samagon

Wow!

don't get me wrong, I never said I didn't enjoy them, just saying that because you are, doesn't mean that everyone is. And if that were passed? I'm sure there would be something else that would be a reasonable addition to the rules... Ah, see, this is funny. I can see you typing (in the hypothetical future) when zoning were approved. of course it does, and by your own statement, there is towering support for historic districts, and such, so why is this a hurdle? I don't see a problem, your group has so much support, it should be a cake walk making the rest of the heights a historic district, even if you don't stop this monstrosity, you can keep others from being built (even if they would be in an area that includes this tower, cause the tower is a non-contributing structure). but why stop there, with as much support as your group has, you should be able to make everything a historic district, to preserve sunrises for everyone!

not really. what he was saying, is.. that without a rule stating 'cats and dogs cannot be on a patio' a restaurateur has the option of saying: you can't bring pets. or you can bring pets. as a patron, if you disagree with either position, you can choose to eat somewhere else. with a rule stating 'no pets allowed' there are no options: as a patron, if I want to bring my pet with me to dinner, there are no options, I cannot choose anywhere else.

but, but, but, $8 beer night, and generic 80s-90s music!!!

I would imagine that they have to follow the same noise restrictions as any business, or otherwise. if no one reports it though, nothing will happen.

common sense and government aren't on the same page. I think this is in direct response to the initiative that the transportation secretary passed down last year... http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/transportation-department-embraces-bikes-and-business-groups-cry-foul/ so yeah, they just want to ensure federal funding, so are creating their own rules that mirror what the transportation secretary has asked for.

I think it will depend more on the time of year, and where they are standing as to whether they will get to enjoy the sunrise. I don't get to 'enjoy' the sunrise from my house on weekdays as I'm generally either getting ready for work, or driving in to work. on the weekends I'm asleep during the sunrise. I don't think many others are different, or put as much stock into seeing the sunrise from a specific spot on their front porch as you appear to. I could be wrong, I certainly haven't canvassed your neighbors to find out. I'm much more into the deep colors of a sunset reflected off the clouds in the afternoon. How about you go with the rules that are currently there? you can always create a historic district, or deed restrictions. what other rules do you need? Why are those rules not sufficient to encompass what is being done? those are both two very powerful tools that can do exactly what you are wanting, you just have to get people to agree to it, judging from the support you claim to have, this should be no problem at all. So I don't see the problem? Why do you need more rules? How is it that either of those rules wouldn't have fit to keep this site from being developed as it is currently? How is it that either of those rules won't work for future developments?

Irvine, CA is really a great place to go to see an amazing job of zoning, and restriction. Disney Imagineering at its finest. I think they even have people that go around and scrape the gum off the ground, just like disney world.

it really is hard to believe that a short time ago, I was going to the garden in the heights. Now it's just a bunch of townhomes. When my parents first started dragging me there, no one lived in the area, when I started going on my own it was surprising how much the area around it had changed. And finally the last event I remember going to before they closed, it was a crazy juxtaposition. once upon a time, the garden was well maintained and very nice, the area around it was run down. the last time I was there, the garden was a dilapidated old structure that was one loose nail away from falling out from under someone, and the area around it was all clean and new again. Part of progress though, the ale house is another great example (and actually, now that I think about it, it was my search on the internet for some old memories of it that brought me to this place!). There's new places that are unique and are great examples of why I still love Houston, I suppose some day those will go their way, and be replaced by new! Then there's places that are still here and still part of the storied Houston lore, and hopefully will be for years to come... wow, sorry about that ramble, thinking about washington ave got me remembering the garden, and it spiraled out of control from there! to get on subject... I think it is awesome to not only get to view snapshots from time to time when I go through an area, but to live as part of the changes.

heh, I listened to that on pandora Sunday while preparing food for my SB party. Are all of these places going in where roc bar was? I only went 2 or 3 times, but it didn't feel like it was 18000 sf. I'll probably go to the 80s 90s place at least once, so they're doing something right, it takes a lot to get me into a club these days, when it isn't because someone else wants to go.

