Heights20plusyears

The timing of the ballot process was determined by when opponents submitted reconsideration applications.  They could have had the vote sooner if they got the applications for reconsideration submitted sooner.  The City did not set the date unilaterally.  The ballots arrived in the mail in the beginning of December (I got mine @ Dec. 3, as did most others) and had to be post marked by December 23rd.  The typical holiday traveler is not out the entire month of December.  Everyone had plenty of time to get their ballot and get it sent in.  There has never been any evidence that the few odd people who were out of town the entire month would have made any difference in the outcome, if there were even such people in the first place.  

Since when were they ever called ballots?  The letter I received from our friends at CoH said "Survey" on the envelope.

HAHA!  Everything that now exists that did not exist before the Walmart was built is caused by the Walmart being built.  Who knew?

Pretty much so, much like the changes to the feeder road down by Target.

Sorry, Heights20, the Walmart was built there because of the exit from I10, not the other way around. 

The exit did not exist prior to WalMart being built.

Exactly.  That is why it is so silly for Heightsplus20 to call me out for opposing one but supporting the other.  Thanks for driving my point home.

 

WalMart was built where there was NO, and I mean absolutely NO residential or traffic impact.  It was a frigging ABANDONED business that had been there for years and traffic was never an issue until the bicycle lane was put in on Heights Blvd. that supposedly had a traffic impact study completed which stated there would be no impact.

Many traffic IMPROVEMENTS were made due to WalMart.  One major improvement is that there is now an exit to Yale and Heights from I10 East.  There is no need to go all the way to Studewood.

Sorry for the caps and bolding, but you seem to have issues with comprehending what people say if you are not in agreement.

So, you are concerned about traffic impacts.  Fair enough.  But where were you when everyone was protesting Walmart?

Supporting it 100%.

Retail at that spot would be ideal.  As previously noted, this is at one of the busiest intersections in the Heights.  Across 11th st. is the strip center with Lola and an additional 3,000 sq ft of retail is currently under construction on the NW corner of Heights and 11th.  On the other side of Yale St. is a gas station (closed and on the market) and a dry cleaner.  There is a chiro office on the SE corner of Heights and 11th with Boulevard Coffee a few doors down on Heights (at least for the next few days). 

 

That intersection is busy both with vehicles and pedestrian traffic and is pretty much the mid point of the Heights, meaning that it is close to a lot of residents.  A casual restaurant could do a good business from breakfast to dinner at that location, especially considering that there will be an additional 700 new units of apartments a few blocks down the street.  What we do not need is another Shady Acres-esque town home cluster or a Fisherville mid-rise. 

As you stated, "this is one of the busiest intersections in The Heights" which is exactly why I am opposed to more retail.  They already took away 1 lane in each direction on Heights Blvd. for bicyclists that refuse to obey traffic laws.

http://swamplot.com/this-could-be-the-end-of-the-heights-post-office/2014-09-18/

 

I have seen some old folks at this location using the post office boxes.  I assume that they are walking over from the nearby senior apartments.  It would be an inconvenience for them.  But that is the only reason I could think of to advocate for keeping it.  It is the worst post office in the world and a blight on Heights Blvd.  And it would be a great redevelopment opportunity with the new little retail strip on the northwest side of the intersection and the available old gas station across Yale St.

Really, tear it down and put in retail space?  This is in the heart of residential properties.  You pissed and moaned about WalMart and it was a vacant field and had no impact on residential properties.

The Heights Association numbers do not include areas outside what is considered the original boundaries of the Heights (4th-30th, Shep to Studewood, basically).  My 200+ extrapolates their numbers to what most people think of when you say "Heights" (including Woodland Heights, Norhill, etc.).

You should be a politician.  You crawfish so well.

This was just in the traditional boundaries of the Heights and did not include Woodland Heights, Norhill or other areas considered to be part of the "Greater Heights" (Brookesmith, E. Sunset Heights, etc.).  Add in those areas and you easily have a period during the housing bubble where 200+ were going down in a year.   

