SilverJK

I don't think washington is going anywhere anytime soon.

I find it amusing when someone refers to all the bars as d-bag bars then shortly after mentions they have been to a number of the bars. Doesn't that make you a d-bag?

I go out to the bars on Washington pretty frequently with my friends. I wouldn't classify myself as a d-bag, and I doubt many people would lump my friends and I into that group. I normally go to the more relaxed places (Liberty Station, Taps, Pearl, etc.) but I like the variety of bars and styles on washington. The neighborhood can complain all they want, and illegal activity should definitely be cracked down on, but with the WAVE and other transportation methods popping up, I see that Washington really has a chance to become a entertainment district / tourist destination. Hopefully one day it will reach a density where they actually close down part of it at night to allow only foot/bike/ripshaw traffic.

And as much as you want to deny it, the reality is that the changes to the historic ordinance were 100% driven by the neighborhood. Long before the realtors put up their website, the preservationist had been organizing and meeting with city officials about the failure of the 90 day waiver. Our elected officials agreed with them and revised the ordinance by a vote of 11-3, even after the realtors papered the neighborhood with fliers and dropped blue signs on every vacant lot they could find.

This is a complete fabrication. The changes to the historic ordinance were NOT driven by the neighborhood. The initial ordinance was driven by the neighborhood, but comparing the original to the new ordinance is at best a joke. Our elected officials did vote for it, and as such have misrepresented their constituents. I guess you point out that blue signs were in front of vacant lots because you don't think the owners of land get to voice an opinion?

No. It is very simple. A majority of the property owners formed a historic district pursuant to a historic ORDINANCE passed by our democratically elected city council. By forming a historic district, residents came under the rules set forth in the historic ORDINANCE. An ORDINANCE can be changed at anytime by a majority vote of city council. City council did just that. They revised the historic ORDINANCE because it failed to accomplish what it was intended to do. The anti-preservationists wanted to have an opportunity to reject the revised ORDINANCE. They were given an unprecedented opportunity to veto the actions of our democratically elected city officials. All they had to do was get a majority to return the surveys. THEY FAILED. Instead of moving on with life, they are now claiming that it is not enough that they had the unprecedented opportunity to veto the actions of city council, they want to effectively rewrite the city charter to require a ratification process of any city action that affects a homeowner's property rights. If at first you don't succeed, change the rules.

Meanwhile, back in reality, HAHC is working just fine. New construction is being approved. Rennovations are getting approved and moving along. The cricisms of the ordinance are all about what it could be in some imaginary world based on hypothetical interpretations that stretch the plain langauge of the ordinance beyond its logical limits. The real motive for opposing the ordinance was never palatable to anyone in the Heights. No one could put up a yard sign that said "Tear down and new construction=double commissions for realtors versus rennovations" and get any support. So, anti-preservationists went about pouring through the ordinance and coming up with a bunch of "what ifs" to try to scare people into joining their cause. But they FAILED. They could not even get half the amount of support they needed to reject the ordinance. And now, they want different rules because they could not win at the rules they were given. If the ordinance was really as bad as they said, people in the Heights would have canned it by way more than 51%. But we aren't dumb. We could easily see through the pretextual arguments and didn't support the repeal campaign. The result is that everything is going to be just fine in the Heights.

Aren't you the one that said your side would remember who opposed the ordinance when it came time for HAHC approval?

Just because the HAHC is working "fine" now while under HEAVY review and pressure doesn't mean it will remain that way. Those of us that are here long term, and aren't going to move to some other place and again try to tell everyone how their neighborhood should be, are concerned about the future behavior of the HAHC. All it takes is a few bad apples to cause lots of issues with this process. Your support for this ordinance that it is what the original historic district petitions were for is a blatant fabrication, as are most of your arguments.

Since you refuse to call it anti-ordinance and must use anti-preservation, I will now refer to your group as pro-racism-ordinance.

