heights_yankee

Kinda funny that the running joke on Yale is that the light at 14th Street will be red no matter what direction you are going, UNLESS we are trying to complain about speeding on Yale. THEN, the light at Yale is always green. Go figure.

As for the rest, I've explained why it is not logical to use Yale as a cut-through, but it appears that most Heights residents make up their minds first, then look for anything to support their decision, so I'll just say that if any City of Houston engineers are reading this, then this Heights resident says to follow your data, not the opinions of non-commuters.

And, none of this is related to the feeders on I-10.

iwhat i was saying related to I10 in that it wil bring more traffic, specifically more highway traffic, to the heights.

i think you think it's not logical to use Yale as a cut thru and so do most other people, but it seems the city is planning it that way anyway. i guess i don't understand what you're saying in that second paragraph...

ETA: something is wrong with HAIF on my computer where i cannot see my responses as i am typing them so please excuse all the typos.

Straw man.

Hartmann was complaining about congestion caused by cut-through traffic potentially creating an adverse environment for pedestrians. You don't mean to tell me that Montrose doesn't have any congestion caused by cut-through traffic, do you?

it's different. i can't even pin point why, but having lived in montrose for 6 years and then in the heights for 5 i can tell you the traffic patters are just different. maybe it is something like what a PP mentioned- b/c the traffic in montrose is not highway cut through traffic like it is through the heights. there is no real direct highway connected to montrose as a neighborhood where the heights is totally surrounded by major highways. yes, ppl cut through montrose but it's usually to get somewhere else in the city vs people cutting through to get to a highway. they seem to drive differently depending on their final destination. no scientific proof, but lots of experience walking both areas.

also, the only real major traffic streets border montrose more than cut through it (i'm thinking kirby, montrose, westheimer and richmond). again, this isn't a strong factual argument as much as a feeling from living both places. one of the big things that i think helps montrose with the walkability is the amount of 4 way stops and red lights, which the heights is sorely lacking. look at a street like Michaux. i would say it's close to something like Mandell in Montrose but you can't fly at 40 mph down Mandell for 4-5 blocks, dodging strollers and dog walkers along the way, like you can on Michaux.

This kind of ties in with the discussion about Yale Street and its future. The city has decided that it needs another Shepherd/Durham cut-through between 610 and I-10 and Yale fits the bill. They will be doing construction to slightly widen it and fix the potholes.

Because of this, there will definitely be more traffic through that portion of the Heights. Sure, it's good for businesses but I think it is detrimental to the surrounding homes for the simple reason of safety. People cross Yale to get to the Heights Blvd. walking trail and the new bike trail crosses it as well. By adding more cars the possibility for a pedestrian/automobile accident increases. I already have trouble crossing Yale due to speeders/red-light runners, the last thing we need is more.

The idea that this will "bypass congestion" is congruent with the fact that it will add congestion to places that don't currently have it. The whole idea of a freeway is to allow faster transit with more lanes and no stoplights, to say that using the side streets is going to ease congestion is slightly ironic and a little oxy-moronic.

It is nice that they are putting some thought into I-10 and the safety of drivers during a torrential downpour, it would be nice if the cause of most of the flooding was addressed; The lack of planning, retention, and drainage upstream. It's no secret that land off of the bayous further upstream has been developed when it should have been left as natural flood protection.

this is a huge concern. there are already issues with people having a tough time crossing Yale on the bike trail. granted, it goes over where the feeder would be but i agree this issue is about pushing more traffic in to what is really a very pedestrian friendly neighborhood. too many more cars (and people that don't care about our bike trail b/c they are just trying to shave 5 minutes off their hour commute to the 'burbs) can only have a detrimental effect.

I actually surprised someone hasn't stolen the bike. As for the shoes, it could literally mean be nothing more than kids playing around. It has no meaning except to those who knew who put them there.

back when i was a small town girl, it was a locker room stunt. steal some dudes sneaks while he was in the shower and wrap 'em on some phone lines. the rumor is once they are up there, they are pretty much impossible to get down. i'm sure the same applies to many of the shoes we see in houston.

i don't think it will encourage those projects to move forward. those projects weren't aimed at people who would be takign the highway to get to them. the stuff on yale was aimed at inner loopers- people from midtown, montrose and the heights who would take studewood or waugh/heights to get there.

i think it unnecessary

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6794004.html

here is how they wrote it up in the chron.

yeah, they get suspicious when the same guy keeps showing up. how long did it take them to figure that one out? the arsonist always watches the fire. that's the point of being an arsonist. anyway, i hope this really is the guy and we can put this whole thing behind us.

they tweeted as much the other day. any idea on location?

