Jump to content

woodheightsguy

Full Member
  • Posts

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by woodheightsguy

  1. I don't know if this has been mentioned before but perhaps one of the biggest reasons for the lack of restaurant diversity in the heights may be due to the lack of diversity in the residents?

    5 shrimp makes it a "keep on driving".

    I ate at Big Mamou's yesterday. My aunt ordered the shrimp po-boy and I had 9-10 shrimp on it. They were very tasty. I had the combo meal of 1/2 a Cajun Po Boy and cup of gumbo (a pretty good deal for $8.50, I think). The gumbo was great, the sandwich was decent. A friend of mine had the muffaletta and loved it.

    They are still working out the kinks, the lady taking orders had no idea how to work their computer system, but other than that, the food came out quickly and was all in all pretty good.

  2. marksmu- i think you have a lot of valid points. i am not against development but i do think that there is value in history. perhaps it's b/c i am from an area where history is preserved almost to a fault, but i think that houston has lost so much of its history already. i live in an old on the outside/ modern on the inside home. i have no desire to live in a house that is "period" b/c it's not my style. however, i have great reverence and appreciation for people who do. additionally, i would never tear down a bungalow. i think they are important socially, historically and architecturally and i think they do need to be protected. i also hate the Disney-fication of the Heights. really, tear down a true victorian to put a fake one in it's place? gimme a break. gut it and make it as modern as you want inside, but don't insult us by putting a fake, just add water so it can fall apart in 3 years piece of crap in its place and say you did everyone a favor. there are a lot of moderates when it comes to restoration and preservation. however, development is so rampant in this part of houston, some people have to fight on the extreme side of preservation so that there is a middle ground.

    I mean absolutely no disrespect by this, in fact, I'm convinced I'll be drinking margaritas with Heights Yankee at Berryhill one night with our kiddos all playing on the patio. But, honestly, I have a couple of questions. You said "i think they are important socially, historically and architecturally and i think they do need to be protected." My question is this: why are they important socially and historically?

    Can you give examples in our neighborhood of this "gimme a break. gut it and make it as modern as you want inside, but don't insult us by putting a fake, just add water so it can fall apart in 3 years piece of crap in its place and say you did everyone a favor." By that, I mean I'd like to know of houses that were built three years ago that are falling apart. That are in disrepair, because that's what "falling apart" means to me. To me, that's what you are implying. Maybe it's happening, and I don't see it. It's a big neighborhood, but I didn't see any new construction topple over after IKE,much to the dismay of the new construction haters. (I refuse to use McMansion, as I do live in a newer house, that in my opinion is anything but a McMansion, but I digress......).

    I'll be the big red head at Berryhill with 10 month red headed daughter, look forward to tipping back an adult beverage.....

  3. The Geoff Vaughan property (the primary subject of the thread to this point) is outlined in red below.

    Outlined in purple is property owned by the "Ralph S. Burroughs Family Trust c/o Alice S. Burroughs" on the north and south side of White Oak, according to HCAD.

    gallery_2051_88_118089.jpg

    Personally, I would like to see that area east of o.c. be developed. There is nothing in there that is very useful, the potential for that space is great, just have to see what the plans are and how that potential is realized. Feel free to knock down Fitz's as well, while they're at it.

×
×
  • Create New...