[fwki]

Thanks for the info skamper. For commercial real estate developers, 2009 is going to be a tough year...far tougher than any neighborhood association. See this commercial real estate outlook... http://www.realtor.o...3bab778e322d571 .

Houston's been above the fray nationally, but the oil price chickens are coming home to roost. It may a good time for recent UT real estate grads to study up on the 1980's... http://www.wtrg.com/...ilprice1869.gif .

[lockmat]

fwki, on Monday, December 22nd, 2008 @ 11:51am, said:

Thanks for the info skamper. For commercial real estate developers, 2009 is going to be a tough year...far tougher than any neighborhood association. See this commercial real estate outlook... http://www.realtor.o...3bab778e322d571 .

Houston's been above the fray nationally, but the oil price chickens are coming home to roost. It may a good time for recent UT real estate grads to study up on the 1980's... http://www.wtrg.com/...ilprice1869.gif .

20% office vacancy rate for Dallas? Ouch

[fwki]

lockmat, on Monday, December 22nd, 2008 @ 1:05pm, said:

20% office vacancy rate for Dallas? Ouch

Wow! I completely missed that stat. Dallas is almost as bad as Detroit with the bottom not yet in sight. I'm guessing the Heights will remain "quaint" for a while. That is unless half-done, abandoned real estate projects begin to pile up.

[Heights CPA]

I have a client who has been leasing the building at 2802 White Oak. They have been advised to vacate as demolition of the building will begin in 60 to 90 days. This is the building just east of the closed BBQ restaurant.

[LTAWACS]

tanith27, on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 @ 10:10am, said:

I'm completely against this. I do recognize the need for high density dwellings in the area, this location is just wrong wrong wrong. I just sent a note to Adrian Garcias office so I'm curious what they have to say on the matter. Interesting that the Innerloopcondos group has been quiet for a couple of years now. I know there was some pretty good opposition to that and it was much closer to I-10.

What makes you say this location is wrong? What did you say to AG?

[tmariar]

Heights CPA, on Thursday, January 8th, 2009 @ 11:39am, said:

I have a client who has been leasing the building at 2802 White Oak. They have been advised to vacate as demolition of the building will begin in 60 to 90 days. This is the building just east of the closed BBQ restaurant.

Thanks for the update, Heights CPA! I've had a hard time finding information. I checked the permits, but only see dumpster permits for 2802 White Oak.

For those who haven't read the entire thread, we have talked about two different properties:

(1) The Vaughan property, which is shown in red below - it is west of and adjacent to Onion Creek. The "Now Leasing" high-rise sign that started this thread is located on and concerns the Vaughan property. I haven't heard any recent news about it.

(2) The Burroughts property, which is shown in purple below - it is east of Onion Creek, and includes lots on both the north and south sides of White Oak. It does not include Charles Liquor, but does include the convenience store to the east, that entire little shopping center where White Oak Bakery is located, the old Camphouse building, the building to the east of that (2802), and a lot across from 2802 (next to Jimmie's). Someone posting above said that they had word that high-rise mixed-use was proposed for the north side of White Oak, and a parking garage proposed for the south side of White Oak.

[Tiko]

I also heard from a usually reliable source that Fitzgerald's is testing the waters for a sale.

[tmariar]

Tiko, on Thursday, January 8th, 2009 @ 4:21pm, said:

I also heard from a usually reliable source that Fitzgerald's is testing the waters for a sale.

Wow! I would really hate to see them go. I'm sure the Dom Polanski building could be used for other purposes, but I think it's especially great as a club. The Polish Lodges used the second floor as the dance hall because in the pre-air-conditioning days (it was built in 1918) because it had so many windows. It's cool to me that people are still hanging out there enjoying music 90 years later.

[flatline]

Thanks for the synopsis and photo link tmariar.

Sorry for the nonsequitur, but that photo really shows how Tricon (?) crammed the sardines in on 6 1/2 street. . .

[tanith27]

flatline, on Friday, January 9th, 2009 @ 11:05am, said:

Sorry for the nonsequitur, but that photo really shows how Tricon (?) crammed the sardines in on 6 1/2 street. . .

