SilverJK

I noticed the renovation and particularly the webbing on the roof--is something going to be built up there?

i might have thought a second story starbucks like the midtown randalls but there is an existing starbucks across the street

never stopped em before...

I wonder if this is what people said when they jammed apartment complexes and commercial businesses in various odd spots all around the Heights thirty and forty years ago. I am sure apartment buildings replaced vacant lots and run down buildings. I am sure people thought "it is good to see a new building go in, it will raise property values and attract development". And they looked at the rapid development going on in other parts of town and were happy to see a bit break off and go into the Heights. But, today, we are all wishing that something other than these apartments, chicken plants and other odd industrial facilities had been built.

A six story building with offices, restraunts and whatever sounds nice today instead of a vacant lot. But down the road will we regret that this project and, assuming it is successful, the many imitators that will inevitably come in and further chop up the Heights? This building may only affect a few properties, but the next one, and the next one and the next one will eventually collectively affect the entire area.

Using ideals from 40 years ago, when the heights was not anything close to what it is today seems like a very rational point of view for not wanting a LEED certified building from being constructed.

Nice try.

Now if KB homes wanted to build something here I'm sure your argument might have some merit (not really, it would just coincidentally be similar to others thoughts)

Keep on Trollin'

and for the love of pete stop saying "WE" when you mean "I".

So, then the standard is that if you are blindly pro-Walmart/anti-preservation, you get to say whatever you want and cannot be called out on it by people holding a contrary opinion. But, if you are against Walmart and pro-preservation, you have to provide credentials, citations to authority with every factual reference and so on. Furthermore, the credentials thing is just a dodge. The fact of the matter is that I am right about the traffic impact process under chap 15 of the City of Houston Design Manual. Go read it and tell me I am wrong instead of playing credential games.

If the guy is wrong, I will call him out on it. Everyone else has extended the same courtesy to me. I can take it. And I will dish it out. It is an internet message board. It is only interesting if people have different views. If you want to be on a message board where everyone agrees with you and never questions what you say, go to Foxnews and crow on about the liberal devils. But if you are going to post on here, prove me wrong if you want to. But do so with facts and real arguments based on logic. "We think you were wrong about ___, therefore you are always wrong" doesn't cut it. "Why should we have to be right if you don't show your credentials" doesn't cut it. In fact, you all are so jacked up that you actually question actual pictorial evidence of a load zone for a bridge. Come on. You all can do better than that. Or can you?

Your claiming “double-standard” where this is simply a case of the boy who cried wolf. After incessant fabrications how can you possibly expect to believe you on something (even if you are right). If you google things enough, you’ll eventually find a particular thing that you are right on. Good work.

Nice attempt to label everyone as wing-nut conservatives again too.

You’ve been wrong a jillion times, and called out on it. You “can take it” because your so blindly in love with your distorted ideals that you still thing your right.

It is an internet message board, and that is how you get to be a lawyer/doctor/engineer/real estate mogul/ jesus/ environmentalist/ philanthropist without actually knowing anything about anything.

I bet your also 6’2’’ and can beat me up.

I think this is accurate. This project reminds me of the proposed mid-rise condo development some guy planned for Westheimer in Montrose. It was called "The Westheimer" and was supposed to be where the empty lot is next to Buffalo Exchange. You can still see the sign on google maps. He wanted to cram 8-10 stories into a tiny lot. He had drawings, a website, a fence and even started messing with some site prep. Of course, it never happened.

I think this guy knows the neighborhood will go crazy if he tries to put six stories on a 25,000 sq ft lot and is floating this idea in order to look like a saint when he is unable to deliver on the six story project and has to scale down to a two story development with ground level parking.

Frankly, I hope this guy builds six stories. People in the Heights are getting very well organized between stop walmart and the historic preservation group. Another stupid development will just grow the ranks of those who will push for some sort of limited zoning ordinance. Houston is not post-1980s foreclosure crisis Houston. We are not desparate for any development. People are tired of bad land use choices and are going to demand a greater public role in private development in the City. The question for developers is whether they want to see this happen sooner or later. If they try to dot the Heights with mid and high rise developments, they are going to see zoning much sooner.

There you go.. speaking for everyone again. You must be a very special person to argue for mixed use mid rise, and against it, all while telling everyone how they feel and how things "should" be. People in the Heights are getting well organized your right... but that is to get this rediculous ordinance overturned. The two groups you speak of (walmart and ordinance) are actually the same small group of loud mouth internet trolls. FACT.

maybe with all the additional people that are around, Decapo's will start staying open a little later. MMMmmm Carrot Soufle'.

same here Red. Nimby time!

