the small businesses in the Heights who compete with them directly and indirectly get no financial help from the City and frequently are subjected to huge delays from the City as a result of trying to redevelop old spaces in the Heights that do not fit into the City's permitting preference for strip malls and lots of parking spaces. Thus, Hub Cab, Sale Sucre, Zelko, Ruggles Green and others have had major delays (and major expenses) in getting their spaces ready due to City permitting issues.

Oh yes, as a Heights homeowner, I know ALL about huge delays from the City as a result of trying to redevelop old spaces in the Heights that do not fit into the City's permitting preference. In fact, as a Heights homeowner, I now have to deal with TWO layers of permitting issues, whereas Hob Cap, Zelco and Ruggles Green only have to deal with one.

What is your opinion on single family homeowners being saddled with onerous permitting regulations? Are you for or against more regulations?

[luciaphile]

Just cleaning out my Walmart file:

Maybe Walmart needs a private police force to deal with its own damn loss-prevention:

http://usnews.nbcnew...-daughters?lite

It's 2 AM, Do You Know Where Your Toddler Is? Walmart!

http://www.statesman...en-2295603.html

Someone brought a gun to a crowbar fight -- the excellent lighting of the Walmart parking lot giving them an immediate advantage:

http://www.statesman...ng-2438491.html

Woman stops to render aid, but just runs into all-night Walmart first:

http://www.statesman...ogs_the_blotter

The art is Proudly Made in the USA, like Daddy's pickup:

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Alice Walton, NIMBY-ist -- she doesn't like those airboats running up and down the Brazos. Spooks the horses:

http://www.arktimes....-than-air-boats

[TheNiche]

Wal-Mart is where the people are. The people are weird, genuinely weird. This is different from Target shoppers, who are also weird but try to pose as not weird. Or hipsters, who were perfectly and normally weird to begin with but try to brand themselves as a different flavor of weird.

I find it kind of endearing, actually. Wal-Mart is where America lets its beer gut hang out.

[s3mh]

s3mh, is it your point that the City is wrong in its over-regulation and onerous permitting of small business or in its permit "rubber stamping" for national chains? Would it be better for the City to lower the permitting burden on small business in the Heights or keep the burden on small business as-is and stop all this "rubber stamping" you cited? And what about "major delays (and major expenses)" Heights homeowners face "in getting their spaces ready due to City permitting issues"? Be careful with your answer (or don't answer) because your duplicity is showing.

Level playing field is all that is needed. You cannot have a level playing field when one developer gets to start off with a $6 mil slush fund just because they are doing something big and all the little guys in the Heights get no assistance for drainage, sidewalks, driveways, ROW acquisition, etc.

As for permitting, the City has always been biased to new stripmalls and big boxes while coming down hard on people who try to redevelop old smaller spaces. The city knows that they can push around the little guys but do not dare touch the politically connected big guys. Thus, things like the traffic impact analysis become so flexible that the engineers just go through the motions, but any such flexibility for small businesses is no existent. The City either needs to enforce the rules against the big projects as stringently as against the small guys or give the small guys the same flexibility the big guys get. It is not as much a question of too much or too little regulation. The issue is whether everyone gets the same treatment.

Nice try with the historic districts. Complete red herring. Everyone in the HDs is subject to the same rules and is treated the same. The vast majority of the applications sail through HAHC with unanimous approval. The scant few that do not are usually due to minor issues on whether existing windows/siding can be saved or whether ornaments/columns are consistent. These issues are usually self-inflicted and nothing compared to what is happening with small businesses. Not apples and oranges. Apples and orangatans.

Of course, you have said nothing to dispute my point. You have only tried to change the subject, which is a weak dodge.

[SilverJK]

Level playing field is all that is needed. You cannot have a level playing field when one developer gets to start off with a $6 mil slush fund just because they are doing something big and all the little guys in the Heights get no assistance for drainage, sidewalks, driveways, ROW acquisition, etc.

