
Neighborhood Market in an actual neighborhood
#1
Posted 23 June 2011 - 08:42 PM
#2
Posted 24 June 2011 - 11:16 AM
Heard today that the Travis Avenue Baptist Church South Complex will become a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market sometime in the near future. I knew the church was looking to sell the South Complex as a way to get the whole campus back on the NW corner of Berry and Hemphill. I am stoked that Wal Mart bought the property. Most of the Neighborhood Markets I've seen are not really in residential areas, but this one is actually in South Hemphill Heights. I understand that there is still an ongoing approval process with various authorities. I might do some asking around at church and see if I can get some more info.
In the 1940s Berry and Hemphill had a Worth Food Market, Safeway Store, Taylor's Ice Cream, Gaveral Cleaners, White Theater, Barber Shop, Kleinschmidt Bakery, Mott's, Renfro Drugs, Mobil and Humble Gas Stations, a few others I can't remember and of course, Travis Ave. Baptist nearby.
#3
Posted 24 June 2011 - 04:49 PM
#4
Posted 24 June 2011 - 09:14 PM
Avvy, the reason I know so much about your area is that I grew up and still live in the area. We are almost neighbors.
#5
Posted 25 June 2011 - 11:07 AM
Stopping in the superstore concept a few times recently, I'd forgotten how filthy those places were, maybe it's just this downtown location. Their parking lots are the size of stadiums patrolled by security drones that seem to be able to do nothing more than chat on their cell phones. Try flagging one down sometime, seems they're only focused on WM liability situations.
I find it odd that Costco has the same size lots, often with a gas station and you're never far from their front door. Go to a Sam's and you're driving to their gas station, walking isn't an option, sometimes they're across the street.
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#6
Posted 27 June 2011 - 09:13 PM
Thanks as always for your input John. I am really rooting for this area. The Near South Side is coming along beautifully and now it's time for the not-as-near south side to get some love.
#7
Posted 27 June 2011 - 10:04 PM
I agree with you Avvy, it's time for the not-so-near Southside to get some love.
#8
Posted 09 December 2011 - 04:40 PM
#9
Posted 09 December 2011 - 06:32 PM
#10
Posted 09 January 2012 - 04:00 PM
http://blogs.star-te...lines-fortworth
#11
Posted 12 January 2012 - 06:42 PM
Tarrant Business blog entry
#12
Posted 13 January 2012 - 05:38 PM
#13
Posted 13 January 2012 - 08:16 PM
#14
Posted 23 January 2012 - 07:40 PM
Here's a link to Casey Norton's story on the redevelopment.
http://www.wfaa.com/...-137926053.html
There will be a meeting about the project at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, January 24th at the building. The address is 717 W. Berry Street.
#15
Posted 24 January 2012 - 08:27 AM
There are some new twists in the development of the Urban Village at Berry and Hemphill. Channel 8 reports that the neighborhood and Walmart are having trouble in negotiating the construction of the new Walmart Neigbhorhood Market on the site of an existing former Safeway grocery store. Neighbors want the new store to conform to the Urban Village guidelines, yet Walmart wants variances. Walmart is now threatening to move into the existing building instead of building a new one. If they move into the old store, then nothing about it has to comply with the Urban Village guidelines. They can just reopen the building as a grocery as it exists now, set way back from Berry and Hemphill Streets, jammed up against the two neighborhood streets and it only has windows facing the parking lot.
Here's a link to Casey Norton's story on the redevelopment.
http://www.wfaa.com/...-137926053.html
There will be a meeting about the project at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, January 24th at the building. The address is 717 W. Berry Street.
If you ask me, this is a case of the anti Wal-Mart crowd getting more than a little too zealous. Now is the time to back off and let Wal-Mart build a new store that might not be perfect, but is miles better than the current building. Be practical people.
#16
Posted 24 January 2012 - 11:19 PM
If you ask me, this is a case of the anti Wal-Mart crowd getting more than a little too zealous. Now is the time to back off and let Wal-Mart build a new store that might not be perfect, but is miles better than the current building. Be practical people.
If you ask me it is a case of the corporate mega-conglomerate using threats it has no intention of carrying through to push its way into the neighborhood. The residents there are right to protect their area, if Walmart did not KNOW they would make an acceptable profit at the corner location they would be out paving the suburbs as they usually do. In the far-fetched, bizarre, and virtually unprecedented world that has Borg-Mart moving into an old building there might be enough of a local outcry that business there would suffer, or at least not meet target profitability. Keep in mind all the twenty-year-old mega-shells that Walmart has abandoned all across the country to build new stores in more preferred locations, usually pitting town against town and winning tax concessions in the process, thus robbing the tax base. Seems there is a short history of South Side activism in pushing for development that conforms to the ideal of what the people there would want their community to look like: wasn't there a bank that was going to go all suburban but finally at least built a facsimile front to conform to community expectations?
