Jump to content

The Heights Restaurant And Bar Scene - More Coming


Freelander

Recommended Posts

Actually, it is more akin to plea bargaining. Government cannot nullify itself. However, it can bend its rules to favor one group over another. It appears that today the City bent its rules in favor of business, just as it did for the condos down the street, Walmart on Yale, and Kroger on Studewood. I am not terribly whipsawed over this, so long as the sidewalk is kept accessible. In fact, having been a restaurant owner, I would normally favor helping them out. I just want the same benevolence extended toward homeowners, something that my Stockholm Syndrome neighbors seem to oppose.

 

Variance was approved for Town In City, but Coltivare is still waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it is more akin to plea bargaining. Government cannot nullify itself. However, it can bend its rules to favor one group over another. It appears that today the City bent its rules in favor of business, just as it did for the condos down the street, Walmart on Yale, and Kroger on Studewood. I am not terribly whipsawed over this, so long as the sidewalk is kept accessible. In fact, having been a restaurant owner, I would normally favor helping them out. I just want the same benevolence extended toward homeowners, something that my Stockholm Syndrome neighbors seem to oppose.

So, you went from hurling invective at the folks opposing the condo tower to joining them because doing so somehow supports your opposition to the Historic Ordinance all at precisely the same time I post something about the Coltivare folks. Correlation may not always equal causation, but you aren't fooling anyone here. And from a principled standpoint, it is hard to reconcile now supporting people who petition government in order to impeded private development in order to show that people should not be able to petition government to impede private development. It is like voting for your political opponent in hopes that they win and do so badly that their ideas are discredited (although this sort of tactic actually was employed by the majority of the US Supreme Court in the infamous snail darter case, so maybe you are onto something--or maybe not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except when they aren't. Which is the whole point of requesting a variance.

I was just needling Red Scare. And variances are also rules with a set of standards that are supposed to be satisfied. In fact, while some scoff at variances as just being a way for the politically connected to avoid the rules everyone else has to follow (there is definitely some truth to that, but it is not a rule), variances are actually a very important function of real estate law. Even the most positivist of positivists will conceded that there are infinite combinations of problems and solutions in the world of real estate that can not ever be predicted by even the best thought out set of regulations. Variances give government the opportunity to respond to unforseen circumstances and mitigate the problem of one size fits all regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's trolling you because of what he perceives to be your own hypocrisy, I don't think he actually opposes the variance. "Kcking a small business (or home) owner in the pants in order to celebrate form over substance" is exactly what the Historic District does.

Edited by kylejack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's trolling you because of what he perceives to be your own hypocrisy, I don't think he actually opposes the variance. "Kcking a small business (or home) owner in the pants in order to celebrate form over substance" is exactly what the Historic District does.

I know he is trolling. But he is only doing so because he cannot stand to admit that I am right about anything. And there is nothing comparable between the City not wanting to let someone count a parking space that the City has already permitted to be a parking space with a Historic Ordinance that has made a substantial difference in stopping the systematic tear down of historic architecture and has also stopped the new construction of out of scale and character faux-orleans boxes, and "what the ????" moderns and Woodlands-esque "custom homes". For all its flaws, there is a ton of substance in the Historic Ordinance. There. I took the bait, but not from Red Scare. Partial credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know he is trolling. But he is only doing so because he cannot stand to admit that I am right about anything. And there is nothing comparable between the City not wanting to let someone count a parking space that the City has already permitted to be a parking space with a Historic Ordinance that has made a substantial difference in stopping the systematic tear down of historic architecture and has also stopped the new construction of out of scale and character faux-orleans boxes, and "what the ????" moderns and Woodlands-esque "custom homes". For all its flaws, there is a ton of substance in the Historic Ordinance. There. I took the bait, but not from Red Scare. Partial credit.

 

So in fact you do believe in celebrating form, just so long as it's the forms you approve of.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know he is trolling. But he is only doing so because he cannot stand to admit that I am right about anything. And there is nothing comparable between the City not wanting to let someone count a parking space that the City has already permitted to be a parking space with a Historic Ordinance that has made a substantial difference in stopping the systematic tear down of historic architecture and has also stopped the new construction of out of scale and character faux-orleans boxes, and "what the ????" moderns and Woodlands-esque "custom homes". For all its flaws, there is a ton of substance in the Historic Ordinance. There. I took the bait, but not from Red Scare. Partial credit.

 

The random "what the ????" moderns were one of the major drawing factors of me to the neighborhood.  Eclecticism is what made The Heights what it is today.  From Houses, to Restaurants, to art galleries and all other sorts of things. 

 

 

Why are you wasting your time here though... isn't there an inadequate bridge to be found near wayside?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in fact you do believe in celebrating form, just so long as it's the forms you approve of.

No, I believe that there is substance in the Historic Ordinance and there is no substance in the application of the ROW to exclude the availability of parking spaces to Coltivare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the issue I saw on Arlington.

