MOpens

Yeah, not sure I would want to live there. But the more I think about, the fine folks at City Hall might need to go back to the drawing board on this one. The reference I gave earlier was to the city charter, not the city ordinances. The ordinances do not include a definition of habitable, presumably because the city is bound by the definition in the charter. With that said, and given the charter's definition of habitable, this draft ordinance does not appear to have the teeth to do anything to stop someone from building a "large" office tower. A 15-story office tower (5 levels for parking, assuming average height keeps those under 75 feet + 10 levels for offices) would not run afoul of this draft ordinance. I guess an easy fix would be to use some other measure instead of "habitable," but maybe I am missing something... With all of that said, and notwithstanding any appearance that my posts could be interpreted as wanting the City to move forward on this, I should be clear - I do not support this at all. Apologies for diverting us from the topic of this thread.

Fyi - See section 10-317 of the City of Houston ordinances. "Habitable" means a room or other interior space lawfully occupied for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage rooms, and utility rooms are not habitable spaces. What if you built a 100-foot building - 2 levels of retail, 4 levels of condos (all averaging 12 feet, giving you 72 feet), and then tacked on 2 levels of storage units, each at 14 feet? Loophole...

Unless they have folks camping out on the rooftop (!), those rooftop amenities would not count. The draft ordinance states: "For purposes of this division, the height of a structure shall be measured from grade to the finished floor of the tallest habitable floor or the tallest parking floor of a parking garage."

Why can't the reason be that there is no economic incentive? I know very little about Tysons Corner, and the value I place on information from Wikipedia is conservatively low (but growing!), but the article there makes a very compelling reason for a mixed-use development: significant number of commuters into Tysons Corner (80K above the number of residents), which creates significant traffic issues that can be addressed through the development of additional housing in Tysons Corner. Those facts all add up to DEMAND for a mixed-use development. Where is the demand (economic demand, not your desire) for the same on Yale Street? Also, it's great that you point to other examples of mixed-use developments in Houston - some of which I think are great - but why does anyone other than the owner/developer of the Yale Street site get to decide whether mixed-use is right for Yale Street? I hope all of the examples you cited succeed, but maybe some will not, and that is a risk for the owner/developer to decide whether to accept, not you.

It is also impacting access to the westbound feeder out of the Heights. Before, there was a turning lane on Studewood southbound that allowed traffic to access the feeder. Now, without that turning lane, all traffic turning on to the feeder goes when the light (a long light) changes. That bunched-up traffic makes access to the feeder kind of like Frogger. I don't mind, because I don't really get bothered by having to wait 20, 30, even 60 seconds to go. But for the impatient among us, trouble is brewing. Back to the topic of this thread - I am very excited about the project on 11 1/2, and the prospect of more similar (read: reasonable) projects.

Drove past RM earlier tonight - saw several tables and chairs outside. A great addition.

Any chance they can add some outdoor seating at lunchtime? We went there a few days ago and it was so busy (a good thing IMO) that we took our food to go. If we had been able to sit we may have talked about dinner plans etc and decided to buy more before we left. Inside floor space looks full, but McCains used to have some seating out in front.

I disagree with your conclusion that PCs are now all considered Cs. That is true only for a district created before October 13, 2010. For any district formed after that, they are considered NCs. And therefore, by definition (under the ordinance) they do not "maintain the historic integrity of the district." Once again, if the percentages from Heights East were applied to a post-October 13, 2010 district, almost 75% of the lots would be occupied by non-contributing structures. (I am ignoring for right the now the handful of vacant lots). Is anyone aware of any other municipality that attempts to impose these types of requirements on all property in an area where only a relatively small number of structures are "contributing"? All of the other historic districts that I have seen are more narrowly focused to cover a high percentage of "contributing" structures. If the City wants PCs to be Cs going forward, they need to revise the ordinance. But the cynic in me knows that will not happen, because once the door is open for that amendment, it would also be open for amendments that would give us a real vote.

Does anyone know the thinking behind use of the term "potentially contributing structure" in the ordinance? Unless I am missing something, the only place I see it used is in the definition of "contributing structure," which is defined to include any structure deemed potentially contributing in an historic district designated as such before October 13, 2010. Using Heights East as a sample, a quick count shows 769 total lots, with 196 (25.5%) contributing, 484 (62.9%) potentially contributing, and 89 (11.6%) non-contributing or vacant. Under the terms of the ordinance, one could claim that 88.4% of the structures in Heights East "contribute to the historic significance of the district" since Heights East was designated an historic district before October 13, 2010. But if those same percentages were applied to the proposed Heights South District, only 25.5% would contribute to the historic significance of the district. This ordinance, and the city's "attempt" to comply with ordinance, is flawed in so many ways. Hard to argue with that regardless of the color of your yard sign, IMHO. This is another example. You could have the same structure in two different districts, and in one it could be contributing and in the other it could be non-contributing.

Interesting timing - Because of the 11th Street road construction, the course for the Houston Marathon on Sunday has been altered from past years. The "normal course" takes runners north on Michaux, west on 11th, and south on Studewood. This year, the course goes north on Michaux, west on Key, and south on Studewood.

Is this a joke? First we had the "old Jim Walters homes are historic" joke. Now we have the "unrenovated bungalows in the Heights are rare" joke. Not only are there plenty of unrenovated bungalows, but there are dozens that are so run down they are barely more than a pile of sticks. But old sticks they are, and therefore historic and "contributing." But that's ok - they will be the targets of my demolition by neglect claims.

For the record, we love our McVic. And I believe there will be a time when people will refer to houses in the Heights as "pre-ordinance McVics" and "post-ordinance McVics." I really like the posts that point out that what people are calling "historic structures" (or "contributing" to use the ordinance language, which begs the question "contributing to what?") are nothing more than "old structures." "Historic" can mean lots of things, including old, but let's stop dressing up "old" with a fancy name. Surely that's the meaning we are using if a Jim Walter home is "contributing." That's a joke, right? I don't even need to get to the catalog homes, because the Jim Walter example is too good. This is the "old ordinance" and I now live in an "old district." As we work toward reversing this bad outcome, I plan to embrace the ordinance. Specifically, Section 33-254 (Demonlition by neglect) will become my new friend. Be on notice that if you own an "old structure" in my "old district" you should make sure it does not have any of the issues listed in 33-254(a). The hardware stores should stock up on supplies, especially paint and brushes.

So, for this topic you use 4500 sq ft houses to support your positive view of the Heights as diverse, but for the Historic District topic you point to 4500 sq ft houses as a problem for the Heights. Help me reconcile the two...

So are you then conceding that the improvements at Harvard are the result of "an influx of children who live in 3500 sq ft new construction in the Heights"? Good, quality, safe public school education in the heart of the fourth largest city in the country, all because of new construction. Seems like something worthy of trading away a proposed preservation ordinance for which no cause/benefit analysis has been done. I doubt you'll say yes - that would be too easy... You make a fair point, but I also think you are looking at year old (at best) data across an entire school and making a conclusion without considering changes that are or may soon be occurring. I do not want us to get away from the topic of historic districts, but I do think it is important to avoid generalizations.

What is your basis for calling this "silly"? All of the elementary schools in and around the Heights have shown great improvement over the past few years. Now, it would be wrong for me to draw a correlation between school improvement and the construction of new and big homes in the Heights, but it is equally wrong for you to imply that people that own 4500 sq ft houses have no interest in public schools. My house does not quite fit your description (we are few hundred sq ft too small...), but we plan to send each of our kids to public school as long as we feel they are getting a high quality education in a safe environment. Our oldest child already attends one of the neighborhood elementary schools, and we have nothing but good things to say about it.