And no, I don't frequent Walmart, I prefer to find local suppliers like fresh food markets, etc. to patronize rather than the, well, you know the rest. The "neighborhood market" is an interesting approach by the evil empire, and if it brings convenience to city dwellers who are not being adequately served by local businesses than that is fair game. Playing a fair game would be a change for these guys....
#17
Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:39 AM
The "neighborhood market" is an interesting approach by the evil empire, and if it brings convenience to city dwellers who are not being adequately served by local businesses than that is fair game.
Seems to me that's the case here. We're obviously on different sides of the Wal-Mart argument and that's not worth debating, but it's pretty clear that this neighborhood is underserved. It will be a shame in my mind if the new building doesn't get built, and the "evil empire" chooses to renovate a crappy design/setup instead, to the detriment of the neighborhood, all because some people thought the proposed design wasn't "perfect." What was it that Voltaire said about perfect being the enemy of the good?
#18
Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:44 AM
Here is my problem with allowing all of the variances that Walmart wants for this project. The city and the surrounding neighborhoods set up the design guidelines for this Urban Village. Walmart will be requesting several variances and from what I understand, their design does not fully meet the guidelines. If the determining boards or city staff allow those variances, then that could set a precedence in other design districts that basically any variance will be granted. Possibly, any developer in these districts could use the Walmart as an example and say that the city should grant them the same exemptions. This could lead to a watering down of all design guidelines. I will admit that Walmart is trying to do the right thing by demolishing a completely pedestrian unfriendly and suburban "big box" and building a similar sized building that is "better" urban design. This is an expensive proposition when Walmart could re-use the existing building and do nothing but reopen it as a grocery store.
Hannerhan, I wrote this before you made your last reply, but I didn't hit the "post" button until after yours showed up. I should have more later.
#19
Posted 25 January 2012 - 04:50 PM
If Walgreens can take a hint, on 28th street, and build something to look like something from the Stockyards, Wal-Mart can too. Wal-Mart has a big enough name they can get away with being in a building that looks old but be new inside. People will love it even more for that. NO ONE loves Wal-Mart because each of their stores look the same inside and and out, everywhere.
#20
Posted 27 January 2012 - 02:09 AM
It is not that the supporters of the urban village are trying to create some sort of faux old-timey environment or that they want WalMart to put gold leaf on its outdoor signage. It's that they are trying to create a walkable environment with predictable and cohesive development patters using criteria that have been proven to support just that. In other words, they want their neighborhood to feel (shockingly) like a neighborhood rather than as a place to pull off the road and into the parking lot of your one destination before getting back in your car and driving away.
They simply are asking that the building, which is on a critically important site at the corner of a major intersection, to be placed up to the sidewalk alongside the street with enough windows so that people walking down that sidewalk feel like it's okay for them to be there and that they are not walking along the back end of the retailer. People don't typically enjoy walking alongside a wide open sea of parking, so if you are trying to build a cohesive pedestrian-friendly environment, it makes perfect sense to require a developer such as WalMart to respect this by placing their building up along the side walk, with parking in the rear. It doesn't take Renzo Piano to reconfigure the architecture on a project like this. You simply move the building forward, add additional windows and adjust the placement of the entrances. Parking also is not a big hurdle on this. You put it in the rear of the building (again supported by minimal reconfiguration of the design). I seriously doubt that drivers will think that there is not enough parking. That fear should evaporate the moment they see the WalMart sign.
Again, this has little to nothing to do with matters of taste or design. To quote Duany, "It's not that it's ugly. It's that it doesn't work." It's about the building's placement and the building's interaction with its surroundings. This is something that can be hard for a lot of developers, particularly major developers who use a standard design with a highly predictable sales performance that is easy to sell to lenders or to their Finance departments, to take off their blinders long enough to fully appreciate. This can and should be done for this neighborhood, so here's hoping that the Zoning Commission doesn't back down on this one.
#21
Posted 01 February 2012 - 05:26 PM
There are some new twists in the development of the Urban Village at Berry and Hemphill. Channel 8 reports that the neighborhood and Walmart are having trouble in negotiating the construction of the new Walmart Neigbhorhood Market on the site of an existing former Safeway grocery store. Neighbors want the new store to conform to the Urban Village guidelines, yet Walmart wants variances. Walmart is now threatening to move into the existing building instead of building a new one. If they move into the old store, then nothing about it has to comply with the Urban Village guidelines. They can just reopen the building as a grocery as it exists now, set way back from Berry and Hemphill Streets, jammed up against the two neighborhood streets and it only has windows facing the parking lot.