 

rfhQ0WC.jpg

 

Nothing prevents someone from just pulling all the way forward to the building, blocking the sidewalk. I think this could be fixed by installing some parking stops at the end of the parking spaces. I talked to Morgan Weber, and he said he'd be willing to do that, if possible.

 

Other than that, these grassy areas just need to be paved and then there's a workable sidewalk that can be used by pedestrians, handicapped, etc.

 

l3gPy3R.jpg

 

SDmMjVj.jpg

 

I wrote to the Planning people with conditional support for the variance based on those items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this post.  It is really hard to see the issue here. Easy remedies and plenty of room.

 

Strangely, you can see two homeowners parking on the sidewalk in your third picture. 

 

Also, note that there is nothing open on white oak west of oxford past say 8pm at night. 

 

I could see if you lived next woodrows or onion creek, but I am stil puzzled why this project would be so difficult to permit.

 

 

 

 

Here's the issue I saw on Arlington.

 

rfhQ0WC.jpg

 

Nothing prevents someone from just pulling all the way forward to the building, blocking the sidewalk. I think this could be fixed by installing some parking stops at the end of the parking spaces. I talked to Morgan Weber, and he said he'd be willing to do that, if possible.

 

Other than that, these grassy areas just need to be paved and then there's a workable sidewalk that can be used by pedestrians, handicapped, etc.

 

l3gPy3R.jpg

 

SDmMjVj.jpg

 

I wrote to the Planning people with conditional support for the variance based on those items.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just realtor-speak for bad architecture.

 

 

I'm not a realtor, nor do I have bad taste in architecture (I don't need to qualify myself to you).  My opinion is not singular. 

 

 

 

 

As far as Diversity...  I'd like to see the following move in to the hood':  Dedicated Sushi Restaurant, Indian, Ethiopian, Bagels.

 

 

Ruggles has to be getting close to opening, anyone have the offician opening date yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than that, these grassy areas just need to be paved and then there's a workable sidewalk that can be used by pedestrians, handicapped, etc.

l3gPy3R.jpg

The grassy areas, they need a saving not a paving. Without them that spot becomes a concrete heat island devoid of green space. History lost inch by inch, foot by foot at the hands of nazi-uniformed, hipster concrete workers. Save the square if you care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kraftsmen has a row of spaces along 22nd that are all over the right of way with no sidewalk access. Chilosos has a row along Gostic that are identical to the row along Arlington in the photos above. Cedar Creek has pull in diagonal parking that has the tail end of big trucks hanging over the sidewalk.

Coltivare is going to be relatively small. 3000 sq feet for kitchen and dining room with a sliver of outdoor terrace seating. This should be a no-brainer for the City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The grassy areas, they need a saving not a paving. Without them that spot becomes a concrete heat island devoid of green space. History lost inch by inch, foot by foot at the hands of nazi-uniformed, hipster concrete workers. Save the square if you care.

 

Every sidewalk should have a usable sidewalk on both sides of the street. Streets are for pedestrians and handicapped too, not just motorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kraftsmen has a row of spaces along 22nd that are all over the right of way with no sidewalk access. Chilosos has a row along Gostic that are identical to the row along Arlington in the photos above. Cedar Creek has pull in diagonal parking that has the tail end of big trucks hanging over the sidewalk.

 

Those all need to be remedied. Unfortunately they're not up for a variance right now, so I doubt anything can be done. Doesn't mean we should keep making the same mistake. Pedestrian access is very important. I'm honestly surprised that sidewalks don't figure in to your historic utopian vision for The Heights.

Edited by kylejack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kraftsmen has a row of spaces along 22nd that are all over the right of way with no sidewalk access. Chilosos has a row along Gostic that are identical to the row along Arlington in the photos above. Cedar Creek has pull in diagonal parking that has the tail end of big trucks hanging over the sidewalk. Coltivare is going to be relatively small. 3000 sq feet for kitchen and dining room with a sliver of outdoor terrace seating. This should be a no-brainer for the City.

 

Reading your examples, the "no brainer for the City" would be to deny a parking permit on Arlington, and then to proceed to either revoke the permitted parking in those other areas, or to begin citing those who block the sidewalk when parking there. I know that is not what you intended, but it is what your comments provoked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every sidewalk should have a usable sidewalk on both sides of the street. Streets are for pedestrians and handicapped too, not just motorists.

I agree streets are for pedestrians and the handicapped. Bicycles are also vehicles. Anything with wheels or shoes should be required to register, receive plates and tags, and undergo inspection. These added fees will go to support the historic district and restaurant diversification programs oversceen by Paunchous Parker.

Edited by TGM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was a waffle house... people would be jumping all over this saying the city shouldn't allow the variance. 


 


Berry Hill also has ROW parking and trucks stick way out into the street  (i once saw a crew cab f250 parked there and they almost completely blocked the lane). 