As for permitting, the City has always been biased to new stripmalls and big boxes while coming down hard on people who try to redevelop old smaller spaces. The city knows that they can push around the little guys but do not dare touch the politically connected big guys. Thus, things like the traffic impact analysis become so flexible that the engineers just go through the motions, but any such flexibility for small businesses is no existent. The City either needs to enforce the rules against the big projects as stringently as against the small guys or give the small guys the same flexibility the big guys get. It is not as much a question of too much or too little regulation. The issue is whether everyone gets the same treatment.

Nice try with the historic districts. Complete red herring. Everyone in the HDs is subject to the same rules and is treated the same. The vast majority of the applications sail through HAHC with unanimous approval. The scant few that do not are usually due to minor issues on whether existing windows/siding can be saved or whether ornaments/columns are consistent. These issues are usually self-inflicted and nothing compared to what is happening with small businesses. Not apples and oranges. Apples and orangatans.

Of course, you have said nothing to dispute my point. You have only tried to change the subject, which is a weak dodge.

But YOU said you would remember who opposed you when the time came for their rennovations... YOU said that. I infer from that that your friends would be getting breaks/rubber stamps exactly like the shopping centers while I would have to jump through hoops like a mom and pop shop. Whether that is what you meant or not doesn't matter, thats how it reads. Nice attempt to change the subject though... weak dodge.

[fwki]

Level playing field is all that is needed. You cannot have a level playing field when one developer gets to start off with a $6 mil slush fund just because they are doing something big and all the little guys in the Heights get no assistance for drainage, sidewalks, driveways, ROW acquisition, etc.

As for permitting, the City has always been biased to new stripmalls and big boxes while coming down hard on people who try to redevelop old smaller spaces. The city knows that they can push around the little guys but do not dare touch the politically connected big guys. Thus, things like the traffic impact analysis become so flexible that the engineers just go through the motions, but any such flexibility for small businesses is no existent. The City either needs to enforce the rules against the big projects as stringently as against the small guys or give the small guys the same flexibility the big guys get. It is not as much a question of too much or too little regulation. The issue is whether everyone gets the same treatment.

Nice try with the historic districts. Complete red herring. Everyone in the HDs is subject to the same rules and is treated the same. The vast majority of the applications sail through HAHC with unanimous approval. The scant few that do not are usually due to minor issues on whether existing windows/siding can be saved or whether ornaments/columns are consistent. These issues are usually self-inflicted and nothing compared to what is happening with small businesses. Not apples and oranges. Apples and orangatans.

Of course, you have said nothing to dispute my point. You have only tried to change the subject, which is a weak dodge.

I can only wish I had your connections and bravado to get my plans "rubber stamped" and then threaten my enemies with regulatory hell. But I guess such privileges only come with the omniscience you demonstrate in your posts with your typical "the City has always been biased", "The city knows...but dare not touch", and your divining the personal problems of "the scant few" whose "issues are usually self-inflicted". And now you are a regular Alan Greenspan knowing all about big city development and small business success. I am just humbled that I posted a question you couldn't answer, although Red has been doing it for quite some time. You should write a book, fiction of course.

[RedScare]

Level playing field is all that is needed. You cannot have a level playing field when one developer gets to start off with a $6 mil slush fund just because they are doing something big and all the little guys in the Heights get no assistance for drainage, sidewalks, driveways, ROW acquisition, etc.

Why should some pissant selling used books get $6 million in infrastructure improvements when all he adds to the City's coffers is a few thousand in sales taxes? The City gave Ainbinder a 380 agreement because his investment will generate millions in property and sales tax revenue for City services. For all of your supposed enlightened prose, your approach to running a government would bankrupt the city. And, besides, the City HAS invested millions in Heights infrastructure, even though the piddly businesses have contributed little. The hated developers have built new large expensive homes that not only dramatically increased property values on the lots that were built upon, but the surrounding homes as well. This increased value encouraged the City to rehabilitate streets, sidewalks, water and drainage in an effort to further increase values...and taxes. Frankly, that is why the historic d-bags forced the historic ordinance through...in an effort to limit increases in property taxes. But, you wouldn't know that, since you only moved here a few years ago, long after the historic pukes went silent on the limiting property values angle. It didn't play well. So, they...and you...just flipped the argument, thinking no one would notice. We did.

