Shamrock

Hot damn!

Anyone know the latest on this? I'm ready for some pork.

This guy doesn't stand a chance in the 18th district. Too conservative.

How about this guy?

http://runseanrun.com/index.html

I just used Bill Marks to check out my foundation. He said the problems were minor and showed me how to fix them myself. No charge for the service call so I offered him some money as a tip. Great guy.

This seems to be a recurring theme. We often get posts asking opinions on what to do about neighbors when no one has apparently spoken to the neighbor. This would seem to almost always be the logical first step. More draconian measures, including calling the parking nazis, should always be considered last.

Totally agree -- communication usually is a good first step, and I will have a polite discussion with the neighbor. The car has been there for 7 straight days, so now would be a good time to bring it up. They seem like fine folk and should understand.

In my post, I was reacting more to the idea that installing large rocks or some other type of obstruction was universally and always "bad".

My point was that if this neighbor was unwilling (post-discussion) to change his parking habits, perhaps rocks are a little bit more warranted. A talking point since this is a poll -- I wanted to see if that generated any "maybe" votes. Didn't appear to which was interesting.

Regardless of how this neighborly chat goes, I will not be putting in rocks. They are heavy, and I am lazy -- and I think that having an available parking spot trumps the potential downside of 1 car monopolizing it.

It probably goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that placing obstacles in the public right of way to essentially claim property owned by all for oneself probably makes a statement about the people that live there. Having a neighbor who shows his artwork to groups regularly, perhaps I could complain more than most, but there just seems to be more important things to complain about than another resident parking on the street and grass that they paid for.

I agree for the most part, but would your thinking change if a neighbor parked in front of your house every day? I have no current plans to put rocks anywhere, and I, like you, think we should try to maximize our parking. In other words, I want the space in front of my house available for my visitors and for other neighbors' visitors.

But how do we handle a situation where a neighbor essentially takes over the spot in front of your house and is unwilling to park elsewhere? It's a legal parking spot that has been taken by this 1 neighbor on a daily, pretty much constant, basis. Consider his car just 1 very large, ugly rock, made in Detroit, in the right of way. This large rock is preventing anyone else from parking there -- including my visitors and my other neighbors' visitors.

Does that change anything or shift things in the judgment scheme you are using here?

Does that make any statement about the person parking his car there daily?

Why are rocks not acceptable but crappy cars just fine? If they're both occupying the right of way 24/7 (or close to it), seems to me they're both bad.

I do agree with you that this is unimportant, but I could not resist. And with my 50 or so posts to your 10,000, I hope you'll grant me some minor rant leeway.

The streets are public right-of-ways, so there is no "abuse of the privilege" if somebody is parking there regularly.

Your instincts are correct though - talk with your neighbor about not parking there so much. You may have a hard time rationalizing it to a reasonable person if your only point is that a parked car spoils the view from your porch, but at least you are having a dialogue with the neighbor, and that is where this sort of thing should be settled.

Don't spread rocks in the street; they are obstacles and hazards and it is probably illegal.

To clarify, I am referring to rocks on the grass between the ditch and the street. I obviously would not put rocks in the street.

It is my understanding that a car cannot be parked over a certain amount of time. Whether that is 12 hours, 24 hours, or more, I'm not sure, but to put this in perspective, there has been a car parked there for 3 or 4 days now. Anyone know the rule on that?

The overall rationale goes beyond the view from my front porch -- it is generally just poor form which is of course perfectly legal.

Strange this came up - I have a situation in which a neighbor (or a regular visitor of a neighbor) parks in front of my house --- pretty much every day. Sometimes, they leave town with the car parked there for days. It is legal parking as far as I know (at least for a certain amount of time), but they routinely abuse the privilege. They do this because the streetside in front of their house slopes quickly to the ditch.

It is annoying, and I am going to discuss with the neighbor. They do have options -- their own driveway and streetside parking in front of other houses.

If they don't cooperate (which is unlikely - they seem like normal folk), then I would put in some large stones because the situation would justify it. There is not much reason way my porch view must be eternally blocked by their vehicle.

In other words, circumstances matter on this issue.

