tmariar

Sorry if this is old news, but I hadn't heard anything about it until today. According to this site, HISD may close Wharton Elementary (900 West Gray) and sell the property. I don't know for sure that the school was built in 1929, but that's when the school opened. I mentioned in another thread that I'd noticed on this site that the school may be built on an abandoned cemetery. Wonder if that might prove helpful to the organization fighting the closure/sale - if there were historical evidence of a cemetery on the property, I'd think that a developer would have to pay for an archaeological assessment at the very least.

If you dig around the city's planning site, you should be able to find the application for historic designation somewhere - maybe as an attachment to meeting minutes or something. The application should cover a lot of history. And the old city directories at the library would help you find what was at that address earlier - many have a reverse look-up listed by street address.

You might try talking to someone at Trees for Houston - at the least, they may have some helpful suggestions based on their past preservation efforts.

I think it would depend on the height, what the retail was likely to be, and other things. If it were just an 11-story building like the tower in the rendering, yeah, I'd say might as well add a story and put some retail at the base. What really jumped out at me in the Vaughan rendering, though - right after the height - was the large 4-story base of the building, which looked liked it took up most of the property, was all parking garage, and to me not that attractive. I just imagined sitting out at one of the picnic tables at Onion Creek and having that looming over me, and it was a visceral reaction (same as the idea of looking up at that tower from my back deck). Don't know whether I'd rather have the base be 3 stories and no ground-level retail - it's probably an easy call for some people, I'm just saying it's not an easy call for me - that extra story on a base of those dimensions is a lot of extra bulk. And, as I keep thinking, out of scale with what's around it. I just don't like the idea of multi-story parking garages fronting that street (at ground level or just above) in general. Maybe those closer are having a big problem with people parking in front of their houses, though, and any neighborhood opposition will coalesce around the height/scale issue and not the parking garage issue. So be it. To me, if a parking garage is essential, I'd rather someone build one that has a little more space to work with, so it might be placed somewhere less dominant. If everything now on the North Burroughs property were to be replaced by two strings of 3-story or even 4-story mixed-use buildings with a 3-story parking garage in the middle - and the Vaughan property replaced with a similar height building but no full-lot parking garage - it wouldn't be that big of a deal to me, and would seem to be a better fit and more natural in terms of growth on White Oak. A parking garage on the south side of the street, pushed toward the back of the Burroughs property, also wouldn't be a big aesthetic issue for me - though it might for the people whose houses are right there. It remains to be seen what issues if any the neighborhood will find important, mutual, and realistic enough to get behind (one of the reasons I'm interested in others' opinions). I'd give way to the majority view, as we'd have to unite to do any good, I imagine. But for there to be a majority view, I guess we have to have individual opinions - and so those are mine, for what they're worth. Surely they can't be "wrong" in any objective sense, Niche. Tell me that I'm likely to find myself the extremist amongst my neighbors, and I'll say you may well be right.

Putting the parking garage on floors 2-4 instead of 1-3 doesn't make a big difference to me - it simply forces the building higher. I like the idea of ground-floor retail generally speaking, but if there's a height trade-off to be considered, depending on the height we're talking, I might not always side in favor of ground-floor retail. I'd have to know more. As for my personal tastes, they are just that, as I've stated repeatedly. I try to avoid purporting to speak on behalf of anyone else on this topic, much less as the voice of objective truth on what is and is not an issue. And to be respectful of others' views, hoping to receive the same courtesy in return. Going to try to get back to my vacation. In case I manage to stay away from the computer for a while, hope y'all have a great weekend. Red, hope you got some relief from your protest.

I don't even know what the HHA party line is, but if it's against all demolitions and new constructions, that does seem short-sighted. I haven't seen much evidence of that attitude in this thread, though. Or that much aesthetic single-mindedness among the Heights residents posting, really, other than that the scale of a new construction on White Oak would be a factor in our opinion of its desirability. If something you considered too big turns out to be in the works for White Oak, will you fight against it? I'm just wondering how many will. If there were a non-judgmental emoticon, it would go here - obviously, there's only so much time in the day, and there are so many things not right in the world, and who relishes a fight with developers? Often people will fight something like this only if the construction will hurt them financially, and I'm not sure parking garages or a big building on White Oak would damage property values other than in the very immediate surrounding area - the adjoining lots and perhaps a little further out - and that's probably not even true uniformly. If there were a public parking garage next to Jimmy's, maybe that would up the commercial value of the adjoining lots. Heck, maybe all our property values will go up. Then I can pay that much more in property taxes. Yay. I'm on vacation this week, and have spent way too much time thinking and typing about this already - just thought I'd make the observation that there hasn't exactly been a wave of anti-development frenzy overtaking the thread. My above offer still stands, though - if there is anyone who wants to coordinate on finding out more information about what's planned for White Oak, I'm in. Fwki - Just saw your new post. Again, very interesting info (to me at least) - thanks! Looking at the 1922 topo map, it does look like the "ditch" (probably what's been called Gostick Gully) used to be more prominent, and that the south White Oak Burroughs lot is essentially right on top. I marked it, White Oak, and Oxford in red on the below:

Yeah, me either! But then, I didn't even know the name of the park...

