sheeats Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 While the commenters over at the Chronicle are -- with very few exceptions -- socially retarded and verging on illiterate, I found this little spat on Alison Cook's most recent review to be interesting: http://www.chron.com/disp/discuss.mpl/dini...ok/6495227.html Here we have a couple of very proud and very snotty Inner Loopers angrily refuting claims that Washington Avenue is part of the Heights. Anyone want to weigh in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Is this about what it's considered or official boundaries? According to the map I have, it marks the southern boundary of a skinny piece of the Heights that is south of White Oak Bayou, pretty much all of which is completely gone except a really short part of E 2nd St. I'll check when I get home, it might even be Center St that was the southern boundary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeats Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 Is this about what it's considered or official boundaries? According to the map I have, it marks the southern boundary of a skinny piece of the Heights that is south of White Oak Bayou, pretty much all of which is completely gone except a really short part of E 2nd St. I'll check when I get home, it might even be Center St that was the southern boundary. That's the thing... In this map from HoustonHeights.org, the southern boundary is I-10: But in the Heights' very own bylaws, they say that the boundary for the Heights is such: "The geographic area shall be bounded North Loop 6910 on the north, North Durham Drive on the west, Washington Avenue on the south, Studewood on the east, and North Main on the northeast." So which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zippy Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I never really considered Washington Ave part of the Heights.. I guess since there's no Rice Military folder in this forum, the Heights area is the closest to start threads on bars on Washington. Rummaging the site, I found this map which by eyeballing, looks as tho the Heights area ends a bit north of Washington, and the streets seem to end north of White Oak. Of course boundaries can change, so I'd consider the map as posted above the "official" current Heights.. I'm not a professional, I just play one on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heights_yankee Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 when were the heights bylaws written? if it was before i-10 was built, i think they need to be revised. i do not think that washington is part of the heights. in feel, if nothing else. i also think that washington is really its own thing. this is new, i realize. it was only cristened with its own name in the last couple years, so i can see why people might call it the heights but clearly the poster on the chron should have referred to is as the "corridor location." after all, all the cool kids now refer to it was "the washington corridor" or simply "the corridor." if it is the washington corridor, than it is not the heights. also, a major interstate is almost always a boundary, wouldn't you say? maybe when there was a 1st and 2nd street it made sense to have Washington, as a commercial area, as the border. there was really nothing between washington and allen parkway, was there? but now with i-10, it just makes sense to have the highway as the border and let washington be its own thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMME Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 That's the thing... In this map from HoustonHeights.org, the southern boundary is I-10: But in the Heights' very own bylaws, they say that the boundary for the Heights is such: "The geographic area shall be bounded North Loop 6910 on the north, North Durham Drive on the west, Washington Avenue on the south, Studewood on the east, and North Main on the northeast." So which is it? There are actually 1st, 2nd and 3rd streets but the building of I-10 wiped out most of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 While the commenters over at the Chronicle are -- with very few exceptions -- socially retarded and verging on illiterate, I found this little spat on Alison Cook's most recent review to be interesting:Sheeats -I just wanted you to know that I just registered and joined this wonderful forum simply to tell you that this quote absolutely made my day. Cheers!-Jesse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seoid Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 The area on Studemont just south of Washington is called "Memorial Heights" so I assumed it was sort of an auxillary addition to The Heights as it were.Eh, it's just a label. I'm not going to be snobby about it but probably technically, it's not included in The Heights.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeats Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 Sheeats -I just wanted you to know that I just registered and joined this wonderful forum simply to tell you that this quote absolutely made my day. Cheers! -Jesse Well, I guess I should be the first to welcome you to HAIF in that case. Welcome! You'll like it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longhornguy Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 According to the City of Houston, the Washington Ave Corridor is part of Super Neighborhood 22, SN22 does not include the Heights.SN22 does include: Woodcrest, Camp Logan, Crestwood, Rice Military, West End, Cottage Grove, Magnolia Heights, Old 6th Ward and Memorial Heights.Basically the whole gamut of WAve neighborhoods. It's actually a fairly influential collection of civic associations that has been successful in deterring I-10 feeder road construction and the implementation of Quiet Zones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evans-Davis Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 That's