Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/01/2010 in all areas

  1. Word on the street is that October 1 is the goal for the beginning the demolition and conclusion is January 2011. We shall see.
    2 points
  2. The fact that the Heights has not become overrun with unconstrained overdevelopment speaks for itself. The neighborhood has certainly evolved, but it has not changed its basic historic character and new development is sympathetic to that character. Sure, there are exceptions, but most of the these have also enhanced the neighborhood. I know you disagree, but I mention again the modern Victorian on Harvard that my neighbors appreciate despite a lack of historical conformity. In fact one can argue that the new modern home is more historic than what was torn down; being that it represents uniqueness in art and creativity. Because of economics, cheap land is what the developer wants and cheap land is scarce in the Heights. The only candidates are properties with homes that need to be torn down and replaced. A typical Heights bungalow home on a 50x132 lot costs upward of $300,000, unless the home is so unlivable that it detracts from the property value. Consequently, most new development and virtually all cheap development has been bypassing the Heights. The cost of land is much too high compared to other areas, such as North of I-10 and West of TC Jester. There's lots of new construction there, including higher density stuff. Simply put, property values are high enough to prevent the rampant development that is so feared by the proponents of the new ordinance. Property values have been high for a while and that's why the neighborhood has not lost its character over the 100 years of its existence. We simply don't need this new law. The neighborhood speaks for itself and defends itself by attracting neighbors that cherish the existing character and who can afford to remodel their older home to enhance and preserve it. I think the ordinance we have now is about right. The 90 day cooling off period does influence people to consider alternatives, and it's enough penalty to achieve real effect. The HAHC might actually have a better idea of designs that work and the current law provides those perspectives to the remodeling/rebuilding homeowners to consider. The best outcome of all this would be for city council to simply vote down the change to the existing ordinance and let us go back to where we were before Memorial Day. This battle has already hurt us too much by pitting neighbor against neighbor, sign against sign. I want my neighborhood back.
    2 points
  3. If the City owned my property, sure.
    2 points
  4. I doubt the developer really cares. It owns all the way to two roads, it can make AN entrance work regardless of TxDot. True, but what WalMart considers attractive enough to the public and what you would actually like to see there, are two different things. It can build any nice generic building it wants to. Ainbinder does not have to listen to you at all...this is your chance to have some comment no the looks. Even the Mayor on the radio said this morning that she is supporting WalMart and so is City Council. She was on 740AM around 7:45 this morning stating that the people opposing this are not thinking clearly...she said this is a brownstone that has been paved over, and is contaminated soil...Ainbinder and WalMart are going to clean up the soil and put something productive where a hazard currently exists....those are her words, not mine. You lost...the permits are not issued yet but the battle is over...when the Mayor & City Council support a developer to do what they are legally entitled to do, the result is always that it gets done. You have on blinders if you think otherwise. I will even spell it for you so its clear. Y-O-U - L-O-S-T. Now spend your time making this the best walmart ever...it will pay you a higher dividend than p i s s i n g into the wind. You dont know for sure what size store HEB was going to build. Their Bunker Hill store is pretty big, and I have seen several HEB stores that are almost as big as any WalMart. Furthermore - do you really think if the development was an HEB that Ainbinder would just let that extremely valuable real estate just sit there??? No way. If it were a HEB, then you would just have another 70,000 to 100,000 sq ft of other shopping, stores, and development. The drainage and effect on traffic would be the same. Your fighting nothing but the Walmart, and your using anti-development rhetoric to try to achieve your goals.
    2 points
  5. Just to jog your memory about what was written in the HBJ about the Target in Sawyer Heights during the planning stages, "Sawyer Heights Village will be an urban shopping center, similar in style to Highland Village and Town & Country Villages, Moss says. The developer is turning Taylor/Sawyer into a heavily landscaped boulevard with brick roadways, and has designs to make the entire project pedestrian-friendly, Moss says." Look what happened...? And that was Target which has a higher average customer income than Wal-Mart. Pretty far from their "Vision" Too bad the Mayor and others don't see 20/20 on what will really happen to the development if the proposed Wal-mart is built.
    1 point
  6. This was done on my street on 15 1/2 & Dian in Shady Acres Annex. Feel free to come in and buy and bulldoze a home, just don't think you can put more than one home on a lot. If I had the cash I'd bulldoze my house and start over.
    1 point
  7. No, no, I'm very serious. One of the classiest highrise buildings in Texas.
    1 point
  8. +1 What's so galling is that there is already a mechanism to do exactly this. You can petition the city for minimum lot size and minimum building line restrictions on a block by block basis, and all you need is 51% of your neighbors' consent. Something like 160 MLS applications have already been approved.
    1 point
  9. Yes, I read the same article. Regardless, preserving the human scale house in front - be it shotgun or bungalow - makes for a more attractive streetscape, and is certainly preferable to rows of gaping garage doors (cameltoes?).
    1 point
  10. Camelbacks in New Orleans are not much different than they are in the Heights. However, In New Orleans, a camelback is always a shotgun home design, not a craftsman bungalow. They're pretty ugly too, and the only reason they exist is because the home was taxed as only one story. Once the tax code changed, people stopped building them. So, they don't exist because they're beautiful, they aren't. They exist because of stupid government rules, just like what's happening here.
    1 point
  11. Much like the historic ordinance, eh?
    0 points
  12. Pretty hilarious - you have posted over 10,000 times in the past 5 years ...? That's an average of about 5 posts a day every day for over 5 years! Who are you to state that people should change their energies when you spend so much of your time posting? These people are fighting for something they believe in and are taking action. You do not know what other causes the people (that are against the proposed Wal-Mart) are involved in (and nor do I know yours). I have given my time, blood and money for various causes that I believe in; local, national and global. s3mh is young at heart and that's why he believes and will do something. I do hope (as with the other mega-posters) you are actually doing something to make a positive change in your life other than posting.
    -4 points
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...