Ugh, I know. I watched those being built and thought there should have been a bit of greenery left somewhere on that block.

[heights_yankee]

tanith27, on Monday, January 12th, 2009 @ 9:24am, said:

Ugh, I know. I watched those being built and thought there should have been a bit of greenery left somewhere on that block.

not to defend the sardine lifestyle, but at least those have some nice little yards in back. more than most can say...

[musicman]

heights_yankee, on Monday, January 12th, 2009 @ 10:03am, said:

not to defend the sardine lifestyle, but at least those have some nice little yards in back. more than most can say...

like a trailer park.

[LTAWACS]

musicman, on Monday, January 12th, 2009 @ 10:07am, said:

like a trailer park.

But without the trailers... and the park.

[woodheightsguy]

Yeah, just remember what was there before Tricon built those houses..... It was a complete slum. I'm not a Tricon fan, but welcomed getting rid of those apartments.

[aggie92]

woodheightsguy, on Monday, January 12th, 2009 @ 6:26pm, said:

Yeah, just remember what was there before Tricon built those houses..... It was a complete slum. I'm not a Tricon fan, but welcomed getting rid of those apartments.

I agree. It was a run down apartment complex that needed to go. Although I'm not a fan of the Tricon row houses either, they made those of us that live near there much happier.

[heights_yankee]

woodheightsguy, on Monday, January 12th, 2009 @ 6:26pm, said:

Yeah, just remember what was there before Tricon built those houses..... It was a complete slum. I'm not a Tricon fan, but welcomed getting rid of those apartments.

no kidding. the only time i have ever been nervous walking in the heights was past those apartments. there was some bad stuff going on. i wasn't alone or with the baby, either. i was with my 6'2", 200 lb hubby who was like "let's get the hell out of here." there really is so much in the heights than can go...

[H50]

Walked by this property yesterday and the office tower sign has been replaced with one that has a one story development in an Art Deco Style.

[heights_yankee]

H50, on Monday, March 16th, 2009 @ 7:43am, said:

Walked by this property yesterday and the office tower sign has been replaced with one that has a one story development in an Art Deco Style.

interesting. too bad the neighborhood isn't art deco... but still... i have to wonder if it was neighborhood resistance or a bad economy that forced the change?

[tmariar]

H50, on Monday, March 16th, 2009 @ 8:43am, said:

Walked by this property yesterday and the office tower sign has been replaced with one that has a one story development in an Art Deco Style.

Really? That's fantastic! I'm going to see if I can get a photo.

heights_yankee, on Monday, March 16th, 2009 @ 1:48pm, said:

interesting. too bad the neighborhood isn't art deco... but still... i have to wonder if it was neighborhood resistance or a bad economy that forced the change?

I'm always in way over my head when I try to talk architecture... but it seems like we have a fair number of landmark buildings built in the deco period, and that have at least some deco touches. I'm thinking like:

The Heights Theater
The Church of Christ
Lambert Hall
The newly remodeled retail center at 11th and Yale

To me, art deco seems like a great idea for a project of that size, in that location, if done properly.

[MaggieMay]

tmariar, on Tuesday, March 17th, 2009 @ 8:46am, said:

Really? That's fantastic! I'm going to see if I can get a photo.



I'm always in way over my head when I try to talk architecture... but it seems like we have a fair number of landmark buildings built in the deco period, and that have at least some deco touches. I'm thinking like:

The Heights Theater
The Church of Christ
Lambert Hall
The newly remodeled retail center at 11th and Yale

To me, art deco seems like a great idea for a project of that size, in that location, if done properly.

I agree. The Heights area was inhabited during Art Deco's heyday, so the style isn't out of line. White Oak isn't exactly a museum of exquisite architecture; it's quite an eclectic area.

But we don't need a tower blotting out the sky over Onion Creek. It's a matter of size & scale.

[tmariar]

Apologies for the poor picture quality, but here's the new rendering:



This appears to be the same 1950's shopping center that is already there, as evident from the stair-step design on the corner, but with new paint, sign, landscaping, etc. The rendering doesn't show the property on the other side of the row of three tall palm trees, which is the narrow lot between this one and Onion Creek.

