SilverJK

I can hear the parking complaints starting already, meanwhile I look VERY forward to swinging by on my bike/skateboard and picking up a growler of fine brew on the way to happy fatz or dry creek.

not if I wanted to have it Friday night... last minute decision to go camping... but I'm glad that because I shopped at Walmart you just assume I'm too dumb to order something online instead of the more logical thought that I needed it quickly.

And your soo proud of that rediculous wall that you and your cronies have built.

I had to drive up to crosstimbers walmart yesterday to track down a battery operated fan (you wouldn't believe how hard these are to find). My only time available to drive that way was ~6PM. Yale St Walmart would have been so convenient. (for my annual walmart trip)

Courts cannot tell a municipality that what they did wasn't fair or that the municipality's interpretation of its own ordinances and rules was incorrect. The only "proper process" is the one the City decides is proper. The court cannot tell the City what that process should be. It is a purely political question.

But the people can decide who is in charge of said municipality, and since by your own statements the city can essentially do whatever they want, the next mayor could simply have the districts removed.

These mental gymnastics you perform to justify the actions to get the historic districts passed are so ridiculous it baffles me. Just because you can get it done one way (and it is yet to tell if it will last), why wouldn't you want to go about creating a historic district the right way? Integrity is a characteristic that comes to mind... in order to keep the neighborhoods "integrity" (in your eyes) you give up your own.

S3mh,

As you can see from the lawsuit, your ideal utopian distortion of our neighorhood is not the majority's view. How can you so strongly support an ordinance, knowing it was rammed in without care to proper process? I can understand supporting historic districts, wanting to create a historic district, creating rules/regulations within historic districts; but I can not understand supporting this. Why not go back to the drawing board, create an opt in district with CLEAR rules and regulations. No approval committes, no grey area, just cut and dry clear rules on what can and can't be done. Recognize the current ordinace is flawwed, don't try to justify it, use some of your anti walmart energy towards creating Historic Districts the right way.

That being said I would NEVER opt in.

^{That didn't take too long...}

My brain works to fast to slow down and worry about grammar. I'm sure I could find unnecessary' places to use apos'trophes to qualify my Walmart shopping abilities. If being a grammar nazi is your "thing" that you're about thats fine, but they're (hater haters with bad grammar) still entitled to their opinions on if the walmart should go there.

So, there is a lot of irony in making a tongue and cheek anti-ordinance argument about a parcel of land that is an excellent example of why the ordinance is needed in the Heights.

Very very weaker.

Regardless of what is built in this location it will never be "historic" and if built to the intention of the ordinance it will be four lot filling craftsman front hemorrhoid backed non historic monstrocity new construction homes. This is a prime example of how the ordinance is terrible.

Quick question... if this lot is subdivided into 4-5 lots, each one of these has to be considered a non contributing property right? How many times do we need this to happen before the ordiance becomes moot? (who am I kidding, they will just redraw the lines)

Anyone with a real brain can tell you that there has been absolutely no negative effect on properties inside the district. Builders are building and renovating. Houses are selling. Realtors will even admit that the market in the Heights is doing just fine after the ordinance. The hack builders who only know how to tear down perfectly good bungalows and build cheap boxes have all fled the districts to the outlying areas. Good ridance.

They didn't flee the district, they were pushed out by a minority group of know-it-all (know-nothing-at-all is more accurate). But thanks for sharing your factless based opinions as the gospel truth yet once again.

BTW nobody said construction would stop or all real estate would end in the district, you simply made that up. It would hurt growth, cause ugly camelback hemroid additions, and decrease value of small shacks was what was stated, and you have helped prove a lot of that with your earlier posts.

Skater friendly, NICE! (remember everyone, June 21st is GO SKATEBOARD DAY!)

Yeah, that place is HUGE and has ample parking. I agree about the windows. I just wish it wasn't an Austin based chain. I am not an Austin lover... but that's just me. I'll get my tacos on White Oak.

And i'll get mine on 20th (Chilosos). Unless they are closed, then it will be a battle between Torchy's and Taco's A gogo.

i don't think they had any kids items, but there were a bunch of kids there last night. (who doesn't love Crepes right?) I guess family friendly would be a good term, not kid friendly.

So i went yesterday. The food is pretty good. I had the king prawn dish which I liked a lot and my wife had the mussels (very good). We also had a sweet crepe for dessert. The crepe was okay, but wasn't nearly as good as melange. They are still in beginning stages, so they were VERY slow to bring the food out. The waitress was very nice, and repeatedly apologized for the delay (and made sure to keep our waters/teas full). The issue is that the owner is the only cook. I'm not sure if this is by design, or if he will bring in more chefs/sous chefs as he finalizes the menu. I think once they get in the swing of things and make a few adjustments this should be a good addition to the hood.

some of the newer contstruction on Oxford (west side near white oak)was only possible because they demo'd the delapidated shacks that were on the lots before the ordinance went into effect. Had they not demo'd those prior to the ordinance, we'd likely be stuck with some 800sq. ft crack houses still.

