Condo Slated For 11th & Studewood St.

[s3mh]

Realtors are our friends Chick-A-Dee.

Realtors are good at one thing and one thing only: getting their commission.

[LTAWACS]

So what you're saying is that Victorian is the true original style of the Heights, and that the bungalows were basically the pre-fab/tract homes which acted as in-fill. Well those bungalows have kept our property values down long enough, I say let's zone 'em out!!

I say we need to build something around 20-30 story range.

[J008]

I say we need to build something around 20-30 story range.

Seriously, it is hard to think anyone would really want to live next to a 20-30 story construction project for a couple years.

[SilverJK]

Realtors are good at one thing and one thing only: getting their commission.

I was certain you were going to say help people buy/sell homes. I guess they aren't good at that though.

My realtor (who lives in a bungalow in the heights) was very helpful when I was looking for a home. She has stayed in contact with me since then, and has helped me figure out people to use for work at my house, as well as look at her renovations as a point of reference. I'm sure the commission was nice, but she has been very helpful even recently, which is more than 1.5 years after I bought the house.

I also know a realtor who can juggle really well.

But good job on adding yet another for me to think you have no clue what your talking about. I hope you aren't this prejudice against all groups of people that are different than you. We already know you hate realtors, developers, the poor, conservatives, and your neighbors. (and since you never seem to catch on sarcasm, that is a deliberate gross generaliztion).

[SilverJK]

Seriously, it is hard to think anyone would really want to live next to a 20-30 story construction project for a couple years.

This is probably true, but how else do you propose they get built?

[samagon]

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?

[LTAWACS]

lol

[J008]

This is probably true, but how else do you propose they get built?

Build them at least some minimum distance from houses (or preferably next to other 20-30 story buidlings)

I actually think this one may be pretty cool and 6 stories half of which are parking should be up pretty quick. 20-30 would be horrible.

Especially now that I have a kid < 1 yo, I would move \ run away as soon as possible. This morning I took 11th 1/2 to studemont around 6am and there were about 5 dump trucs and back hoes running, it would be hell on earth for me to live anywhere with earshot of it.

While it is not too bad right now, most of the construction sites on my bike route (the new Jackson Hill Apts in particular) have a thick layer of dirt that completely surrounds it. On windy days you can taste the grit in your mouth and everything has a layer of dirt on it. There should be a law against basically dumping in the street.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone, hopefully this one is more neighborly.

[s3mh]

I was certain you were going to say help people buy/sell homes. I guess they aren't good at that though.

My realtor (who lives in a bungalow in the heights) was very helpful when I was looking for a home. She has stayed in contact with me since then, and has helped me figure out people to use for work at my house, as well as look at her renovations as a point of reference. I'm sure the commission was nice, but she has been very helpful even recently, which is more than 1.5 years after I bought the house.

I also know a realtor who can juggle really well.

But good job on adding yet another for me to think you have no clue what your talking about. I hope you aren't this prejudice against all groups of people that are different than you. We already know you hate realtors, developers, the poor, conservatives, and your neighbors. (and since you never seem to catch on sarcasm, that is a deliberate gross generaliztion).

And you think your realtor stays in touch with you to be nice? You don't see a business motivation behind that? A business motivation that involves . . . commissions?

I don't have prejudice against any groups. I just don't share the prevailing view that developers are infallible gods and realtors are actually concerned about historic preservation and not commissions that permeates this board. If you feel threatened by some dissent on this board, that is ok. I understand. But this board would be worthless if everyone just sat around and showered praise on a six (or maybe eight) story building that will have single family bungalows as its next door neighbor (literally) with no other buildings of similar height anywhere in the neighborhood.

[Double L]

Looks like a great project to me. Google mapped and love the location. Hope it gets built.

[samagon]

But this board would be worthless if everyone just sat around and showered praise on a six (or maybe eight) story building that will have single family bungalows as its next door neighbor (literally) with no other buildings of similar height anywhere in the neighborhood.

