NYC Texan3

I don't know the answer to this, but I do have some concern about 11' lanes. Does anyone know if that is comparable to a downtown street lane? Or is it wider? We have a number of houses and townhouses on Yale, and I would not want the city to cause a major uptick in traffic that (1) increases noise and pushes away the residential momentum that is there (in a limited but visible form); and (2) provides Houston's average urban vista that begs "build strip centers here". We have more than enough room for new commercial on 11th/ 6th / 19th / Washington / I-10 frontage roads (please, please take out the adult video). We don't need a master plan that adds more on Yale, IMHO.

I used to own a house on a block with gutters that floods near the Museum District. The next block was upward sloping and did not flood on the far end. The situations are similar since I think we can generalize that the houses were on approximately the same elevation on both blocks. After the first couple times, I never worried about the street flooding. The water would never come more than halfway from the street level, since when the curbs are put in they dig the street down a few feet. Your house isn't any worse off, but you don't want to leave your car parked on the curb!

Red, I am not sure how that impacts what I said? Yale is important to the residents and I use it as well. That doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be widened to 4 lanes to handle traffic from outside the Heights. No one who lives on the east side of Studemont is going to drive over to Yale to take it north or south, so the 2.5 mile distance isn't really that meaningful.

Any further feedback from the meetings that you can share? It is disturbing to hear that the city wants to make another main thoroughfare on Yale. I like the fact that Yale doesn't have freeway access--I don't see the city leaving that situation as-is if it is going to invest money in expanding Yale's capacity. As I see it, Shepherd/Durham have 8 lanes of traffic between the Loop and I-10. That should be enough for the area east of Shepherd to I-45. I hope the Heights Association is active in addressing this.

I know those comments are tongue-in-cheek, but truthfully tearing down a bunch of those properties would be a recipe for new strip centers. Personally, I prefer the riff-raff since it blends in with the rest of the neighborhood.

Agree that Yale is not over-utilized in its current configuration. It is always faster than Heights Blvd. I can't see the city tearing down all those trees without neighborhood buy-in.

I agree that Berryhill's is not a jungle gym, but the original comment was more sweeping than that. The patio is not for people to do anything "without kids crawling around". My kids aren't in the toddler range anymore, but I think a patio invites a looser approach toward children. No one wants a kid running around a table, but toddlers are going to run back and forth to that fountain. There's no way to stop that without raising other complaints about crying children, which I think most people who have dealt with a toddler would know. Your tone was the source of my comment, not your class. Your post fairly cries out that you have never had children and will get a rough shock if you ever do.

Wow, that is an attitude that I forget is out there sometimes--funny that Berryhill hasn't posted any requests / rules along those lines. Perhaps you should challenge yourself to try again to mix with the commoners but take a vallium first...

I have heard that you can petition with your neighbors to have sidewalks and gutters, etc., placed on your street, and that the cost is filed as a lien against your house unless paid. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I too would love to have curbs and gutters.

Right, sorry. Lived in the Heights for the last four years and I still get mixed up when I talk about the bayou.

The developer of this garage, like the developer of the garage across from Commerce Towers (which likewise is an eyesore to (the few) people trying to sleep across the street), apparently decided to save money on the construction and call it a day. There really needs to be a Planning Commission or design guidelines of some kind to hold their feet to the fire. Can we please have something that isn't butt ugly when we put something new in downtown?

Allright!! I have always wondered what the trail will do to cross Buffalo Bayou? Are they really going to reuse the old timber railroad bridge? Hard to believe. This is going to be a great addition to the area. I am looking forward to taking some serious bikerides with the family.

It looks like the landscaping has been installed around the new parking garage at Bagby and Allen Parkway, so I am wondering if there won't be any additional work done on the design or facade of the structure? I read that a Heritage Plaza parking garage design received an architecture prize, but obviously what now exists isn't distinguished. A few months ago, I saw a contemporary, organic-looking grid piece that was probably 20 feet square hoisted up to the 3rd or 4th floor. Obviously, the grid was taken down and wasn't put back up, but it sure would be an improvement over what we see now. Anyone with a better clue out there?

Yep, a truce is good. I was actually surprised to get into things that way. I have been away from posting for about 3 years, so I should know better than to come in and mix things up off the bat! I am actually of mixed feelings about the situation. In theory, I like the density, so I don't have a huge problem with street parking. It is a big plus to have a couple restaurants that we can walk to. However, the fact that the streets are narrow and don't have curbs exacerbates the situation, at least in my eyes. I also like the rear parking, since it gives a better small town feel to the street (albeit that the new building can't be the genuine historical article, of course). Hopefully the development turns out well. It looks pretty good so far. I just fear for the parking and see that that particular block is already lagging in renovations/redevelopment.

I am not the one who made the statement that Studewood is the "only area where liquor licenses are allowed", so don't bust me for pointing out the facts. I am aware that the old Heights ends at Oxford. Sounds like you feel anything goes between Oxford and Studewood? Or does that extend to all of the non-deed restricted Heights? I think the point of the new building is it will actually be used, as opposed to abandoned, and has a new parking lot that extends to two more formerly residential lots. If you will do me a favor and drive down 10th St tonight and tomorrow night to get a feel for the parking situation, based on The Glass Wall traffic (excluding the new building's restaurant traffic), you may get a feel for why I am fired up.

