Jump to content
Urbannizer

Avondale Highline: Proposed Multifamily @ 214 Avondale

Recommended Posts

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2018/12/11/new-boutique-style-apartments-to-break-ground-near.html

 

Quote

 


Next year, Houston-based real estate developer Urban Genesis plans to start construction on its first apartments in town. By 2022, it plans to have between 1,000 and 1,500 units in Houston, said Matt Shafiezadeh, who oversees strategy and investments for the group.

 

The company launched in 2013 but focused development mostly in Dallas and Austin. Shafiezadeh said it didn’t develop in Houston until now because the market didn’t seem balanced before. Its first two Houston projects will include one in Montrose near Avondale and Taft, and another around the Heights near White Oak and Oxford Street. The projects will be known as Avondale Highline and White Oak Highline.

 

 

Urban Genesis focuses on smaller, boutique-style apartment buildings in prime locations that typically rent for $200 to $400 less than competing apartments in the same area, he said. The company saw a gap in the supply of new apartments, with new units commanding rents that are out of reach for many.

 

“There’s nothing in the middle,” he said. He estimates 85 percent of new multifamily supply requires an annual income of $75,000, yet the majority of jobs don’t match that profile. The median household income in the Houston metropolitan statistical area is $61,708, according to the 2016 U.S. Census American Community Survey.

 

“In a nutshell, our product (has) been designed to take out dead weight in a complex,” he said.

 

Projects usually include anywhere from 50 to 150 units and have dog parks, one level of podium parking and interior finishes including quartz countertops, stainless appliances and common area vinyl plank flooring.

 

The buildings typically aren’t higher than 40 feet and lot sizes range from half an acre to about two acres, he said. He estimates paying between $60 and $85 per square foot for the land.

 

Dallas-based UD Architects will design the Houston projects for Urban Genesis and Cardinal Construction will be the contractor. The first project set to break ground next year. Avondale Highline has a construction loan from IBC Bank.

 

3-5650-avondale-highline-sus6152-c1kmedi

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure it's Taft and Avondale?  What buildings will be torn down? I know there is new development in 200 block of Avondale that many residents have been attending variance request meetings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Handsome little building. I like it, especially if what they say about the price comes true.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmitch94 said:

Handsome little building. I like it, especially if what they say about the price comes true.  


While it may be considered little when compared to other projects around Houston, on Avondale it will stick out like a sore thumb. 
The Avondale Historic District is actually two districts (Avondale East & West). To my surprise, there are large gaps on Avondale St. which do not fall within either historic district.

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/HistoricPreservationManual/historic_districts/avondale.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is 214 Avondale, a block-and-a-half East of Taft, and between the two Avondale HD's.

 

There is currently a parking variance on the agenda for tomorrow's planning commission meeting. The project proposes to provide 57 parking spaces (and 28 bicycle spaces) for the 50 1-BR units. Normally 66 spaces (or 59 + 28 bicycle spaces) would be required.

 

According to the variance request, providing two fewer spaces than the ordinance requires allows them to keep parking to a single level, reducing the overall cost of the project, and thereby the rental cost of the units. The building will have an Uber/Lyft lounge, and each unit comes bundled with a Metro pass. Parking is NOT included in the rent; tenants choosing to park in the building will have to lease a space. (The apartments in the Kirby Collection work the same way, I think.)

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Angostura said:

This is 214 Avondale, a block-and-a-half East of Taft, and between the two Avondale HD's.

 

There is currently a parking variance on the agenda for tomorrow's planning commission meeting. The project proposes to provide 57 parking spaces (and 28 bicycle spaces) for the 50 1-BR units. Normally 66 spaces (or 59 + 28 bicycle spaces) would be required.

 

According to the variance request, providing two fewer spaces than the ordinance requires allows them to keep parking to a single level, reducing the overall cost of the project, and thereby the rental cost of the units. The building will have an Uber/Lyft lounge, and each unit comes bundled with a Metro pass. Parking is NOT included in the rent; tenants choosing to park in the building will have to lease a space. (The apartments in the Kirby Collection work the same way, I think.)

