Developments On Studewood St.

[RedScare]

How dare you contradict my pontification!

[heights_yankee]

How dare you contradict my pontification!

stop beingwrong and i'll stop correcting you

[ricco67]

How dare you contradict my pontification!

stop beingwrong and i'll stop correcting you

Classic! Made me spill my beer.

[heights_yankee]

i don't know if this is the right thread or not, but i snapped a pic of the building at 11th and yale this afternoon. it's looking great!

[tmariar]

i don't know if this is the right thread or not, but i snapped a pic of the building at 11th and yale this afternoon. it's looking great!

It does look nice! More info on this thread - the architect posted at some point.

[heights_yankee]

i posted this in a Heights forum thread, but thought I would share here since someone pointed me to the right spot. clicked a photo of the building today and it is really looking wonderful. i am thrilled that this is going to remain part of the fabric of the Heights for many more generations!

[heightsfan]

Good Afternoon All,

Looks like there is progress on The Big Mamou plus see below the website

www.thebigmamou.com

Also know of any other new restaurants or retailers or new development?

[heights_yankee]

Good Afternoon All,

Looks like there is progress on The Big Mamou plus see below the website

www.thebigmamou.com

Also know of any other new restaurants or retailers or new development?

there is supposed to be an italian restaurant opening in the new building on 10 1/2 (next to glasswall). also, don't forget Tycer's new place, Textile, slated for an August opening...

[segovia]

Whole Foods Market plans to build a store between downtown and River Oaks as part of a 13-acre development that will include apartments and shops. The Austin-based natural and organic grocery chain will lease the northeast corner of West Dallas and Waugh from the Finger Cos., the firms said Tuesday.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5777804.html

[NYC Texan3]

This development is really annoying, as much as I like Allegro and the thought that it puts into its houses. It is a crime to put a commercial building on Studemont when there is some much available commercial land on White Oak and 11th, not to mention 20th and N. Main. It is an even worse to erode the neighborhood by scraping two houses to create a parking lot.

This is just another aspect of Houston's unwillingness to direct commercial growth. Studemont should be residential on the West side, as it is on the East side. The deed restrictions that guarantee that the neighborhood east of Studemont will remain intact is likely the key driver of home values in Woodland Heights, which I understand are now higher than houses west of Studemont.

[RedScare]

This is just another aspect of Houston's unwillingness to direct commercial growth.

Houston is the one that changed the street into a major north-south thoroughfare, and rebuilt the street to facilitate that goal. I don't know why or how you believe that it would not be zoned commercial if zoning were enacted.

[NYC Texan3]

You think so? That land has been occupied by houses since the Heights was built out, so that character would usually carry through to a zoning ordinance. It would be odd to zone one side of a street commercial and the other residential. High capacity roads are certainly zoned for residential fairly often-- an example is Voss through the Villages, or, based on deed restrictions, Kirby through River Oaks or Gessner between Westheimer and Barryknoll, just south of Memorial City.

[heights_yankee]

kaboom books is rumored to be leaving Oolala and setting up in the current City of Houston Field Office next to Antidote.

During my weekly walk to Valero to get my slurpee fix this weekend, I noticed a sign in Kabooms window saying they're actually moving to a new location on Bayland and Houston Ave.

I think Kaboom is moving to Houston Ave, into one of the old buildings where Bayland ends. They have their logo on the window and there is a sign in saying they are opening soon.

Looks like the rumor was true. Kaboom is working on the space next to Antodote. THeir sign has been in the window for about 2 weeks. Tulips & Tutu's relocated from 19th street to the old Kaboom space in Oo La La.

While both these moves make complete sense, I am a little dismayed by the T&T move since I like the fact that the end of 19th Street was a family oriented shopping spot. I was hoping more of the same would open there and that I would never have to go to the Village to buy a baby gift again...

