Leaderboard

You could address this situation by applying for minimum lot size and minimum building line restrictions for your block. This doesn't require a new ordinance, and doesn't require that your neighbors be subject to the caprice of the HAHC any time they want to alter their property.

Here's a photo from my bike ride. This was taken from the Columbia Tap trail bridge.

The fact is that there are a very large numbers of structures dotting the heights that shouldn't and probably can't be saved, even in the historic districts, and I would consider your example of the south end of Nicholson to be one of the prime locations where an argument could be made that maybe somebody SHOULD have cleared off every block and built something new. In any case, I don't feel extremely strongly one way or another, especially not living in (but just outside) the West district. I just wanted to make my feelings clear that I personally don't think the character of the neighborhood is being affected by new development much at all except to say that its gotten much better. In fact I believe the quality of many, many of the older homes has gone way up since I was growing up with the influx of new development. To me the neighborhood is enhanced and vibrant with restored old structures mixed with new structures, but thats just my opinion, as I'm sure others have theirs and I don't oppose the oldest and most uniform blocks having some kind of protection just to keep some of the old flavor around. The only time I really bristle (and this hasn't happened in a while) is when someone who bought and renovated a nice old bungalow within the last year or two tries to convince me that the neighborhood needs to be preserved and kept historic, and have uniform building codes instituted, and I'm thinking "I've lived and or worked right around here off and on for 25 years or so and this neighborhood has NEVER been uniform so what are you telling me is supposed to be preserved?"

I can count the number of times Marksmu and I have agreed on something on one hand, but I totally agree with him on this. Without clearer language, the ordinance is ready to be abused by those in power. Dismissing Marksmu's concerns as irrelevant and as little more than a conspiracy theory won't do anything to win you friends, especially with people who feel the same as him. Demanding a better, more secure product from lawmakers shouldn't be considered unreasonable or ridiculous, and imposing this on people who bought land prior to this ordinance taking effect just seems wrong as well. Maybe if the W in George W Bush stands for Walmart.

My block in the west historic district is all 1920s bungalows except for one 1970 shack and one new construction. All of the bungalows with additions have added on in the back and have preserved the front 1/2 of the building. I am next to a small bungalow that has been left to decay. Without historic preservation ordinances, a builder could buy the lot and put in a 2 story monster that goes from the sidewalk to the alley (everyone else has retained the original setback). If that happened, my bungalow would then be next on the chopping block (even more so as I have a full sized lot). There would be no point in making improvements to my house as I would only see lot value in a sale. The real threat to the Height's hodge podge is not the historic preservation ordinance; it is the builders and real estate agents that want to make a quick buck off of the high demand for decent inner loop housing. They want to wipe the Height clean of single story bungalows and fill in every block with two story houses that have as many sq ft as can be crammed into a 6600 lot. Just look at the new construction on the south end of Nicholson and the planned high density condos where the Ashland Tea House and old Assembly of God church on Ashland. The historic homes in the Heights deserve protection. If that means that builders won't make as much money as they want to, then fine. If that means that someone has to compromise on the design for their addition, then fine. This city has no shortage of land. But, without real protection, this city will lose its scant few historic neighborhoods.

It is not the plain language that supports your arguments. It is your own personal opinion that if the ordinance can be interpreted in an unreasonable manner, it will be interpreted in an unreasonable manner because you believe that government is by its very nature unreasonable. Here are a few examples of your arguments that are completely misleading and wrong: The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic. Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance. Whats next? The ordinance has no limit whatsoever. They could potentially prohibit political yard signs that dont support their particular party! There is no perceivable end to the control. You have claimed to be an attorney. But if you were an attorney, you would know that the last argument is a violation of the First Amendment. As for hardi plank, there is nothing in the ordinance that says hardi plank is forbidden. You just make that representation because the ordinance gives the HAHC the power to require homeowners to use siding materials that are consistent with the historic siding. So, someone with 117 siding would probably not be able to replace it with hardi plank. That is a far cry from claiming that hardi plank is expressly forbidden. And the first comment makes it sound like people will have to go combing through historic salvage yards in order to put siding on an addition. That is false. If your building has 117 siding, HAHC can require your addition to also have 117 siding. That means that you will have to go all the way to Grogan's on Yale to find this rare and exotic historic material. HAHC cannot require you to go to a historic salvage yard and find vintage 117 siding. There are many other examples. And there are less egregious examples in the literature being sent around by the realtor/builder funded opposition. The funny thing is that I would strongly support an effort to draft a better historic preservation ordinance, as would many of my neighbors. But, it is clear from the arguments from opponents that this isn't about perfecting the historic district ordinances. It is about undoing what many fought for years to do. Thus, it is "no means no" v. "big government is gonna tell you what TV channel you can watch", and a good opportunity to come together and create historic preservation that works well for every is lost.

That work has nothing to do with the stadium. They are doing street improvements in the area and have been using the empty lots as staging areas. They bring in piles of dirt, or pipe, and then take them away. You can see one of the improved intersections in the foreground. There where the orange cone is and the new handicapped ramp. I live in Lofts at the Ballpark and keep a close eye on any work that is actually being done.

Aw, I'm kind of sad to see the apartments go. I know they are low-income, but that place is always spotless. Flowers are always planted and several times I've observed management picking up the yard. Compared to the dreck that is Skyline on White Oak, they are very nice.

The drawing is not to scale...meaning, it has no bearing on reality. It's crap. In fact, in oh-so-many ways, the girth of this particular crap is anatomically improbable. It might be mistaken for a woodland critter that climbed up through the plumbing into the bowl, just in time to die and rot.

That's too bad. The tire/lube center is one of the best things about walmart.

I think the earlier criticisms were accurate. Most of those criticizing Walmart wished for fancier stores to shop at. Examples given were specialty shoe and clothing stores, HEB (a new chic one, as opposed to the old one located right inside the Heights), boutique hotels, and now, a Trader Joes. Those debunking the criticisms are not uber-consumers. In fact, that's the point. If you're shopping for necessities, Walmart is just fine. If you're shopping for status, Walmart simply will not do. Which sounds more affluent and superficial to you?

I'm 99% sure that you're not 100% correct.