 

 

 

The parking is typical for old affordable units in this area. I had to pay for one of the limited parking spots at my old place near Cherryhurst. This part of Avondale has some really old apts that need to be replaced so I do like that they are keeping rent prices in mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say this is a pretty terrible location for an apartment complex but other developments have already fubar'd Avondale over the years. This is about the most sensitive development you could possibly expect considering the land value.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed rent prices are attractive, so attractive that it seems naive for the developer to assumes every apartment will house only one occupant. This was what was laid out to the current residents of Avondale when questions of parking were asked. 

Providing parking is also attractive. However, Avondale has Permit parking in sections. Plus many valet parking try to use Avondale for parking as well as those restaurant patrons who don’t want to pay for valet try to park on Avondale. When lower Westheimer is in its renovation phase, parking for all the businesses will be chaotic.

 

The developer insists that their “ target” tenant is a bicycle / Uber user.....perhaps so, but that doesn’t mean that each of them also has a car. IMO roommates and visitors also show up with cars. So parking will be a headache for those residents.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, trymahjong said:

Indeed rent prices are attractive, so attractive that it seems naive for the developer to assumes every apartment will house only one occupant. This was what was laid out to the current residents of Avondale when questions of parking were asked. 

Providing parking is also attractive. However, Avondale has Permit parking in sections. Plus many valet parking try to use Avondale for parking as well as those restaurant patrons who don’t want to pay for valet try to park on Avondale. When lower Westheimer is in its renovation phase, parking for all the businesses will be chaotic.

 

The developer insists that their “ target” tenant is a bicycle / Uber user.....perhaps so, but that doesn’t mean that each of them also has a car. IMO roommates and visitors also show up with cars. So parking will be a headache for those residents.

 

 

I agree that parking there is already awful. You are lucky to find one street spot that isn't permitted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

I would say this is a pretty terrible location for an apartment complex but other developments have already fubar'd Avondale over the years. This is about the most sensitive development you could possibly expect considering the land value.

 

 

Actually, it seems like a pretty terrible location for low-density single-family houses, being less than a mile from downtown and within walking distance of lots of restaurants and other destinations. Seems like we'd want more people living here, not fewer.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Angostura said:

 

Actually, it seems like a pretty terrible location for low-density single-family houses, being less than a mile from downtown and within walking distance of lots of restaurants and other destinations. Seems like we'd want more people living here, not fewer.

 

My post is supportive of the development, if you read it slower than skimming. I pointed out that the land value (a function of its distance from downtown and restaurants) supports strong development and that the days of Avondale being a nice single-family residential street are long gone. My posts on this forum over the years have been consistently in favor of densifying the urban core, although I do like to see historic streets preserved when they are still intact. This one isn't.

 

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw

any “sensitive” adjustments were probably made as a sign of good faith to existing neighbors— who negotiationed long anD hard for them.The first rendering of this place bears little resemblance to that that  is offered today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Houston is ready for mandatory un-bundling of parking, but Seattle's research and ordinance show why à la carte parking is a substantial way to offer a lower price - parking accounts for 12.5% of typical rent in King County.

 

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/04/03/landlords-in-seattle-cant-force-renters-to-pay-for-parking-anymore/

 

It will be interesting to see if nearby neighbors start to rent their extra private spots; that strikes me as a win-win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure COH permit parking guarantees a parking space in Avondale. I say that because of the numerous cars that go round and round looking for a spot and their permit is hanging from rear view mirror.