You are the one that said it DID NOT include other Greater Heights neighborhoods.

Back in 2006, the Houston Heights Association documented 170 demolitions in a year and a half in the Heights and a rate of 2.4 homes a week being demolished.  By March of 2008, the count was 324 since June of 2005, but the rate began to slow late in 2007 into 2008 as the first historic districts came together.  This was just in the traditional boundaries of the Heights and did not include Woodland Heights, Norhill or other areas considered to be part of the "Greater Heights" (Brookesmith, E. Sunset Heights, etc.).  Add in those areas and you easily have a period during the housing bubble where 200+ were going down in a year.   

Your math doesn't support your claim.  You state The Heights, so lets review The Heights numbers.  I could care less about other neighborhoods as I do not live there and am only concerned with where I have called home for a VERY long time.

170 houses in 18 months does not equal 200 per year.  That works out to be 9.44 houses per month.  Over a 24 month period that equals 226.66 homes, or 173.34 homes short of your 200 home per year claim.

Going forward, If you take the 324 total as you state in March 2008 and subtrace the 170 in 2006, that equals 154.  146 short of your 200 per year claim.

 You all know that no one in the Heights wants to go back to the days when 200+ bungalows a year were being demolished and have to instead make it seem like everyone who supports the ordinance is a bad person with an improper motive. 

 

Show me 200 addresses that bungalows were demolished in 1 year in The Heights.

I'm tired of reading this untrue statement.

...

If you want to repeal the ordinance instead of working to make it better, you are not a preservationist.  The historic houses in the Heights were getting mowed down as fast as they were in Oak Forrest before the ordinance.  Without the ordinance, it would be back to losing historic housing stock by the hundreds every year.  If that is what you consider preservation, then you have a very warped concept of what it means to be a preservationist.

I'd like the ordinance repealed ONLY due to how it was initiated.  A "Survey" was not the proper way to conduct who is for and who is against.

There were restrictions, albeit block by block, that prevented multi-family dwellings and homes that consumed an entire lot. (minimum lot size and setback)

MOST of the so-called historic houses that were torn down needed to be torn down because they were far beyond repair. 

Until someone is paying my mortgage and taxes, I'll put up one hell of a fight before being told what I can and cannot do to my house that I've owned for 18+ years, LONG before the Hysterical Ordinance was ever someones wet dream.  I find it extremely entertaining how some people can move into the Heights, live here for 2+ years and try and force their opinions on what is best for us that have lived here for over 20 years.

I too have done an expansion over 8 years ago and it is also listed in the "how it can be done book".  To me, that is what Historic Preservation is all about.  Keeping the look and feel of the existing neighborhood WITHOUT the known impass of your plans by the idiots on the review board.

The real issue is that the justification for ramming through the 380 agreement against stern opposition in the community

Sounds like the same process that "rammed" through with much opposition which now results in my house being in a Hysterical District.

Maybe they sent out "surveys" and you didn't return yours in time which then meant an automatic YES for the 380 and WalMart.

No. There are actually a large number of people in this world who understand and appreciate architecture. There is a widely held consesus about certain architectural periods and styles. A lot of the late decco early modern designs are very poor examples of design, both aesthetically and practically. They have low ceilings, are filled with asbestos and have very little in design elements, but are not striking enough in their minimalism to have any value as an example of modernism. The Macy's downtown and the office building on Montrose that used to have the Sky Bar are examples of this transitional architecture that just did not hold up well, although at least one side of the Macy's had interesting oversized pleats on the facade, but the rest is just a brick box. Likewise, craftsman architecture is well recognized for its aesthetics, but the subsequent ranch style suburband homes of the 1940s is not. If you choose to not have any appreication or understanding of architecture and aesthetics, that is your choice. But that doesn't mean that those who do understand and appreciate architecture act arbitrarily whenever they have an opinion that one style is worthy of preservation over another.

With that being said, can I implode my house that is in one of the designated Hysterical Districts?

