COMMENT OF THE DAY: PARKING IN THE FRONT, BUSINESS IN THE BACK “It’s not BS. Local independent businesses may be relatively willing to provide their parking on the side / back / top / below or wherever. But I’ve heard from several retail developers that convincing a ‘credit tenant’ to lease in a structure that doesn’t have off-street front-door parking can be a major challenge, even if there’s an oversupply of parking elsewhere on site. The developer of BLVD place wanted to put the development right up along the Post Oak Boulevard sidewalk –– and at the time there was the expectation there would be a light rail station right there. This was going to be done, I believe, without seeking a setback variance (and the Transit Corridor Ordinance in 2009 obviated the need for one anyway). But the tenants that were sought refused to come unless a parking lot was put in front –– the internal parking structure wasn’t enough for them. And so, the plan was redesigned with off-street parking in front, and the tenants came. I don’t mean to imply support for the setback requirement –– I think in most cases it hurts way more than it helps and should be eliminated, or at least modified to not require a variance for more sidewalk-friendly development. Did you know that Kirby from Westheimer to US 59 is a Major Thoroughfare, therefore requiring a 25 foot setback from the right of way for new development? Same with Montrose from W. Dallas to US 59. Is this what we want for the primary streets of some of Houston’s most ‘urban’ neighborhoods, the very center of our city? In my opinion, this is ridiculous.” [Local Planner, commenting on Comment of the Day: When Houston Buildings Weren’t So Shy of the Street] Illustration: Lulu