 

  The downside of parking your car on the street in Avondale is the increasing number of BMV’s each month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When are people going to learn that its nobody's right to either claim a history as his/her own nor to destroy because its not something that aligns with his/her own shortsighted viewpoints/worldview. You can be proud of your history, but if you never lived it...it isn't yours to claim. The same for those who wish to destroy history, dismiss it, use it as a crutch, or shame another, and again, if you never lived it...it isn't yours to claim. This area (and others) is merely a "historical" district in name alone. It is a remnant of a bygone era, and merely exists to codify that the place, Avondale, once existed. Not only have the original families left this area, but even the original deed restrictions have long sense expired, many original homes (while several still remain) have been replaced with 50's-60's era garden apartments, and even the street cars have disappeared. I also completely agree with @Angostura in that its a relic that can't survive in a drastically, ever-changing, and densifying Houston. In any other major world city this neighborhood would have been long gone ages ago, but survived because growth completely hopped over the inner city and sprawled elsewhere. Its not going to be able to survive the second sprawl (Density Sprawl). The people that live there today have no right to badger these developers especially when the developers are doing the best they can to be civil, and good neighbors (which they don't have to be!). These people have no right to fashion history into a weapon to use at their own will! This...This is why I don't like NIMBY's and even why I don't like people that cry gentrification, or even try to pour molasses to rigidly thwart change in a given area and its because they arrogantly and idiotically try to use history as a weapon to defend or destroy. Its madness. Changes happen and it must happen. They may think that claiming history and propping up the area as a historical district has given them notice, but in reality, the city has long since forgotten about them because they couldn't change.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Alec said:

I don't think Houston is ready for mandatory un-bundling of parking, but Seattle's research and ordinance show why à la carte parking is a substantial way to offer a lower price - parking accounts for 12.5% of typical rent in King County.

 

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/04/03/landlords-in-seattle-cant-force-renters-to-pay-for-parking-anymore/

 

It will be interesting to see if nearby neighbors start to rent their extra private spots; that strikes me as a win-win.

 

IIRC, Kirby Collection was charging $300/space, but that might be for below-grade construction. An above-grade structure probably needs to charge about $200-250 to be cost-neutral with the residential square footage, which is 10-15% of the rent of a typical 1BR in the area. Though since the actual requirement in Houston is 1.33 spaces per 1BR unit, people are probably paying 13-20% of their rent to store their cars.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, trymahjong said:

I’m not sure COH permit parking guarantees a parking space in Avondale. I say that because of the numerous cars that go round and round looking for a spot and their permit is hanging from rear view mirror.

 

 

Even if this block goes resident-only, the people that live in these apartments will be residents.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, perhaps I misspoke. I was trying to convey that curb parking for these residents might be 1 1/2 block long.

so street space is shared with new and established residents, all with permits to park there. So permits in itself don’t necessarily guarantee a street space. This was the sticking point the developer had trouble answering.......beside the 6 visitors spots and if they don’t bicycle or Uber over, where will the roomates ( perhaps 20% of the residents will probably have roommates I would guess) where do those people park when competing with established permit holders, new permit holders and restaurant valets? 

 

BTW this development started out as 36 residents with parking for all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Luminare said:

When are people going to learn that its nobody's right to either claim a history as his/her own nor to destroy because its not something that aligns with his/her own shortsighted viewpoints/worldview. You can be proud of your history, but if you never lived it...it isn't yours to claim.

 

Not to derail this thread (since I have no problem with this project), but I disagree. The history of my parents or grandparents and the world around them is still my history. It does not matter if I was not alive at the time that the events were happening. I'm not sure what you mean by "claim," but history that is relevant to me extends further back than the day I was born. Cities in Europe preserve cathedrals and churches even when most of the population is secular because they consider those churches a stage of their history, and therefore relevant. There is a lot of valuable real estate in Vienna taken up by churches, but the people (although secular) support their preservation and they don't seem to be hurting as a "major world city" despite the under-utilization of land. Ditto for their imperial palaces.

 

In a southern city like Houston, I would say that generously-proportioned single-family residences are a fundamental part of our history, like imperial palaces in Vienna. We should preserve districts where these exist in an unbroken, conjoined setting. Where or how much to preserve is up for debate. Avondale is mostly a lost cause. I would fight to preserve Broadacres, I think it adds something that enhances rather than hinders our "major world city" aspirations. But I would drive the bulldozer to tear down Shadyside, due to its being adjacent to Hermann Park.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Luminare said:

In any other major world city this neighborhood would have been long gone ages ago, but survived because growth completely hopped over the inner city and sprawled elsewhere. Its not going to be able to survive the second sprawl (Density Sprawl). 

