NYC Texan2

Just because people bought knowing it wasn't zoned doesn't mean that the current homeowners are happy with that fact, Red. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.

The point is that the rest of the Heights has had the deed restrictions lapse, so deed restrictions are not a solution to the situation. You generally cannot impose deed restrictions by ordinance or law (although courts have voided deed restrictions in the past).

I understand that you don't want anyone telling you what to do, but if you're talking about what's best for the quality of the neighborhood, that's it. You can't be against all zoning if you want to be able to say your point of view is common sense, b/c every other municipality around Houston has zoning, every enclave inside Houston has it, and every suburban neighborhood. So people choosing where to live, even in zoning-free Houston, place a premium on predictable land use.

I hear that, but I also don't want the guy down the street to put up a condo building. I understand that's what you are objecting to, but he has the incentive not to sign the deed restrictions because he wants the option value in addition to the single-family value.

Ah, the demand to pick a side. I think both sides had a point. The lack of deed restrictions is a problem, the lack of zoning like every other city is a problem, but the Heights was a working class community when it was developed. The cottages are original but aren't that great or significant. We aren't talking about rarified, high-style craftsman or Victorian homes here. But the trend toward restoring the neighborhood to single-family use is positive, and it would be nice to have a way to keep things that way so that investments can be made in housing without worrying that the fabric of the neighborhood is going to be disrupted by a high rise, a bunch of condos, etc. That's the same predictability that people are trying to get when they buy into River Oaks (deed restrictions), West U, the villages or master planned suburbs.

You know, I understand that you folks are annoyed with sm3h, but the flavor of this board has changed a ton over time. I've been around here since 2003, even though I didn't post much after the website crashed and all my old posts were lost. The board really used to be people who were focused on the redevelopment of the Heights, and the general approach was that anything to promote the good of the neighborhood was fine. The tone of the attacks (now telling somebody to leave the board) is over the line. The negativity is pretty overwhelming, not to mention repetitive / predictable. Also not very neighborly. Would be great to take things down a couple notches.

As Redscare implied, clearly the inventory of houses for sale in the districts is just piling on up! "For sale" signs are everywhere. Or else maybe we can't tell since the roving bands of historical commission members are hiding them. Try to keep the children off the streets due to all the trucks streaming toward the exits. You've been warned!

That's great, Dan. I'd be all the more proud of it all if it wasn't on Studewood.... Studement would be just great. There aren't any houses around there.

Sounds like a lot of investment going on given that homeowners / businesses now think the neighborhood is destined to go to hell. There is still a lot of construction in the area between Heights and Studemont. The market for land in the area is obviously tightening. The number of available lots is declining as the average quality of the remaining housing rises. So no, I don't think you have proved anything.

I don't have a problem with onstreet parking. My point around Stella Sola was that if we had appropriate zoning, it wouldn't be an issue, because Studemont was not a commercial street until the deed restrictions lapsed. Replacing the existing building would have been fine, but ripping out the neighborhood to build a parking lot isn't much of a plan. The ability to do that doesn't create a predictable environment for impacted homeowners. And if you look at the extensive new construction on that block (not), you can see what I'm talking about.

That said, I also think the city's rules about required parking for new development really condemns us to suburban-style development. Dallas is way ahead of us.

Redscare, I see your post above that you are just saying that you know how to build your house better than the government. However, I do recall when the Stella Sola building was built that you were quite adamant about the right of the builders to rip out as many houses on that block as he wanted to. You weren't concerned about the impact on the property values of the remaining houses on 10th. I think your overall philosophy is that the government shouldn't have any rules that impact what you build on your property (let's not get into fire regulations and such). Let me know if I'm off on that.

Regarding a previous post, I see four houses under construction or renovation on Columbia between 11th and White Oak. I don't think you can say with any statistical significance that there has been any drop off in construction activity in the historic district, whether or not the west side of Oxford is included.

"Definitively"? You can say that regulations like zoning raise costs, but that doesn't change the fact that zoning is used by every master planned community and incorporated suburb in Houston, in addition to every major city in Texas including Beaumont and Galveston. It apparently is effective. The predictability is a huge asset to the community and encourages further development.

There are two houses under construction on the western side of Oxford. There are not any under construction on the eastern side of that street. The two blocks from Oxford to Studemont saw new construction commence after the area between Oxford and Heights, so it definitely is not fully redeveloped by any stretch of the imagination. The sampling is small, but there is dose of overstatement going on in this thread.

BTW, a realtor was quoted in a recent Chronicle article saying 77008 was a "seller's market". Doesn't sound like a negative comment.