This is just based on a vague recollection of when I looked at HCAD on those properties a year or so ago, but I think the Burroughs family may not have owned all the property it currently does on White Oak for that long. I don't mind the businesses that are/were there - a White Oak Bakery or a Camphouse BBQ is unlikely to be able to afford space in a new development, which will have higher rent. I stopped off for barbecue at Camphouse far more often than I go to, say, McCain's or Glass Wall (though, Heights Yankee, I like the look of the Glass Wall building, too - they did a good job on that). But it's not lost on me that an anti-yuppification platform is not going to get me very far in light of the changing demographics. And my concerns about the Vaughan project and the (unconfirmed) Burroughs project aren't so much about preservation of the structures that they will replace (though, yes, I also do hate to see 1920's houses and even warehouses torn down instead of updated), but about the scale of the projects. If you start putting up multi-story buildings on a street as tightly parceled as White Oak, then what you're going to be seeing at ground level (and/or 2-4 stories up) is parking garages. I think it's impossible to make a multi-story parking garage that would not look as jarring and out-of-place on White Oak as the Disneyesque rows of neo-Victorians do among the bungalows on the interior streets (sorry, no offense intended). And call White Oak a commercial district all you want, and add all the period touches you can, but I'd say the same thing about any building on White Oak that gets much over 4-5 stories tall - though I'd probably take a 6-story building over a shorter multi-story parking garage. While I think there's more to it than just personal aesthetics, opinions on these issues are obviously going to vary. I'm not going to say that tall buildings on White Oak would ruin the neighborhood or anything like that, but I do feel strongly enough to want to find out as much as I can and have as much input in the process as possible. Seems like learning more is the key thing to be doing now - though I don't think it's premature to be getting the word out as well. If anyone is interested in coordinating on at least getting more information, feel free to PM me. Maybe we can exchange some thoughts or, if there seems to be a lot of interest, meet to talk at OC or something.

Checked for old newspaper articles and found one in 1924 saying: "Among the latest additions to the city's parks is Root Square. There a $24,000 pavillion is nearing completion, and work is underway on a wading pool. The Square playground will be oval in shape, and one of the best equipped in the city, the park board says." A 1925 article mentions a horseshoe-pitching championship held in the park. In 1926, there was a rally there for gubernatorial candidate Dan Moody. In 1932, a 13-year-old girl found a "withered arm" in the park. In 1934, a man posed as Raymond Hamilton (a member of Clyde Barrow's gang), and attempted to rob an auto livery on Walker Street. He was arrested, but claimed not to know anything about the charges, noting that he had smoked 24 marijuana cigarettes that day. He added "I'm a Houston boy, and I've never been in trouble before in my life, except being jailed for drunk, although I'm one of the Clyde Barrow boys. I used to run around with the Clyde Barrow crowd at Root Square." Sort of an odd collection of stories, but that's what turned up.

The Geoff Vaughan property (the primary subject of the thread to this point) is outlined in red below. Outlined in purple is property owned by the "Ralph S. Burroughs Family Trust c/o Alice S. Burroughs" on the north and south side of White Oak, according to HCAD.

I'm sure you're right about the unaffected and indifferent not attending, but don't see how that's a bad thing. And even if we agree that the target market is broader than those within walking or biking distance as suggested by maya-arch (hence the need for the multi-story parking garage), wouldn't potential users know who they are? I'll admit not to having been to a public information meeting before - have only read accounts of them. I think that you're right that, unless required by law, they tend to happen only when political pressure grows to a certain point - meaning a stage at which the various interest groups have organized and become intransigent. While I wouldn't say such meetings are doomed to failure by nature or design, at that stage I can see why they would be less effective. But what about an earlier-stage meeting, when the developers' plans might not be set in stone and the residents and market area are still looking primarily for information and to voice generalized concerns? Do you see any non-pollyannaish reasons why the developer for this particular building might benefit from an early-stage meeting, assuming for the purposes of discussion that things will follow an Ashby course otherwise (the Heights being lousy with lawyers, so to speak)? Learning something about their target market's needs/preferences? Gauging opposition? The political expedience later in the process of having already had a public meeting (when any opposition is still grass-roots)? Here's a photo of the 3-story on the southwest corner of the intersection - on the "triangle" created by the old train tracks, so you're seeing 2 of just 3 sides - currently the tallest building on White Oak, that I can think of. I can't even think of another 2-story building on White Oak as I sit here other than Fitzgerald's (built in 1918 as a Polish social center - Dom Polanski). Fwki - Welcome and thanks for the info - very interesting.