With the renovations to Kroger, I would not be surprised to see an uptick in the number and quality of tenants in that shopping strip at some point, along with the shopping center across 11th. And while lot depths may be shallow, the general location -- between 610 and I-10 -- should theoretically be pretty good.

The vacancies in retail areas within the Heights (6th and Heights along with 11th and Yale) are interesting. I'd be interested to hear if this is a pattern or just random. 19th seems to do ok.

Is there a map somewhere that shows voting patterns by polling place in Houston for the 2008 election? That would give you a pretty good barometer of the local political spectrum.

This may help:

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=14404

This is a very cool thread. Cheers tmariar, et al. I had no idea there was (used to be) a Polish community around here.

The rendering depicts with accuracy the structure that is proposed. It is a good rendering. ...not botched. To botch something is to make an error. For instance, if the parking were going to be in back according to the plans and the rendering depicted it in front, that would be a botched rendering.

Similarly, the developer did not botch the site plan because they did not ever intend to put parking behind the structure. Parking in the rear detracts from the relative marketability of the property. Besides which, the sidewalks along Washington suck so much that there's really no point at all in catering to pedestrians. If you want to see Washington transition into a more "urban" neighborhood, then you need to get the City to provide the appropriate infrastructure consistently along the corridor and also for them to re-evaluate their setback ordinances.

Thank you, Niche, for crawling out of the semantics bushes and putting forth your argument.

I did not know that rear parking decreased marketability. I'd imagine that would be the norm in Houston which is not a pedestrian town. I thought it would have no net effect, but as I think about it, I would see it having a negative, rather than positive, effect on marketability. Let me know if any of you out there disagree.

Regarding pedestrian infrastructure, that involves better, wider sidewalks and perhaps some streetlights or landscaping. I agree that we would need to increase setbacks -- they are much too narrow as it is for any meaningful pedestrian traffic. For instance, the building that holds Guadalajara Bakery is set back maybe 6-8 feet from the curb (I'm just guessing based on recollection so correct me if I am wrong).

This is a chicken/egg issue -- if developers do not have rear parking, that may discourage pedestrian-related improvements by the city. But until those types of improvements are implemented by the city, then developers have little incentive to have rear parking (because the value created by arguably better aesthetics and pedestrian accessibility may not outweigh the minuses of rear parking without better pedestrian infrastructure).

That said, my concern is that (i) this is a missed window of opportunity for new developments to be planned for rear parking (because they will be around for a while), and (ii) many old and new structures already have rear parking (or no parking in the front). However, it is not my money at stake and I have not undertaken any effort to address my concern -- so I'll just have to confine my minor aesthetic beef to this message board.

I'm no urban planner by any stretch, so if any of the above is bunk, please fire away and correct me.

And yes, I am slow at work today.

we gonna rock down to d-bag avenue!

i hope not. the people i met at big star were laid back.

True - Big Star is a different vibe.

I have not been to Cedar Creek since it has opened. Given its location in an area that has previously been pretty much undeveloped, I am happy for its success.

But I am surprised - really surprised - at the crowds and the level of its success. Is it the outdoor area? The creek? The food? This is a model worth repeating.

Big Star is around the corner - has it been enjoying some of these crowds?

I am glad that Walter's owner is bringing the fight to these neighbors. Would be interested to hear how that is going if anyone has heard anything.

In defense of Walter's and Rudyard's only (this does not apply to bars generally in residential areas):

Walter's and Rudyard's are generally regarded among local musicians and music fans as two of the finest music venues in central Houston. They bring alot of very good indie rock and folk acts to town -- and they are a valuable component of the local music scene. I point it out simply to differentiate them from other establishments that are simply bars or clubs which do not have an artistic component.

Now, that may not be important to everyone, and that is fine -- unless people who do not like these venues make an affirmative choice to buy a home/townhome in the vicinity and then proceed to complain about noise and/or crowds.

As long legal noise limits are observed, along with any applicable zoning restrictions, the venues would be following the law and playing by the rules.

The problem is that these new residents did not adequately understand the area before they bought. They did not do the weekend late night drive-by prior to purchase. They did not realize the nature of the issue. That is a problem, but it should not be the venues' problem.