That is exactly the dodge Ainbinder's traffic engineers are trying to use. But even they recognize and take responsibility for mitigation needed as a result of the additional 16,000 car trips attributable to the development (their numbers, not mine). Since you all won't believe anything I say because I dare to speak against the conventional pro-developer/builder wisdom, I will let Kuffner do the arguing (this time):

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=34179

spin those webs!

I'll definitely complain about not enough people complaining.

Yeah, looks like its a mixed use development. The property is owned by these guys. http://vitanuovallc.com/index.html

I heard it was going to be townhomes several months ago from someone, but probably just hearsay. We'll see. I've seen several cars destroy themselves on the entrance to that lot (its like a 2ft drop off). This is going to hurt the parking situation for Decapos and The Brazlian Arts Foundation (several of us Capoeiristas parked in that lot).

1. Marksmu said in a post that he thought the ordinance was broad enough that it could give HAHC the power to regulate what political signs you could put in your yard. This was back when anti-preservationists were telling everyone that HAHC would tell them what paint color they could use and regulate the kind and placement of HVAC systems when they were trying to scare everyone into supporting their cause.

2. HEB did not walk away. HEB was ready to close on a deal with the developer, but Walmart stepped in at the last minute and offered to buy the land at a ridiculous price that HEB could not beat. But for Walmart, HEB would be the anchor tenant. They were ready willing and able to open a store, but do not have the corporate largesse of Walmart to be able to operate at a loss just to dillute their competitor's market share (Now who is playing fast and loose with the facts)

3. It is not 1950. But it also isn't 1980. Suburban strip malls and big box stores are designed for the suburbs where there is plenty of land to build wide roads and large parking lots. With the addition of the feeder road, Yale will effectively become a one lane street at I-10 because of the need for dedicated turn lanes. This is not where you put high traffic big box strip centers. This is 2010. Mixed use developments have been proven to generate significantly more tax revenue that single story strip centers, mitigate traffic impacts by not having over the top supercenters that attract consumers from far beyond the neighborhood and lift up neighboring property values, spurring further development in the surrounding neighborhood. Walmart will just bust the streets with traffic, be a wash in terms of tax dollars for at least ten years thanks to the 380 agreement and crush further development in the immediate neighborhood (people are already putting their homes on the market).

I don't have to be an expert on anything to know that someone is wrong when they put out a whopper like attorney's fees and expenses being bifurcated in med mal cases. Anyone who read the newspaper during the tort reform debate would have understood that the main argument against tort reform was that it would make it economically impossible to bring all but the most extraordinary medmal cases due to the expenses and attorney's fees that are taken out of a plaintiff's recovery.

You can attack me and call me names all day, but that won't make me go away. The anti-preservationists tried to turn the historic ordinance thread into their own little discussion group. Same for the pro-walmart folks. Sorry, but this is a public forum. If you do not want to hear opposing viewpoints, go hang out on the anti-preservationist facebook page.

I'm sick and tired of your rabble. You keep calling the anti-ordinance people anti-preservationist. Most of us are for preservation, and several of us have went to great lengths to preserve buildings/art/antiques/culture. Your labeling of "anti-preservation" is blatantly offensive, and I think you owe us an apology. And you have the audacity to constantly accuse others of Strawman arguments. LOL

Some of the things said (paint color/political signs/hvac) were exaggerations yes, but that was the WHOLE point. You have to be concise/clear with the ordinance. If you leave an area open to interpretation crazy things can happen. Especially when people like you, who claimed after your "victory" that those who opposed it will pay for it.

In truth, you must admit that the Walmart will have very little effect on your daily life. You blab about traffic, getting fat??, and all the terrible things that will happen from walmart (walmart chupacabra will eat your animals) but I know for me personally, I maybe drive by this location once or twice a month, if traffic really is bad on Yale (which i seriously doubt it will be any worse than Target on Sawyer), I'll just take one of the other choices to get back to the Heights. Sawyer should be even faster because Walmart is dilluting their share...

No, sorry. It doesn't work that way. If you are going to get into arguments, you have to back them. You can't just cry "you are always wrong, therefore I must be right that attorney's fees are recovered from defendants in medical malpractice cases and don't have to prove it." And why is it you don't know enough about it to prove me wrong, but know enough to post about it in the first place. Can't have it both ways.

