Gooch

I think much of it is spite, but that's just speculation and stereotyping from comments on here. Honestly, I don't get the favor of this project in the name of "density" and "walkability". Things like "density" and "walkability" only occur when high capacity facilities are built within walking distance from other high capacity facilities. Building an island of "density"... a single building... in the middle of a residential neighborhood does nothing for "density" nor "walkability" because one still has to drive through the neighborhood to reach other neighborhood-surrounded islands of single building "density". I suppose someday... eventually... in like many, many years all of the islands will infill and the utopic ideal of "density" and "walkability" will be achieved. But it would occur much, much faster if the high capacity facilities were built closer together, within walking distance from each other. If only... only... there were some mechanism to encourage that.

Smart of Weingarten. SInce it looks like every other strip mall in this city, who would complain when they go to demo it in a couple of years? I mean... it's just another strip mall, right?

Northbound Waugh sees a lot of traffic volume turning left onto Washington. The left hand turning lane backs up almost to Feagan during peaks. I've always assumed this was traffic seeking I-10W while avoiding Shepard between Allen Pkwy and I-10. It's conceivable that some portion of that traffic will continue NB on Heights to I-10W once there is an on ramp available there. My other quesion is how will traffic flow from eastbound Washington to this development? Heights is no left turn. Left turns at Yale are premissible. There is no left turn arrow and a ton of oncoming west bound traffic in the evenings (peak time for weekday shoppers). Yale is only one lane northbound at that point. With the close proximity of the Center St. red-light... I can easily see this backing onto Washington. No historical knowlege for this... but I've always suspected that the configuration of Yale/Heights/Waugh/Washington traffic controls and lack of on-ramps was intended to keep traffic out of the Heights. Northbound Waugh has right and left turning lanes to Washington encouraging turns off of Heights. It's difficult to go from eastbound Washington into the Heights, you can only do it on one-laned Yale no protected arrow and a lot of oncoming flow. Oh, totally not related, but just an alert for folks in the hood... Heights is down to one lane at I-10E/W because of the construction. It was backed up all the way to Washington yesterday evening.

No! I negged your post because you wrote this: ...which is nothing more than a cheap personal attack. If I taking offense to that makes me a snob.... than SO BE IT.

No bigotry there...

There are those predicting wholesale market value collapse if this passes. To see if that concept has validity, we must consider what's driving the demand. You post implied that new construction is driving the demand for Heights bungalows. That without large out-of-character construction, prices would not be assending. Not sure I buy into that. Looking around... there are swaths with largely intact houses, as well as historic districts that seem to have plenty of demand sans McVics. Perhaps the price inflation isn't as rapid, but seemingly certainly still healthy, and above local and nationwide expectations. I just don't buy into the disaster mentality some do. Nor do I believe that new construction is the sole (or even primary) driver of demand in the neighborhood. I don't have any stats either. But I've never seen "Next to a McVic" or "New construction next door!" or listed as a feature of a bungalow advertisement on HAR by said realtors. I'd suspect if that was driving the sales of bungalows, it would be touted up more often.

So your assertion that is that the demand for 90 year old bungalows, is driven by buyers that actively seeking out houses with adjacent McMansions? And that bungalow buyers would be less likely to purchase a home if the adjacent structure were a restored bungalow? Maybe this is why Proctor Plaza and Norhill bungalow prices are so low and the neighborhood such a ghetto.

So it wasn't the same for everyone? Did the HAHC give away free parking and police escort to the supporters to avoid the parking and traffic? WOW!

Can you provide some evidence of that?

My only crime prediction (and it's not necessarily a crime) is that the panhandlers at all of those newly red-lighted intersections will be epic.

Recognizing that any large-scale development will increase crime does not equal belittling the customers that shop there. The customers are the prey. Most criminals that burglarize autos or robbing customer don't stop off to pick up the week's groceries on the way in and out of the parking lot.The difference between this location and the other developments is proximity to residences. Criminals often work on ease-of-opportunity. There is no inventory of concentrated housing directly surrounding Target's borders (other than the Sawyer Lofts, but apartments are good burglary targets). Apples/oranges. I agree, though, that increase in crime isn't the most valid reason for opposition. The majority of crimes committed in/around a Walmart will be shoplifting and employee theft. Neither of which have a great impact on the surrounding neighbors.

Anything is possible. Are there any examples of that in the other historic district in Houston, or other cities?

May be the best argument for the ordinance in this thread. If someone in the Heights doesn't want to deal with the restrictions, they can reap their profits and move. Reducing their mortgage and increasing their equity in the process...

There isn't anything wrong with Walmart shoppers. I've read back through some of this thread, and I don't see where the shoppers were belittled by anyone. I did see lots of straw man accusations that opposition was based on that. Maybe I missed it? I think the real issue is the quantity of shoppers... It's disingenuous to suggest that opponents are fond of potholes. Streets can be repaired and retain their character. To suggest otherwise is... Indeed, there are those that oppose upgrading Heights and Yale. Not because of some perverse affection for potholes but because of the addtional traffic to the neighborhood. To many the relative lack of traffic in the area adds to the quality-of-life. While that isn't a measurable metric, it is important to many in the neighborhood, and the valuation of their property. Taking this to the illogical end (slippery slope!) .. Would it be reasonable to 6-lane Heights if Walmart paid for it?

No one is gaurenteed a profit on their property. Nor have you incurred a loss (nor damages) until you sell it. Any fixed asset investment includes some degree of risk perceived and unperceived. Especially one as illiquid and subject to irrational pricing as real estate. There was always a risk pesent that the rules could be changed thus affecting your value. I'll assume that you factored in the incurrent risk of unrestricted property in your purchase. Unrestricted property includes specific risk of devaluation by what get built next to it. Construction of apartments, commercial businesses, crack houses, etc. could all devalue your property. The ordinance could potentially reduce some of those risks. You may not consider that a significant benefit, but there are those that would disagree with your analysis. Your assumption that protected property equates to lower value and smaller potential buyer pool may or may not have merit. The statistics could be bent each way. Personally, I wouldn't consider owning property in an unrestricted area, because of the risk of devaluing by what gets built on adjacent parcels. So... your property would gain atleast one potential buyer . Finally, let's assume that this measure would cause economically tragic and wide ranging devaluation of property values in the area. How hard would it be to assemble a repeal of the ordinances? May I humbly (and gently as possible) suggest that your choice of a property in the core of the city, in the oldest and most intact neighborhood in Houston, with adjacent historic districts, and an active preservation association, wasn't the wisest choice? If unencumbered property was your goal, perhaps a rural setting would have been more appropriate?