The site for the proposed Walmart is off Yale Street between I-10 and Washington Avenue, and could be an urban transitional node between Montrose and the Heights. Photo by Sharon Steinmann.
Walmart Plan Repeats Suburban Patterns on Urban Site
Houston city council passed a $6 million incentive for the new Washington Heights shopping center to include “landscaping, a bike trail, and widening, repaving and improving drainage.” The center, which is anchored by a Walmart, has stirred up an unusual degree of controversy and reveals the forces shaping (or intentionally not shaping) the city’s evolution without zoning. OffCite will examine Washington Heights in a series of posts. This first one will look at the development critically from the standpoint of opponents.
Opposition to the new Washington Heights development argues that it is a troubling and regressive chapter in the development of Houston’s urban core. Instead of high-density, mixed-use, neighborhood-scaled planning that would strengthen the character of the city, Washington Heights represents the low-density, box-and-strip retail that dominates and defines suburbia.
The site itself is somewhat enigmatic. Historically industrial, it is a transitional node between several neighborhoods. While technically in the West End, it has a strong relationship to the Heights and serves as a primary thoroughfare connecting that neighborhood with Washington Avenue and Montrose. Relatively quiet residences and light industry lie to the west and I-10 is directly north.
Undoubtedly, the backlash to the development has been exacerbated by the fact that the retail center is anchored by the perennially unpopular Walmart. The stakes are raised by the fact that the City of Houston has now awarded the Ainbinder Heights LLC, the developer of the project, up to $6 million in reimbursements for infrastructural improvements in and around the 23-acre site.
Broadly speaking, the opposition to Washington Heights breaks down into two camps: 1) those who dislike the tenant and will antagonize, in whatever way possible, the progress of the development and 2) a more moderate group, who are resigned to the fact that the project is happening, but oppose what they view as poor, status quo development.
Protest signs within site of the proposed Walmart location.
The first position is best represented by the 6,000 member Facebook group Stop the Heights Walmart! The group is reminiscent of the opposition to the construction of the Ashby High-Rise and indeed employs some of the same grass-roots tactics necessary to fight unpopular projects in a city with no zoning. However, in this case Wal-Mart presents a well-known target and a visitor to stopheightswalmart.org can efficiently navigate to a fact sheet clearly outlining the negative track record the retailer has regarding traffic, crime, taxes, and employment.
The second camp consists of community activists and design professionals seeking a way to make Washington Heights more positive for all parties by better addressing issues such as energy use, storm water management, urban heat island, pedestrian scaling, neighborhood compatibility, shared parking, and connection to public transportation. For instance, a tighter site plan with wide sidewalks and a door by the street, rather than one at the end of a long parking lot, would help pedestrians. While some progress has been made, the distance between the community that endorses sustainable urban development and the developers appears great. In a meeting with the developer, neighborhood resident and architect Monica Savino asked if they had considered vertical parking. “They just sat there for a long time without saying anything,” recalls Savino. Finally, they just said “no.”
This hesitation is incredibly disturbing. It suggests two equally bad scenarios: either the developers have actually never considered even the most basic motion toward a project that might ultimately be called “sustainable” OR they are coyly answering the uncomfortable questions posed by concerned citizens, knowing ultimately they are unchecked and may proceed as they desire. This situation positions those interested in realizing the vision of a more thoughtful and planned city against those obligated to do what makes business sense. In Houston, virtually all the power is given to the latter.
The Washington Heights shopping center rendering shows a prairie rather than a city.
In terms of vision, Washington Heights shopping center remains regrettably lacking in ideas. It is a suburban box and strip clad in slightly better materials than the typical Walmart, which seem to be the building’s only acknowledgment that it occupies a significant site. The disconnection of the architecture from its context comes through strongly in the developer’s renderings, which seem to portray a project in the middle of the Katy Prairie, rather than Houston’s inner-loop. The site plan reveals a tolerance for waste that serves as a painful reminder as to how little land close to the center of the city is valued.
Is there a better way? The recent planning of an H-E-B in Montrose has seen the strange bedfellows of developers and community activists working together to develop a plan that suits the neighborhood and the retailer. Skeptics are quick to point out that H-E-B has not made any binding commitments and unless placated with major outside funding will proceed as they would have from the outset. Others remain optimistic, citing H-E-B ongoing efforts to work with local residents, including an upcoming presentation of three plans upon which the community will be asked to vote.
Ultimately, Washington Heights is suburban-style development on an urban site, which over the long term will be another dysfunctional patch the urban fabric of Houston. Is it better than an abandoned steel fabrication site? Probably. Does it improve Houston in any way beyond expanding the tax base, providing a few more jobs and additional (arguably redundant) retail? Probably not. Could this development have been planned in such a way as to yield a much more progressive product—one that Houstonians could feel good about contributing their tax dollars to? Absolutely.
Email
Filed Under: Community, Headlines, Urban Planning, Walking, Zoning
Doug writes:
09.22.10
8:46 pm
Mayor Parker and City Council has lost my support for NOT having the BALLS to protect neighborhoods against additional redundant retail.
The 380 agreement is a “knife-in-the-back” to the small business owner who could never get such “guaranteed” reimbursements for “up-front” expenditures. The CITY removes all risk for BIG BUSINESS.
Council approves the Wal-Mart 380 agreement – Off the Kuff writes:
09.23.10
5:03 am
[...] most people can live with. I still think it’s the wrong location for a Wal-Mart, and I’m certainly not the only person to think that. In terms of vision, Washington Heights shopping center remains regrettably lacking [...]
shannon writes:
09.23.10
1:07 pm
I don’t really understand why people in the Heights think that it’s an outrage that Walmart sees itself as a big box store. Of course it does. Also, why do people in the Heights pretend that they actually walk to stores? Nobody does, except me, when I lived there. Walking to the grocery store was considered very eccentric and I was the only person I knew in our neighborhood who did it.
I can understand wanting to have some vertical parking, but pretending that the Heights is a village in the Cotswolds is silly. The other commercial shopping areas in and around the Heights are not beautiful and are not for pedestrians. People even drive to 18th Street, the only remaining relic of a time when people used to walk to local shopping. They drive there, park and maybe walk a few feet.
It seems that people are being a bit hypocritical to blame Walmart for the fact that they don’t walk to shop, and for the fact that the whole city is geared toward cars.
john mcwilliams writes:
09.23.10
4:24 pm
great post! although i do agree with shannon and disagree with the post that washington heights is an urban site. just because it is near downtown doesn’t make it an urban area. like most of houston, the heights are built for the automobile, scaled for the automobile, and caters to those who use their automobile. walmart is a product of that market, and while it shouldn’t take all the blame for making our cities what they are it (walmart…well more the developers here) SHOULD indeed be more critical of the way their buildings propagate that metropolitan form.
this development actually does strengthen the character of the city; however, that character is suburban, looks only inward and upon repetition adds up to nothing.
What if they built it someplace else? – Off the Kuff writes:
09.27.10
11:56 pm
[...] argument against the Washington Heights Wal-Mart mostly boils down to the fact that it’s an inappropriate location for a suburban-style big-box store. There are also concerns about traffic, and about the nature of [...]