My theory is that the charm and culture of an area is defined by the people that live there, the people that work there, and the types of business that occupy the area. The structures that comprise that area create a visual aesthetic that may enhance that charm and culture. I look at Montrose as a guide and example of that theory. Yeah, there have been a fair number of homes that have been replaced with townhomes, and some storefronts that have been replaced by new (and bland) strip centers. But what made Montrose what it was? Not the buildings, it was the people, and the places. The same is true for any neighborhood, or area of a town. zoning, no zoning; historic, not historic. I don't know, I guess it's different philosophy on what is important. To me, I found a house that I liked, the size, the flow, the construction materials used, in an area that I wanted to be. The last thing on my mind was what comprised the rest of the neighborhood, or what kind of structures rested within a mile or two of my house. I won't be disappointed if my neighbors remain the same people they are (along with cars in the yard, chickens that roam free, and everything else), or if they are replaced by different people (along with their luxury German cars, super sized houses that engulf the yard, and whatever else that comes with it). I also wouldn't be unhappy if the industrial building behind my house stays as it is for 40 more years, or is traded in for a 10 story mixed use condo. Heh, to be truthful about that, I feel sorry for the people who peek in my backyard and see me watering my flowerbed in pajama pants and flip flops. My next door neighbor has learned it is best to not look out of his side window when he hears my lawn mower! Life moves, life changes, and I've found it's a lot more enjoyable if I accept that, and don't sweat the small s**t.

what about a laundromat, or payday advance?

is there anything similar for cats on patios?

how tall can one make a pie? interestingly there are multiple resources online for different types of pie, but they are usually for the largest pie, not for the tallest. http://www.roadsideamerica.com/set/pie.html http://www.foodmall.org/entry/the-largest-pumpkin-pie-in-the-world/ http://www.recipesource.com/desserts/pies/12/rec1267.html I guess the arena is wide open for going tallest!

I think what we have is a misunderstanding. No, I'm saying it is Ok to do this based on historical precedence. What is your argument that it shouldn't? Oh yeah, because you think the people who will live near it won't want it, and you don't think it fits. No, the mistake is to stop someone from building somewhere that someone doesn't like. That is what you are saying you want. You should get away from using descriptive adjectives that are based on opinion, as there is no legal reason for your opinion to be a reason to not build something like this. There we go. Now, I'm afraid it is you that doesn't get it, the word appropriate only fits within your historic district. It is your fault (as a proponent of the historic district) for not making the area of inclusion within the historic district larger. I'm sure with all of the fans of it, you would have had no problem getting it passed on a larger scale, but it really is too bad that you didn't. As a result of your failure, this is not within the jurisdiction of any group that can say whether or not it is appropriate based only on opinion. Again, there you go with opinion, which is your own, and really gives you nothing. Other than the fact that you are saying that you don't like it, I don't get your point. See all that this whole response was from you was you saying, I don't like it. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing (and me) by just saying that, here, let me help you: I could have responded with, it doesn't matter. Honestly, you should start to get used to this being there. they have their permits, they are going to build already in the process of building. However, please note that unlike you, I do not revel in the fact that you will be unhappy to live in your house because of this structure which will tarnish your stay in the heights forever. I do not wish for a developer to put up a structure like this near you, just to spite you.

Dbags are aholes, just more-so. From the urban dictionary: Dbag: Someone who has surpassed the levels of jerk and asshole. you'll usually see them wearing Affliction, Ed Hardy, or Tapout t-shirts. Generally, in high numbers they make a place less desirable to be, unless you are a dbag yourself. I think it's safe to assume a dbag would never homebrew beer. regardless, good beer joints are hard to find. and of the ones that are out there, it's nice to toss in some variet, I'm looking forward to it, and will go at least once.

