marmer

There were both, under the Galleria I stairs. They may have not been there at the same time. The purple one was called Purplemania. I believe that same location also sold left-handed items also, like scissors and coffee mugs, though it may have been a different store. I remember the cat-themed store but not its name.

Painting everything the same colors was an afterthought meant to further drive home the point that the museum is part of the surrounding neighborhood.

I agree with you, Dan. Aren't the bungalows already very desirable income-producing rental properties? But the gray color has been around since way before the Menil Collection building. At least since the early 80s, probably earlier. The area was called "Doville" for Dominique de Menil. I don't know for sure but I imagine it dates to her association with the University of St. Thomas and the Rothko Chapel.

This will show how old I am, but I remember when Cafe Artiste used to be Chicago Pizza. Loved that place, only because they served beer to an under-aged me!

I loved it because they were close to Rice and had really good pizza. Back on topic, I'm glad they want to maintain a "park-like setting" but that rendering looks a whole lot less park-like than the setting does now.

Is that their Mercedes Sprinter, or is it a different vehicle? They have a tall, narrow courtesy van, designed for the Euro market by Daimler-Benz, but sold in this market as a Dodge Sprinter. You've seen them -- FedEx, for example, uses them a lot. But Zaza's somehow gotten a Mercedes-badged one, which would be right at home in Rotterdam but it's the only one I've ever seen here. Actually, I drive by there every day, so maybe I'll check it out. Unfortunately, the traffic is sometimes a little scary going around the fountain, so I may or may not be able to look closely.

The never ending saga...

This house went under contract yesterday and back to active today.

flipper

ps. I predict this house will sell for less than 200k eventually.

Flipper,

Would that make it a very attractive teardown? Or is the location going to pretty much limit it to someone who wants to live in that house?

Are you trying to flamebait me? The developer is a member of the public. If he is made better off, ceteris paribus, so is the public by that precise amount. Never mind that the building would've provided a venue for new businesses providing services to the neighborhood, that the construction project would've created hundreds of jobs and supported dozens of local construction and supply businesses in what are otherwise very difficult times for them, or that so many more people would have the opportunity to live in such a nice neighborhood as this.

Realistically, I doubt that more than a few dozen households would be adversely impacted. The traffic argument is bogus. And the privacy argument only holds water for a short distance until the tree canopy obscures views of the ground. If anything, what this controversy exemplifies is a special public screwing over the general public.

Niche, I am not trying to flamebait you. If I have not made it clear before now, please let me say that I have great respect for your perspectives, your articulateness, and the knowledge and facts you bring to the table. Your posts are often among the most informative and enjoyable in this community. The fact that we often disagree is one of the reasons I have withdrawn from this particular discussion for several weeks. I know better than to poke a bear with a pointy stick.

But I was responding to a specific post from KA about tall buildings at Rice, the Med Center, and the Museum District and the term "the public good" was just a concise way of saying "longstanding non-profit institutions whose worth to the community is not seriously questioned." I don't think one can equate their tall structures with this proposed tower, nor do I think that you are trying to do that.

I do have my doubts about the viability of any new small retail or restaurant spaces in the area given how many of them have failed in the last decade. (expanding "the area" to include Shepherd up to about Westheimer.) I also have doubts about displacing the Rice students, med students, and young middle-income tenants of Maryland Manor in favor of twice as many wealthier people. (unless the rents would be lower than I think they will be.) And I think it wouldn't take very many cars at all to make Bissonnet, not to mention Sunset and Rice Boulevard, a lot worse. And it seems perfectly reasonable for the few dozen adversely affected households you mention to fight it. And if you, being one of the most passionately pro-development participants here, can see that, then the developer certainly shouldn't have been surprised by it. Especially since, IIRC, they were Rice alums and should have known the area well.

Sorry, but why was this a bad business decision by the developers?

They bought land that was NOT bound by deed restrictions and offered up a very tasteful mixed-use tower in an area of town that is highly desired.