This is so annoying. I order things like diapers and wipes through amazon and the UPS guy leaves them on my porch. I do this b/c it's convenient and having to be home to get the diapers would not be.

Every holiday season there is a teeny, tiny part of me that thinks it's sad that people feel the need to steal to give their families gifts. It's a very small part, like 3%, but it's still there. THen I read something like this and it ticks me off so bad b/c if that theif already used the iTunes cards, he wasn't giving them as gifts to his family. He was stealing just to steal b/c he knows people are giving gifts to their own families. That is lower than low.

Sorry if I misquoted you, BW, but your post read as if you were suggesting that the bungalows pulled up the value of the McVics. The fact is, as we've discussed in the thread, many factors go into the value of these properties.

I certainly agree that the new construction is much larger than the surrounding homes. This can be traced to the value of the lots. To bring the home value in line with the lot value, the size of the homes increases. And, this leads to my gripe with the lot line ordinance. By prohibiting the splitting of the lots, we guarantee that the new homes will be twice as large. We can snarl and gnash our teeth all we want, but the economics of residential construction dictate the house be worth roughly twice that of the dirt. In the haste to outlaw new construction with which they disaprove, Heights residents exacerbated the problem. This is known as the law of unintended consequences, and Heights residents have no one to blame but themselves.

As for drainage and parking problems caused by the McVics, I don't buy it. The roof area of the McVics are not much larger than the bungalows they replace. They are simply 2 story homes instead of one. And, there is still a single family home on a 50 foot lot. Considering most of the people buying the McVics appear to be middle aged or older, and everyone of these monsters has the requisite monster 2 car garage that comes with it, I don't see how parking is worse.

I really have to disagree about the lot line thing. Without lot line ordinances, we get townhomes. If not tonwhomes, we get one lot with 2 or more tall, skinny McVics with not even enough room to pull a trash can between them. i would rather see a large, single family home than townhomes which go up too quickly and start to deteriorate just as fast. they are also cheaper and i would think they bring overall values of the homes around them down. honestly, what is needed is a set back requirement along with the lot line ordinance. i think woodland heights does have this?

And this kind of dense developement could cause drainage and other issues. Look at Rice Military as an example. They are having overdevlopement infrastructure problems.

I must also make one concession. While I am the poster who coined the term "McVictorian" several years back, and it seems to be popular on these threads, most of the new McVics are not, in fact, Victorian. Most are oversized craftsmans. I can much more stomach an oversized craftsman than an actual Victorian with plastic trim. And, one thing the new residents of the large homes virtually ALWAYS do is install really nice landscaping. So, they're not all bad.

actually, the craftsmans are the newest of the new and thank god for them! until recently most were new orleans revival. this has always bugged me because people would say "but they fit with the neighborhood" when last time i checked, this isn't NOLA. the heights is, for the most part, a craftsman neighborhood.

side note: has anyone seen some of the more modern interpretations of craftsman? there are 2 great ones on 16th near Rutland. they are both large but built to have some nice green space and definitely honor the neighborhood while openly admitting that they were built after 2005. i love them!

13 said that hfd suspects the owner left a candle on

yes, this is the final verdict that i heard. in a way, it's good to hear. in another way, people need to be more careful!

so, more fires tonight at courtlandt and white oak. occupied homes.

was this guy at mistletoe madness and decided to spark a house? wtf.

i hope the HPD/HFD are embarassed. this is crazy. all we've got is one petty criminal on the ropes for one fire that was probably started by his crack pipe or used as a cover for another crime, while a serial arsonist is burning home after home. these 2 strike me as the original guy, assuming there are copy cats.

i am surprised i haven't seen this in the national news. you would think a string of 20 fires in a historic and expensive neighborhood in the country's 4th largest city would get some national attention. of course, our cold weather yesterday made it on msnbc...

I think you have me confused with someone else. Moreover, I cannot understand the message that you are trying to convey. You are agreeing with Heights Yankee and chastising me, yet Yankee is the board member who voted against the couple remodeling their house. I'm the live and let live guy who has remodeled his 90 year old bungalow, and has the neighbor who remodeled a steel warehouse into a home. I'm the one with the 5 new construction homes across the street, and who signed my neighbor's setback variance request to remodel his bungalow a couple of days ago. How am I scary, and why would I not like my new neighbors?

clarification- i did not vote against a remodel. i voted against a total demo. and this is not in just any part of the heights. this is in a specific, deed restricted historic neighborhood.

like red, i am little confused by outfielddan's response. i think he is agreeing with me that new construction is not the root of increased values but also saying that preservationists are crazy.

tmariar- well said, as always.