They are still in "soft opening" so they aren't open for breakfast yet. Looks nice inside. I'm planning to eat there tomorrow, I think they are going to be very receptive to what the neighborhood wants (they are already making changes based off initial comments customers had). I'll post my review friday.

yet there isn't a single video game store...

That is correct. I know of a Heights restaurateur that looked at the place. He said it needed major upgrades. Code enforcement has become more stringent. Then there is the lack of parking. If the neighbors got fed up with a busy restaurant they could petition for resident only parking which would leave the investors up the creek without a paddle.

Off street parking on white oak, bayou side was always available and I wouldn't think could ever be made resident only.

I agree with Red, this location is just too ideal for a bar/restaurant to not be one. I also never saw the biscuit listed on HAR or COMMGATE, I wonder why they weren't trying too hard to sell it?

http://blog.chron.com/heights/2012/06/avis-frank-gallery-takes-over-king-biscuit-space/

Sounds interesting, but I'm kinda bummed, I really miss King Biscuit (the last year or so it was open it was terrible though). I'd always hoped another restaurant would take its place, King Biscuit was one of my favorite places to walk/skate to.

the HAHC is a joke and it needs to be disolved.

The historic ordinance is destroying the historic fabric of the Heights (culture is way more important that architecture). One of the main features that drew me to the heights was the eclectic mix of homes/people. We are still going to have that (despite the ordinance) because of the non historic district areas, but it is going to break up the heights into micro neighborhoods (these already existed, the ordinance will just make them more pronounced. People living in the historic districts will think they are better than those that don't, people living outside of the districts will think they are better than those living in the districts. The pro district people will try to force their agenda down others throats, the anti district people will try to get rid of the districts. That is a lot or neighborhood turmoil caused by an ordinace that was never voted for, majority supported, or clearly explained to what it means (it seems the HAHC is still unclear what is and isn't acceptable).

Why are you such a bad neighbor?

The Mayor pushed the 380 saying the development would be better, specifically in regard to sidewalks and trees. Clearly, Yale will be worse after the development as to trees.

Clearly. Right. Worse than the overgrown, blight lined sidewalk that had a afew decent live oaks. Give me a break. And quick using your recently learned term "tree caliper inches", just say diamater.

Sure, the areas outside the districts are getting plenty of new construction. But that new construction is a lot of cruddy patio homes, cheap faux-victorian/New Orleans boxes and the odd monster property line to property line "custom home" that looks like it was built in the wrong neighborhood. In the short run, these areas may see stronger growth (though given the fact that many of the districts are already more built up than the outlying areas, it very well may be that there is no difference in growth). In the long run the districts will have better property values and appreciation because there will be some integrity to the architecture of the neighborhood. Only on message boards do people claim to like the "architectural diversity" of having a spanish mission style house on the same street as 1920s bungalows, patio homes on 2-3000 sq ft lots and a 4400 sq ft monster custom victorian meets gothic meets Italianate thing.

This is your opinion, based on no facts. What is factual is that these "cruddy patio homes, cheap faux-victorian/New Orleans boxes and the odd monster property line to property line "custom home" " are selling at a high price and if they are as bad as you say, that just proves that people are willing to pay for new construction.

All those 3,000+sq. ft homes you so proudly claim are the biggest joke in the entire neighborhood. Sure they are nice (some of them downright amazing and I would love to own) but they are so far from historic or any resemblence to it it is amusing. Essentially you are saying in order to actually get people to buy in the Historic Districts, you have to so dramatically change the house (in the cases you provided most likely tripling in size) just to get people to buy them. Preservation of what? Would have been a tear down??? If the old house accounts for ~33% (most likely much less) of the materials what is the difference?

Any home that is remodelled in a way that more than doubles it's sq. footage should no longer be considered a "contributing" property.

^ Actually, much of the Heights was forested before it was developed. Just look at any old photos of the land being cleared.

The original photos I just looked at had some pine forrested areas but equal amounts of bayou and willows and other small trees. The strip along the boulevard did seem quite wooded, but those were a bunch a pine trees, and as someone who has a large pine tree in their front yard, I can promise you we aren't missing those. Nearly all the beautiful Live Oaks and other aesthetically pleasing trees you see were planted by residents. Nothing historic or original about them...

That being said... the new walmart will have a gardening center right?

There is a good chance the buyer was probably also told how "easy" it is to get approval. I feel sorry for those that don't fully grasp what the Historic Districts mean that buy in them. (what do you mean i can't modify my house without approval, my next door neighbor has a brand new 3,000 sq. ft mcvictorian...)

S3mh should be thanking Walmart for helping return the Heights to the historic treeless swamp it orignially was...