 

There’s plenty of land area inside the loop to still achieve the necessary density AND preserve historical neighborhoods. With current and proposed projects, we’re already seeing a concentration of high rises in Midtown, the Med Center, along Allen Parkway, etc. Full buildup of those areas will provide increased capacity that will provide for our projected population growth for decades and decades to come.

 

Not every inner-loop neighborhood needs to be dense and vertical.

 

I think the issue that most people have that cite “history” is that many of them are native Houstonians and their families have been here for generations, and they’re annoyed with developers—many of whom have little or no prior connection to Houston—coming in and proposing projects (whether it be town homes, high rises, McMansions, etc.) that they feel completely ruin the character of historic neighborhoods. Sure, there is no reason that these history buffs should be given precedence when their position is based more on emotion than practicality, but they likewise should have some input on what their neighborhood resembles when they very likely have more of a connection to that neighborhood than the developer does.

 

Personally, as a native Houstonian, I have a huge emotional connection to this city and I understand the desire to preserve history. My family has been here for ages—my grandfather was born in The Heights in the 1920s. I want this City to continue to develop and grow and maintain its status as a world-class city. But, there’s no reason that it can’t do that and still preserve the character of historically-significant neighborhoods like Avondale.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, trymahjong said:

beside the 6 visitors spots and if they don’t bicycle or Uber over, where will the roomates ( perhaps 20% of the residents will probably have roommates I would guess) where do those people park when competing with established permit holders, new permit holders and restaurant valets? 

 

 

I think that's part of the point. Right now, everyone, new AND existing residents alike, are shielded from the economic impact of the decision to drive (alone, usually) to a destination. However, the cost of providing 1.33 parking spaces for every 1BR apartment adds something like $250-400/month to the rent. Providing the required two off-street spaces to a townhouse or SFH adds something like $30-50k to the price in this part of town. By un-bundling parking from rent (and providing 2 fewer spaces that the ordinance requires) at least this developer is exposing tenants to the costs of their decisions, and allowing those that don't require a parking space to stop subsidizing those who do.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

But I would drive the bulldozer to tear down Shadyside, due to its being adjacent to Hermann Park.

 

 

 

Oh of course, if YOU were the sole decision maker than certainly you would know which areas to save and which to destroy, right? Thats what you mean when you say that. Its almost like you align with my previous statement:

 

16 hours ago, Luminare said:

 This...This is why I don't like NIMBY's and even why I don't like people that cry gentrification, or even try to pour molasses to rigidly thwart change in a given area and its because they arrogantly and idiotically try to use history as a weapon to defend or destroy.

 

This doesn't apply to just NIMBY's btw. What about the residents of Shadyside? Is their history not important enough for you? Its almost like you are perfectly ok with honoring your history, but because Shadyside doesn't align with your viewpoint or worldview then you are completely fine with taking it out.

 

3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

We should preserve districts where these exist in an unbroken, conjoined setting. Where or how much to preserve is up for debate. Avondale is mostly a lost cause. I would fight to preserve Broadacres, I think it adds something that enhances rather than hinders our "major world city" aspirations.

 

 

 

Do you think this is probably a very contradictory statement? I mean Avondale is a Historical District with large single family homes that you say are a,

 

3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

fundamental part of our history, 

 

 

 

like the Palaces of Vienna! Obviously these don't fit your subjective notions of what should be saved and what should be destroyed, nor are they the pinnacle of large single family residential family homes apparently. Broadacres though, that definitely needs to be saved, but again its almost as if you are choosing other history's that you haven't experienced. Which should be saved or destroyed is not up for debate (at least not between me and you) as if we are gods of the city. Which survives and continues is up to evolution of the city itself, and what the market and people want. Why put yourself in such a position where you aren't going to be able to control it all or succeed?

 

3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

The history of my parents or grandparents and the world around them is still my history. It does not matter if I was not alive at the time that the events were happening. I'm not sure what you mean by "claim," but history that is relevant to me extends further back than the day I was born.