Lame, lame, lame. What in the world would let you take the logical leap that my reference to "anti-preservation" was anything other than historic homes in the Houston Heights? You don't refute someone's argument by taking their argument completely out of context and beyond all logical limits in order to manufacture a point. It is plainly obvious that I am taking issue with the blue sign people who claim to be pro-preservation but anti-ordinance. As evidenced by many of the posts in this thread bashing historic preservation in the Heights, I have more than enough evidence to call out the claim that these people are just anti-ordinance. If they had problems with the ordinance, they would have worked with the preservation coalition to craft a better ordinance. But from the get go, it was about trying to kill off the districts and not about inventing a better mouse trap. The anti-preservationists were even given the opportunity to kill of the districts and failed miserably, for the very reason I call them anti-preservationists--it was clear to everyone in the Heights that their goal was NOT preservation.

what in the world would let me take the logical leap... hmmm... maybe the blanketing term of "anti-preservationist". You only prove my point that anti-ordinance is more accurate. I guess you could say "anti-preservation-ordinance" if you just have to use the word.

We did work with the preservation coalition and that is the only reason some specifics were addressed in to the ordinance. But from the get go, your cronies were going to jam this preservation ordinance through with or without a majority of public support (which they have been quoted as saying). That doesn't sound like a group that is willing to work with anyone to me.

Failed miserably... how can you vehemently deny that the card process was anything more than a show. Do you honestly think it would have won a straight vote?

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

Ok... lets just pretend your right, and all anti-ordinance people hate bungalows and want them all smashed. Preservation isn't limited to houses. I personally have spent a lot of time and money on preserving other artifacts, allowing future generations to enjoy them. Art, writings, furniture, vehicles, photographs, these are just some examples of things i've painstakingly worked to preserve. So even if everything in your post was accurate (which it couldn't be farther from) it still is a gross generalization to call anti-ordinance people anti-preservation.

Maybe you chewed on the window seals of a bungalow as a kid?

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.c..._city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

I think you mean *anti-ordinance*

nice use of hysterical language while attempting to call out... hysterical language.

now for my hysterical language rant...

I suppose CM Jones is one of your right wing conservative teabaggers you constantly imply are the only ones against the ordinance?

So does anyone have a good source for having Columns repaired/replaced. My front porch columns are looking pretty rough. They have the brick lowers and decorative wood uppers, pretty standard Craftsman Bungalow look. The brick has lots of cracks and has been painted several times, I'm looking for someone who can rebuild my brick columns with new bricks (or antique) and rework my existing upper columns (decorative column around a 6x6)

so here is what i'm replacing:

4 brick columns (two have upper columns to support porch roof)

and reworking with the two existing upper columns.

any references?

The first revision to the ordinance had no change in the language about maintenance/repairs etc. But you all ran around claiming that the City would be able to control paint color, HVAC, and even content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance. This was not based on anything the City had ever done in the past, but pure speculation on reading the ordinance in a vacuum. So there was a case where the law had been practiced, and the anti-preservation people ignored the practice to try to scare people into believing that there was some intent on the part of the City that did not exist. This was largely the reason the anti-preservationists could barely get half the needed votes to do away with the historic districts. They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do. As a result, a big opportunity was lost to work together to create a better ordinance. A fast track procedure for minor changes would have been a great idea. But issues like that never came up because the vast majority of the dialog with the City was either all in or all out.

As noted above, the HAHC is perfectly reasonable. They have approved three new construction projects in the Heights in the past two sessions (two were 3500 sq ft houses). While lot value for a neglected bungalow will go down, the value of an empty lot looks to be going up ($320k asking price for a lot in the Heights East--probably 40-50k too high, but who knows). In the short run, the building boom in the historic districts will slow a bit as the McVic builders flee to the non-district areas. But that is good for the Heights too. Areas north of 20th and on the periphery of the districts will see more development than they would have without the ordinance. Inside the districts, there will never again be the horrific contemporary odd balls, monsterous fake New Orleans junk packed 4 to a 2 home lot and cruddy, oddball rennovations (closed in porches, goofy circular windows and other oddities that wreck the character of historic homes).

