NYC Texan3

Not up on the tech thing, but check out this article on the proposed I-45 expansion through the Heights: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/3280151 Basically, the residents threw a tantrum at the meeting. Looks like they got a few good shots in against TxDot. I am refreshed to see some coverage on this. It may indicate some (read: a little bit) of traction against the traditional deference to TxDot. The fact is that TxDot has created a cloud over the entire stretch of the Heights between Studemont and I-45, because North Main is the buffer between the neighborhood and the freeway. The commercial buildings on North Main are also very quaint (if also underutilized). TxDot should make a statement that they will respect the current integrity of the neighborhood to remove the pall. I-10 is a big enough disaster to the Heights . . . We don't need I-45 to add to the problem.

Have you ever tried NYC? I just got back from two years there last year . . . This whole car thing is way, way over-rated, and that's why we get dinged for sprawl . . . and the butt-ugly freeways seal the deal

This building is on the opposite end of downtown from the casino. It is on the river-side of the Superdome and several blocks uptown of Poydras.

Has anyone happened to notice the 8-10 story condos going up on the east side of Montrose at West Gray (a couple blocks north of Dallas)? I haven't seen any postings about it, but there are several things to like: 1. Location is appropriate, since it is a midrise on a major street 2. Extends dense housing north almost to Allen Parkway 3. The front is close to the street (even if the parking extends all the way to the back of the block) It is not remarkable looking, but it is a great building block (pardon the pun). It should attract a much more conservative buyer than some of the other crazy stuff that has gone up in Montrose. This is the kind of buidling design I have imagine for West Gray between Shepherd and Dunlavy. It has a lot of shopping, which I think would be really attractive to insert some dense housing into. It is actually kind of strange that no one has tried . . . other than Randall Davis, but I think he missed the market, which should be River Oaks residents who want to get rid of their yards. With just a few buildings among the shops, it would be a very interesting, 24-hour area . . .

This is a great discussion. It feels a lot like the old board . . . I have been thinking recently that Houston developers are different in that they are extremely timid about new concepts. Even when an urban amenity can be added inexpensively (like a coffee shop at street level), it doesn't happen for reasons that I can't pinpoint. However, I will offer the following potential reasons: 1. Unfamiliarity with urban concepts (should be limited to local developers) 2. Discomfort with mixed development and theories about the synergistic impact of those developments 3. An absolute conviction that Houstonians will not abandon their cars (I believe there is a great silent mass of people, especially mothers, who are tired of driving 3 hours a day . . . I'll save my proof for other posts) 4. Laziness due to the lack of options and lack of education in urban issues for Houston consumers I do believe that the point I believe I saw about the lack of affordable urban options misses the fact that Houston has some of the cheapest housing in the country, even inside the loop (considering how far a buck goes), while most of the cities with urban lifestyles we admire are actually quite expensive. To that end, it boils down to a surplus of cheap, cheap land that is totally unregulated in its use . . . Makes me want to move to Portland. I want my Zzzzzzzzzzzz . . . About to get off my soapbox, but my wife's April Fool's joke was that the apartment complex two doors down from us was being torn down to put up a gas station . . . there's something very wrong with the fact that that is possible.

"but most of the pro-zoning sentiment comes from people opposed to change, simply trying to protect their property values. " I don't understand your point. Zoning allows decisions regarding the future of neighborhoods to be made by elected representatives of the people who already live in the neighborhood, rather than developers (who most likely live in Sugarland). What exactly is the problem with people trying to protect their property values? What would be an exampled of a property value-destroying project that you would support? This city has an excess supply of vacant land for developers to use for their projects. This ain't exactly Manhattan. No offense, but it is interesting to point out the attitude here. This city positively oozes paranoia about property rights. When you compare where every other major city in the country is, including every other major city in Texas, you really have to stand back in amazement at the myth the developers have sold to Houstonians. We shoot ourselves in the foot for a principal that hurts the city we care about. And before you blow me off, I probably vote more Republican than you. The point here is that Houstonians need to think as they pass both new and old eyesores, "why?"

This may be slightly off track but is actually relevant, given the continued trouble getting anything built on a vacant lot downtown. I would be surprised if no one has made this observation before, but I believe we can blame a lot of the desolation in downtown on a lack of zoning. The fact is that many major cities provide size and use regulations for given parcels of land, limiting the height of buildings and their purpose. In downtown, we see the entire east end having been decimated over the years by speculators hoping some developer is going to pick their parcel for the next skyscraper. There's no incentive to maintain the original, low rise character or historic buildings in the neighborhood, which are of course long gone. The vacant lots are all I have known my entire life. Let me insert at this point that I am as Republican as they come, but I have always stood by this town and am getting frustrated. Manhattan is built on buildings that average about 10 stories in height. If Houston ever decides to grow up and passes zoning, you would probably see a lot more rational transactions between landowners and developers, since the economic gains from development would be much more clearly defined. When you take away the small possibility of a mega-payday 15 years down the road, people will settle for a more reasonable sum in the short term as their best deal. The longer I live here, the more silly the anti-zoning thing seems. Heights Blvd is being redeveloped, but it is turning into a bunch of law offices because there isn't anyone to limit the use as residential. Businesses with signs and factories sit in the middle of neighborhoods and the city is totally powerless to restore stability. Yes, some of these intrusions came into the neighborhood when the area was on its heels--isn't that when the neighborhood needs greatest protection? If the character should then change, shouldn't that be a decision made with input of elected representatives? And if the last ten years have proved the popularity of Houston's inner city as a place to live, wouldn't we be even better off if there were intact neighborhoods for people to return to?