If the neighborhood response had any part to play in the owner's decision not to build a high-rise on this property, I want to say thanks. I think the proposed renovation will be a positive thing for White Oak and the surrounding area.

I wonder what's going on down the street with the Burroughs property...

This post has been edited by tmariar: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 11:48 AM

[heights_yankee]

i'm not saying art deco will be an eye sore or shouldn't be considered, but i think its silly when people say things like art deco (or new orleans revival) "fit" the neighborhood when it's not an art deco neighborhood. while this isn't the worst, an arts and crafts style would be really cool and fit the neighborhood at the same time. i love all the modern takes on a&c we are seeing in the hood, like the 2 great houses on 16th around nicholson...

[aggie92]

tmariar, on Tuesday, March 17th, 2009 @ 11:30am, said:

I wonder what's going on down the street with the Burroughs property...

http://swamplot.com/...3-23/#more-7586

Here is one of the renderings from Swamplot.

 south_heights_street_view.jpg (17.81K)
Number of downloads: 29

[Heights CPA]

heights_yankee, on Tuesday, March 17th, 2009 @ 3:07pm, said:

i'm not saying art deco will be an eye sore or shouldn't be considered, but i think its silly when people say things like art deco (or new orleans revival) "fit" the neighborhood when it's not an art deco neighborhood. while this isn't the worst, an arts and crafts style would be really cool and fit the neighborhood at the same time. i love all the modern takes on a&c we are seeing in the hood, like the 2 great houses on 16th around nicholson...

The tenants in 2802 White Oak moved out this weekend after 13 years there. The owner was making noises about re-leasing the property. They had talked previously about tearing it down so now I am not sure what they will do. It seems that the partners may not all be on the same page.

[Gooch]

Noticed these signs have sprouted up across from the propose renovations in the last couple of weeks. Anyone know if they are in response to anything specific, or just pre-emptive?

[tmariar]

I'd just seen the sheet sign, but had wondered the same thing. Especially given that I first noticed it about the same time I learned that the two projects that had been discussed for the parcels on either side of Onion Creek/Charles' Liquor were not going forward as originally conceived (and from the sound of it, now possibly won't involve any tear-downs at all).

Likely just coincidence, though. Homeowners in that area across the street (east of Oxford, south of White Oak, west of Studewood, north of WO Bayou) - near where the sheet sign is - have had to fight a number of battles over the years.

The boundaries of "Freeland Historic District" itself can be seen on this pdf - essentially, it's lots fronting Frasier, Granberry, or Reserve. The sheet sign was the first I'd heard of it - but see this press release.

And I noticed that there is an application pending to demolish the house at 536 Granberry (owner Dale C. Moore, applicant Jack Preston Wood). See also this document. So maybe that's got something to do with the signs?

Could we give Gooch's post a new thread? The White Oak parcels aren't within the Freeland Historic District...

This post has been edited by tmariar: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 2:47 PM

[RedScare]

They need a catchier slogan. How about "Live in Freeland Or Die"?

If it catches on, just give me appropriate credit.

[tmariar]

RedScare, on Wednesday, March 25th, 2009 @ 3:17pm, said:

They need a catchier slogan. How about "Live in Freeland Or Die"?

If it catches on, just give me appropriate credit.

The attribution would put a certain spin on the slogan...

"Live in Freeland or Die" - RedScare

[tmariar]

tmariar, on Wednesday, March 25th, 2009 @ 2:42pm, said:

Could we give Gooch's post a new thread? The White Oak parcels aren't within the Freeland Historic District...

Still hoping for a new thread for this topic...

Someone left the following comment on Heights Blog:

"The Freeland Historic District is the ONLY district left in the city of Houston with all original bungalows! It consists of 36 original homes. It is currently endangered of having one of of the bungalows demolished and replaced by two 4 story homes. Please support our efforts to preserve our small unique historic district by stopping by Onion Creek to sign the petition book located on the bar. Thank you for your support! Living in the past and loving it! Sincerely, Freeland residents."