The Heights will be even better than ever under the Historic Ordinance. People looking to buy won't have to worry about what might go up next door anymore. People looking to rennovate won't have to worry about ending up with lot value after being surrounded by McVics. Crow all you want about how Eastwood is now better than the Heights because of the Historic Ordinance. Or about how the Heights are "stagnating" because someone thinks they can still get lot value (just saw a great bungalow on Columbia sell within a week of listing--some stagnation). Just like the claims about paint color and HVACs, the reality is nothing like what the anti-preservationists will ever be able to recognize.

are you just a troll, or do you actually believe in what you just said? "barely get half the needed votes" Are you serious? If it would have been the other way around, where the card had to be signed and returned for the ordinance to stay, do you really think think it would have did as well? Take off the blinders and work with your neighbors. The ordinance is in effect already, why not work with the anti-ordinance folks (quit calling them anti-preservation) on coming up with a solution that more people will tolerate? Do you really not care about 1/4 of your neighbors?

You are the same person how said "we will remember who opposed us" and made your threats about preventing people from getting COAs, so yeah I would say the speculative vacuum reading was warranted. Keep on spewing your worthless rhetoric though.

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

What about the repeated subsitution of the word "preservationist" for "ordinance". If you are against the ordinance, you are called anti-preservationist, even if you have spent a lot of time/money/effort on saving/rehabbing/restoring historical buildings. Just because it is less blatant doesn't make it acceptable.

Those 4 lots on Pecore haven't paid their taxes yet... I wonder if anything will be happening their in the near future. The police have been putting a "this is your speed" display thing their lately. I wonder if they would sell them seperately?

As a Heights resident, I have to say that I cannot see the sunrise until it clears the one story house across the street. By that time, it can hardly be considered a sunrise, at least not one worthy of restricting the right of property owners to build there. But, then, if you are so important that everyone within your view must bow to your wishes, I guess anything is possible. I DO wonder how the sunrise poster gets away with blocking the sunrise of the resident immediately to her west, though...and why she is so thoughtless as to block it.

I'm sandwiched between two orginal two stories... and i still have a view of the sunrise. I can't really see the sunset due to trees (stupid beautiful river birch), but I get a sweet mirror effect off of downtown's highrises.

Just because you aren't into sunrises doesn't mean that it is a good thing for a developer to take away the sunrise for a block of bungalows (and they probably will take away some of the sunset for the homes on the other side of Studemont).

All the Heights needs is some height restrictions and some reasonable division between commercial and residential. The city was supposed to use the design manual's traffic section to clamp down on unreasonable densification, but has turned that into a rubber stamp process after getting sued by the Ashby developers. The only thing left with any teeth is the parking lot requirement. But, when building up, you can just include parking as additional floors. And that is the big risk for the Heights. If these guys make a pile of money off of $400k condos and retail space, then everyone and their brother will be buying up land in the Heights to do copy cat developments.

Historic districts and deed restrictions only go so far and rely on landowner consent. The whole point of zoning is to prevent the guy who wouldn't consent to restrictions from doing something that harms the neighborhood.

given your logic, this development will provide amazing sunrise views for those living in the building... I'm guessing it will have even better views than the bungalows have of sunrises and/or sunsets (depending on the layout) and provide views for more people than currently do have them.

Unreasonable densification? I don't think so, this development is the example of reasonable densification. What would have them do, move 4-5 bungalows to this lot? That isn't densification. This is a commercial area. If you want to prevent this from happening on your block, (you don't even want two store Victorian Revivials next to you so obviously you are in this category) why not talk to your neighbors and set deed restrictions. You can't have the mayor do all your work for you. ACTUALLY get out there and get something done. Or keep on trollin on the internet because your too lazy to really do anything, arm chair activist.

I do feel sorry for the bungalows directly next door, but that is probably less than 10 bungalows that are really impacted. Meanwhile the other 3,500+ homes in the Houston Heights gain a neat mixed use facility (hopefully architecturally interesting). And is living next to a 6 story building really any worse than living next to a car wash? At least the guys who vaccum out there trunks while bumping their subwoofers with the volume turned to 11 will have more people to share their music with.

You are saying that you want something that goes beyond the current restrictions and doesn't need landowners consent. Oh Hell No.