just to add to the complexity of the issue, i have very good friends who live in a new construction on a subdivided lot (what once had one home now has 3) in a McVic. i love them as friends and they are good people, although their home choice would not be my own. still, even though they are (for purposes of this discussion) "those new construction type people" they also opposed the demo of the house in my neighborhood. i would not say this is a case of NIMBY,as i know many of you love that argument. this is an example of the complex nature of living in a neighborhood that holds much of houston's history in it's homes and streets. even ppl who live in new construction homes can support the historic nature of a small sliver of the neighborhood.

to compliment what tmariar said below, not every structure in the heights needs to be saved. i don't think there is a person out there who says "no new construction, period" for the heights. even some beautiful and historic homes are beyond repair. no one should save something that isn't safe. however, there are some homes and some areas (freeland is one) that should be fought for and protected. i think that the preservationists are actually more moderate than the new construction ppl. preservationists say "protect things worth protecting" while prodevelopment people say "development at any and all costs."

So this is the main issue - property taxes, not historic value? I applaud you and the others who have replied for being honest.

I see this as simply greed and selfishness. Keeping out homes that bring up the property values of a neighborhood is disingenuous. Other neighborhoods I have lived in sought exactly the opposite. What am I missing here? Should the Heights be full of dilapidated homes just so you and your friends can have lower property taxes? Apparently it doesn't matter what architectural style is employed, the overriding issue is the value of the home being built.

The Heights is desirable because of the change since 1970 when poverty was all that was here. It's competition that has raised property values, and guess what, the people who live here want to live in nice houses. Imagine that! Rising property taxes, accompanied by renovation and new construction, has accomplished the evolution of our neighborhood.

OTOH, being obstructive damages the value of our neighborhood. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

But the first 25, even 30 years of that change (if you use the 70s as a jump off point) were so-called "urban pioneers" and, by and large, artists and "alternative lifestyle" people who lived in bungalows. there was an affordability, a proximity to downtown and... wait for it... wait for it... an appreciation of the existing architecture and history of the neighborhood.

How many of these large, new constructions were built before 2000? In fact, how many were even built before 2004 (which is when I moved to The Heights)? A very small percentage and many of them (a few on the north side of Harvard come to mind) were such good reproductions it was hard to tell they were new.

I live in a historic deed restricted neighborhood where it is almost 100% bungalows. there are 3 or 4 new homes out of 1200 in the neighborhood, yet my property value has increased by 5 figures every year i have lived here. And during that time only 2 of 16 homes on my block have undergone any extensive renovation. The majority of the homes around mine, my block and others, are still on their original foot print. This is important because new construction is not the primary driving force of the gentrification of this neighborhood. Even without new homes, which again are mostly less than 5-8 years old, this neighborhood (i.e the heights as a whole) would still be highly desirable. There are many large cities where people are living, and even raising families, in homes/spaces smaller than a normal Heights bungalow for a lot more money. Proximity, the backlash against white flight, the homogeneity of the suburbs... There are a lot of reasons people live in the heights and live in less house for more $ than they can get in other parts of Houston, not even the 'burbs per se.

This is not an argument against new construction. There are many beautiful new homes in the Heights. I have friends that live in several. However, I think it's wrong to say this neighborhood only has increased value because of new homes. This area would have increased value without them as well, just as it did for the 2 decades before all the new homes were built.

i thought about this post this morning when i saw 2 cop cars pulled over at that (gawd-awful-ugly) Q-something business next to the old tamale factory. there was no one else present but one cop opened the front door of their big, annoying crane thing and they were looking around it. at first i expected to see broken glass, i.e. someone broke in to it, but as i drove past it seemed they were just checking it out. i looked for a ticket on it later and there wasn't one.

honestly, i would really like to see them ticket that truck and the cars at the rental property behind 11th street cafe. i can't walk down studewood to get anywhere because both sidewalks are blocked on either side of the street and i sure as skippy ain't taking my kids in a stroller in to studewood. i have to walk over to beverly and cut down. beverly is safer but it also doesn't have sidewalks.

We ate here last night, wanted to try the pizza. It wasn't great. Next time we'll get something different. We like the breakfast there, just haven't been for dinner before. The service was great, maybe because no one else was there at 6pm. Works for us, that way it's easier to let the little one jump around in the booth and not ruin the urbanites' dinner experience.

try the turkey melt. not healthy at all, but its the tastiest thing on the menu imo

Wife saw Archie himself hanging the "New" Ownership sign a week or so back.

stinker

I think Bogart's was the one up at 19th and Heights. The one you may have stayed at was called Angel Arbor (I think?) before it closed and became a law office a couple of years ago. There was another one where you could have receptions in a big room in a building seperate of the house. It was north of Sara's, but I can't remember what it was called. They had a cool old car parked in the side yard

My in-laws stayed at Sara's and liked it very much. They also stay at the Homestead Suites on 610 and TC Jester, but they always make sure and request a room at the back to avoid the freeway sound.

i think it's funny that we all put our inlaws up at Sara's. tee hee

my inlaws stay at Sara's too and really like it. we got them reservations for next week with out problems and it was only about 2 weeks in advance. LITH might be a different story though.