Said tower would have been located inbetween several other hi-rise residential towers (Museum Tower, The Robinhood, The Warwick) as well as adjacent to a major employment center (Texas Med Center), a major university (Rice) and a major cultural center (museum district). All 3 of those centers house tall structures already.

Again, there was nothing legally that could/should have been done to stop this tower and I am afraid that if this gets played out in court, the taxpayers of the City are going to come out on the losing end.

As an aside, I am a former home owner and dues paying member of the Southampton Neighborhood Association. Personally, I am GLAD this is not being built despite what I am writing on this board. My concern has to do with the legality of the battle and the likely overall outcome for all Houstonians.

Additonally, there are several million dollar + neighborhoods in Houston that have towers located either in or directly adjacent to them... River Oaks, Avalon Place, Crestwood, Montrose, Southampton, Tanglewood, Briargrove, Memorial, Old Braeswood, Southgate, Upper Kirby, and more all pop into mind.

Good points, KA. Having lived, or gone to school, or worked in the area for nearly thirty years, I can echo the feelings of everyone I've talked to about it -- regardless of financial concerns or even construction inconvenience, it's just not right for the area. It doesn't fit in at all. _That_ was the developer's mistake. It's a lovely building, judging from the renderings, and I'm sure it would be a nice place to live and shop. But that is such a tremendously suburbanized area that its urbanizing benefits are not the least bit attractive to anyone who lives in the area. And it's not just Southampton -- Broadacres and Shadowlawn don't want it either.

I mean, seriously, I'm no real-estate expert, but if you stopped me on the street before any of this had been planned and said, out of the blue, "Hey, would it be a good business decision to build a high-rise apartment building where Maryland Manor is?" my first response would be "Are you crazy? On Bissonnet? In that neighborhood?"

Sure, there are lots of high rises near desirable neighborhoods. Near, but not as close as this would be. And Bissonnet at Ashby is no Kirby, or Memorial Drive, or Holcombe, or Post Oak, or Westheimer. I mean, look at it, except for the little shopping center where Picnic is, the businesses are in old houses. And, yes, Rice and the Museum District and the Med Center have tall buildings, but all of those institutions have been there a long time and they are not literally right on top of the Southampton houses and they all exist to serve the public good, not to make money for a private developer.

OK, now I'm wondering where I heard about the Shadyside high-rise, specifically. It was recently and from what seemed to be a reputable source. It was not the Stephen Fox book on Rice University nor his new book on John F. Staub. It was also not the Southampton Walking Tour Guide he did for RDA in Spring 2006. It was not on the last two AIA home design tours (there was nothing in Shadyside) I'm guessing it might have been from a docent at the Wray house in Shadyside during the RDA tour of Staub houses associated with the Fox book.

Mrs. Hobby was on the Rice board of trustees during the late 60s and early 70s so it makes sense she might have given the property to Rice. Of course Rice couldn't do anything with it but sell it, since it could only be used for single family houses and was not accessible to the campus.

One, I didn't know Rice ever owned it, and two, do you think she really demolished the home in a fit over the neighborhood not letting her build a high rise on the property?

I didn't know Rice had owned it either, but I'm not surprised. Rice owns a surprisingly large amount of property. _Cinema Houston_ tells the story of how Rice owned the Village Theatre and surrounding area and deliberately refused to cooperate with local groups trying to preserve the theatre. After a moratorium on demolition of historic structures (!) sponsored by Mayor Jim McConn's administration lapsed in early 1990 or '91, the bulldozers were there within a week. I posted a quote about that a year or so ago.

As to why Mrs. Hobby demolished Shadyside, I can only speculate. If she had intended to redevelop the property, demolition would have been part of the process anyway. Or more likely it could have been for tax reasons, or perhaps it needed a lot of work. One thing we see when we look at the history of the downtown and South End upscale neighborhoods is that apparently the wealthy folks of the pre-1950s generations had maybe even fewer qualms about tearing down old-ish houses than do their counterparts of today.

I was there before Christmas and there were lots of shoppers. Maybe not jam-packed, but lots of them. Like all the Town Center stores, though, it is not so very big or as well stocked as some of its Houston brethren.