Face it. You were completely wrong about attorney's fees in medmal cases. Just like everything else, you have no trouble pretending to be an authority on legal matters but just start calling people names when you go too far and can't back it up. Take a look at Tex. Civ Prac and Rem Code 38.001. Start there and let me know when you find the part about bifurcating attorney's fees and damages (hint: courts bifurcate the issue of punitive damages--might want to admit you mistakenly thought the same for attorney's fees).

Face it. You are pretty much always completely wrong/misguided/misinformed/inconsistant/misleading. Pot/kettle etc.

Me too! Red is dead-on although I like to think of it as retribution justice. I am equally anxious for it to escalate. Their wild claims of "Mission Accomplished" will be embarrassing for the City and the Mayor. They had a chance to do it right and be fair and they opted for winning at all costs with any illegitimate process they could dream up. Even though their dirty political maneuvering appears to have gotten the upper hand on the surface, it is just what is on the surface. We just have to be patient, and bide our time. Just a few weeks and the real fun begins because when politicians compromise their ethics for a personal agenda, it rarely turns out well for them.

And those who hitch their wagon to their colleagues in deals like this always end up collateral damage. Parker has said that Ed wasn't a leader and he needed hand-holding. She's got his number, knows he hasn't got a clue and is letting him be the fall guy in this deal. Lovell didn't have any consequences so she got to do most of the heavy lifting but Ed, well he'll have consequences no matter whether she redistricts him out of the Heights or not. In fact, it will be better for us to get him out of our district. He won't have his few minion hysterical preservationists to vote for him and instead will have a bunch of ticked off folks working on his opponents campaign telling his constituents how he was a rubber stamp for Annise Parker during his first term. Too bad for Ed. Everyone says he's a nice guy but being a nice guy won't save him from 1000+ pissed off Heights homeowners who have the motivation and deep enough pockets to impact a small council election. And because of their underhanded tactics, this will be going on long into the election season. We will remember who voted to take away property rights with this fraudulent process and we will vote and (donate) accordingly. They have no idea how committed people are, but they will soon.

But back to architecture - it would be great if someone put together a photo montage of all of the two story original historic homes with second story balconies in the Heights and submit it to Pace and Parker since they stood up at a public meeting and claimed they weren't built here. I suggest presenting it at Council so that they understand that these folks don't have a clue about the original architecture. Their comments about faux Victorians being inappropriate in the Heights along with the comments about Glenbrook Valley and the double front porches were so wrong, it was almost funny. Almost. What was funny was the woman who asked them to stop talking about the Heights and talk about their district - First Montrose Commons. The video shows Parker's facial expressions - hilarious! She was shocked that the residents of FMC could care less about the Heights! Annise needs a better poker face.

There are at least 3 examples on Pecore alone, and that isn't a very long street. Although one no longer has a balcony (you can see where the balcony door used to be framed out from the inside of the house though).

The straw man arguments are really getting very old. I have been very clear and candid, unlike all the BS from anti-preservationists about house paint, HVAC rules, director having the power to unilaterally declare a less than 67% survey to be greater than 67% and so on and so forth. If you own a bungalow that has not been updated in decades and needs tens of thousands in renovation, you will no longer be able to get the same lot value selling price. I never said everyone wins with the ordinance. People who have not kept up their homes over the years will lose. But, they won't lose much because they will still make out like a bandit with all the appreciation that has taken place in the Heights over the last decade and beyond. But between allowing builders to kill of this historic neighborhood and keeping someone who did nothing to improve their home from making $175k of the sale v. $125k, the latter will have to take one for the team.

But that does not mean that bungalows will never again be renovated. That is the strawman argument you have constructed because all the other arguments against the ordinance are all junk (thus a meager 20% returned surveys against in in the Height WD). What I am saying is that prices for bungalows that need significant renovation will need to adjust to the new market. And they eventually will once the realtors get a clue. Once they do, bungalows that need significant work will be priced in a range that will give people enough room to use HUD products that allow construction to bundle with a first lien. And there are still plenty of investors/builders out their who will renovate bungalows. Two teardowns were recently saved and complety renovated near my house. So, the builder fueled bonanza is over. But that doesn't mean that the bungalows in the Heights will all become dilapidated shacks and rentals. That is just another BS scare tactic claim from those who profited mightly from tearing down bungalows and ruining the Heights.

Also, I have NEVER said that bungalows in need of significant renovation sold like hotcakes. Only when they are in foreclosure or bank owned will they attract a fast bid-up sale. Otherwise, it takes a while to find someone who is prepared to do the work. But, it does happen, sooner if the house is priced right, later if the owner holds out for top dollar.

The Heights has enough momentum that the good, smart, quality builders and renovators will do plenty of work in the districts. In fact, the value of bungalows will appreciate even more now that they are protected.