yes, obviously, by writing neighborhood you didn't mean the actual word, neighborhood and the definition it carries. What you meant by saying neighborhood was actually, subdivision, block, or 3 house radius from the site. I can see how from a certain point of view, they could be said to stick out like a sore thumb, I imagine for someone who hasn't grown up around a place like the Heights, or even Houston itself (in addition to the 2 examples I referenced in my post, there are numerous other accounts of this happening all over Houston) that this would stick out. but you know what? To a lifelong Houstonian, that's just Houston. It is what makes Houston so unique, regardless of the neighborhood. I'm not trying to say that a person who didn't grow up doesn't understand, or that their opinion doesn't count as much, but it is a reason why it looks out of place to someone like you who probably isn't a native Houstonian, or never ventured inside the loop prior to buying your Cute little Bungalow in the Heights. There are already enough of these in the Heights to make it part of the current character. That isn't a reasonable conclusion at all. The price you pay for living in a desirable area is that EVERYONE wants to live there, so if they want to live in Heights, who cares how much room there is available in midtown, or east end? I mean hell, Houston itself is a desirable place to live, but there's lots of room in El Paso for them, we don't need to build out Houston any more. As a side note, I like how you include south of I-10 (Yale/Koehler) as part of the 'heights neighborhood' but not 20th and Heights boulevard. You're a real piece of work. :facepalm:

meaningful discussion is what drives interaction. meaningful discussion is usually backed up by facts. yes, it is a fact that this is going to be next to a single family home. What do you know about that home? Is it lived in by the owner? Rental? Does the owner even care? Is the owner maybe looking past the building process at what nice retail will be literally next door to him? then there's examples of other locations in town with even taller buildings next to single family homes (or directly across the street from). go to google maps... 2121 Kirby Drive, that's a really tall condo building right across the street from multiple single family houses. Inwood Manor at 3711 San Felipe Street. Nothing but single family homes surrounding that condo building, backyards butting up to condo. I think you should go canvas those neighborhoods and get written responses from the owners of the single family houses that are next door to those condos to see how they feel about them, or you could just do what you always do and make something up. chances of s3mh even responding to this post? I put it around 5%.

We may be on to something, can someone write up a quick business plan for manufactured skyscrapers? edit: was going to go with Trailer Skyscrapers, but that just sounds like a tornado waiting to happen, besides, doesn't manufactured sound more dignified?

There is certainly a lot of potential for commercial along Leeland to the west of Cullen, but there's Oak Farms Dairy that I see throwing a big wrench with a lot of 18 wheeler traffic at all hours of the day. There's a lot of empty lots, and vacant buildings along Leeland though for sure. Down on Telephone there isn't as much vacant, with convenience stores, bus terminals, and laundromats, but there are already some gems mixed in. I think most of us in the area are hoping for Kroger to step their game up and make Combat Kroger less dirty, and more updated.

their is a third option. You can positively effect more lives for less money abroad. My friend's father runs a missionary in some African nation (I never remember), and for the 3000 dollars he raises with each fundraiser it is amazing how far that goes in a different country, buildings, clothes, food, teachers, etc. The amount of red tape one has to navigate in the USA is immense (reference that church from where ever that didn't know they had to get a permit to distribute food). Anyway, so yeah, they can positively affect more peoples lives by going somewhere else to end hunger. It sucks, cause we do have our own problems here at home, but ultimately, it's their money and they would rather have their money affect as many people as possible.

IMO, the development has been happening slowly over the past few years. think back to when MMP was called Enron field (maybe even a few years before that), what was there on the other side of 59? a bunch of busted warehouses and Booker T's wrestling academy? Today east to west between Velasco and and 59, north to south between 45 and Texas you can't go 50 yards without seeing townhomes of varying quality. Not to mention those condos near McKinny, the apartments at the ballpark, or whatever they're called. there's Lucky's, Warehouse Live, and just recently a Little Woodrows. and there are other places that are diving deeper into the east end than that, the moon tower. The biggest thing though, used to when I heard people talking about the east end, it was always in tones of, wow, be careful, you may as well be going to Juarez, you are going to die. Now though, people are asking questions about it, maybe it's cause I'm living here now, and I'm hearing more of the good that people are talking about the area, but I see people noticing it more. Granted that comes with the good and bad, I imagine it's only a matter of time before I have to worry about irresponsible historic preservation in my neighborhood.

This is what I was thinking, but couldn't verify. She certainly isn't much loved by the soccer fans for sure.

Well, if congressional whim was the factor that held back progress we'd be nowhere fast.

actually, the bus picks up and drops off from the tacqueria parking lot. the service station seems to just be where they service the buses (wash, etc), and I guess purchase tickets.