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%.

[Double L]

s3mh, do you realize that when The Heights was first built, there were people protesting it then too? They didn't want change, I'm sure they often thought "what about the farmers?" However, if we had done things their way, it never would have become the enclave home of historic Houston that it is today.

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' date=' or you could just do what you always do and make something up.[/quote']

Here in The Woodlands, I actually got a case where the local homeowners association sent us a letter asking us if we wanted to make a complaint about our next door neighbor, who put a bench in their front yard. That was the only way they would get permission to act on it. We never did complain of course and that bench is still there.

[Heights Homeowner]

And you think your realtor stays in touch with you to be nice? You don't see a business motivation behind that? A business motivation that involves . . . commissions?

I don't have prejudice against any groups. I just don't share the prevailing view that developers are infallible gods and realtors are actually concerned about historic preservation and not commissions that permeates this board. If you feel threatened by some dissent on this board, that is ok. I understand. But this board would be worthless if everyone just sat around and showered praise on a six (or maybe eight) story building that will have single family bungalows as its next door neighbor (literally) with no other buildings of similar height anywhere in the neighborhood.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, where to start with you Chicken Little.

So you have a problem with Silver's realtor staying in touch because they might have a business motivation? I take it you aren't in sales or ever buy anything. People I buy stuff from stay in touch in the hopes that if I decide to make another purchase, I think of them. I get a Pottery Barn email a couple times a week, for example. It's Sales 101 Chicky, Sales 101.

There are a few realtors who support this ordinance. Very few but three of them are David and Sharie Beale and Hillary Cobb. They are the ring leaders of your merry little band of hysterical preservationists, right? So, are they not concerned with preservation too? What is their motivation? Do they stay in touch with their customers? Or do they simply get a pass because they agree with your twisted perspective on preservation? And I would trust realtors to know better about this stuff than some one who feared being sandwiched by two larger homes and calls themselves a preservationist when their real objection is the kind of development they want to prevent. At least a realtor doesn't suggest that saving an 800 sq. ft 1 bedroom, 1 bath bungalow in original condition is a good idea. Or that it is more reasonable to save the front wall of one of these bungalows that isnt' worth saving than it would be to just tear it down and start over. I trust both builders and realtors who tell me that the people who buy property to either redevelop or remodel will simply do it where they don't have to contend with dealing with the HAHC and that their opting out will result in many undesirable properties losing value because no one wants them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that undesirable property lowers the value of the property around it too. So, while you might hate realtors because they make money doing their job, normal, rational people trust them over someone like you with an obvious axe to grind and little knowledge of the development industry in general. You constantly prove how little you know.

And I think you have more than amply demonstrated your prejudice against many groups. Saying you aren't doesn't give you a pass.

Have you ever looked at the original plat of the Heights? There are strets that have become major thoroughfares that weren't planned that way (probably because we have progressed in a 100 years and actually need some streets that move lots of traffic in and out and through the neighborhood) but, now that they are, there is little attraction for the streets that have become major thoroughfares to remain residential. Frankly, who wants to live on a major thoroughfare? Those streets are going to move more and more towards commercial development as they should. The remaining residential property will get redeveloped.

There are other buildings of a similar height. Heigher actually. Off the top of my head, there is the building at the corner of Heights and 20th. There are two on 20th (the hospital and the professional building). There is the old folks home on 19th. Do you make yourself dizzy when you twist the facts so completely?

It is a shame we have to keep explaining elementary concepts of development and many other subjects to you. This discussion thread would not be worthless if we didn't have to explain everything to you like you are a six year old. It actually might have more meaningful discussions about real facts.

And by the way, your the work is continuing nicely on your so called "fishing expedition" - another thing you were clearly wrong about. So embarrassing!

[dbigtex56]

Tsk, tsk, tsk, where to start with you Chicken Little.

