-
To respond privately, use the "Reply" command.
To post to the list "Forward" to [at]
-
Good points, Patrick.
I am just so fascinated about all this discussion (like the ones about the
hangar) - about what "we" should do with the property at old Howard's and old
Parkers.
To my knowledge "we" have not purchased that property (just like we did not own
the hangar).
If/when Endeavor passes on the Howard/Parker property (I assume they will not go
through with buying the property at this point) the property will go back on the
market. Well, folks, whoever buys that property does not have to even wink at
us. They can do whatever they dern well please with it with the zoning it
currently has - as long as they don't want to build over 3 stories or have any
other "compatiability issues" that require a variance. They can throw up a
3-story apartment complex without so much as a by-your-leave
It is after all zoned commercial. The new owners do not have to talk to us at
all, ever.
So, if you all really want to have a say-so in what is developed, then we all
better get busy and raise some serious dough.
Thanks,
Mary
Quoting Patrick Goetz :
> jody horton wrote:
> > Lately strip centers seem to have been vilified by Endeavor - and all of
> us.
> >
> > So I thought I would stick up for them.
> >
>
> If traffic is the major concern (this was the primary argument against
> the Endeavor variance after all), then the problem with a strip center
> is that strip centers generally generate more traffic than the Endeavor
> proposal would.
>
> Yes, some strip centers can be cool, but the price of this property
> would dictate businesses that generate a lot of traffic.
> Less traffic = fewer sales = less profit = lower rent.
>
> Of course there are some instances where smaller businesses --
> especially utility retail -- can survive WITHOUT a lot of traffic, but
> these require mixed-use, so there is a reasonable captive audience, so
> to speak, of customers that can just walk to the business.
>
> There are endless books, papers, etc. written about all this stuff. The
> reason the Triangle exists is that the Austin City Council, under the
> leadership of Kirk Watson, REJECTED the original CENCOR strip center
> proposal precisely because it would generate too much traffic in
> surrounding neighborhoods. The idea was the residential component would
> allow for smaller, lower traffic businesses to survive. Tom Terkel, VP
> of CENCOR, got the new urbanism religion soon thereafter and is now a
> huge proponent of projects like this. Here is a fun experiment you can
> try close to home. Go stand in front of any of the entrances to and
> from the Triangle and get a read on how many vehicles are going in/out
> of that entrance/exit. Now go stand over in front of one of the
> entrances to Central Market (Central Park) and check out the traffic
> through there. No great surprises; Central Market has a constant flow
> of cars going in and out while the Triangle has very little traffic.
> Central Market is a strip center, and the Triangle is mixed-use.
>
> Finally, someone suggested that they preferred a strip center to
> apartments, since strip centers close at night while apartment residents
> come and go all night long. Actually, the opposite is true. Most
> apartment dwellers have visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads at
> night, while strip centers can easily have high traffic businesses that
> are open 24/7, with people driving up and peeling out after buying some
> late night cigs (or whatever).
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in messages are solely that of the author
and not of the list administrators nor Druma Inc (sponsor 14gram.com).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe & "howto" info, send a blank email to [at]
-