[RedScare]

You think so? That land has been occupied by houses since the Heights was built out, so that character would usually carry through to a zoning ordinance. It would be odd to zone one side of a street commercial and the other residential. High capacity roads are certainly zoned for residential fairly often-- an example is Voss through the Villages, or, based on deed restrictions, Kirby through River Oaks or Gessner between Westheimer and Barryknoll, just south of Memorial City.

But why should it? Just because there were houses on this street at one time, does not mean that it should always be that way. The fact is, over the 100 year history of the neighborhood, commercial activity has occurred on that street, whether zoned or not, and whether houses were there or not. Some commercial activity occurred when the houses were converted to commercial uses, and some occurred when the houses were replaced with commercial structures. It has occurred organically because commercial naturally FITS on that street, due to its visibility.

So, if commercial activity is occurring organically, why would a zoning board want to come in and zone it out? Just because it can? And, why would the residents want it out? Just because they can? Or worse, because it "destroys the integrity of the neighborhood"? The latter is my favorite, because it is a catch phrase with no meaning. It just sounds good when self-described neighborhood preservationists throw it out there with an air of superiority, and their enablers nod their heads approvingly.

So, my question becomes, just who is offended by this development? I realize that you are, but how are you affected? Personally, I live inside the square created by White Oak, Heights, 11th and Studewood. It would appear that I am in the group "most" affected. No one on my street is complaining. In fact, my neighbor, who has a business on 11th, applauds the development, as it may attract more activity to his shop. I like the investment in the area, as the new buildings bring new shops, restaurants and other activities I can walk to and the rehabilitated structures add value to the area. Besides, since the Heights is dry, Studewood represents the only area where liquor licenses are allowed. Frankly, my only gripe is that, because there are so few buildings in the immediate area, only uppity expensive places like Glass Wall are opening. Hopefully, with this building and the one on 11th, a few more mid-priced places can open.

[heights_yankee]

so, apparently kaboom is doing gang busters and has tons of stick, so the studewood space is a 2nd, smaller shop than their one on Houston.

[woodheightsguy]

so, apparently kaboom is doing gang busters and has tons of stick, so the studewood space is a 2nd, smaller shop than their one on Houston.

I guess all of the "intellectuals" need something to read as they sip on their double espresso not fat mocha cafe lattes, or whatever they drink, me, I show up for the $2 Shiners from 4-7.

[RedScare]

I guess all of the "intellectuals" need something to read as they sip on their double espresso not fat mocha cafe lattes, or whatever they drink, me, I show up for the $2 Shiners from 4-7.

Mmmm...Shiner.

Everyday? Not you, the Shiner.

[NYC Texan3]

But why should it? Just because there were houses on this street at one time, does not mean that it should always be that way. The fact is, over the 100 year history of the neighborhood, commercial activity has occurred on that street, whether zoned or not, and whether houses were there or not. Some commercial activity occurred when the houses were converted to commercial uses, and some occurred when the houses were replaced with commercial structures. It has occurred organically because commercial naturally FITS on that street, due to its visibility.

So, if commercial activity is occurring organically, why would a zoning board want to come in and zone it out? Just because it can? And, why would the residents want it out? Just because they can? Or worse, because it "destroys the integrity of the neighborhood"? The latter is my favorite, because it is a catch phrase with no meaning. It just sounds good when self-described neighborhood preservationists throw it out there with an air of superiority, and their enablers nod their heads approvingly.

Interesting argument but way too broad. The east side of the street hasn't changed since it was developed. The west side has changed b/c it doesn't have the protection of zoning or deed restrictions. Should the deed restrictions on the east side be voided since there might be some businesses that would be attracted there? Do the houses that are there not deserve some consideration? Kind of strange to argue there is no impact on the neighborhood. Also, commercial development spread all through the original Heights b/c the deed restrictions were not enforced... I am sure you would favor getting a lot of them out of the center of the neighborhood, even though those business owners obviously feel their locations are convenient as well. If your friend owned his lot on 11th, he would favor a zoning ordinance, b/c it would limit the ability of developers to buy up some houses to rip down rather than existing commercial space on 11th or White Oak.