Here's a link to Casey Norton's story on the redevelopment.
http://www.wfaa.com/...-137926053.html
There will be a meeting about the project at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, January 24th at the building. The address is 717 W. Berry Street.
If you ask me, this is a case of the anti Wal-Mart crowd getting more than a little too zealous. Now is the time to back off and let Wal-Mart build a new store that might not be perfect, but is miles better than the current building. Be practical people.
#22
Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:44 PM
Its time to do this right. Weakening the Hemphill/Berry Urban Villages with the requested variances only opens the door to 16 other diluted urban villages and their ultimate failure. I trust that the Zoning Board will listen, understand and support the guidelines in place and support the vision our neighborhood has worked so hard to put into place.
#23
Posted 03 February 2012 - 10:08 AM
#24
Posted 06 February 2012 - 05:42 PM
http://blogs.star-te...south-side.html
#26
Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:59 PM
When asked if they could acquire the small strip center along Berry Street and bring their new store up to the street per the urban village guidelines, Wal-Mart said the center owner was not interested in selling. Because of this, Wal-Mart said they then need the new store at the rear of the site. A prudent observer indicated that they bet if Wal-Mart got the parking and setback variances they wanted, they would acquire the Berry facing strip center and build a gas station at the corner. Folks this is how you gut an 'urban village'. It's block busting at it's finest. The neighborhood and Berry Street Initiative asked Wal-Mart and Travis Avenue Baptist Church to consider preserving the Berry Street block face in order to maintain the opportunity for true street facing development. (e.g. look at the Montgomery Plaza on 7th as a scalable model where you have development at the street with access to Target beyond). The Dunaway rep at the 06 Feb meeting was non-pulse but said he would take it back to Wal-Mart. We hope that our elected representative and the Zoning Board see and share our concerns because their actions will greatly affect all of the City's Urban Villages.
#27
Posted 07 February 2012 - 06:10 AM
A prudent observer indicated that they bet if Wal-Mart got the parking and setback variances they wanted, they would acquire the Berry facing strip center and build a gas station at the corner. Folks this is how you gut an 'urban village'.
Nailed it.
Again... so much time, effort and resources wasted (for the City and for Walmart) over something that has such simple and inexpensive solutions. I truly hope the City doesn't cave on this one. It's a spectacle, but one with particularly significant consequences for a neighborhood that will far outlive a Walmart that will be fully amortized in seven years.
#28
Posted 07 February 2012 - 09:29 AM
A prudent observer indicated that they bet if Wal-Mart got the parking and setback variances they wanted, they would acquire the Berry facing strip center and build a gas station at the corner. Folks this is how you gut an 'urban village'.
Nailed it.
Again... so much time, effort and resources wasted (for the City and for Walmart) over something that has such simple and inexpensive solutions. I truly hope the City doesn't cave on this one. It's a spectacle, but one with particularly significant consequences for a neighborhood that will far outlive a Walmart that will be fully amortized in seven years.
All it takes it one. The South Main St Village lost steam because of the Street Car, and sadly is all but still mostly abandoned (abit, a little cleaner than before). Berry/Hemphill folks need to challenge the City and demand the Urban Village they said they would bring there. If they believe, they will push back against Wal-Mart. Not to start a hating binge on WM, but I've seen them push and push and push until someone gives in. We can't give in.
#29
Posted 08 February 2012 - 04:42 PM
"Commissioners said they were troubled by the idea of setting a “precedent” in granting Walmart waivers it wants on the site."
#30
Posted 08 February 2012 - 08:17 PM
#31
Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:50 PM
So, let's say Walmart gives up and goes away. That means I could buy the existing building and open up, oh, maybe a thrift store, washateria, pawn shop, or liquor store without meeting any type of Urban Village standards?There are some new twists in the development of the Urban Village at Berry and Hemphill. ... Walmart is now threatening to move into the existing building instead of building a new one. If they move into the old store, then nothing about it has to comply with the Urban Village guidelines. They can just reopen the building as a grocery as it exists now, set way back from Berry and Hemphill Streets, jammed up against the two neighborhood streets and it only has windows facing the parking lot...
#32
Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:27 PM
Yes it can be nerve-wracking trying to read tea leaves here but Fort Worth believes that 17 urban villages do hold the key to our neighborhood vitality.
Let's not forget what has happen in the area; TABC has built an new education building, a new welcome center, acquired the gas station at the NW corner of Hemphill and Berry, has developed a new master plan embracing the urban village, OLV Convent has been converted to apartments and lofts, Berry Street improvements are on-going and Hemphill Street improvements begin the end of this month. We are making progress.
