barracuda

I will eventually try it, but like Niche I'm skeptical of any restaurants in the Heights (except the ones that specialize in baked goods) and those that deviate too far from their heritage.

It is good to see some more denser development in Midtown like this instead of townhomes. And folks with upper east and south views will have convenient traffic updates for 59 and 288.

The catalog houses from the Sears era were not pre-assembled. Sears provided a kit with blueprints and the materials, and the home buyer was responsible for building the house or hiring carpenters to build the house onsite. It's true that this isn't really all that different from how many builders today offer a limited number of home designs (particularly in new developments) and try to use standardized components they bought with a builder's quantity discount. I would think it was an advantage in that era to have materials cut and fitted at a factory instead of relying on hired help to cut from raw materials using inferior tools on-site. At least it was cheaper and quicker. But it does kill some nostalgia when you realize most of the bungalows were designed and commoditized at a corporation rather than being designed and made by a local craftsman/designer.

I don't think that will happen for the Heights as a whole. The historic designation doesn't change the fact that the city's population continues to grow, nor the fact that the the Heights is still perceived by many as a desirable neighborhood that is close and convenient to the CBD/Montrose/Uptown. I think some elements of the ordinance will make existing homes more desirable (i.e. - eliminating the risk of higher-density development in neighboring lots). But I do think the ordinance presents added challenges, particularly for less-desireable properties. Small, unremarkable, or dilapidated that were previously and justifiably tear-down candidates are now expandable only through limited and disproportionate camelback/rear/side additions. I fear that some design guidelines may stifle creativity in an attempt to preserve some structures and features that aren't necessarily worth preserving. I already live in a deed-restricted neighborhood, so I'm not crying over the ordinance. It adds a new layer of bureaucracy, but it doesn't fundamentally affect me since my home is already grandfathered in with a seamless front addition that was made decades ago. But if I had bought a small dilapidated cottage prior to this ordinance in a non-deed restricted area, with the plan to replace it once I had saved up the money, I would definitely be peeved by having my hands tied and the opportunity taken away from me and replaced with the option for only a rear addition.

Bush doctrine, eh?

I've stayed at a few ES's over the years, and they are basically designed as large, inverted motels, with rooms or balconies opening to a big atrium. At the base of the atrium, they typically install artificial waterways and plastic plants for some kind of strange, tacky ambiance. One of their hotels in Dallas even keeps geese in their artificial indoor pond. It's very odd. Anyway, I think the designers of Embassy Suites take their queue from old indoor shopping malls, and since everything is self-contained indoors, they aren't much concerned with the building's external appearance.

Beige stucco buildings hide into the landscape in Arizona. Here they stick out and cultivate a sheen of mold and mildew.

I wonder if all the furniture and decor will be beige too.

Bill Coats was an advocate of green spaces who founded Trees for Houston and the Hermann Park Conservancy. http://culturemap.com/newsdetail/11-10-10-crowd-turns-out-to-break-ground-on-bill-coats-memorial-bike-bridge/

Walmart has a large cross-hair on their back because they are the world's largest retailer and have a somewhat unsavory history. What amazes me is that people are so surprised by this.

Yes, but in this case the city has already endorsed and thrown their support behind the project, and there is basically zero chance of this changing based on the lack of political interest in thwarting this development that is supported by much of the community. Maybe so, but given that this development is moving forward, I'd rather it include infrastructure improvements and amenities like wider sidewalks and more trees that the 380 agreement provides incentives for. If the opposition's activities help put pressure on the city and developer to ensure these improvements are implemented, then I support their efforts. If, however, these activities end up allowing the development to complete without the needed infrastructure improvements or amenities, then it's not really a win-win for anyone. True, there aren't many options for the local community to oppose these projects unless a high-ranking city official takes on the cause. The zero-tolerance perspective of private property rights advocates perplexes me, particularly when applied to large-scale projects that do affect the local community. Even though I don't agree with all your posts, I do agree with your right to voice your opposition, and I'm surprised by the ferocity of some responses to your comments.

I don't understand why traffic keeps coming up as an argument against this development. Any development on that site is going to increase traffic. With the other Walmarts being built in the area, I would suspect that this Walmart will primarily attract local residents and have a fairly compact radius of shoppers. Even if it does cause significant net-new traffic, the new feeders and on/off ramps on I-10 should mitigate neighborhood traffic through the Heights on Yale.

Yes. Or a reasonable compromise. Otherwise it is a waste of time. Under what legal basis can it be stopped? I think a better focus would be to work on changing the system to allow more community input into large-scale projects in the future.

We can only hope.

Folks in my neighborhood have been going street by street, and I believe a majority of the neighbors on my street have signed to overturn the ordinance. I signed it last week because I think the ordinance is over-reaching, and I prefer the deed protections that were agreed upon by a majority of residents in my neighborhood years ago. I also don't think my house, which I spent a lot of money to renovate, neatly fits the description in the historical context (it was a completely bland and unremarkable house previously, to the point of being ugly, and poorly maintained). And yet, I now regularly receive positive comments from folks walking down the street that they love my house because of the unique features, which would probably have been denied under this ordinance because they don't exactly match the original hideous and cheap architectural features they replaced.

That's partly true. Walmart has been noted throughout this thread on a long account of documented charges. There really are valid reasons for people to dislike Walmart, although I'll give the company credit for the improvements they've been making. There are also those of us who simply dislike big-box retailing in general due to it's corporate soul-crushing blandness and massive surface lot automobile-centric design. That said, I've grown mostly indifferent to this development due to it's inevitability, and folks are wasting their time thinking they can stop it.

I don't understand how folks paying $650+/month on rent are a financial net loss to the city. Ultimately it's up to the owner of the complex to sell or not, but I don't think it's fair to attack affordable apartments as a drain on city finances. For one, these are the same folks who could be working at the retailers displacing them, and I don't think they need to be told where to live. Secondly, the strip mall may or may not increase the taxable value of the land, but regardless, that seems like a shallow way of looking at things. There's a reason we don't all live in River Oaks, or even the Heights. You seem to be rationalizing your revulsion of this affordable complex by making all kinds of assumptions, some false or unproven.

I suspect the Metro area is largely indifferent to the Heights or any other specific neighborhood, and the folks who feel offended are probably guilty of the same sense of self-importance as the Heights activist minority they're annoyed with.

Marksmu, it was sarcasm (hence the quotes). I don't think you're an elitist.

You don't understand irony. You presented a Venn diagram that doesn't apply to the situation. There are only three elements in your diagram. None of them describe post 1028. Ironic. That doesn't answer the question.

You left out pro-Walmart non-elitist who look forward to the demolition, which is the case referenced earlier. Can you point to any "Heights elitists" who've actually stated they look forward to the demolition?

No, but I suppose someone should be supplied with a sense of irony.

"Heights elitist" Marksmu dismissed demolition concerns on account of them being ugly and unsafe in post #1028.

^ Houston would have experienced less of an urban heat island effect in 1955, so it was probably literally cooler as well. And I agree that living in AC does seem to reduce your tolerance for heat.

When did you move to Austin?