I live on 10th, so I fall into the same group as you. There are a lot of people on our street who aren't happy about 25% of that block being knocked down for a parking lot. Last time I looked, they are still serving margaritas at Berryhill and beer at the Red Onion.

[woodheightsguy]

Mmmm...Shiner.

Everyday? Not you, the Shiner.

Every weekday, all brands of shiner as well.

[RedScare]

Interesting argument but way too broad. The east side of the street hasn't changed since it was developed. The west side has changed b/c it doesn't have the protection of zoning or deed restrictions. Should the deed restrictions on the east side be voided since there might be some businesses that would be attracted there? Do the houses that are there not deserve some consideration? Kind of strange to argue there is no impact on the neighborhood. Also, commercial development spread all through the original Heights b/c the deed restrictions were not enforced... I am sure you would favor getting a lot of them out of the center of the neighborhood, even though those business owners obviously feel their locations are convenient as well. If your friend owned his lot on 11th, he would favor a zoning ordinance, b/c it would limit the ability of developers to buy up some houses to rip down rather than existing commercial space on 11th or White Oak.

I live on 10th, so I fall into the same group as you. There are a lot of people on our street who aren't happy about 25% of that block being knocked down for a parking lot. Last time I looked, they are still serving margaritas at Berryhill and beer at the Red Onion.

Hmm, considering that friend is my next door neighbor, and he lives in a steel warehouse that he converted to a loft, I rather doubt he is in favor of zoning. It would take his home away.

To understand Studewood and the way it developed, one must first understand the area. It is not one master planned development. Studewood is the western boundary of Woodland Heights, and the eastern boundary of Stude 1 and 2. Houston Heights does not even touch it, hence the cocktails at Berryhill. Because it is not located within either subdivision, it was not designed nor intended to be a residential street of any subdivision. It was merely a road to provide access to all of the new subdivisions springing up on either side of it.

There are numerous commercial structures on the western side of Studewood, and contrary to your statements, most were built in the 1930s and 1940s. So, if the residential character of Studewood has been ruined, it was ruined 70 to 80 years ago. And, while it is possible that homes were razed to build those commercial structures in 1930 and 1940, I seriously doubt it, as there was plenty of vacant land to build on. Why knock down a house when you can build next door?

Incidentally, I am quite sure that you are aware that the 2 story building being constructed is replacing the 70 year old 2 story building whose brick wall fell off. I am unsure why that so offends you. And, it had a parking lot behind it. The new parking lot takes up 2 extra lots of the 24 on your block. I guess that adds up to 25%. I'll have to do the math later.

[NYC Texan3]

Hmm, considering that friend is my next door neighbor, and he lives in a steel warehouse that he converted to a loft, I rather doubt he is in favor of zoning. It would take his home away.

To understand Studewood and the way it developed, one must first understand the area. It is not one master planned development. Studewood is the western boundary of Woodland Heights, and the eastern boundary of Stude 1 and 2. Houston Heights does not even touch it, hence the cocktails at Berryhill. Because it is not located within either subdivision, it was not designed nor intended to be a residential street of any subdivision. It was merely a road to provide access to all of the new subdivisions springing up on either side of it.

There are numerous commercial structures on the western side of Studewood, and contrary to your statements, most were built in the 1930s and 1940s. So, if the residential character of Studewood has been ruined, it was ruined 70 to 80 years ago. And, while it is possible that homes were razed to build those commercial structures in 1930 and 1940, I seriously doubt it, as there was plenty of vacant land to build on. Why knock down a house when you can build next door?

Incidentally, I am quite sure that you are aware that the 2 story building being constructed is replacing the 70 year old 2 story building whose brick wall fell off. I am unsure why that so offends you. And, it had a parking lot behind it. The new parking lot takes up 2 extra lots of the 24 on your block. I guess that adds up to 25%. I'll have to do the math later.

I am not the one who made the statement that Studewood is the "only area where liquor licenses are allowed", so don't bust me for pointing out the facts. I am aware that the old Heights ends at Oxford. Sounds like you feel anything goes between Oxford and Studewood? Or does that extend to all of the non-deed restricted Heights?