Sev,

Thanks so much for the citations. I'm trying to remember where I heard that Mrs. Hobby's planned structure was a high-rise hotel. I thought it was in the Rice Architectural Guide by Stephen Fox, but now that I think of it, it might have been in the RDA Southampton tour book by Fox, what, early last spring? I'll look at home and see if I still have it.

Well, if it was just about scale, then why aren't they up in arms about the new Sunset Clinic and garage? While just a midrise of 6-8 floors, it is completely out of scale for that neighborhood. I'd also add that Sunset is a helluva lot less commercial than Bissonnet and has multi million dollar homes dotting it for blocks.

I can't prove it but IIRC the neighborhood was not happy about the Sunset Clinic and garage project. That may have been one of the reasons why there was so much opposition to the Ashby project.

I think that my earlier question was buried on the previous page, but Houston19514 mentioned something about old, run-down apartments on an arterial street (not naming Maryland Manor, but I assume referring to it).

I said that I don't really notice the apartments (maybe because they blend in?) but are they bad off?

And the Sunset garage - ewww!

There were some old, run-down apartments on Bissonnet, but they were replaced by the Rice Graduate apartments. There are also those art-deco-ish apartments on Wroxton and Bolsover. I hope they're not rundown -- I think they're kinda neat. Maryland Manor useta be kinda seedy, but it was heavily remodeled in the mid-90s.

Ya know, I still think that even if the Ashby highrise is the prettiest development in town, that nine months (probably more than a year, actually) of construction traffic and deliveries and lane closures is a lot to ask that neighborhood to endure. Especially when things are starting to get back to normal after the Sunset clinic. The other thing is, I live in a cheap, twenty-year-old tract house in a generic Pearland suburb. I don't have any kind of special view in my back yard. But I wouldn't be too happy about a giant residential tower suddenly looming over my back yard, either.

This wasn't the first controversy about a high-rise structure in the area. Houston grande dame Oveta Culp Hobby wanted to build a high-rise hotel on her Shadyside property back in the sixties but the neighborhood association fought it and won. That's probably why she demolished her home, the eponymous Shadyside built for J. S. Cullinan as the first home in the development, and moved out of the neighborhood in 1971. Shadyside was on the property where those two new stucco and tile "beauties" visible from Main Street are now. I remember seeing the foundation remains of the Shadyside house back when you could walk in the neighborhood.

And yet somehow they missed the Rothko Chapel.

It's only buildings completed since 2001. I actually suspect, based on other structures featured, that had the Rothko been newer it might have been featured.

It's pretty clear after looking at the Phaidon atlas for a while that they are picking things that are either very dramatic or very minimalistic. It's also clear that Houston, or for that matter any city in the US, is not the modern architectural leader that it (they) might once have been when compared with some of the stuff going on in Asia, Europe, and Latin America.

I've been to both. HEB has more unusual items but its layout is too inefficient. Kroger has nothing except fancy lighting to distinguish it from the Kroger at 518 and Cullen. Living as I do near 35, neither is worth the effort to get to.

Yeah, 1984 or something. Maybe you're familiar with the joke somewhere else on the board?

I got the sense there was a joke I was missing, but I searched for "Phaidon," "atlas," and "Hobby Center," and didn't find it.

Perhaps it was self immolation due to its exclusion from Phaidon's 21st century atlas, while it's neighbor down the street got a space?

Yes yes, I still can't stop laughing at that argument/fact.

Wasn't built in the 21st century.

I've posted photos of this house before. It's been on the market for several months, originally at $300,000; now at $175,000.

I think the photos and interior decoration don't do it justice; I believe this very well could be the steal of the year. Sure would hate to see this one demo'ed and the lot subdivided.

http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cf...mp;backButton=Y

Thanks for the heads up on the update to HG's site, Ben. As always, you rock. Waaah, I want the Villa Blanca and Lyne house photos to expand!

According the the Guide, when Uniroyal was a tenant the brick decoration was painted black (to read as tire treads) It's rather less noticeable that way, and was still like that last time I was in the hood.