You don't want a level playing field. You want everything tilted in your favor. It worked on the historic districts (for now). It failed miserably on the Ainbinder/Walmart development. You lost on Walmart buying the land. You lost in trying to prevent Walmart building a store. You lost on the Ainbinder 380, and you got pummeled on the lawsuit.

FWIW, when I opened my restaurant, I flew through permitting. The inspectors even gave me hints on what did and did not need to be permitted. My favorite comment was when one suggested that if a new deck appeared over the weekend no one would notice. If the little guys know how to play the game they do just fine. It is no surprise that you don't.

[TGM]

Of course, you have said nothing to dispute my point.

I think your point would be more convincing if you had a cartoon mascot of sorts. Branding, it's all about branding. You want kids to be traumatized when mommy wants to go to Walmart for $1 Lunchables.

[Ross]

Level playing field is all that is needed. You cannot have a level playing field when one developer gets to start off with a $6 mil slush fund just because they are doing something big and all the little guys in the Heights get no assistance for drainage, sidewalks, driveways, ROW acquisition, etc.

I hate to break it to you, but there is no $6m slush fund. The developer gets to spend the money and then hope that sales are good enough to recover the costs incurred. It's the City that gets a good deal out of the 380 by not having to lay out a bunch of cash to pay for the infrastructure upgrades.

[fwki]

...This increased value encouraged the City to rehabilitate streets, sidewalks, water and drainage in an effort to further increase values...and taxes. Frankly, that is why the historic d-bags forced the historic ordinance through...in an effort to limit increases in property taxes. But, you wouldn't know that, since you only moved here a few years ago, long after the historic pukes went silent on the limiting property values angle. It didn't play well. So, they...and you...just flipped the argument, thinking no one would notice. We did.

Holy crap, that's it. I really, truly couldn't understand the fervor these people have for such a baseless, inconsistent argument. People who are driven by greed for base gains will envy those whose wealth comes from personal accomplishment. Their rhetoric is telling, and unfortunately also quite boring.

[luciaphile]

Wal-Mart is where the people are. The people are weird, genuinely weird. This is different from Target shoppers, who are also weird but try to pose as not weird. Or hipsters, who were perfectly and normally weird to begin with but try to brand themselves as a different flavor of weird.

I find it kind of endearing, actually. Wal-Mart is where America lets its beer gut hang out.

Replied in my home thread.

[Angostura]

I think we can safely say that it wasn't the Walmart that royally f-ed up the traffic on Heights and Yale.

It's not even open yet and late afternoon northbound traffic on both streets at I-10 has become ridiculous due to the screwed up light-timings.

[Marksmu]

I think we can safely say that it wasn't the Walmart that royally f-ed up the traffic on Heights and Yale.

It's not even open yet and late afternoon northbound traffic on both streets at I-10 has become ridiculous due to the screwed up light-timings.

I agree its the dang feeder extension! I wish every day that Yale did not connect to I-10 going westbound... it has added 5 minutes to my commute no matter which direction I come from, and when I have to sit through that light for 2-3 cycles I am almost as angry as I am at Yale when NOBODY is able to make the left turn onto 11th...

They need to add a protected left on Yale @ 11th and they need to fix the lights on Heights/Yale at I-10...damn this progress!!! But dont worry - in a few months WalMart will open and we can blame all this new traffic on it.

[samagon]

I agree its the dang feeder extension! I wish every day that Yale did not connect to I-10 going westbound... it has added 5 minutes to my commute no matter which direction I come from, and when I have to sit through that light for 2-3 cycles I am almost as angry as I am at Yale when NOBODY is able to make the left turn onto 11th...

They need to add a protected left on Yale @ 11th and they need to fix the lights on Heights/Yale at I-10...damn this progress!!! But dont worry - in a few months WalMart will open and we can blame all this new traffic on it.

Won't that be a hoot!