I think the point of the new building is it will actually be used, as opposed to abandoned, and has a new parking lot that extends to two more formerly residential lots. If you will do me a favor and drive down 10th St tonight and tomorrow night to get a feel for the parking situation, based on The Glass Wall traffic (excluding the new building's restaurant traffic), you may get a feel for why I am fired up.

[RedScare]

I think the point of the new building is it will actually be used, as opposed to abandoned, and has a new parking lot that extends to two more formerly residential lots. If you will do me a favor and drive down 10th St tonight and tomorrow night to get a feel for the parking situation, based on The Glass Wall traffic (excluding the new building's restaurant traffic), you may get a feel for why I am fired up.

I live a few hundred feet down from you. I drive and walk that street several times a day. I have the "feel" for the situation. I have even commented on it in this forum before. I understand your annoyance with Glass Wall, as it has very little parking, and worse, it attracts patrons who drive big honkin' SUVs. But, that is exactly why I do not understand your gripe with the parking lot, which will alleviate on street parking. It appears that our difference of opinion stems from my appreciation of retail and restaurants within a short walk of my home, while you would rather it be a short drive away. While you are certainly entitled to your preferences, and I am entitled to mine, this appears to be a difference in "druthers", rather than a zoning issue. Studemont was commercial long before either of us got here, and even if zoning were enacted, the 2 story building on that lot would have been grandfathered in. In fact, it was a city ordinance that forced the expansion of the parking lot.

EDIT: The previous structure was actually a THREE story building, not 2. In any event, I understand your wish for a quiet street. We'll just have to agree to disagree whether zoning would have taken out 78 years of commercial activity on Studewood. Truce, and feel free to throw eggs at my house. Heights Yankee will show you where it is.

[heights_yankee]

Truce, and feel free to throw eggs at my house. Heights Yankee will show you where it is.

a) thank you for the truce. this was getting tiresome.

2) i will gladly lea dthe tour for anyone who would like to throw eggs at Red's house. perhaps it can be a regular thing, departing from the Shiloh Saturday evenings around 8 pm.

[NYC Texan3]

Yep, a truce is good. I was actually surprised to get into things that way. I have been away from posting for about 3 years, so I should know better than to come in and mix things up off the bat!

I am actually of mixed feelings about the situation. In theory, I like the density, so I don't have a huge problem with street parking. It is a big plus to have a couple restaurants that we can walk to. However, the fact that the streets are narrow and don't have curbs exacerbates the situation, at least in my eyes. I also like the rear parking, since it gives a better small town feel to the street (albeit that the new building can't be the genuine historical article, of course).

Hopefully the development turns out well. It looks pretty good so far. I just fear for the parking and see that that particular block is already lagging in renovations/redevelopment.

[Arivechi]

In the last couple weeks there has been a lot of activity at the Big Mamou... the wood picnic benches were sanded and washed and it looks like the ENTIRE inside of the building was gutted. I saw a group painting the outside. Anyone hear when they hope to open up?

[Ross]

In the last couple weeks there has been a lot of activity at the Big Mamou... the wood picnic benches were sanded and washed and it looks like the ENTIRE inside of the building was gutted. I saw a group painting the outside. Anyone hear when they hope to open up?

I have it on good authority that the target is late October.

[tanith27]

Thats my understanding as well from talking directly with the owner. They will be building a deck for outside seating and the lot directly behind will be used as parking. I was also told that they will be participating in White Linen this year, so drop by for some samples from their menu.

[TexasCE]

Were they open for White Linen Night? How was the food?

[tanith27]

Were they open for White Linen Night? How was the food?

Yes, they were serving some of their cajun fare but I was stuffed by the time I made it here I couldn't think about eating anything. They seemed to be doing decent business and this was early, probably close to 7pm. I bet it got more hectic as the crowds built up.

[SilverJK]

I was too full by the time i got there as well, but it did look pretty tasty, and there seemed to be a good crowd there. Can't wait for it to open up.