[Gooch]

They had some some protesters out yesterday. KTRK (Ch.13) covered it. Heres a link http://abclocal.go.c...=...&id=6734092. As noted above by tmariar it is indeed the Granberry property that's endangered.

[sheeats]

Gooch, on Wednesday, March 25th, 2009 @ 2:19pm, said:

Noticed these signs have sprouted up across from the propose renovations in the last couple of weeks. Anyone know if they are in response to anything specific, or just pre-emptive?

They're in response to this guy's attempt to build an apartment building that's going to be a bazillion times taller and larger than anything else in the neighborhood:

http://blogs.houston...and_houston.php

Surprise, surprise.

[tmariar]

sheeats, on Tuesday, April 7th, 2009 @ 9:09pm, said:

They're in response to this guy's attempt to build an apartment building that's going to be a bazillion times taller and larger than anything else in the neighborhood:

http://blogs.houston...and_houston.php

Surprise, surprise.

There are drawings of the proposed structures in the last link in post 126.

My understanding is that they are not a "giant modern apartment building" (like the yucky one built a couple of blocks away, fronting I-10), but two single-family houses to be built side-by-side. And I think the Freeland District is the only neighborhood the new constructions would "dwarf" - they would dwarf their neighbors, just like many (if not most) of the townhouses and houses-you-really-shouldn't-call-freestanding-without-a-wink that builders have squeezed into subdivided lots in the Heights.

I'm certainly not in favor of anyone tearing down 536 Granberry and replacing it with two 50'-tall new constructions crammed into a single 50' lot in an otherwise undisturbed, albeit small, historic district. I'm against it for all the reasons cited by the HAHC in that same link, plus more. I admire the Freeland District residents for fighting to protect the historical integrity of their pocket of the Heights, and am fully behind them. I think there was just a misunderstanding along the way about the nature of the proposed structure(s).

Or does someone have some more recent info suggesting the plans have changed? The lot is VERY deep (maybe 150'+ feet?), but I still can't imagine trying to build an apartment building there.

Sorry to repeat myself but, if a moderator reads this, could we please have posts 125 forward moved to their own Freeland Historic District thread?

This post has been edited by tmariar: Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 8:46 AM

[SilverJK]

bringing this thread back up...

Scaffolding and other equipment around the building. It looks like they have started renovations. Anyone know whats going to end up in the building? There seems to be lots of activity on white oak right now.

[tmariar]

SilverJK, on Friday, August 7, 2009 at 9:23 AM, said:

Scaffolding and other equipment around the building. It looks like they have started renovations. Anyone know whats going to end up in the building?

I know the rendering doesn't guarantee anything, but I'm hoping for a restaurant.

This post has been edited by tmariar: Friday, August 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM

[heights_yankee]

tmariar, on Friday, August 7, 2009 at 1:07 PM, said:

I know the rendering doesn't guarantee anything, but I'm hoping for a restaurant.

while the building definitely needs to be improved, the rendering is ridiculous. the heights is not art deco. if you're going to put so much time and money in to a project, why not take the time beforehand to make it something people will want to be a part of. or make it modern and representative of the time in which it's being rebuilt/renovated. but faux art deco? leaves me going

[RedScare]

It's not art deco. It is art moderne. And, there are numerous examples of deco and moderne architecture in the Heights, including the newly revealed building at 11th and Yale. But, whatever your taste in architecture, this does not appear to be so much an 'art deco' renovation as a cleaning up of the style that is already there. The renderings seem to show that all of the main lines of the building remain. Only a parapet has been added.

[heights_yankee]

RedScare, on Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, said:

It's not art deco. It is art moderne. And, there are numerous examples of deco and moderne architecture in the Heights, including the newly revealed building at 11th and Yale. But, whatever your taste in architecture, this does not appear to be so much an 'art deco' renovation as a cleaning up of the style that is already there. The renderings seem to show that all of the main lines of the building remain. Only a parapet has been added.

i stand corrected on the exact style, but still those are far and few between. do you think this building is original to the heights?

[RedScare]

heights_yankee, on Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 3:51 PM, said:

i stand corrected on the exact style, but still those are far and few between. do you think this building is original to the heights?