 

 

 

If you can randomly choose which should be saved or which should be destroyed, if we are going to play this game, then what stops me from claiming your parents and grandparents history as my own? Seems from your emotional defense of it, its probably really good, so maybe I should just claim it as my own?

 

4 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Cities in Europe preserve cathedrals and churches even when most of the population is secular because they consider those churches a stage of their history, and therefore relevant. There is a lot of valuable real estate in Vienna taken up by churches, but the people (although secular) support their preservation and they don't seem to be hurting as a "major world city" despite the under-utilization of land. Ditto for their imperial palaces.

 

 

 

This is why I say that its not your right to claim history as your own. Because you never lived the experiences of your parents and grandparents and its subject to being mounted on some sort of manufactured romantic pedestal. You are turning their history's, which they lived for themselves, into a fiction. I can infer this because you elevate this history to the levels of beautiful European cities like Vienna. Thats a tall order, and utterly ridiculous. Nobody is saying you can't be proud of your history, and nobody is saying you shouldn't celebrate it and maintain that connection to your family. That is important, but you have your own life and your own history to live. If you are going to spend all of your life protecting the history of your parents and grandparents then whats the point of your life?

 

Now if we were to address your comparisons to European cities. Many of them had single family residences before they had multi-story apartments too, but the typical movement of and growth of cities has since completely erased there existence because at some point a single family home is not going to be able to adapt over the long haul to survive. The only reason anything survives to today is because they find new ways to change or adapt. Lets take the Pantheon in Rome for instance. Do you know how many times that building was threatened with demolition/destruction. The only reason it was able to last was because its design was so grand and so multifaceted that it could be changed and adapted for different uses (or people continued to find new uses for it. It went from being a pagan temple, to catholic church, to now an all-faiths temple (mostly still catholic) and museum. A modern day example of this is our very own Astrodome. The Astrodome wasn't saved for arbitrary reasons. It was saved because a handful of people saw that at some point a use could be found for it in the future if we could potentially forestall the wrecking ball.

 

4 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Not to derail this thread (since I have no problem with this project), but I disagree.

 

 

This is actually precisely on topic. Its the reason why things have stalled for this developer. Its a key part of discussion for this project, so its completely on topic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

Oh of course, if YOU were the sole decision maker than certainly you would know which areas to save and which to destroy, right? Thats what you mean when you say that. Its almost like you align with my previous statement:

 

 

This doesn't apply to just NIMBY's btw. What about the residents of Shadyside? Is their history not important enough for you? Its almost like you are perfectly ok with honoring your history, but because Shadyside doesn't align with your viewpoint or worldview then you are completely fine with taking it out.

 

 

Do you think this is probably a very contradictory statement? I mean Avondale is a Historical District with large single family homes that you say are a,

 

 

like the Palaces of Vienna! Obviously these don't fit your subjective notions of what should be saved and what should be destroyed, nor are they the pinnacle of large single family residential family homes apparently. Broadacres though, that definitely needs to be saved, but again its almost as if you are choosing other history's that you haven't experienced. Which should be saved or destroyed is not up for debate (at least not between me and you) as if we are gods of the city. Which survives and continues is up to evolution of the city itself, and what the market and people want. Why put yourself in such a position where you aren't going to be able to control it all or succeed?

 

 

If you can randomly choose which should be saved or which should be destroyed, if we are going to play this game, then what stops me from claiming your parents and grandparents history as my own? Seems from your emotional defense of it, its probably really good, so maybe I should just claim it as my own?

 

 

This is why I say that its not your right to claim history as your own. Because you never lived the experiences of your parents and grandparents and its subject to being mounted on some sort of manufactured romantic pedestal. You are turning their history's, which they lived for themselves, into a fiction. I can infer this because you elevate this history to the levels of beautiful European cities like Vienna. Thats a tall order, and utterly ridiculous. Nobody is saying you can't be proud of your history, and nobody is saying you shouldn't celebrate it and maintain that connection to your family. That is important, but you have your own life and your own history to live. If you are going to spend all of your life protecting the history of your parents and grandparents then whats the point of your life?