I don't disagree that it's possible for the developer to foresee and overcome the most likely objections in the design phase. But I wasn't going as far as saying that I believe that was done here. I did want to acknowledge that some effort has apparently been made to take the neighborhood into consideration, mainly just to be friendly, but the scale of the building would foreseeably be far and away the major objection of local residents. I was just going by maya-arch's: "Target tenants will be neighborhood small businesses and individuals currently doing business in homes, garages, guest rooms, etc...within walking or biking distance and not wanting a heavy commute routine." I'd agree with you that the draw would likely include a larger area. (And there are parts of Washington Ave. and Montrose where I think the building as currently envisioned would be a good fit and welcomed by the immediate neighborhood.) Don't disagree either that maya-arch may be only tangentially related to the project if at all - I'm giving him/her the benefit of the doubt just in case. Thanks. Though I was actually focused here just on this one building and ways an Ashby-High-Rise-style showdown and all that brings with it might be avoided - thinking maybe the politicians could be kept out of it. I certainly don't think NOT having a public meeting would serve that goal in any way. Edit: Didn't see the intervening posts. There aren't townhouses "directly behind this lot" are there? - there are houses, I think - I remember one facing Oxford when I walked by, but I didn't turn the corner and am just looking at the satellite image right now. There are townhouses down the street from them that replaced (if I remember right) some scary apartments - but I don't think they extend to the back of the 3110/3122 lots. Probably doesn't make that much difference to your point, though, Red.

I don't think that's fair to say because (at least as far as I know) there has been no meeting or other coordination with residents yet. How can our views have been taken into careful consideration if they haven't been solicited? In fact, it looks like all the Heights residents that have posted here so far have some reservation about the project as currently planned. It would be disingenuous to dismiss our opinions as NIMBYism given that (1) the target tenants are apparently local residents (meaning this isn't a case of one neighborhood not wanting to host a project that would benefit a larger area), and (2) the more obvious reason why there might be opposition from residents is that many people who live in the Heights do so because they prefer its character to that of neighborhoods in which this project wouldn't be so out of place. I acknowledged before that there appears to have been some attempt made to take the neighborhood character into consideration in planning this project - perhaps more of an attempt than many developers would make. And yet, no other developer is proposing to build an 11-story building in the middle of White Oak. I respect the opinions of the non-residents who like the sound of the project - that's great, and I'm sure there are locals who would support it as well. But it does seem reasonable to hope that the developers of a project of this size - especially one targeted for use by current residents - would hold a public information meeting of some kind to provide residents with more information and an opportunity for questions and feedback. If a project was planned for your neighborhood that was exponentially larger than anything previously built there in the past 100+ years, would you not hope for the same? Here's another photo of the sign that shows the property in relation to Onion Creek, for those who haven't driven by yet:

Maya-arch: Thanks for the information, and the promise of updates. There are elements of the proposed building that sound like they might appeal to me and (if I had to guess) to many other Heights residents - the "green" aspect, the period detailing, the ground-floor retail, and the target tenants, for example. I remain concerned, though, about the scale of the building - both its overall height and the size of the lower four stories of the structure. (If I understand your post correctly, the current plan is to have a lower 4-story structure topped by a 6- to 7-story structure. The bottom floor of the 4-story structure would be retail/parking, the second and third would be parking, and the fourth would possibly be gallery space.) Again, the updates here will be very much appreciated - but is there any kind of meeting contemplated with local residents during the planning stages in which we would have an opportunity to learn more, ask questions, and offer feedback?

Hope people will be respectful of others' opinions, especially locals of their neighbors' opinions. If there are people in the area who like the idea, I'm interested in their thoughts. I don't really mind what's there now. But I recognize that the long-term chances of the 1920's house being preserved as a residence are probably not great. Perhaps the chances of preserving the 1940's and 1950's retail buildings are also small - don't know whether the issue with getting good tenants there has been short-term leases or lack of interest. And I think you're right that the dry line runs somewhere just to the east of Oxford, but White Oak doesn't really need more bars or restaurants (better, maybe - but that's another topic). I wouldn't mind seeing some more neighborhood-oriented retail, though - I've generally liked the trend in new shops that have opened (the skate shop, scooter store, bike lab, skin-care place, McCain's, the antiques store, the bead shop, the cigar place, the art places, the pottery guild, etc.). I can imagine there would be a 6-story apartment building design I could live with and might even learn to like. If it were compact enough, I wouldn't even care if there wasn't retail on the first story - as long as it wasn't a parking garage. The problem is where to put the cars. If you could have retail or something fronting White Oak, and cars parked in the back, and a few stories of apartments above (whatever small number could be supported by the back-lot ground parking), that wouldn't be so bad - might even be good as a small part of the overall mix. Scale and the resulting 4-story parking garage are my major issues with what's on that sign.