If you don't like bungalows and prefer new construction, then you made a big mistake moving into the Heights. But that is your fault, not mine.

I hope you wear chocolate shoes, cause you constantly put your foot in your mouth.

Saying you have been very clear and candid, in the very same response where you say the values of bungalows will go down, and will increase in value is such a blatant display of contradiction I'm dumbfounded.

As far as your last sentence... I obviously like bungalows since I bought one. I could have easily afforded new contruction, but I like the character and feel of bungalow. It is MY OWN PERSONAL choice that I made (well my wife and I made the choice together). I also love the Heights, where it has the ecclectic mix of homes/cultures/etc. I wanted a bungalow, but I generally like the newer construction McVics and McCraftsmens. Just because I like my bungalow, doesn't mean i want to force all of them to be "saved" (or raped with a camelback addition). If it is run down and crappy, i have no problem with it being torn down and replaced with a modern version McVic/McCraftsmen. You have already demonstrated/stated that if it is in good condition then people are willing to pay more than list price, and its Homebuyer vs. Homebuyer instead of developer vs homebuyer.

Your ordinance will really impact those who live (and bought within the last 5 years) in the 200-300k bungalows in a historic district, who are living within their means but aren't super rich. It will be much harder for these people to renovate, now that they will owe more on their houses than they are worth, or at least have much less equity. People like YOU, who bought a house planning on using the appreciation to fund a renovation loan. Way to shoot yourself in your chocolate shoe covered foot.

I know gumbo and Danton's Seafood has pretty solid gumbo.

Thanks for the suggestion, it has been added to my queue of "Must eat here soon" list. One of my other requirements for great Gumbo is it has to be affordable, and Danton's looks to be in the $10 range for a bowl of seafood gumbo, which I consider a fair price. How is the rest of the food there?

If the bungalow has been updated and is in good condition, it will sell fast and may get bid up depending on where the price starts. Not only did my realtor tell me that, but so did one of the realtors that lead the anti-preservation fight. And this was not because people were bidding against builders. Builders had almost completely stopped buying lots with existing liveable bungalows in the Heights for new construction when the market crashed. It was homeowner v. homeowner.

So... why did we need the ordinance again??? To stop the builders.... but you just said... methinks someone is a believer in Fuzzy Logic.

You aren't saving any bungalows, because as you have already said, it will be impossible to get a loan to rebuild a bungalow. You just ensured that all crappy bungalows will remain as... crappy bungalows.

BTW, I'm still waiting on your explanation on how I bought my house (renovated excellent condition) for 30k under appriased value (at time of purchase) after it sat on the market for over 9 months. This is a 250-400k range bungalow. Hotcake!

Heights Homeowner,

I have a 1925 2 story Greek Revival next door to me. The original front porch balcony has been removed and replaced with just a normal roof for the front porch, but it is still very much a Greek Revival home.

I

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance.

And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

I'm definitely willing to call at least one of my neighbors an idiot...

either way, their posts lack Truthyness.

You get an F for reading comprehension. I said bungalows that are in good condition sell like hotcakes. I also said that bungalows in need of significant repair that are put out to bid in bank owned/foreclosure sales generate lots of interest. Bungalows that need significant renovation that are not put out for bids in as-is/foreclosure/bankowned sales have never sold like hotcakes, even back when builders were out buying them. If your friend is having trouble selling, it is more than likely because they have a realtor that has given them an unrealistic expectation of what their house is worth in order to get hired. I have said that people will not get as much money for neglected bungalows as they did when builders were buying them. But, most people will still make out like a bandit if they bought 10-20 years ago. And the lending environment has much more to do with slow moving renovations than the historic ordinance. It has become very difficult, if not impossible, to do a construction loan with a first lien mortgage. The only way you can do it is with some of the FHA products. But, those have maximums that are @270. So, the cost of renovation plus the sale price have to equal @270 (plus any cash the buyer can bring to the table). If you are trying to sell a bungalow that needs extensive renovation and have it listed for $275k, you are going to have a hard time finding a buyer, even if builders were still allowed to knock it down. But if you listed the same house for $225k, you would get a lot of interest. Of course people who are listing neglected bungalows for $275k probably bought 10-15 years ago for 90-120k and will only see their investment double. If only I could be so lucky to have such a burden like that.

According to the Leader, Heights West only got 20% in favor of repealing the district. There is absolutely no way to rationalize that other than the fact that the anit-preservationist message failed.