I never said one six or eight story building would destroy all of the Heights. I also never said that I would try to do anything to stop this development. I certainly don't like it. I feel for the bungalows on 11 1/2 who will no longer have a sunrise.

There are certainly plenty of examples of bad development all around the Heights. But why does the standard have to be that it is ok as long as it doesn't destroy the entire community? And at what point will we find so many 6+ story buildings going in at every nook and crany in the Heights that we find ourselves saying "oh crap, they did destroy the character of the community." I counted about half dozen apartment complexes on Heights Blvd that could be torn down and replaced with similar or even taller buildings (didn't count the section of Heights included in the historic dist, so don't start). There are probably at least another half dozen old beat up apartments or machine shops around the Heights that could also be the future home of 6, 10, 12 story buildings. Taken to its logical developer zeal limits, there could be a not so distant future where almost every homeowner in the Heights looks out onto a 6+ story building when sitting in their back yard. That would certainly destroy the character of the Heights.

This development is a turning point for the Heights. We can sit on our hands and hope developers won't build next to our house, or we can start thinking about some reasonable rules to keep the Heights the Heights.

I can see a 75 story building from my house... I actually find that to be awesome.

I would absolutely love for the run down shoddy apartments near my house to be replaced with a development like this.

Very weak. Putting up 6, 10, 12 story buildings in peoples back yards in the Heights is ok because Houston is Houston. Just because Houston has made mistakes in the past doesn't mean it then must become a source of civic pride (or popular folklore about the lack of zoning being the secret to Houston's success). Just because someone put up four ugly 5-6 story buildings in one part of the Heights does not mean that it is fair game to put up more. If you think a few odd buildings around 20th street make a 6-8 story building on 11 1/2 street appropriate, you really don't get it. All you have to do to get it is drive around a bit in the Heights. You will not seen anything taller than two stories, with a few very, very odd exceptions. Just because you can point to a few exceptions doesn't mean that they should then become the rule. In fact, the few exceptions in the Heights are a much better argument for a rule against building up in the Heights than for maintaining the status quo. The Heights fought like hell against a little cell phone tower in virtually the same spot. The Heights will have a much bigger fight if developers continue to abuse the neighborhood.

I wasn't around during the cell phone tower issue, (neither were you). Does the company that owns the tower own the land it is on, or is it city owned?

Saying you will see nothing taller than two stories is simply not true, there are several 3 story original houses in the heights. I almost bought this one. (The third story may have just been a built out attic, but regardless this thing is tall)

(http://www.har.com/HomeValue/3401-HOUSTON-AV-HOUSTON-77009-M8387210.htm#)

The buildings on 19th are taller than this will be. Just because you don't want it, doesn't me that should become the rule. How are the exceptions a better argument for a rule against building? Don't they just prove that buildings of this size do indeed fit in with our neighborhood?

I think the true issue is your wants aren't achievable. You have stated the Heights is like a small town, but you don't want to allow any development. This means to go to restaurants, retail, etc. you will have to travel outside of the heights. Then you say there is plenty of places to build in midtown/east end etc. NIMBY. If you got your way, you'd complain about traffic to go to these new places in midtown/east end. It doesn't matter what happens, you are going to complain. If you get your way, you'll complain. You got your Historic District, your still complaining about something that is NOT in a district. What you really want isn't a small town feel, nor an urban environment. You want suburban master planned community, with cute bungalows. You want to prevent anyone who doesn't live in the heights for having any reason to go there. I don't know about the rest of the neighborhood (I can't speak for them all like you do) but I personally, and many of my friends/neighbors I've spoke with want more retail/restaurants etc. in the neighborhood. Adding some density will increase the draw for these things.

If your so worried about lots having 12 story buildings built on them (there are not that many lots in the heights left that are big enough for this 6 story development, much less a 12 story) why don't you and your cohorts buy the property and put some deed restrictions on it? You wait until someone else buys it (will full rights to build something like this project) and you start complaining and trying to stop it when they start construction? You aren't willing to spend your money on the lot, but you want to have control of what gets built there, after someone else has bought the land and started construction? Makes you sound a bit like a spoiled brat.