Interesting argument but way too broad. The east side of the street hasn't changed since it was developed. The west side has changed b/c it doesn't have the protection of zoning or deed restrictions. Should the deed restrictions on the east side be voided since there might be some businesses that would be attracted there? Do the houses that are there not deserve some consideration? Kind of strange to argue there is no impact on the neighborhood. Also, commercial development spread all through the original Heights b/c the deed restrictions were not enforced... I am sure you would favor getting a lot of them out of the center of the neighborhood, even though those business owners obviously feel their locations are convenient as well. If your friend owned his lot on 11th, he would favor a zoning ordinance, b/c it would limit the ability of developers to buy up some houses to rip down rather than existing commercial space on 11th or White Oak. I live on 10th, so I fall into the same group as you. There are a lot of people on our street who aren't happy about 25% of that block being knocked down for a parking lot. Last time I looked, they are still serving margaritas at Berryhill and beer at the Red Onion.

When I drove past today, there were men working inside the fence. Looks like they are preparing to do something, although I thought Camden owned the whole superblock?

You think so? That land has been occupied by houses since the Heights was built out, so that character would usually carry through to a zoning ordinance. It would be odd to zone one side of a street commercial and the other residential. High capacity roads are certainly zoned for residential fairly often-- an example is Voss through the Villages, or, based on deed restrictions, Kirby through River Oaks or Gessner between Westheimer and Barryknoll, just south of Memorial City.

The comparison of downtown to New York likely refers to "downtown" New York, which is lower Manhattan and would likely be considered by New Yorkers to stop just North of the WTC site. That area probably does compare as described to Houston's downtown. Of course, New York has Battery Park and is surrounded by the waterfront, and Houston's DT is surrounded by vacant lots, so I am not sure what the point is.

This development is really annoying, as much as I like Allegro and the thought that it puts into its houses. It is a crime to put a commercial building on Studemont when there is some much available commercial land on White Oak and 11th, not to mention 20th and N. Main. It is an even worse to erode the neighborhood by scraping two houses to create a parking lot. This is just another aspect of Houston's unwillingness to direct commercial growth. Studemont should be residential on the West side, as it is on the East side. The deed restrictions that guarantee that the neighborhood east of Studemont will remain intact is likely the key driver of home values in Woodland Heights, which I understand are now higher than houses west of Studemont.

My office looks down on Allen's Landing from about 600 feet above, and it is absolutely true that the water in both BB and White Oak Bayou reaches an attractive, deep green within a couple days of the end of rain. They turn muddy brown very quickly with an precipitation, though. I believe the Sunset Coffee building won't be turned into anything useful anytime soon, but I have seen predestrian activity increase in the area greatly with the new UHDT building. I see canoes down there rarely but the fact that I have seen them at all has to mean something. It is certainly ambitious to build all of this infrastructure around BB underneath the freeway, but the freeway is clearly the issue... gee, really surprising that it is tough to make an area attractive when you put about 20 lanes of concrete over 4-5 assymmetrical bridges with columns randomly penetrating the waterway below... This is all clearly a long-term process and will continue as long as we are alive.

A bank drive-through? Nah. Pharmacy. My money is that the name has 3 letters and it starts with a "C"...

Amen to the points on feeders by Heightsguy and ReScare. I get steamed just thinking about them. Point me to one other city in the country that has made such a mess of their urban landscape? The lack of zoning, combined with the feeder roads, has just made a total mess. I am very depressed about the feeder the plan to build between Studemont and Taylor... Don't forget where to put the blame: our local politicians and TxDot. Until an advocacy group starts to drag this into the daylight, there is no way to stop it.

I can't understand the "blight" comments appearing here. Obviously, if houses are being torn down and "McVictorians" being built, it is the low-hanging properties in the poorest condition that give way. There are at least 9 houses under construction within two blocks of my house, and they are definitely changing the character of the area. And you can pick out which ones are likely to be next. While there are definitely some apartments mixed in, most are moderate income and stable properties that do not have more than a visual impact on the neighborhood. There is one instance of a large, "blighted" complex that is definitely impacting development on 6 1/2 between Oxford and Studewood, but there is also blighted land for sale on that same block. For anyone that has been around awhile and watched the evolution of West U, the Heights is just repeating all of those trends. Certain builders are concentrating on the area (and have been a long time), the reconstruction has been steady for a long period (over 10 years), and the problem properties are being picked off (the just demolished an eyesore ranch on 7th ). The trends will most likely continue in the same direction over the long haul. Without West U's deed restrictions or zoning (the lack of which I blame for Heights Blvd becoming infested with lawyers ), the redevelopment will be more varied, and the population will probably always be more transitional than a status neighborhood like West U. It also would help considerably if the city would continue to curb and gutter remaining streets. That said, the broad swath of the neighborhood's resurgance is pretty exciting.

The alley represents an easement and a recent court case has re-affirmed that those easements can be opened by other property owners. We have people across the street from us who have done exactly that. Call your city council representative.