I've been following this discussion on and off for a little while but haven't seen all the posts. However, there is much more construction going on between Oxford and Harvard south of 11th than between Oxford and Studemont, which isn't in the historic district. If the historic districts are pushing activity away, then there should be a rush of construction in the latter area. There isn't.

My wife and I both had the same comment. I was hopeful they would flip the eastern half of the land to a developer for houses. What a total waste. I hope the HHA gave them communicated that their design was not viewed positively by the community.

Not to get off topic, but every other major city in the country uses a design / planning board as leverage against developers for just this type of situation . . . .

I have to weigh in on the side of ProHouston, jmancuso and shasta. Those that don't like NYC haven't lived there... There is something very, very seductive about going downstairs and walking about 30 yards to get what you want, while enjoying the weather and coming back home within 5 minutes. A car just loses meaning in those conditions.

Regarding the stories of people from NYC and CA who say great things about Houston, they are being nice b/c they know you care about their opinion.

I like the idea a lot. As a resident of the Heights, new apartment construction just fills in another niche in the full development of the Heights. That new neighborhood can obviously use some new housing within walking distance of the new retail.

I don't understand the traffic concern. We live in the city. There is traffic. With continued development, there will be more of it. Relax and support light rail.

I am sorry that you had a bad experience, but since you didn't close, it obviously became a war of wills. It sounds like you and Lovett were in a standoff over work to be done before the close, and that Lovett recognized that it could probably get another buyer to close the purchase without as much trouble. That said, I am not making any assumptions about who is to blame.

Lovett is a high-end builder that has done most of its work by limiting the amount of customization on its designs. The houses are original designs and are usually one-of-a-kind, but Lovett is not a cost-plus builder and has an incentive to move on to the next project.

I recognize that these experiences can be traumatic and have been involved in arbitrations before myself (and seen homeowners recover a lot of money). My family has bought two Lovetts. There were some ups and downs on the first one but both houses were very, very solid. The foundations on those things are engineered to stay there forever.

Also, the estimate of work in West U probably isn't that far off. I believe I heard Lovett had completed 300-500 homes in the neighborhood.

New construction can be a real pain. I don't see myself doing that any time soon.

Any thought about the impact that this will have on the Pavilions? They are obviously supposed to have an apartment / condo building as well. With groundbreaking on both projects supposedly scheduled during the next 12 months, could this just be another attempt to dilute market interest in somebody else's project?

I hate to think that, but it is the game...

If Lovett was that bad, it probably wouldn't be responsible for rebuilding 50% of West U and about 20% of River Oaks and Memorial...

I think bad experiences can happen with any builder due to the nature of the business. Lovett has very good specs relative to other builders, and anyone who was to take a tour of their properties across town would be very impressed with the variety and quality of the designs, both freestanding and townhomes.

That said, In-Town does not advertise itself as a Lovett brand and neither does Frank Liu.

The map is plausible as the boundary... Berryhill is on the corner on the east side of Beverly, which is the right border of the map. There is a liquor store over there somewhere, though...

I have had a very similar conversation with the owner of Richard's... that would be great as well. I told him I would figure it out and get back in touch with him. He seemed interested.

The obvious trend in city development is that demand for a specific area causes people to cram in there, and to figure out alternatives when the roads become gridlocked. You can't sustain the sprawl, car-based model when you get this much development . . . Look at New York, or even Brooklyn. To me, the traffic pressure is a good thing and what I have been waiting to see.

I agree Metro needs to be paying attention here. Avoiding Westheimer avoiding the elephant in the room (is it possible that they are planning to serve the Galleria through a Post Oak line that would have a transfer station at Richmond?).

This is exciting but not big enough to get much attention outside Houston, I think...

Where is this going to be located? I can't place it from the model. Thx

When certain senior "ladies who lunch" who I know go to the Heights for lunch at Shade, you know things are changing.

Take this Heights resident's post as a formal demand for a Starbucks... I know commercial brokers who have tried to talk them into moving to the Heights in the past. It would be a slam dunk on 6th at either Heights or Studemont. And it would probably increase property values more than the Target...

I would be really interested to hear the details on the supposed war between HHA and Starbucks??

At long last, Studemont is open to 2-way traffic from White Oak to at least 11th . . . My wife and I can't even remember what Studemont was like before they tore up the street. . . It must have been 18 months ago??

As everyone knows, the historical preservation laws are toothless in Houston. That this idea would even be debatable shows how brainwashed we all are by the pro-development mentality (don't get me wrong, I love development, but Houston sorely needs some rules on the subject).

This wouldn't make a difference, although it might give another forum for Heights residents to lobby against large projects that they don't want.