If one of these buildings gets built in someone's backyard, i'm pretty sure that would be illegal, it would be beyond their yard, in a totally different lot. Your backyard does not extend pass your lot line.

No chance. I get attacked because I present opposing viewpoints and call out those who normally go unchallenged. If anything, I have been a benefit to this board by keeping it from becoming a clique only accessible to those who are in the pro-development club. If you don't like dissenting voices, stay off the internet or just visit foxnews.com all day.

Wrong again buck-o. You get attacked becasue you are blatantly misleading, dishonest, and unknowledgable. The only benefit you have provided is comedic relief. Foxnews.com is the epitome of dissenting voices.

How wrong can you get with one post?

Now you want to prevent the elderly from living in reasonable housing in the neighborhood too. Not nice.

The buildings we are speaking of are like what, a mile and a half away? I bet you consider 19th street stores as part of the neighborhood, this is between them...

And you think your realtor stays in touch with you to be nice? You don't see a business motivation behind that? A business motivation that involves . . . commissions?

I don't have prejudice against any groups. I just don't share the prevailing view that developers are infallible gods and realtors are actually concerned about historic preservation and not commissions that permeates this board. If you feel threatened by some dissent on this board, that is ok. I understand. But this board would be worthless if everyone just sat around and showered praise on a six (or maybe eight) story building that will have single family bungalows as its next door neighbor (literally) with no other buildings of similar height anywhere in the neighborhood.

Of course there is some business motivation, she wouldn't be any good at her job if she didn't try to get return business. But according to you that makes her Satan, and she wants to feed on the flesh of those who buy bungalows. Face it, some realtors are actually just good nice people. Crazy!

There you go with your lies again, there are multiple buildings in the neighborhood that are even taller than this one will be. Yes, it will be next door to a bungalow, but don't try to make it sound like it is "block busting" or anything like that. There is a self-service car wash also next to it, as well as a hole in the wall burger shack. Pull your head from your hindquarters and look at the buildings along 20th near Heights. They IS taller.

Seriously, it is hard to think anyone would really want to live next to a 20-30 story construction project for a couple years.

This is probably true, but how else do you propose they get built?

Realtors are good at one thing and one thing only: getting their commission.

I was certain you were going to say help people buy/sell homes. I guess they aren't good at that though.

My realtor (who lives in a bungalow in the heights) was very helpful when I was looking for a home. She has stayed in contact with me since then, and has helped me figure out people to use for work at my house, as well as look at her renovations as a point of reference. I'm sure the commission was nice, but she has been very helpful even recently, which is more than 1.5 years after I bought the house.

I also know a realtor who can juggle really well.

But good job on adding yet another for me to think you have no clue what your talking about. I hope you aren't this prejudice against all groups of people that are different than you. We already know you hate realtors, developers, the poor, conservatives, and your neighbors. (and since you never seem to catch on sarcasm, that is a deliberate gross generaliztion).

S3mh,

I thought you were about preserving History. Creating Zoning laws with be the most destructive thing one could possibly do to destroy the history of Houston. Culture Killer!

There is way more support for some sort of zoning in this city than ever before. This is a very different city than the last time zoning came up for a referendum. Last time zoning came up, there was a fraction of the development that currently exists in midtown, the Heights, the West End and upper Kirby, for starters. Ashby high rise, walmart and other idiotic developments have turned a large number of people against Houston's zoning free land use environment. This development in the Heights won't be the straw that broke the camel's back, but it is another brick in the wall. Word on the street is that the City is getting lots of inquiries from big box developers about developing inside the loop. Today's Heights walmart will be tomorrow's West U Walmart and next week's Montrose Walmart. Add in a bunch of Heights Ashbys, and you will see real support for some reasonable zoning. Remember, the historic ordinance passed council by a vote of 11-3, even with HAR, GHBA, and others lobbying like crazy to get CMs to kill it. Times are changing, whether you are willing to admit it or not. Zoning won't happen today. But if developers keep doing stupid things at the current rate of stupidity, zoning won't be too far away.