 

Now if we were to address your comparisons to European cities. Many of them had single family residences before they had multi-story apartments too, but the typical movement of and growth of cities has since completely erased there existence because at some point a single family home is not going to be able to adapt over the long haul to survive. The only reason anything survives to today is because they find new ways to change or adapt. Lets take the Pantheon in Rome for instance. Do you know how many times that building was threatened with demolition/destruction. The only reason it was able to last was because its design was so grand and so multifaceted that it could be changed and adapted for different uses (or people continued to find new uses for it. It went from being a pagan temple, to catholic church, to now an all-faiths temple (mostly still catholic) and museum. A modern day example of this is our very own Astrodome. The Astrodome wasn't saved for arbitrary reasons. It was saved because a handful of people saw that at some point a use could be found for it in the future if we could potentially forestall the wrecking ball.

 

 

This is actually precisely on topic. Its the reason why things have stalled for this developer. Its a key part of discussion for this project, so its completely on topic.

 

There are some pretty intense straw man arguments here. I drew an obvious distinction between Avondale and Broadacres, in that one is an "unbroken, conjoined setting" and the other (Avondale) isn't, but is instead full of 60's-era multi-unit flats, 90's-era gated townhomes, etc. So I think Broadacres is worth saving because it is still an intact district.

 

As with your accusations that I am arbitrarily deciding which to save and which not to save as though I were a "god" of the city, I noted "where and how much to preserve is up for debate." I think these decisions should be made democratically. After that, I simply noted a few of my personal preferences regarding Broadacres and Shadyside, etc., which I don't think makes me a god or dictator. I am one of many people who would be democratically deciding such things.

 

Some of the other stuff, like that I put this history on the same level of Vienna just because I made an analogy, or that I am spending "all of [my] life protecting the history of [my] parents and grandparents," is too ridiculous to be worth answering. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

There are some pretty intense straw man arguments here. I drew an obvious distinction between Avondale and Broadacres, in that one is an "unbroken, conjoined setting" and the other (Avondale) isn't, but is instead full of 60's-era multi-unit flats, 90's-era gated townhomes, etc. So I think Broadacres is worth saving because it is still an intact district.

 

As with your accusations that I am arbitrarily deciding which to save and which not to save as though I were a "god" of the city, I noted "where and how much to preserve is up for debate." I think these decisions should be made democratically. After that, I simply noted a few of my personal preferences regarding Broadacres and Shadyside, etc., which I don't think makes me a god or dictator. I am one of many people who would be democratically deciding such things.

 

Some of the other stuff, like that I put this history on the same level of Vienna just because I made an analogy, or that I am spending "all of [my] life protecting the history of [my] parents and grandparents," is too ridiculous to be worth answering. 

 

 

Good. Glad that I'm proven wrong in this respect. I've never understood you to be crazy or not sensible haha (but I rather press to figure out if that is the case, its just how I operate). Thank god for that. We can certainly have a fun discussion about what areas are crappy and which are awesome, but my point is that these shouldn't be grounds for demolition or even preserving. It just comes off as elitist. I'm being honest here. A better way to approach this would be to propose or find solutions in how these areas can adapt and continue into the future so neither of us have to make that decision in the first place or force others to.

I can tell you one thing, it most certainly will not be single family residences. One way or another, if this area wants to forestall the wrecking ball then it does need to change. It would be nice to keep these houses if possible. Montrose and areas south of 59 have an amazing array/catalog of the extensive variety that is the American House. Instead of butting heads, or even propose some kind of weird democratic vote on whether they carry on or not, lets figure out how they can carry on for themselves without us having to make that judgement call. What do you think could be possible? I mean if we can find new uses for those couple houses in downtown then we could find new uses for houses here don't you think?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Luminare said:

 

Good. Glad that I'm proven wrong in this respect. I've never understood you to be crazy or not sensible haha (but I rather press to figure out if that is the case, its just how I operate). Thank god for that. We can certainly have a fun discussion about what areas are crappy and which are awesome, but my point is that these shouldn't be grounds for demolition or even preserving. It just comes off as elitist. I'm being honest here. A better way to approach this would be to propose or find solutions in how these areas can adapt and continue into the future so neither of us have to make that decision in the first place or force others to.