 


What happens if someone else takes ownership of that warehouse and repurposes it though?


 


 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was a waffle house... people would be jumping all over this saying the city shouldn't allow the variance. 

 

Berry Hill also has ROW parking and trucks stick way out into the street  (i once saw a crew cab f250 parked there and they almost completely blocked the lane). 

 

What happens if someone else takes ownership of that warehouse and repurposes it though?

It would be the same situation as if a restaurant satisfied their parking requirement through leased off-site parking and lost the lease. They have to find new parking or close up shop. In the case of Coltivare, it would just mean that they would then have to pave over the garden if they could not secure other parking. So, there is no risk in granting the variance as they will have a permanent back up plan should the warehouse parking ever become unavailable.

Some in the neighborhood have expressed concerns about the parking variance as they do not want to see a westward expansion of the parking situation around White Oak and Studewood. It is a fair concern for folks on Arlington as their street is not curbed and guttered. However, there are very few good opportunities for further restaurant development on that stretch of White Oak that the parking intrusion on the neighborhood should be minimal in comparison to what is going on down the street.

As for the Waffle House/Heights snobbery comment, the Walmart development failed to build a sidewalk along the west side of Yale St. between the White Oak bayou bridge and Koehler. I do not recall anyone here advocating for denying the development their cert of occupancy until the sidewalks were completed.

The fact of the matter is that redevelopment in the Heights is going to be a messy affair. The original design of the commercial areas did not anticipate the need for the kind of parking that is now required. The commercial streets (White Oak/6th, 11th, 20th, Yale) should have plenty of restaurants and shops and will need some bend in the parking rules to get that done. The lots that are ripe for redevelopment just are not big enough to do much other than a little strip mall here and there. The Heights already has plenty of those and they are of little benefit compared to something like Coltivare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Waffle House/Heights snobbery comment, the Walmart development failed to build a sidewalk along the west side of Yale St. between the White Oak bayou bridge and Koehler. I do not recall anyone here advocating for denying the development their cert of occupancy until the sidewalks were completed.

 

Well then check my posts, because I was totally opposed to both Walmart and the 380.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The west side of Yale between Koehler and the bayou is frontage in front of San Jacinto Stone, so I fail to see what it has to with Wal*Mart or how it relates to this property trying to meet its parking requirements.

Only relevant to the extent a prior post used the old Heights snob argument to claim that people would oppose the parking if it was a waffle house. My retort was that people on this message board showed little concern about the sidewalk issue on Yale.

The sidewalk was eliminated in order to widen Yale per the 380 because no one anticipated that the utility poles were in the way. The sidewalk was supposed to be part of the 380. Only relevant to parking requirements to the extent it shows selective enforcement of ROW all over the place by the City. Thus, it is unfair for the City to come down hard on Coltivare while at the same time giving the big project soaked in free tax dollars a pass on their ROW foulup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only relevant to the extent a prior post used the old Heights snob argument to claim that people would oppose the parking if it was a waffle house. My retort was that people on this message board showed little concern about the sidewalk issue on Yale.

The sidewalk was eliminated in order to widen Yale per the 380 because no one anticipated that the utility poles were in the way. The sidewalk was supposed to be part of the 380. Only relevant to parking requirements to the extent it shows selective enforcement of ROW all over the place by the City. Thus, it is unfair for the City to come down hard on Coltivare while at the same time giving the big project soaked in free tax dollars a pass on their ROW foulup.

 

So, now you believe it is unfair for the City to be capricious and arbitrary in its dealings with the citizenry? I must agree with you on that point, even though your analogy to the Walmart situation could not be less analogous to this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Coltivare is offering up a baby splitting compromise if the Planning commission does not let them use the spaces along White Oak. They will put in 5 spaces on the east end of the lot that will be the garden and keep a little more than half of that lot as their garden space. Those five spaces plus the eight along the warehouse on Arlington that do not have ROW issues (only the spaces along White Oak have the ROW issues). That would meet the 13 space minimum and still let them have a big garden.

Edited by s3mh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those five spaces plus the eight along the warehouse on Arlington that do not have ROW issues

 

Unless of course, you consider a sidewalk a right of way. I do. The Planning Commission sent me an e-mail with details of what they'll propose. I'll post it when I have access later.

Edited by kylejack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless of course, you consider a sidewalk a right of way. I do. The Planning Commission sent me an e-mail with details of what they'll propose. I'll post it when I have access later.

There is no sidewalk issue on Arlington. The sidewalk is right where it is supposed to be and is not affected by the parking. You would have to get rid of all the parking along 19th if that kind of front in parking was a problem. In fact, most new urbanism planners prefer that kind of front in parking over strip mall surface lots as they are more pedestrian friendly. The parking on white oak does go where the sidewalk is supposed to be, but should not be an issue as there is still a sidewalk that has been built around the spaces.

Link to comment
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...