the thing... In this map from HoustonHeights.org, the southern boundary is I-10: But in the Heights' very own bylaws, they say that the boundary for the Heights is such: "The geographic area shall be bounded North Loop 6910 on the north, North Durham Drive on the west, Washington Avenue on the south, Studewood on the east, and North Main on the northeast." So which is it? The boundaries for Houston Heights and the Houston Heights Association are different. HHA's umbrella includes numerous subdivisions in the area bounded by the North Loop, Durham, Washington Avenue, Studewood and North Main. The subdivision that is Houston Heights has the boundaries in the map above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Well, I guess I should be the first to welcome you to HAIF in that case. Welcome! You'll like it here. So far people seem to be quite socially adept and very literate. I love it already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samiamj Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Not to be snobbish but the Washington corridor area totally differs from the Greater Heights. When I was looking at a home inside the Loop, I found the 3 story townhomes with no parking and narrow streets unappealing. Hence I moved to the other side of the railroad track (literally). Plus, not to overgeneralized but the residents of the Washington corridor are much younger and trendier. Many of them I supposed want to live near bars and restaurants. I don't. I wanted to live in a family oriented neighborhood and that is why I chose the Heights opposed to the Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee_in_TX Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I would suppose the Heights is (or is not) where the gov't says it is. I believe (have never looked into it) that Heights proper has different taxes than say Shady Acres. Also, the boundary is drawn for the fact that Heights proper is dry.We (hopefully) will be living in Shady Acres. As such, I will tell people that. I will only follow up with the Heights if the response is 'Where?'Not sure why if you live outside the legal boundaries of the Heights you would argue otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAK Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 funny how this works... when washington ave wasn't considered desirable, this conversation didn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppahop Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Washington Avenue is not in the Heights. It is, however, where the Yankees begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee_in_TX Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Washington Avenue is not in the Heights. It is, however, where the Yankees begin.LMFAO based on other threads about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sowanome Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I'm sure this question was correctly answered on here a year or two ago......and the answer is (Drum Roll.....)? Part of Washington avenue is the heights. I will try to find the original post on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMME Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I'm sure this question was correctly answered on here a year or two ago......and the answer is (Drum Roll.....)? Part of Washington avenue is the heights. I will try to find the original post on this topic. 1st street is just north of Washington Ave. 1st street is part of the Heights. I agree with the person who said where Heights ave. ends at Washington is the southern border of the Heights. Everybody south of there...well you're just posers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sowanome Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 1st street is just north of Washington Ave. 1st street is part of the Heights. I agree with the person who said where Heights ave. ends at Washington is the southern border of the Heights. Everybody south of there...well you're just posers. To all of the posers... Check out this map and pay close attention to the "City Limits" boundary, since The Heights were technically a suburb. http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/arc/maps/images/map0435.jpg and here's the post from over 2 years ago: http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/in...p;hl=washington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seoid Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 We (hopefully) will be living in Shady Acres. As such, I will tell people that. I will only follow up with the Heights if the response is 'Where?' I tell people "Woodland Heights" and you'd be surprised how many people respond "THE WOODLANDS?!" *sigh* No... Washington Avenue is not in the Heights. It is, however, where the Yankees begin. 1st street is just north of Washington Ave. 1st street is part of the Heights. I agree with the person who said where Heights ave. ends at Washington is the southern border of the Heights. Everybody south of there...well you're just posers. I'm breaking the news tonight: "Sweetie, sorry but right now you're just a wannabe Heights-ian!