So you have a problem with Silver's realtor staying in touch because they might have a business motivation? I take it you aren't in sales or ever buy anything. People I buy stuff from stay in touch in the hopes that if I decide to make another purchase, I think of them. I get a Pottery Barn email a couple times a week, for example. It's Sales 101 Chicky, Sales 101.

There are a few realtors who support this ordinance. Very few but three of them are David and Sharie Beale and Hillary Cobb. They are the ring leaders of your merry little band of hysterical preservationists, right? So, are they not concerned with preservation too? What is their motivation? Do they stay in touch with their customers? Or do they simply get a pass because they agree with your twisted perspective on preservation? And I would trust realtors to know better about this stuff than some one who feared being sandwiched by two larger homes and calls themselves a preservationist when their real objection is the kind of development they want to prevent. At least a realtor doesn't suggest that saving an 800 sq. ft 1 bedroom, 1 bath bungalow in original condition is a good idea. Or that it is more reasonable to save the front wall of one of these bungalows that isnt' worth saving than it would be to just tear it down and start over. I trust both builders and realtors who tell me that the people who buy property to either redevelop or remodel will simply do it where they don't have to contend with dealing with the HAHC and that their opting out will result in many undesirable properties losing value because no one wants them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that undesirable property lowers the value of the property around it too. So, while you might hate realtors because they make money doing their job, normal, rational people trust them over someone like you with an obvious axe to grind and little knowledge of the development industry in general. You constantly prove how little you know.

And I think you have more than amply demonstrated your prejudice against many groups. Saying you aren't doesn't give you a pass.

Have you ever looked at the original plat of the Heights? There are strets that have become major thoroughfares that weren't planned that way (probably because we have progressed in a 100 years and actually need some streets that move lots of traffic in and out and through the neighborhood) but, now that they are, there is little attraction for the streets that have become major thoroughfares to remain residential. Frankly, who wants to live on a major thoroughfare? Those streets are going to move more and more towards commercial development as they should. The remaining residential property will get redeveloped.

There are other buildings of a similar height. Heigher actually. Off the top of my head, there is the building at the corner of Heights and 20th. There are two on 20th (the hospital and the professional building). There is the old folks home on 19th. Do you make yourself dizzy when you twist the facts so completely?

It is a shame we have to keep explaining elementary concepts of development and many other subjects to you. This discussion thread would not be worthless if we didn't have to explain everything to you like you are a six year old. It actually might have more meaningful discussions about real facts.

And by the way, your the work is continuing nicely on your so called "fishing expedition" - another thing you were clearly wrong about. So embarrassing!

The levels of condescension and sarcasm have made this post unreadable to me.

[SilverJK]

And you think your realtor stays in touch with you to be nice? You don't see a business motivation behind that? A business motivation that involves . . . commissions?

I don't have prejudice against any groups. I just don't share the prevailing view that developers are infallible gods and realtors are actually concerned about historic preservation and not commissions that permeates this board. If you feel threatened by some dissent on this board, that is ok. I understand. But this board would be worthless if everyone just sat around and showered praise on a six (or maybe eight) story building that will have single family bungalows as its next door neighbor (literally) with no other buildings of similar height anywhere in the neighborhood.

Of course there is some business motivation, she wouldn't be any good at her job if she didn't try to get return business. But according to you that makes her Satan, and she wants to feed on the flesh of those who buy bungalows. Face it, some realtors are actually just good nice people. Crazy!

There you go with your lies again, there are multiple buildings in the neighborhood that are even taller than this one will be. Yes, it will be next door to a bungalow, but don't try to make it sound like it is "block busting" or anything like that. There is a self-service car wash also next to it, as well as a hole in the wall burger shack. Pull your head from your hindquarters and look at the buildings along 20th near Heights. They IS taller.

[Marksmu]

And you think your realtor stays in touch with you to be nice? You don't see a business motivation behind that? A business motivation that involves . . . commissions?

