tmariar

I took a couple of drive-by photos over lunch that I'll post later today.

The 2002 article suggested that what they needed was more office and meeting space. No idea if that is still the issue, though.

I'd be glad to mention the issue on Heights Blog, for what that's worth. Some nice photos of the church from different angles would be helpful, but I'm not sure when I'll have a chance to take any. If someone else has some, or can take some, and is willing to make them available online for use in raising awareness about the demolition application, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll take photos when I can. I could also do easy online historical research, old newspapers and whatever, if that hasn't been done. Evans-Davis, do you happen to know? I don't see the demo application posted on the city's site yet - I don't know how far in advance they typically post them, but this seems late. Once the story is developed a little bit, maybe Swamplot would do a post. I think he/they read these threads. An online petition might be good, too, yeah. --------- Update: Didn't see much of interest about the church in old issues of the Galveston paper. Saw this 2002 article in the Chronicle - maybe that was the prior time period to which Evans-Davis referred above. Here is the entry on the church from "Historic and Architectural Resources of Houston Heights": "Site No. 26. Immanuel Lutheran Church. 1448 Cortlandt. ca. 1932. 1900--. Two-and-a-half-story, brick, eclectic church building with Gothic Revival influence; contrasting stone trim on battered piers and buttresses, and on steps to second level; stone railing; parapet tower at corner contains chimes; arched Gothic windows with stained glass; slightly arched doorway on second level is main entrance to nave; squared doorway under steps leads to basement (this was the first stage of construction); buttresses abound; stone foundation; pitched, wood shingled steep roof; gable end on front facade has carved cross; 'Immanuel Ev. Lutheran Church U. A. C.' is carved in the stone above the main doorway. Building dominates corner with its size; its style is complementary to surrounding residential structures; entire church complex assumes northern half of block with school and modern sanctuary. Present building important to social climate of the area are not compatible with the old church building or the surrounding structures." [That last sentence appears as written - not sure what it means.] The church's website says that the basement which was dedicated in 1926 and was used for worship until 1932, when the superstructure was dedicated.

Thanks.

Did anyone go to the HHA meeting last night to hear the arson discussion?

Houston Press: "Who's Setting the Heights on Fire?"

It is. And the other photo is the curve by Indian Summer Lodge.

"Task force asks residents for arson tips": http://bit.ly/2hVSkq

I'm assuming the below is what some people would call "overgrown". I think the wildflowers are pretty, and I often see birds feeding along the trail in the tall grass. I'd have to hear more about the exact complaints to have a response to those - I'm not following how the trail worsened the mosquito situation. Given the incursion of Heights development on natural wildlife habitats, my starting point is to hope the green space along the trail will be preserved in a somewhat natural state to the extent it's not interfering with those on the trail.

Appreciate the detailed report!

Houston Chronicle: "Resident says trail run down" - http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/heights/news/6654438.html

Yes, best of luck! Look forward to hearing more.

"Go" above should be "goes". Part of the reason I haven't posted as much lately is that I don't like the new time limit on editing one's posts and topics. Probably isn't a big deal for most people, but is for me.

The Chron article regarding the fire early Friday morning noted that it heavily damaged a garage apartment that had three people inside at the time the fire started. The garage apartment is directly behind the where the duplex that was initially (and repeatedly) targeted (one side of which was occupied when the first fire to it was set). I just hope we don't see another news piece suggesting that the arsonist is targeting mainly vacant structures. Or that go off on strange and inaccurate tangents like the KHOU piece. If anything, the notable pattern here seems to be that a large number of the fires have occurred in a relatively small area. For all I know, though, that may be typical of serial arsonists and not especially notable.

And I know where you live! That one house was a duplex, and the articles I saw seemed to suggest that, while the first fire there started on the unoccupied side, the other side was occupied at the time. I've just not seen evidence that the arsonist is targeting "mainly" empty or abandoned structures. That duplex was definitely targeted. Sounded like the arsonist set it on fire, then later set the remains on fire, then later set the rubble on fire. Weird.

A lesson in why not to give out too much personal info on HAIF. Especially if you're mean to tmariar. Speaking of the arsonist (who is not me), I have issues with today's KHOU piece: http://bit.ly/XWSzn 1. Since when has the arsonist targeted buildings? I wouldn't even say the arsonist has targeted "mainly" "empty and abandoned" houses - see my other post/list above 2. What in the world does the number of "dangerous buildings" in the 77008 zip code have to do with the arsonist? 3. Cars that sit and you can't lease for months and months and months? What does that even mean? (I think it's just a transcription error) 4. Really, "experts" say that "in some cases" there are "homes [in the Heights] that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars next [to] others that are decades old"? As in 95% of the cases? 5. This piece just has a weird tone to it, like maybe this whole arson thing has a silver lining? All those "decades old" houses marring the view from the rich peoples' new constructions... endangering our children... drawing arsonists...

More detailed KTRK story regarding last night's fire.

Fire last night at Wilken near Studewood. (Wilken is the equivalent of about 17 1/2 St.) The Chronicle story says it's being investigated.

Some info re the the blue house, inc. a link to the prior thread.

Yeah, I saw that, too. I think that was probably what made me think they might be applying for a private club license. Their tacos are good enough that they probably wouldn't have to serve beer, but I bet they'd prefer to have the option.

That was sort of the sense I got, so I bet you heard right.

The raw video I just saw on Ch. 11's site was a police officer saying they would do it "next Friday" and are going to have cops at the building 24/7 until then to make sure people don't go in and cars don't park there. Don't know if that's the official word, it's just what I saw.

I've got the same question. I haven't seen a report yet where it's clear whether the guy was in police custody at the time of the second fire, and I'd think the reporters would anticipate that would be a question on people's minds... If they can't find out the answer, I wish they'd at least note that fact instead of glossing over it by not addressing it.

The Chronicle has now done a more in-depth piece, with addresses of the fires, details about a suspect, etc.