You don't think the 20% number could have anything to do with the extreme short notice, short term, during holidays, and general apathy of the public to return/signup for anything? That number means the 1/5 of your neighbors were soo pissed off about the ordinace, they went out of their way to try to get their historic designation taken away. 20% is a pretty big number fool.

What about my house? It did not need any renovations. It was exactly what you describe as the most desirable type of bungalow.

Calliopes is awesome. True New Orleans Poboys.

Big Mamou owners are from North/Central Louisiana which is a totally different planet than South Louisiana.

I've ate at several "true cajun" places all over Louisiana. Some were good, some were bad.

In my opinion, the Creole seasonings where they have a solid kick mixed with proper French/Southern style cooking are what makes the best "cajun" food. I've yet to find anywhere in Houston with what I'd call great gumbo or etoufee. I haven't been everywhere yet though.

your claims of bungalows selling like hotcakes and paying list price make me laugh so hard. When I was in the market for a bungalow, i was well aware of pretty much every pre- 1930 property less than $400k in both 77008 and 77009. This was 3 years ago, until 1.5 years ago when i bought my house (although I still keep up with the inventory even now). So many of these were available for 6+ months I couldn't count. The house that I ended up buying is a 2/1.5, renovated/well kept, new 2 car garage, had sat on the market for over 9 months, i paid under asking price (which had been reduced a few times) and required the seller to pay all closing cost as well as contribute cash back after closing for repairs. The appraised value of the home when i bought it was 15% more than what I paid. Although I did an insane amount of research and I do believe I got a little bit lucky with timing, if they were selling like hotcakes this NEVER could have happened.

I did have two houses I tried to make offers on sell at list price, but both times the price had been reduced that week by over 10%.

I'm going to assume that you never actually get out in the neighborhood, because if you did, you would see that the same houses sit on the market for long periods of time. (often they are eventually pulled off the market, then put right back on a few months later at a lower price, or the same price with some new paint/minor renovations) I drive by about 10 of these a day in Woodland Heights.

Big Mamou has definitely improved from when they opened, but I feel they are still a good ways off from being a great restaurant. It has been a few months so I'll try it again soon. The do seem to improve upon each visit

what makes this neighborhood great... is the people (minus one).

The truth comes out that all you care about is not being bookended by two story mcvics. Selfish Selfish Selfish.

My block is 100% original structures and we never got min lot size done, but the majority of the block signed the historic district petition. Life isn't as easy as you think it is.

Camelbacks are a compromise struck with the builders and realtors back when the ordinance first went into place. If you don't like them, you can only blame the same people who put up the McVics and are your friends in the anti-preservation movement. Of course, I would happily sign off on a more restrictive ordinance that would forbid 2 story additions to single story bungalows now that there is so much support for it from the anti-preservatin crowd.

And it is not about what a single house looks like on a single lot. It is about the continuity of a historic neighborhood. Stick a McVic in the middle of bungalows and you bust the block. Put in a camelback, you still have the continuity. Not perfect, but a far cry from dropping in a McVic.

You didn't get min lot size done because it requires a majority... not a strong arm, vote rigged, bait and switch, blatant disregard for democracy. But you sure told them! What an awesome neighbor. The historic district was EASY because when the petition was signed it was something COMPLETELY different/reasonable.

The only continuity of the Heights is the lack of continuity, which is what makes it amazing. Restaurants, offices, houses, condos, apartments, gas stations, car washes (haha) all next to each other. If you want your 100% historic block preserved, that should be the choice of your block, decided for your block, and limited to your block.

"we'll take a McCamelback over McVic" further proving the "preservationist" have no taste, and only care about telling everyone else how to modify their property, and not what the actual property looks like.

Saying I can only blame the same people that put up the mcvics and etc. is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I blame YOU, the "preservationist" for the rediculous ordinance.

I don't mind someone building a McCamelback, I just don't think they look right/fitting. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I want to prevent them. Your allowing them is laughable, because it defeats the entire purpose of your rediculous ordinance.

you know what would really make one of those Sears Catalog homes ugly... adding a hemroid addition to the back of it that is more than 2x the size of said Sears Catalog home...

Seriously, is nobody concerned about the aesthetics of the back of these houses? And don't give me this McVics spilling off of their lot BS. It would be very easy to get your block to commit to Min lot Size. (if it isn't easy, then the whole historic district relevence is moot). This would require the "Preservationist" to actually go talk to their neighbors and get them to sign the forms, i guess that is harder than strong arming.

A McVic on a ~5,000 sq. ft. lot looks better than a McCamelback on the same lot, and would probably take up less of the lot.

If more than 66% of your house is new, should it still be considered a "contributing" property?