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannomad Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Yes and no is the correct answer. If you look up any of the older properties on Washington Ave around the Heights Blvd area, than YES, this part of Washington is included in the original plat of the Heights. All you have to do is go to hcad's site or the county block pages to look at the original plat for verification... here is Star Pizza which is in the heights:http://books.tax.hctx.net/v021/AE1997_21-22_0068.jpghttp://hcad.org/records/details.asp?crypt=...bld=1&tab=2This of course is just technically and historically accurate, but most people would no longer consider this area the heights since I-10 cuts through it and has created different feeling neighborhoods on both sides. And most of Washington was probably not part of the Heights originally.As for the taxes. There is no difference. The taxing jurisdictions and rates are the same regardless of what neighborhood you are in (Shady Acres vs Heights vs Rice Miliatry, etc). The only difference being if you live in an area with a special management district that can levy taxes or an HOA, but an HOA isn't exactly a tax and can vary regardless of neighborhoods. When people say that taxes are higher in "X" neighborhood all they are really saying is that the appraised values are higher because the actual tax rates are the same... only the values change. Of course if you are comparing homes in different cities, school districts, MUDs, etc then there will be a difference in rates.When people ask me, I say I live in the Heights. Unless they are familiar with the area and then I'll drop Shady Acres. Otherwise, people just think Shady Acres is a trailer park. Sort of like how most people "from" Houston have never ever lived in Houston... it's just easier when talking with people not familiar with the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJudge Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 The South boundary of original City of Houston Heights, which was annexed to the City on September 15, 1918, runs along the then current course of White Oak Bayou, generally bound by a line running near Herkimer, and a line running between Oxford and Beverly. Thus, the boundary of the City of Houston Heights never dropped much below what would have been 2nd and Courtlandt, and several blocks north of Washington. Thus, if you want your kissing cousins to be part of the family, let Washington in, but according to the legal definition, no part of Washington ever traced through the original City of Houston Heights. Thus, all of Washington avenue remains wet. If it was otherwise, no liquor could be served. This of course, is what makes Washington Avenue the "stateline" of the Heights.....where teenagers race on Friday nites to get a sip of liquor outside of their dry neighborhood.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emirate25 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I'm also surprised on how everybody is talking about Washington Ave...I remember back in 90's, you wouldnt see any white folks around and now they are dying to live there.Funny how life is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperWestEnder Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 So it seems to me the discussion about where to draw the line for the southern border of the Heights has aspects to it that both based on data and based on perceptions. Regarding the original (chron.com) argument of whether Benjy's on Washington is in the "Heights" it would seem to be that neither data (old maps) nor perception puts Benjy's in the Heights, so voteforme gets that one. Then there appears to be some data that part of eastern Washington Avenue may have been part of the Heights. But I agree with Urbanmod that "this of course is just technically and historically accurate, but most people would no longer consider this area the heights since I-10 cuts through it and has created different feeling neighborhoods on both sides." When I moved to Washington Avenue in 2006 I never considered it in the Heights. To me the Heights was always "over there" on the otherside of I-10. Personally I'm not going to argue to include myself in the Heights. I wouldn't want to be associated with those suburbanites! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan the Man Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Many years ago, the area around Washington Ave was referred to as "The West End". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I double checked my old map/print, basically a reprint of the original ad for the Heights. Accurate or not, it shows Washington as the southern border. Obviously I-10 and a lot of other things have mucked up the original layout.But relevant to today, "Washington Ave" is its own area, it doesn't belong as part of the Heights. It has too much of its own thing going on to need that anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJxvi Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I currently live in the Heights on Nicholson St. 3 years ago I lived just North of Washington Ave and East of Washington/Wescott and I considered that West End. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8S 4 LIFE Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I currently live in the Heights on Nicholson St. 3 years ago I lived just North of Washington Ave and East of Washington/Wescott and I considered that West End.Having lived in the Heights (Sunset Heights to be accurate) my entire life, Washington Avenue has always been laid out as such to me: Westcott to Yale = West End. Yale to Houston Ave = 6th Ward. Past Houston Ave. is well....Downtown. Cottage Grove does not begin until you are north of Washington, west of Shepherd and east of Westcott/Hempstead/I-10 interchange. The Heights begins north of I-10, thus the "Welcome to the Historic Heights" sign in the median. 3rd street is now current day I-10, 2nd street is still there, although only a block from Heights to Harvard exists, and there was never, to the best of my knowledge, a 1st st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NenaE Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Many years ago, the area around Washington Ave was referred to as "The West End".http://www.divshare.com/download/5020790-131Here's that J.R. Gonzales wards map link, again, showing that very name. Also, notice the trolley trail (dotted line), how it leads down Washington Ave. into the Heights. That's probably why there is such a debate going on, now. It was a main entrance into the community, down the boulevard. PS TMariar, can you add this map to your list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.