I don't have prejudice against any groups. I just don't share the prevailing view that developers are infallible gods and realtors are actually concerned about historic preservation and not commissions that permeates this board. If you feel threatened by some dissent on this board, that is ok. I understand. But this board would be worthless if everyone just sat around and showered praise on a six (or maybe eight) story building that will have single family bungalows as its next door neighbor (literally) with no other buildings of similar height anywhere in the neighborhood.

Drive, ride a bike, take a bus, or walk down 19th and 20th I think you will be STUNNED!!! Im not being sarcastic. Apparently you have failed to see those buildings....a hospital, a retirement home, etc.

[sowanome]

Drive, ride a bike, take a bus, or walk down 19th and 20th I think you will be STUNNED!!! Im not being sarcastic. Apparently you have failed to see those buildings....a hospital, a retirement home, etc.

Good point!! And that stuff has been there for over 15 -20 years.

I spent a lot of my childhood and most of my teen years growing up around and in "The Heights (Houston, Independence, Woodland, etc.)" and yes this was PRE-GENTRIFICATION (late 80's and till late 90's). It just seems that every since the area became more TRENDY/HISTORICAL, it's been under a City/Statewide spotlight, which has it's +'s and -'s. However, it just seems that there are more NEGATIVES now that it's a more highly valued area.

I know I will take criticism for this, but I honestly "Welcome" anything that makes the area "LOOK" better. I just find it funny that the things (i.e. Newer housing, retail, including townhomes and Victorian McMansions) that were welcomed in 1995-2000 are no longer welcomed in the area. Trust me, if you knew the Heights back then or prior to 95' you know exactly what I'm speaking about (i.e. As a teen in the 90's I walked from 45/N.Main to 610/N.main....I also walked from 11th/Sheperd to Main/32nd St.

and A LOT HAS CHANGED for the good)

Anybody Agree? (Hopefully I can divert some attention from the attack on S3mh..lol)

(TO S3MH: please get another year or 2 under your belt before causing anymore "RUCKUS" on HAIF. There are only a few members who are entitled to do so (Editor, Red, Niche, Lock, 20th, Flipper( miss the pics),ricco, sub, sev, etc....) and a lot of us are tired of opening a post/topic that evolves reading your rants or defenses. I mean no harm to you, but the animosity towards you is beginning to ruin my daily "Houston" newspaper .)

[s3mh]

Drive, ride a bike, take a bus, or walk down 19th and 20th I think you will be STUNNED!!! Im not being sarcastic. Apparently you have failed to see those buildings....a hospital, a retirement home, etc.

Blah, blah. Obviously, I meant immediate neighborhood and not the entirety of the Heights. But, I am gald you mentioned the hospital and retirement homes. These are both examples of buildings that stick out like a sore thumb in the Heights. Stick a few more buildings like these around the Heights and there will be a serious loss of the character of the area that homeowners pay a high premium for. So, you are left with a choice, preserve the neighborhood with some reasonable height restrictions or have 6, 8, 10, 14 story buildings popping up on every unprotected lot large enough to build on. If you drop your pro-developer bias for a minute, you would have to admit that homeowners in the Heights do not want to see low/mid/high rise buildings from their back yards. Houston is not so land starved that we need to rip up the Heights for density. There is a ton of land in Midtown, near east side (west and north too), and west end that is conducive to dense, mixed use development that would help lift up the neighborhood (there was a great plot of land off of Yale, but looks like that will just go suburban).

[s3mh]

(TO S3MH: please get another year or 2 under your belt before causing anymore "RUCKUS" on HAIF. There are only a few members who are entitled to do so (Editor, Red, Niche, Lock, 20th, Flipper( miss the pics),ricco, sub, sev, etc....) and a lot of us are tired of opening a post/topic that evolves reading your rants or defenses. I mean no harm to you, but the animosity towards you is beginning to ruin my daily "Houston" newspaper .)

No chance. I get attacked because I present opposing viewpoints and call out those who normally go unchallenged. If anything, I have been a benefit to this board by keeping it from becoming a clique only accessible to those who are in the pro-development club. If you don't like dissenting voices, stay off the internet or just visit foxnews.com all day.