As for your assessment of MAP immenent defeat at the hands of CO "crime lab" Bradford, don't quit your day job and head out as a political consultant any time soon. Bradford has just over 4k in his campaign account to run for relection for city council (if you think it is possible to win an election with no campaing finances, you are really out there). The guy is going to need to step it up asap and actually RUN for mayor if he is going to have any chance. And unions? What do you think this is, Chicago? Unions are dead in Houston. The mayor is taking on the firefighters union because they are weak. and she scores major points with conservatives for being fiscally conservative on municipal pension obligations. Sorry, your anti-ordinance savoir is not even stepping up to the plate.

As for your constant insults, whatever. The Heights has real historic districts. The tide is turning against irresponsible developers and builders in Houston. MAP is on a clear path to running uncontested. You can have your last laugh on the internet, but in the real world, I am laughing loudest.

Speaking of stupidity... read above.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Of course you do, you know everything.

his self appointed position as voice of the heights is "inconceivable"

I didn't live in the neighborhood, but I do know what happened. There was a lot of discussion between the developer and the neighborhood. I have been to Stella Sola a number of times. They do a decent job of handling parking. If you are one of the odd balls that is too cheap to tip a valet while going to a highend restauart and uses street parking, then you will not be happy with the parking. And two level parking garage isn't the answer to all parking woes. Any high traffic restaurant going in the Heights is going to put a strain on parking.

The new development didn't disclose their intentions until the shovels started digging. Obviously, they knew that a six story building was going to piss off many in the Heights and didn't want to give anyone a chance to have a say in how their neighborhood is developed.

There is nothing sensible about sticking a six story building in the middle of a residential historic neighborhood that is almost all one and two story buildings. If you think the Heights would be a better place with a bunch of 3500 sq ft McVics and mid-rises on every unrestricted tract of land, then you have a vision that is not shared with the rest of your neighbors. Don't be fooled by your small collection of blindly pro-development internet buddies on this message board. The Heights is very upset that developers cannot seem to take a hint and respect the neighborhood. A packed room grilled councilmembers about traffic from Walmart. People are getting better organized every day. Developers have a choice: continue to be the bull in a china shop and get corralled by zoning or start working with the community in good faith to build in a manner that respects the character of the neighborhood.

Have you ever even slowed down to think, the most populated houston architecture forum is overwhelmingly against your thoughts. Now obviously there are some that don't really care (or have some sick distorted view like yourself) but most people that join this forum do so because they are interested in architecture. In all likelyness this is THE group of people that would be first to bash inappropriate architecture. Your are the minority. Remember where you are, people who ACTUALLY CARE about architecture (even a sub-group to people who care about architecture specifically concerning this neighborhood). Please try to wrap your mind around that.

YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR THE HEIGHTS. Jesus Christ, how many times do we (people on this forum) have to say that.

If you want Zoning so bad, i suggest you take your ignorant self, hop on your high horse/donkey and GTF out of Houston.

More people will probably live in this development than the amount who oppose it. They'll shop at walmart too.

I wonder if S3mh is one of those people that also complain about people parking in front of his house types too. I'm betting so. Probably even has some big rocks out there to block them.

Building a commercial building isn't the issue. The issue is building four floors taller than anything in the neighborhood. The Stella Sola (formerly Bedford) property is on what looks like an identically sized lot (I think it is identical, but someone will pull the HCAD map and crow on about how it is .0002 acres different). They put in a two story business with plenty of parking that has fit in well with the neighborhood. And Stella Sola is making money hand over fist.

A six story building is too big for that area, and it will just set a precedent for others to copy. Then, next thing you know the Heights will be dotted with six, eight, ten and twelve story buildings. Just like the apartments may have seemed like a good idea at the time, a six story building may seem like a good thing after the land has sat empty for so long. But the Heights has suffered from too much short term thinking and could benefit from some better long term planning. If we can restrict paint color and HVAC placement under the historic preservation ordinance, we can certainly do something to place reasonable height restrictions on commercial buildings in the Heights, even if it means doing a little bit of the z-word.

did you seriously just promote the parking situation at Stella Sola?? GTF out of here.

They should build something like this where blockbuster is on Main @ 20th as well.