Could you contribute a little more to the dialogue if you bump a 2 day old thread?

he must justbe saying how mind-blowingly awesome we are and how valuable our opinions are. he is now better educated on everything from how to tip at various restaurants to the pros and cons of protesting a demo permit. he is a better person for having found HAIF and just wanted to thank us for it.

mcook2002- you are very welcome

HFD and ATF are looking into this recent event a bit further. The Chronicle

i could very well be wrong, and i would hope i am because i would love this to be done with BUT i really don't think the guy they caught is the arsonist. the news was making a big deal of his petty criminal record. well, arsonists aren't petty criminals. arson is a compulsion- there is a thrill for the arsonist lighting the fire and watching it burn. serial arson isn't criminal mischief, it's a mental thing. anyway, this guy might be a crackpot who torched one building as part of a scheme with the arson stuff going on but i think we (obviously) haven't seen the end to the fires

My tipping rules:

Satisfactory service gets 20% on food tab plus $2 per drink. Exemplary service gets >20%. Unsatisfactory service is a quickly sliding scale. If I'm slightly dissatisfied, maybe 15% and $1 per drink. Anything greater than slightly dissatisfied is 0. I do not hesitate. Our tip box is our carrot or stick, depending on the server.

Counter service, 0. Take-out, a dollar or two because they have to bundle up the plasticware, put it in a box, etc.

Some places blur the line. Order at the counter but a server brings it to you. I'm still working on a system for this...

Lola is the last kind. You order at the counter and they bring you your food.

I am generally a 20%+ tipper. I tip 20% and then add a buck or two on to the end. Let's say my tab was $40. I would leave $50 because at the end of the day that extra $2 over 20% doesn't make a huge difference to me, but psychologically for a waiter it can be huge. I know because I waited tables for 10 years. I also know a lot of waiters are living tip to tip (like paycheck to paycheck, except they don't get paychecks for the most part) and I know it can be a struggle.

At the counter service places, I imagine all employees are making at least minimum wage. Therefore they are not living off the tips. The tips do make life easier for them- it's not easy making at or near minimum wage, which is also less than the average waiter makes. So, since I am of the financial means to do so, I leave a few bucks in the jar when I have cash on me. If I don't have cash and there is no tip line on the credit card slip, I don't feel terrible leaving nothing but it's not my preference.

So, what's going to replace the house? Surely their plans do not entail merely scraping the lot and walking away.

The reason that several of us concluded that you're going entirely off of conjecture and hearsay is that that's what it looks like. You have not personally interviewed them regarding their new plans. The people that have interviewed them haven't seemed to have gotten the full story--or perhaps did not pass the full story on to you--and important details are missing.

Clearly you have some level of authority, and how you use it is your prerogative. Nobody is disrespecting that fact, or you personally. But you'd find that people will be more sympathetic to your case if you take the time to carefully gather and assemble pertinent information to make your case instead of pracitcing a 'ready, fire, aim' approach.

Also, if what it does ultimately come down to is an engineer's evaluation of structural soundness, then what do you need our input for?

i wanted to do my due diligence before and you have given me some things to think about. while original posts by yourself and kylejack would seem to say only that no one should dispute this application, your later posts did give me more of an idea of what anyone attending a hearing should be prepared to answer. that is useful.

i have not fired before aiming. knowing what your target is and having a position are just preparing to fire. which, of course, is aiming.

my level of authority is as an elected member of the board of the neighborhood association, which is tasked with protecting the historic value of the area. however, i will not really be attending the hearing as a member of the board. the board president will be the official rep. myself and some other concerned residents will be going to show our support.

i don't think is more of a story.