[callisthenes]

Houston is not so land starved that we need to rip up the Heights for density.

Hard to get less dense than an empty lot, no?

[samagon]

Blah, blah. Obviously, I meant immediate neighborhood and not the entirety of the Heights.

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.

But, I am gald you mentioned the hospital and retirement homes. These are both examples of buildings that stick out like a sore thumb in the Heights.

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.

Stick a few more buildings like these around the Heights and there will be a serious loss of the character of the area that homeowners pay a high premium for.

There are already enough of these in the Heights to make it part of the current character.

So, you are left with a choice, preserve the neighborhood with some reasonable height restrictions or have 6, 8, 10, 14 story buildings popping up on every unprotected lot large enough to build on. If you drop your pro-developer bias for a minute, you would have to admit that homeowners in the Heights do not want to see low/mid/high rise buildings from their back yards.

That isn't a reasonable conclusion at all.

Houston is not so land starved that we need to rip up the Heights for density. There is a ton of land in Midtown, near east side (west and north too), and west end that is conducive to dense, mixed use development that would help lift up the neighborhood (there was a great plot of land off of Yale, but looks like that will just go suburban).

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:

[sowanome]

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.

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.

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?

Ditto..

[SilverJK]

No chance. I get attacked because I present opposing viewpoints and call out those who normally go unchallenged. If anything, I have been a benefit to this board by keeping it from becoming a clique only accessible to those who are in the pro-development club. If you don't like dissenting voices, stay off the internet or just visit foxnews.com all day.

Wrong again buck-o. You get attacked becasue you are blatantly misleading, dishonest, and unknowledgable. The only benefit you have provided is comedic relief. Foxnews.com is the epitome of dissenting voices.

How wrong can you get with one post?

Now you want to prevent the elderly from living in reasonable housing in the neighborhood too. Not nice.

The buildings we are speaking of are like what, a mile and a half away? I bet you consider 19th street stores as part of the neighborhood, this is between them...

[Heights Homeowner]

The levels of condescension and sarcasm have made this post unreadable to me.

My sincere apologies. I suppose I do get my hackles up a bit when I read threats on forums like this. See Below.

http://swamplot.com/houstons-historic-districts-will-remain-as-they-are/2011-01-04/

It is over. All districts surveyed failed to muster the 51% needed to opt out.

Yes, I know. You all are going to crow on and on about the survey process. Do yourselves a favor and move on. Anyone in the Heights who was against the ordinance had to have been living under a rock to not know what was going on. The opposition sent out piles of mailers. And if there was such overwhelming opposition, as Bill Baldwin and others claimed, it should have been no problem to hit 51%.

It is over. Opponents had their chance to make their case and failed. The Heights wants to preserve its historic buildings and get rid of the block busting builders and their realtor friends (who had no problem advertising the historic districts as a benefit in property listings). Lastly, don't think that people are going to foregive and forget. We know who was funding the fight against our community. We will remember who you are when it is time to do an addition. We will remember when we sell our homes and buy another. We will remember when we renovate. The Heights is a small town in a big city. We have fought for years to protect our historic neighborhoods and have won. We will remember who was with us and who was against us.

[Heights Homeowner]

No chance. I get attacked because I present opposing viewpoints and call out those who normally go unchallenged. If anything, I have been a benefit to this board by keeping it from becoming a clique only accessible to those who are in the pro-development club. If you don't like dissenting voices, stay off the internet or just visit foxnews.com all day.

No, you don't get attacked because you present an opposing viewpoint. You get attacked because you make posts making personal attacks or threats. You actually are the one who attacks those with a disenting opinion and you make threats against those who disagree with you. I've not read a single threat towards you however.