They are attacking business owners who seem to be playing by the rules. Sole poprietors in some cases. They are fiddling with people's lives because they failed to do the due diligence they should have done prior to purchase.

If there is a real claim for nuisance, then fine. Otherwise, the complaints don't really seem justified.

I have been following this blog for a bit as well. I like your approach of aggregating links to reviews (sort of a www.metacritic.com approach to Heights area restaurants). Very useful and very well done - thanks.

Most Valuable:

C&D Hardware (MVP for sure - this place is great)

Prince Cleaners - cheap

Harold's - great service

Berryhill - tasty

Vietnam - also tasty

Shade - $$ but very tasty

Textile - confession: have not been yet and $$$$ but world-class restaurant from what I've heard

Big Star Bar - this is a great spot for drinks

Dry Creek - good casual fare

Kaboom - cheap books

Retropolis - cheap threads

Chic Warehouse - cheap furniture

The beer bars - Shiloh, Sara's, Jimmy's etc.

Could be something, but not quite there (yet):

Andy's - great space, good hours, just bland

11th Street Cafe - great space but not quite tasty enough

Onion Creek - needs wait service (and less hokey signs)

What Heights needs:

Ice creamery open at night

A couple more casual restaurants (non-chain)

Regarding this thread overall, nothing in the Heights strikes me as overpriced. One of the defining characteristics of the Heights, I think, is lower priced food and services.

That said, Shade is priced similar to any other restaurant of its quality, and the food is very good. If fine dining is not your bag, then that is fine. Heights has lots of good casual fare, but as far as fine chow goes, I think Shade is a big asset to the community.

Same for Harold's in the Heights. These establishments, if located in Rice Village, would not stick out as much, but because they are north of I-10, they are more noticeable in their "upscale-ness".

I agree on the creeks. Dry is fine overall. Onion has decent food but gets way too crowded at times. I think it could make much more money if it simply put two waiters on the patio. I could not carve through more than 3 beers at Onion if I tried. Lines are long, and life is too short.

a.) austin is not the epicenter of cool

a. Agree. But for now, Austin has the best small grocery I have come across.

I was surprised to see them last as long as they did, and I am sorry that things did not work out for them. The owners were really nice. However, that location absolutely begged for a hip little grocery (see below), and they did not quite get it there. I'll concede that if that location does not allow beer/wine sales, that is a huge problem. That aside . . .

Instructions for opening up a proper "hip little grocery":

Go to Austin and drive to South Congress. Go to this place (http://www.fm1718.com/) and copy everything about it - it is the bomb, good vibe, usually cool music in the background, wide selection of produce, cheese, crackers, breads, meat, fish, beer, wine -- all packed into a space about 1/5 the size of McCain's. Open for at least 5 years by now.

Someone please do this. I would do it but am trapped in an office all day long.

I just received quotes to replace my roof. Metal roof (standing seam) priced out at about 225% of the cost of high quality composite shingle roof. I have been told that if properly installed, it stands up to hurricane winds just as well as composite shingle - but I have no personal experience or knowledge to verify that.

Overall, if I were going to live in my house for more than 5 years, I would go with metal. Energy efficient, good look, long-lasting. No guarantee of getting your money back when you sell, but you should get at least some of it back.

Great. Hey, Marksmu, where do you live? I have this idea for a combo pornshop/slaughterhouse/rehab center/rendering plant and I'm scouting locations.

Realizing that this was tongue-in-cheek (and pretty funny), I think Marksmu has a good point.

If residents want to preserve a certain aesthetic in their area, it seems more equitable to do that on the front end -- organize support and petition for a municipal ordinance restricting certain uses of property in that designated area.

I'm all for keeping the character of a place intact and having sensible development, but IMO, it is unfair to go after a developer after their purchase of unrestricted property. If you want restrictions, go get'em now. If you want to seek restrictions after the fact, that is fine too, and that is your right. Heck - I may even support your agenda.

However, any notion that you are manifestly entitled to these restrictions -- after the fact and at the expense of the developer -- is suspect.