You would think they would pull it together but perhaps they know what is becoming apparent to me. People who paid twice what their house is worth are willing to pay twice what a breakfast is worth just to be considered "trendy", even if that breakast is served cold and slow.

well, per HCAD, i paid less than my house was worth and i have had issues but i continue to go to Lola.

part is just hopefullness on my part. unwarranted optimism, maybe? i like that i feel very comfortable bringing my kids there. i have had some food that tasted really, really good. BUT there is definitely an issue everytime.

i adore the hot roast beef sandwich. the 1st time i ordered it, it was really juicy and "wet." i have gotten in 2x since then and both time had to ask for more au jus. fine. not everyone wants their sandwich soaking wet. however, everytime i have made a special request it comes out wrong. nothing too picky: no cheese on my roast beef b/c i am temporarily off dairy, bacon on the well done side for my son. in fact, i think that's it. these things have never been accomodated and i have always had to send it back to be fixed. where is the issue? when i order? on the line? didn't the runner check the slip? my husband's CFS was decent but the beans were raw (and we like them crisp). the temperature of various elements on any plate will vary, e.g. hot sandwich with cold fries or vice versa.

i am typing this all out in hopes that the owner/management will see it. it's a great location. love the simple, casual environment.

but in the end, maybe people in the heights are just suckers for bad breakfast b/c we've all been supporting Dry Creek with it's horrible service and average food for years... at least at lola, your wrong order is served with a smile.

Your original request was: "What can/should I do for the greatest impact in protesting this?" The answer you got was to proactively talk to the property owners about their plans instead of going from conjecture (seeing as how a demo permit can mean different things, exterior/interior/partial). And that's an honest answer. If you want a strong case against their plans, you need to be able to articulate why their plans are against the public interest; right now, you don't even know what the plans are that you have already decided that you will vote against.

How do you know they are tearing down the house rather than the horrible addition? You have not talked to them, you do not know, so of course nobody can advise you.

we do know what they are planning on doing. their original plans were to demo/rebuild the addition and renovate the interior of the existing house, including raising the roof line. with the exception of the ranch style, lot line encroaching front porch, it was primarily materials, not design, that got their original plans denied. the VP of deed restrictions did talk to them when the variance sign went up. thomas mcwhorter with the city also talked with them, pushing the promise of tax benefits for restoration vs demo. they said no, we want to tear it down. when a neighbor walked by and saw the sign, they stopped to talk to them and asked if they were renovating. they said the house had too much damage from Ike and that they are going to tear it down in its entirety.

i don't know where you got the idea that i was just guessing or that no one has spoken with them. there was a tear down (studewood at cottage) recently that was supported by the board because the house was definitely not fit for habitation. also, there was another house on cottage that was allowed to be used for an art project (from the inverness coffee house guys) and then torn down. it was also a definite tear down. the house at 801 pizer just does not seem to fall in to that category according to several people who have been inside it recently. the fact that they hired an architect and drew up elaborate plans is evidence toward the fact that they found the house to be sturdy when they bought it. if the original plans were approved, i have no doubt in my mind that they would knee deep in renovations as we speak.

if they come to the hearing with certified whoozie whatzits from engineers then great. if the house has to be torn down, it does. but until i see that kind of hard evidence, my opinion is that this is a home that should be saved for its history and its special place facing proctor park.

i'm really glad my aunt and uncle who live in a late 1700s farm house in western MA don't know how useless their house is. when they bought it, it was actually condemned and they brought it back to life over 10 years and raised their 4 children there. i guess they should tear it down now. also, my mother's house [which was converted in to a duplex in the 70s years before she bought] was built in 1899. while it has had many aesthetic issues over the years (like wood panelling in all the bedrooms and cheap linoleum literally stuck on top of hardwoods), the bones are still strong and it has undergone many renovations in it's life (it's still an upstairs/downstairs duplex). i guess she should tear it down now, too.

i guess no one has advice on what i can/should do at the hearing, then?

in the end, it is my opinion that what these people (did i ever call them "bad"?) are trying to do is wrong. i want to fight to protect the integrity of this neighborhood. if you think the house should be tirn down, show up at the meeting and plead your case as well. we all have the right to do so. there is a reason the application process and the ability to protest exist and i plan on using it.

there are 2 vacant lots in this neighborhood and many others places to build in the heights. they can tear the addition down and rebuild it. we told them as much. however, in this small, special part of the heights there are certain perameters- wood, one-over-one windows (the proposed vinyl, arched windows); set back- they wanted to add a large, ranch style front porch which would have brought them too close to the front property line and it was not in the traditional style of the home. in fact, the renderings looked stright out of Pearland. that house doesn't belong here but can certainly be built in a non-protected part of the heights.

i understand the history of the neighborhood isn't everyone's thing. but there are many people who do want to see bungalows retained.

and one more thing: HISD has school choice so your children do not have to go to the schools they are zoned to. i have 2 school age children on my block and my son will start pre-k next year. we are not moving. people who leave proctor plaza often go lookign for more space and most people who move to the suburbs never planned on staying in the heights long term anyway.