It is over. Opponents had their chance to make their case and failed. The Heights wants to preserve its historic buildings and get rid of the block busting builders and their realtor friends (who had no problem advertising the historic districts as a benefit in property listings). Lastly, don't think that people are going to foregive and forget. We know who was funding the fight against our community. We will remember who you are when it is time to do an addition. We will remember when we sell our homes and buy another. We will remember when we renovate. The Heights is a small town in a big city. We have fought for years to protect our historic neighborhoods and have won. We will remember who was with us and who was against us.

You also get attacked because you are constantly talking as if you are an expert in everything when in fact you don't appear to be an expert on anything you post about. On this thread, you claimed the development was a "fishing expedition" among other things, like there is nothing else in the area that is 6 stories. You are clearly wrong but if you weren't always making personal attacks and threats, likely people would be much more tolerant of your wrong opinions and false facts.

[Heights Homeowner]

Stick a few more buildings like these around the Heights and there will be a serious loss of the character of the area that homeowners pay a high premium for.

A loss of character? Got news for you - the character on Studewood is long gone as is the case on all of the major thoroughfares in the Heights. You can't bring back the 1950's. The character that remains in is the residential areas that cannot be redeveloped for commercial. Please stop with the scare tactics. They won't work here.

So, you are left with a choice, preserve the neighborhood with some reasonable height restrictions or have 6, 8, 10, 14 story buildings popping up on every unprotected lot large enough to build on.

14 story buildings popping up on every unprotected lot??? Seriously!!! That is laughable. This is the kind of stuff people attack you over. No "towers of terror" are going to be popping up next door to you.

Houston is not so land starved that we need to rip up the Heights for density.

Puhleeeaaasse! Rip up the Heights for density. This is one development, small in foot print. No one has ripped up the Heights. The hyperbole and drama is what has earned you the title of Chicken Little. No worries, Chick. The sky isn't falling.

There is a ton of land in Midtown, near east side (west and north too), and west end that is conducive to dense, mixed use development that would help lift up the neighborhood (there was a great plot of land off of Yale, but looks like that will just go suburban).

We need retail/commercial in the Heights and the residents don't want to drive to the East side or out West or up North or to Midtown. Aside from the fact that all urban planners agree that Houston needs more density in all forms, the Heights in particular has a serious deficit for shopping and dining. The residents here want more, not less...aside from your little minority of those who want to live in the 1950's and no one minds that it is on the major thoroughfares like Studewood or 11th Street or Yale, or 20th, or 19th. It's not going next to you - unless perhaps you haven't gotten deed restrictions on your block. LOL!

As far as the Walmart plot of land, why didn't you pony up the money to buy it if you were so concerned about what was built there? Ainbinder probably would have sold it had you made him an offer, especially given your stated propensity to purchase property in excess of the asking price. One of the problems with complainers like your group is that all you can do is complain. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. There was a period of years for people to work with Ainbinder to secure an anchor. No one did a thing. There was plenty of time to work with the developer (not dictate) for the Studewood project as well. Being content with sitting on the sidelines until something is planned you don't like is never going to be effective and there certainly isn't the will in the Heights to stop any reasonable commercial/retail coming into the community.

[s3mh]

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:

Very weak. Putting up 6, 10, 12 story buildings in peoples back yards in the Heights is ok because Houston is Houston. Just because Houston has made mistakes in the past doesn't mean it then must become a source of civic pride (or popular folklore about the lack of zoning being the secret to Houston's success). Just because someone put up four ugly 5-6 story buildings in one part of the Heights does not mean that it is fair game to put up more. If you think a few odd buildings around 20th street make a 6-8 story building on 11 1/2 street appropriate, you really don't get it. All you have to do to get it is drive around a bit in the Heights. You will not seen anything taller than two stories, with a few very, very odd exceptions. Just because you can point to a few exceptions doesn't mean that they should then become the rule. In fact, the few exceptions in the Heights are a much better argument for a rule against building up in the Heights than for maintaining the status quo. The Heights fought like hell against a little cell phone tower in virtually the same spot. The Heights will have a much bigger fight if developers continue to abuse the neighborhood.