#33
Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:36 PM
I am not familiar enough with either the current Mixed-Use zoning regulations, or Walmart's specific plan, to honestly answer your question.
As you correctly observed, I was pointing out that denying Walmart's application is not without risk. Just because there was not a "For Sale" sign in front of the building does not mean the church is not interested in selling. It sounds like the church has spent considerable time, and money, developing a plan for their future. The fact that so soon after beginning to implement this plan, they are willing to sell this facility, indicates to me that they don't see this building as critical to their future. If that is the case, they should sell it. In fact, being a non-profit, if it no longer meets their needs, they have a moral obligation to sell it, and put the money towards their core mission.
I've attended Planning and Zoning Commission meetings all over the metroplex for years. Far too many commission members assume that if they deny a plan, the developer will simply come back with one they like better, or, another developer will come along shortly with a better plan. Sometimes that does happen. Oftentimes it does not.
In this case, there is a greater downside to denying Walmart's application. That is the existing building, to which the Mixed-Use regulations do not apply. I think I posted in this topic before that I'm sure Walmart knew what the property was zoned, when they signed the contract. So I have no real sympathy for their variances. On the other hand, we need to remember the real possibility that sending Walmart away may have an effect on this property that none of us desires. There are plenty of cases where overzealous regulations, and unbending city officials, have stagnated development. Let's hope this is not one of them.
It's my understanding the neighbors actually want the Walmart, just on their terms. It's safe to assume Walmart anticipated making some changes towards meeting the regulations. I hope both sides will give a little more, and make a deal they both say they want, come together.
#34
Posted 10 February 2012 - 05:23 PM
John Roberts - I have a sketch idea for this. I'd like to send for posting. Do you post sketches?
#35
Posted 10 February 2012 - 10:42 PM
#36
Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:04 PM
In this case, there is a greater downside to denying Walmart's application. That is the existing building, to which the Mixed-Use regulations do not apply. ... On the other hand, we need to remember the real possibility that sending Walmart away may have an effect on this property that none of us desires. There are plenty of cases where overzealous regulations, and unbending city officials, have stagnated development. Let's hope this is not one of them.
Sure enough, Wal-Mart now says it will rehab the old building if it loses the zoning case.
Yes, Wal-Mart's plan that the Zoning Commission shot down could have been improved, but I'd say it was sure better than this.
#37
Posted 11 February 2012 - 10:20 PM
#38
Posted 11 February 2012 - 11:40 PM
Sure enough, Wal-Mart now says it will rehab the old building if it loses the zoning case.
Threat? Bluff?
#39
Posted 12 February 2012 - 07:18 AM
#40
Posted 12 February 2012 - 09:13 AM
#41
Posted 12 February 2012 - 09:20 AM
#42
Posted 12 February 2012 - 09:20 AM


#43
Posted 12 February 2012 - 11:33 AM
#44
Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:06 PM
I was looking at a building in that area last year, pretty bleak area if you ask me.
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#45
Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:17 PM
I say it is a bluff. If rehabbing the old building were an acceptable option, Walmart would have pursued that from the start.Threat? Bluff?
In the time Walmart has spent at hearings, they could have closed the deal and been well underway with remodeling the building by now.
#46
Posted 14 February 2012 - 01:19 PM
http://www.star-tele...rt-are-too.html
#47
Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:05 AM
#48
Posted 15 February 2012 - 03:55 PM
#49
Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:14 PM
#50
Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:22 PM
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: South Hemphill Heights, Berry & Hemphill Streets, Berry/Hemphill Urban Village, Urban Villages, Berry Street Initiative
South Hemphill Heights
Projects and New Construction →
Residential →
Livano Victory Forest Multifamily (3320 Hemphill St)Started by Stadtplan, 05 Jan 2023 ![]() |
|
![]() |
||
Planning →
City Issues →
Poll
First "Uptown" to BE "Uptown"Started by Jeriat, 15 May 2017 ![]() |
|
![]() |
||
Architecture →
Local History →
100 years of George C. Clarke ElementaryStarted by McHand, 23 Apr 2015 ![]() |
|
![]() |
||
South Hemphill Heights
Architecture →
Historic Buildings and Preservation →
Houses on Hemphill to be RestoredStarted by Zetna, 05 Apr 2014 ![]() |
|
![]() |
||
South Hemphill Heights
Architecture →
Historic Buildings and Preservation →
Berry TheaterStarted by Doohickie, 08 Mar 2014 ![]() |
|
![]() |
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users