It was built in 1930 (decco period) and is brick (does not hold up well according to you vast knowledge of architecture aesthetics). It looks like a "brick block" with some windows and a front door.

Let me know!

Geez...now I feel horrible about having all the knob and tube electrical lines removed from my house and that has now taken away part of it's historical importance. Maybe I should have it all reinstalled, as it still is up to code, but I'd have hell finding an insurance company that would be willing to sell me a homeowners policy.

"Hardy plank all over an old bungalow with block and beam foundation will just mean foundation problems for the foreseeable future. Hardy plank is too heavy for block and beam."

Hardie siding weighs approximately 1-1.5lbs more per sq ft than traditional wood lap siding. I would like to see a bungalow in the Heights that has never had issues with it's piers, specially brick and mortar ones (which most are).

And about all of this this Histerical District Vote nonsense...how could the COH ever consider what they did as a vote when the envelope said SURVEY and any SURVEY that was NOT returned was an automatic YES?

The response was "we have to repeal the ordinance because the Heights will turn into a slum if we don't."

Hello...the Heights was a slum when all of that nonsense was passed in 1981. I find it truly amazing one can live in a neighborhood for 2 whole years and seem to know what's best for every home owner.

Maybe the Norhill residents will get a "survey" in the mail, right at Christmas time, and a Yes vote will be counted for every non-returned "survey".

There was a previous thread about this property back in 2007, which is probably prior to those that have moved to The Heights and deemed themselves the saviours of history and preservation:

And where will the vagrants that live under it relocate to during construction?

It isn't my fault that people who lived in the neighborhood before me did not care that the steel plant violated the load restrictions. And there is no controversy over whether a safe bridge that can handle 18 wheeler traffic is what is best for the Heights. TxDOT, not the neighborhood, has determined the weight load limitations. All people in the neighborhood did was put pressure on public officials to get the funding fast tracked to fix a problem that had been ignored for decades.

We've always cared, but those of us that have lived here long before the McMansion invasion all know that anything South of I-10 is NOT The Heights.

Yes, it is all funny when you completely ignore the consequences of exceeding the load on the bridge. Currently, money has been committed to fix the bridge. But it could take up to five years before the bridge is replaced. It will probably be at least a year before construction starts, probably closer to two or three years given the time needed to get the funding, bid out all the contracts and get everything rolling. If trucks continue to use the bridge, the structural integrity of the bridge could continue to decline to the point where officials will have no discretion but to close the bridge. It will take at least a year to complete construction of a new bridge, probably closer to two. If the bridge is closed before construction can start because truckers continually ignore the restriction, then we could be without the bridge for up to five years.

Of course, responsible people would have made sure that the bridge was adequate before allowing the construction of over 30 acres of strip malls and big boxes. But we are just some little backwater of a town that was too caught up in being picked to get a Walmart to make any rational decisions. Oh, no. Actually, we are one of the largest and most prosperous cities in the US and have no excuse for such an oversight.

Great. The Yale Street bridge will end up just like when the Heights bridge was repaired, a huge pissing match with what style ballisters needed to be used (which the majority of them are all cracked now and look nasty) and the amount of money that was wasted on the "historic looking lights" which have all disappeeard..probably to the scrap yard on Center Street. Another thought, how many HUGE (I'm talking 60 to 80 feet) steel beams went across that bridge? (yes..the former habitants of the property where WalMart is being built for those of you who just moved here and think they know what's best for The Heights).

Get over it. WalMart is being built and there is NOTHING you can do about it. Just like those of us that were SCREWED on the Historic District "Survey".

At least the buyer of this site found out that you can get more useable sq ft by putting in parking above the site and building more than a one story strip mall.

If the rumors are true and Fresh Market is going to be a tenant, HEB will have lost out on the Heights three times over with no real chance left for them in the area.

There was an HEB in the Heights (11 Street and Rutland). They built a brand new store and then left. The building was torn down and there is now a bank on the property. Obviously HEB deemed The Heights not profitable.