[RedScare]

Very weak. Putting up 6, 10, 12 story buildings in peoples back yards in the Heights is ok because Houston is Houston. Just because Houston has made mistakes in the past doesn't mean it then must become a source of civic pride (or popular folklore about the lack of zoning being the secret to Houston's success). Just because someone put up four ugly 5-6 story buildings in one part of the Heights does not mean that it is fair game to put up more. If you think a few odd buildings around 20th street make a 6-8 story building on 11 1/2 street appropriate, you really don't get it. All you have to do to get it is drive around a bit in the Heights. You will not seen anything taller than two stories, with a few very, very odd exceptions. Just because you can point to a few exceptions doesn't mean that they should then become the rule. In fact, the few exceptions in the Heights are a much better argument for a rule against building up in the Heights than for maintaining the status quo. The Heights fought like hell against a little cell phone tower in virtually the same spot. The Heights will have a much bigger fight if developers continue to abuse the neighborhood.

You just made an argument based on zoning, a law Houston does not have, and has been specifically defeated. Additionally, this area did not have a historic district forced upon it. Further, it is an empty lot, so nothing was destroyed in order to build upon it. Your opposition is duly noted (just as you oppose everything else, even when it contradicts your other opposition), but your approval is not required to build on this lot. If you'd like to impose zoning on Houston, I suggest you do a little more than simply post false statements on an internet forum. If everyone agrees with you as you claim, it shouldn't be too tough to change the City Charter.

But, you are already too late for this parcel.

[samagon]

I think what we have is a misunderstanding.

Very weak. Putting up 6, 10, 12 story buildings in peoples back yards in the Heights is ok because Houston is Houston.

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.

Just because Houston has made mistakes in the past doesn't mean it then must become a source of civic pride (or popular folklore about the lack of zoning being the secret to Houston's success).

No, the mistake is to stop someone from building somewhere that someone doesn't like. That is what you are saying you want.

Just because someone put up four ugly 5-6 story buildings in one part of the Heights does not mean that it is fair game to put up more. If you think a few odd buildings around 20th street make a 6-8 story building on 11 1/2 street appropriate, you really don't get it.

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.

All you have to do to get it is drive around a bit in the Heights. You will not seen anything taller than two stories, with a few very, very odd exceptions.

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.

Just because you can point to a few exceptions doesn't mean that they should then become the rule. In fact, the few exceptions in the Heights are a much better argument for a rule against building up in the Heights than for maintaining the status quo. The Heights fought like hell against a little cell phone tower in virtually the same spot. The Heights will have a much bigger fight if developers continue to abuse the neighborhood.

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 don't like it.

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.

[MOpens]

All you have to do to get it is drive around a bit in the Heights. You will not seen anything taller than two stories, with a few very, very odd exceptions. Just because you can point to a few exceptions doesn't mean that they should then become the rule. In fact, the few exceptions in the Heights are a much better argument for a rule against building up in the Heights than for maintaining the status quo.

My "McVic" (your term, not mine; I am starting to like Heights Homeowner's term "Victorian Revival") is way taller than two stories. I would say it is actually closer to 3.5 or 4, when you count the peak of the roof. Kind of like some of the Victorian Revivals that were built here when the Heights was first developed - see the corner of Heights and 11th for an example. Take a drive through the area bounded by 11th on the north, White Oak on the south, Heights on the west, and Studewood on the east (I refuse to call it the "Heights South Historic District"; that's the city's term). Count how many houses you see that are 2+ stories with significantly higher roof lines. Are they the majority? No, but they are more than "very, very odd exceptions." While it is not a perfect comparison, those houses are as close in height, or closer in some cases, to the height of a 6-story building than a 1-story bungalow.

I am not a developer, builder, or realtor. Just a homeowner in the Heights. I strongly support retail development along the major roads, including this building.

Oh yeah, on your drive through our section of the Heights, count how many one-story bungalows you see where it is clear that the owners have demonstrated no interest in spending any money to make them more than a roof over their heads.