I have no idea. It was built before I was born. But, it has been part of the fabric of the neighborhood for nearly 60 years. Who are we to fault the builder of this building in the 1950s? More importantly, who are we to demand that it be covered with some faux craftsman facade, as opposed to restoring it to its original look? The neighborhood is not a snapshot in time. It is a living breathing neighborhood, that began in one decade 100 years ago, but was built out and lived in throughout the other 90. It is not a museum, nor is it a theme park. These are people's homes and businesses, and while a nod to the character of the neighborhood is appreciated, it is not required. What I really cannot understand is the vitriol toward restoration. Is that not what we wanted?

[heights_yankee]

RedScare, on Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, said:

I have no idea. It was built before I was born. But, it has been part of the fabric of the neighborhood for nearly 60 years. Who are we to fault the builder of this building in the 1950s? More importantly, who are we to demand that it be covered with some faux craftsman facade, as opposed to restoring it to its original look? The neighborhood is not a snapshot in time. It is a living breathing neighborhood, that began in one decade 100 years ago, but was built out and lived in throughout the other 90. It is not a museum, nor is it a theme park. These are people's homes and businesses, and while a nod to the character of the neighborhood is appreciated, it is not required. What I really cannot understand is the vitriol toward restoration. Is that not what we wanted?

i agree it's not a museum and i am in favor of smart development in the heights. i have said many times on this forum that i wish more new construction would reflect the time period in which it was built, rather than pretend to be something its not. there are some great craftsman style homes that are thoroughly modern on 16th which reflect this, as well as the white "modern vic" previously discussed on this board. as far as it not being a theme park- that is my issue with this building. it looks like it belongs in a theme park. i half expect to see an old timey photo booth where you can dress up as a flapper or wear a zoot suit. i think it's ugly. it's not about the act of restoration in and of itself. it's specific to this building. to me this building has always looked like a cheapy that went up in the 80s with no architectural merit. the fact that i am wrong about that is great but that doesn't mean i have to love what it is about to become. and i think "vitriol" is a very strong word.

the beauty of the building on the corner of 11th and Yale is that something was discovered under years of poor renovation and redevelopment; that something was given a second life with that restoration. i just have my doubts that the original building we are discussing here looked at all like the current rendering. i could easily be wrong, but i have my doubts. i also have residual issue with the developer due to his prior plans. the fact that he thought a high rise on white oak was a good idea makes me skeptical about him, his current project and his level of caring or understanding about where he is building. that is an emotional reaction to the project. i know that. yeah yeah- he's probably a nice guy and lives here and loves it and thinks he's doing the right thing and whatever else. i just couldn't buy that if you tried to sell it to me.

[tmariar]

I don't mind the original look of the strip center, and think the update looks even nicer - though that just comes down to personal aesthetics, I suppose. Apart from personal aesthetics, though, things I like about the update: (1) it's respectful of the building's original lines; (2) it's retaining a style that to me echoes other older buildings in the neighborhood, per post 119 above (though someone who knows more about architecture may say I'm totally wrong on that score); and (3) the more money that's put into updating the building, the less likely it is (I assume) to be replaced by something along the lines of the new owner's original conception.

If the same guy still owns it, my recollection is that at least at the time the original rendering was unveiled on White Oak, he lived in one of those residential high-rises on Allen Pkwy.

heights_yankee, on Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 7:34 PM, said:

i agree it's not a museum and i am in favor of smart development in the heights. i have said many times on this forum that i wish more new construction would reflect the time period in which it was built, rather than pretend to be something its not. there are some great craftsman style homes that are thoroughly modern on 16th which reflect this, as well as the white "modern vic" previously discussed on this board. as far as it not being a theme park- that is my issue with this building. it looks like it belongs in a theme park. i half expect to see an old timey photo booth where you can dress up as a flapper or wear a zoot suit. i think it's ugly. it's not about the act of restoration in and of itself. it's specific to this building. to me this building has always looked like a cheapy that went up in the 80s with no architectural merit. the fact that i am wrong about that is great but that doesn't mean i have to love what it is about to become. and i think "vitriol" is a very strong word.

the beauty of the building on the corner of 11th and Yale is that something was discovered under years of poor renovation and redevelopment; that something was given a second life with that restoration. i just have my doubts that the original building we are discussing here looked at all like the current rendering. i could easily be wrong, but i have my doubts. i also have residual issue with the developer due to his prior plans. the fact that he thought a high rise on white oak was a good idea makes me skeptical about him, his current project and his level of caring or understanding about where he is building. that is an emotional reaction to the project. i know that. yeah yeah- he's probably a nice guy and lives here and loves it and thinks he's doing the right thing and whatever else. i just couldn't buy that if you tried to sell it to me.