I can tell you one thing, it most certainly will not be single family residences. One way or another, if this area wants to forestall the wrecking ball then it does need to change. It would be nice to keep these houses if possible. Montrose and areas south of 59 have an amazing array/catalog of the extensive variety that is the American House. Instead of butting heads, or even propose some kind of weird democratic vote on whether they carry on or not, lets figure out how they can carry on for themselves without us having to make that judgement call. What do you think could be possible? I mean if we can find new uses for those couple houses in downtown then we could find new uses for houses here don't you think?

 

No worries. I see what you are saying about adapting, although I think that the area that is covered by preservation laws is so small, it hardly matters (as thedistrict84 was saying) to the wider area's potential. But if we do want them to adapt, sometimes preservation laws are the best way to see that happen, because it forces people to creatively adapt and reuse historic buildings rather than just demolish them. Large single-family homes can be divided up into flats or even turned into hostels. Or they can be converted to office use.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I’m caught tilting at windmills...........

 

But for 14 years I have been one of those residents trying to “. Preserve” a “ mostly lost” Avondale. The romance of that quest is mostly limited to walking my grandchildren my great grandchildren under the huge tree canopy, down broken up pink tinged sidewalks, hitching posts, and  tiles ( bearing Original resident names) into the cement.  It is the voices of those children whose imagination puts together a wonderment of how the historical residents Contributed to a “ fairly” new Houston. How the architecture of the houses were chosen and how trees were chosen to be planted ina mostly treeless development.

 

So of courseI am reticent to bring current residents kicking and screaming to the notion that high density is thing available to us;

And any “ history” that we might want to preserve is futile. I do accept that my goal for Avondale is easy to find humor in.

 

I believe that’s it’s not only location that seeks develops but also the  history of Avondale. I think it is desirable for them to advertise new apartments in the heart of Historic Avondale. That bit of PR is priceless. This is a small area and indeed my back yard, so I do standup and ask developers to make concessions towards keeping as much of “Avondale” as it is. Or at least trying to blend and be sympathic  to the neighborhood. The developers want their clients to be part of the myth after all.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, trymahjong said:

Perhaps I’m caught tilting at windmills...........

 

But for 14 years I have been one of those residents trying to “. Preserve” a “ mostly lost” Avondale. The romance of that quest is mostly limited to walking my grandchildren my great grandchildren under the huge tree canopy, down broken up pink tinged sidewalks, hitching posts, and  tiles ( bearing Original resident names) into the cement.  It is the voices of those children whose imagination puts together a wonderment of how the historical residents Contributed to a “ fairly” new Houston. How the architecture of the houses were chosen and how trees were chosen to be planted ina mostly treeless development.

 

So of courseI am reticent to bring current residents kicking and screaming to the notion that high density is thing available to us;

And any “ history” that we might want to preserve is futile. I do accept that my goal for Avondale is easy to find humor in.

 

I believe that’s it’s not only location that seeks develops but also the  history of Avondale. I think it is desirable for them to advertise new apartments in the heart of Historic Avondale. That bit of PR is priceless. This is a small area and indeed my back yard, so I do standup and ask developers to make concessions towards keeping as much of “Avondale” as it is. Or at least trying to blend and be sympathic  to the neighborhood. The developers want their clients to be part of the myth after all.

 

 

 

Well put... I too am on the edge of a historic district myself and fear the same - that new developments don't take the consistent or romantic feel away from the area.

 

I believe developments in areas should be very mindful of how their development affects the area. Some things are more appropriate than others. In Avondale, my stomach hurts when I see a grand old home (preserved by the historic district) squished in by a 6 plex of town homes.

 

I can say a lot of what makes or breaks a development is their setbacks / matching sight lines / and green space. If they can respect these things, I think it will be better than what we've seen before in Avondale.

Edited by Avossos
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Urbannizer said:

0?e=1565222400&v=beta&t=D_1Dz5ecajju0jqo

 

I hope this fits in nicely with the historic district.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...