Agree with Sheeats on all counts. I would be more hung up on the 'disorder' part than the 'unfaithful' part.

And yes, physical greetings and flirting are different things. You can make a greeting flirtatious, but the hug/kiss isn't necessarily so. It all serves the same basic purpose though: greasing the wheels of polite society.

Beyond that, there are all kinds of flirting. Sexual flirting to attract the attention of someone you desire is one, but social/recreational flirting takes all forms (from a female perspective): office flirting, and its distinct subset, boss flirting; old man flirting (the kind you do with your father- in-law, for example, or someone's gramps), repairman flirting, fireman/cop/military flirting, gay boyfriend flirting, bartender/waiter flirting....the list goes on and on.

Oh, and internet-boyfriend flirting, of course!

And I agree with crunch. It's pretty obvious to me the difference between a peck on the cheek and a romantic kiss. Same difference between an above-the-waist-hands-on-the-shoulder-blades hug and a romantic embrace.

And we guys have all those kinds of flirting, too.

Seems to me like there's an obvious definition of infidelity: when one partner has either sexual or romantic involvements without their partner's knowledge and consent. Pretty much anything else, while potentially problematic for the relationship, is not cheating. Especially differences in sex drive, which are common, though not universal, in heterosexual couples. If one partner is feeling neglected for whatever reason, they need to open their mouths and say something and work it out.

But give guys a break about porn. Almost every guy's early sexual experiences center on porn and it's several years before they do anything with a partner. Not to mention it's a way to indulge your kinks without endangering your real life. So, unless it's illegal, like child porn or some kinds of extremely violent stuff, don't label your happy porn consumer a sicko. Dan Savage recommends: guys: hide it and be discreet, don't rub her face in it; girls: look the other way and don't snoop. Everyone then buys into the white lie that there's no porn.

Oh yeah, the Mexican restaurant, La Hacienda, I think. It was at Main and N. Braeswood. It was still open until the late 90's or early 00's.

It changed names a few times. I believe it was Dos Gringos at one time. I went there fairly often in college -- it was pretty good and not too expensive.

There was also a great Chinese place on Main. I'm guessing it was about where Radio Shack, in the Target parking lot is now.

Lee's Den, I believe.

You mean this?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/ar...ay/5985592.html

It does mention the Transco (now Williams) Tower.

I ate at one in St. Joseph, Michigan a couple of summers ago. Had a Cajun-seasoned steak with fries, a good salad, and plenty of peanuts to throw shells on the floor. I was very impressed. They had Texas license plates decorating every booth. I told them they couldn't have the ones on my car!

Does anyone remember Leo's Mexican Restaurant on S. Shepherd? It was a small white building with a long green awning almost out to the street. It was fave of ZZ Topp as their photos were all over the walls. I think it was torn down in the mid-80's. Anyone know anything or remember this place?

Yes. I went there several times. As I recall the closing of Leo's was strongly lamented at the time. He moved over to Washington near Rockefeller's, but it was never the same. I believe there was also a calendar-style photo of a younger Leo as an ancient Greek warrior.

Wow. Thanks for posting that. It was a little before my time here, but I do remember some of those places: Ouisies on Sunset,

Cattle Guard in Midtown was a trendy place for "yuppies" (this was the 1980s) for five minutes or so. There was another restaurant nearby that was nice the name of which escapes me. It was between Brazos and Bagby, and it had kind of turquoise painted metal work. Paradise maybe?

Wasn't Armandos the Mexican place on Louisiana near the Pierce Elevated and then at Mercado?

Uncle Tais on Post Oak I remember thinking was way overrated.

'K. I'll post some more in the next few days. Yes, Paradise Bar and Grill was at Smith and McGowen, approximately. Not far from Cattle Guard. Basirah, the jazz pianist, used to play there and it was one of my favorite post-theatre dessert places back in my dating days. (girls like chocolate cheesecake! ;-) ) Armando's was on Shepherd near the Hobbit Hole. Never went to Uncle Tai's, there were a lot of closer cheaper Chinese places when I lived in Montrose.