This post has been edited by tmariar: Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 9:55 AM

[tmariar]

Keep forgetting to add that I noticed a few days ago that Aunt Mike's (NE corner of White Oak and Arlington) appears to have vacated its building.

HCAD says the building dates to 1950 - I'd figured it was older. The owner is (still?) listed as someone named Michael, so maybe he's just going to put something different in the space?

This post has been edited by tmariar: Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 10:05 AM

[heights_yankee]

so, never mind the *ahem* moderne style strip center. what about the house between that and onion crek? it looks wonderful! i just drove by without a camera but hopefully someone else can grab a shot of it. love the green with brick red trim. wonder what's going in there?

[tmariar]

The house does look nice.

It looked this morning like they were putting the finishing touches next door on the strip center's tile work - I like it.

And then I saw a TABC sign outside Indian Summer Lodge that mentions Tacos-A-Go-Go having applied for a license for the location. I didn't have a camera with me, unfortunately. That's in the dry zone, but maybe they're trying to get a private club license like Shade has?

[sonic0boom]

tmariar, on Saturday, September 12, 2009 at 12:33 PM, said:

And then I saw a TABC sign outside Indian Summer Lodge that mentions Tacos-A-Go-Go having applied for a license for the location. I didn't have a camera with me, unfortunately. That's in the dry zone, but maybe they're trying to get a private club license like Shade has?

I saw this sign over the weekend while on the hike/bike trail that goes through the neighborhood. The TABC sign mentioned something to the effect that Tacos a-go-go applied for the license for some place that included "Club" in the name. Sorry, that's vague, but the fact that the name had "Club" in it might indicate that, yes, they are going for private club status.

Now, if only i could figure out how it is you apply for an alcohol license in a "dry" area.... (that's rhetorical; no need to derail the thread )

[tmariar]

sonic0boom, on Monday, September 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM, said:

The TABC sign mentioned something to the effect that Tacos a-go-go applied for the license for some place that included "Club" in the name. Sorry, that's vague, but the fact that the name had "Club" in it might indicate that, yes, they are going for private club status.

Yeah, I saw that, too. I think that was probably what made me think they might be applying for a private club license. Their tacos are good enough that they probably wouldn't have to serve beer, but I bet they'd prefer to have the option.

[kylejack]

tmariar, on Saturday, September 12, 2009 at 1:33 PM, said:

The house does look nice.

It looked this morning like they were putting the finishing touches next door on the strip center's tile work - I like it.

And then I saw a TABC sign outside Indian Summer Lodge that mentions Tacos-A-Go-Go having applied for a license for the location. I didn't have a camera with me, unfortunately. That's in the dry zone, but maybe they're trying to get a private club license like Shade has?

Uhh, I hope that's a second location because I like my main street location. Best way to get tacos on the way to work via train.

[sonic0boom]

kylejack, on Monday, September 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM, said:

Uhh, I hope that's a second location because I like my main street location. Best way to get tacos on the way to work via train.

I snapped a photo of the TABC sign the last time i was out..... haven't really noticed anything going on, though. I also can't imagine that they would close the one on Main, but who knows. Maybe someone can ask the next time they are there.

Attached File(s)

•  tacosagogo.JPG (54.93K)
  Number of downloads: 1

[tmariar]

I heard it would be a second location, not a move. If it happens.

[LTAWACS]

Interesting. I didnt know there was such a place in town. Are they any good?

[tmariar]

I like them a lot. And they've gotten some recognition in the press.

I also like the little El Gallo de Jalisco taqueria that's right across the street from this prospective location. Maybe both could make it at that intersection.