Thanks for asking, and for the update.

I would say yes, if there ends up being strong neighborhood opposition. It would seem that such a construction would raise many of the same concerns as the Ashby high-rise - and yet there doesn't seem to be a lot of talk about it yet. Maybe people don't know about it, maybe they are waiting for more information, maybe they don't care, or maybe they like the idea. I don't like it. I wouldn't like the hassles of a major construction project on White Oak; I wouldn't like having something so out of place and out of scale on White Oak; I wouldn't like the effect of the construction or the building on Onion Creek; and I wouldn't like the extra traffic on White Oak, and on Studemont, Heights, and Yale. But more than anything I think it would move us further along the road (especially in the lower Houston Heights) to a neighborhood characterized more by new constructions than historic structures, which I think would be a loss for both the Heights and Houston. But who knows, maybe I'm in the minority in feeling that way, even in the Heights. But I'm guessing a lot of people don't know about it or are waiting for more information.

Sorry - I posted the sign photos and then added the satellite photos later. The sides of the building shown in the rendering are the only street frontage - the four-story parking garage would tightly border Onion Creek on the White Oak side and houses on the other side, per the overhead shots. No retail, at least as far as I can tell. Here's a rough panoramic of the area:

I hope they're not planning to put up a tall apartment building right on White Oak. I'll try to find the sign today, and see what it says. I'm having a hard time picturing the property directly to the west of Onion Creek, though I can picture the little strip center a little further to the west. Onion Creek is 3106 White Oak. Per HCAD, the property immediately to the west is 3110 White Oak - land area 9,375 sq. ft., land use code "Residential Improved". First thing I see to the west of that is 3122 White Oak - same owner as 3110 White Oak - land area 15,625 sq. ft., land use code "Retail Multi-Occupancy". The building on 3110 White Oak is described as a 1920 (1992 sq. ft.) "residential duplex". The buildings on 3122 are a 1940 (2700-sq. ft.) structure described as "mixed retail with residential units" and a 1950 (4800 sq. ft.) structure described as a "neighborhood shopping center". Maybe I'm not following HeightsGuy's point on zoning - I'd always thought even lots in residential portions of the Houston Heights could be used for commercial purposes because there is no zoning. And HCAD says that the land-use codes are just internal codes used for valuing the land.

Herald Park (also known as Fair Grounds Base Ball Park, Houston Base Ball Park, Fair Ground Park, and League Park.) I don't think Gonzo was suggesting it was, but West End Park wasn't the first baseball park in the city. West End Park was built around the turn of the century, and baseball had been played in Houston for many years before that. The Texas League formed in the 1880's, with Houston as one of the original members. As far as early baseball park locations go, I know that, in 1887, the Houston Heralds baseball team had a park located "at the head of" Travis Street. And, in 1896, a Houston baseball team played a Chicago baseball team at a "new baseball park at the end of" Travis Street. Still, West End Park, which was built by the Houston Electric Street Railway Co., near what is now the intersection of Andrews and Heiner, was undoubtedly among the city's earliest baseball parks. It hosted UT/A&M football games in addition to baseball games.

I'll give you this - in the case of each of the Camp Logan deaths I've been able to find quickly on the internet, the body was apparently shipped home. However, 30,000 men were stationed at Camp Logan. Also, the Spanish flu pandemic hit in 1918, while the camp was still active, and it is estimated (as Gonzo's blog notes) that 600-700 cases were reported at Camp Logan - military camps being among the worst places to be during an epidemic at that time. Granted, not all of those cases would have turned to pneumonia (which is generally what killed people) - and the book Fever of War: The Influenza Epidemic in the U.S. Army During World War I suggests that Camp Logan may have fared better in this respect than many camps because of early hospitalization - but there still would have been far more than a few deaths at the camp during the epidemic. Based on that, I think it is possible there was a camp cemetery - though I would need more information before I believe that there actually was one. Thanks for checking. A 10/28/1999 Chron article places the apartment complex "on Memorial Drive, just east of Shepherd." I think that Trevia Wooster Beverly's email address is treviawbeverly@comcast.net, if someone wants to ask for more information.

Yeah, I'm not going to be able to look into it any further for a while. I'm thinking that emailing the person who posted the information might be the only way to get any more solid info without hitting the books... I'm guessing the cemetery website folks put some effort into finding an exact location already and just have an approximate one, hence the approximation on the coordinates. Will check back to see what others can find!

I see a few references to a Camp Logan Cemetery online, but no information - the closest thing to a location is a key map reference (492M).

Don't know anything about it myself, but there's a photo of a "Gregory (Colored) School" in isuredid's old school photo collection. Photo 139 of 283 - I don't know how to link to the photo itself. See this thread as well. And the website for the African American Library at the Gregory School.