SilverJK

So you would support a more restrictive ordinance, right?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the ordinance is a gross violation of private property rights and then criticize it for not going far enough. You are just proving the point that the ordinance is a reasonable middle ground that allows people to update bungalows to suit their needs while preserving the original structure. And a you can feel all proud of your McCamelback term, but the Heights will take the camelback over the giant McVics any day.

way to miss the entire point... you used that as an example of how great the ordinance is because you can still build something like that. I think it is just as damaging to the 'hood as a McVic. I'm also really not to sure about why people complain so much about the "crammed" look of the McVic... i live on a 6,350 sq. ft lot, and my original footprint bungalow is quite close to my neighbors... I guess it just doens't look as bad because we aren't all two stories.(both my neighbors are original 1925 two stories).

The McCamelback look is atrocious if you look at it from the neighbors backyard...

McCamelback = "gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction"

Quit speaking for the entire neighborhood, you OBVIOUSLY don't speak for all of us (or even a majority).

I can have it both ways... i claim it is a gross violation of property rights, and i make fun of how it forces all additions to be uglier than what a tasteful McVic would be. I don't want it to not allow these additions, I DON'T WANT THE ORDINANCE AT ALL.

Sidenote... Are you Kanye West? You keep trying to act like your "the voice of a generation (neighborhood)"

Can i coin the term McCamelback?

The earlier mentioned house on Ashland went from 800 to 2800 sq ft. Just the addition is around twice the size of most bungalows. Yeah, thats REALLY historic.

It wasn't an election. It was a re-survey. The rules were clear. In fact, the resurvey process was modified a number of times by council to make it better for the anti-preservationists. It wasn't put up to an election because that would have made it easier to repeal a district than to create one. If you want to overrule what my elected official has done, you need to get organized and get a majority to do it. The anti-preservationists failed because residents in the Heights actually do support the revised ordinance and are tired of all the problems the anti-preservationists (many of whom do not live in the Heights) have caused in this process.

And you are right that there could have been a better ordinance with better tax breaks and a complete waiver of permit fees instead of just discounts on permit fees. But the debate was never about getting to the best possible ordinance. It was about killing it off so the realtors could maximize their commissions. Without this interfernce, we would have probably been able to get a much better ordinance. The fact of the matter is that Heights residents are so tired of the McMansion abuse that they would rather deal with a flawed ordinance and government bureacracy than see the Heights turned into Bellaire, substituting McVics for McMansions.

The rules were very clear. And that's why we were all pissed off about it. They were clearly rigged. We aren't anti-preservationists... we are anti-ordinance. The debate WAS about getting a better ordinance. If you remember, there were several revisions to the ordinance before it was approved. I think the biggest thing that pisses everyone off is the HAHC deciding if something is "appropriate". That is NOT what anyone signed up for (to originally get the historic district designation).

The FACT of the matter is the historic districts only make up part of the Heights, so what you are going to cause is a greater concentration of McMansion's outside of the historic districts but still within the greater heights area. In my eyes, the neighborhood isn't limited to the 4 or so streets within my house, its the entire area (including shady acres, brookesmith, timbergrove, etc.) Good luck ever getting any other neighborhoods to become Historic Districts. If you would have done this process with integrity/honesty/reason it would have been much easier to protect the entire Greater Heights area from having more mcVics on small lots. Not just 4 clusters of a few streets. You did not win, you just made the entire neighborhood lose.

The funniest part of this is if it hadn't been for the McVics/Townhomes that you were trying to stop you wouldn't have ever moved here in the first place. You would not have moved here in the 80s-90s. Because of the gentrification of the neighborhood, it made it more desirable which is why so many more middle/upper class people started to move into the neighborhood. Now that the 'hood is doing well, safer/better schools/cleaner, you cut the hand off the one that fed it. I'm pretty new to the neighborhood (like yourself) but at least I recognize how the neighborhood got to where it is now. I can see this as a liberal, young, DINK yuppie (hope that doesn't throw off your perception of me too much)

I live in a 1920 bungalow in a protected (fully!!!) district. How about you? Do you even live in the Heights? In a historic house? In a historic district?

And when I say "we", I am speaking on behalf of the silent majority in the Heights that are routinely shouted down by anti-preservationists on message boards and in public forums. The fight for historic districts has gone on for years.

This process has never been about the best way to preserve the Heights. It has always been a second bite at the apple for the builders, realtors and architects who originally fought the historic districts to try to undo what had already been done.

I am thoroughly enjoying reading about how all you anit-preservationists are going to do this that and the other thing. It is over. You had your remedy. You failed. Failed. All you had to do was get a simple majority to reject the new ordinance. That should have been like shooting fish in a barrel if this ordinance was such a radical violation of people's property rights. File all the lawsuits you want. It is well settled law that historic districts are not takings. And talk all you want about how you are going to get rid of Mayor Parker. According to off the cuff, it looks like she will run for reelection virtually unopposed. No one with any shot at beating her has taken any steps to run and time is running out. Good luck trying to get a candidate to run on an issue that affects a few hundred people in a City of three million (and don't even give me the argument that the Mayor intends on making every inch of the City a historic district, that is about as bad as the paint color argument).

It is over. You lost. You lost because you did not respect the intelligence of the homeowners in the Heights. All the mailings about how the historic ordinance would destroy property values, dictate HVAC systems, and lead to decay in the Heights made it clear that the blue sign crowd really wanted "no" to both historic districts and historic preservation and "yes" to higher realtor commissions, builder and architect profits.

I live in a 1925 bungalow, along a street which is 90+% original bungalows, not in a historic district. I am in woodland heights, but outside of what would be the historic district if they turn woodland heights into a historic district. I've been heavily involved with the neighborhood for 4 years (the same length of time I've lived in Texas) , lived here for close to 3, and been a homeowner for a year and a half ish. I bought my house because I'm obsessed with architecture and I love the style/quality of the craftsmen bungalows. I don't want to see bungalows destroyed, and I'd gladly support strengthening of historic districts if they were reasonable. The city should be working with us to help keep these houses standing, not against us (if you fail to see how this is working against us you are more rediculous than I previously thought). I believe having clear cut rules such as minimum lot size, minimum setback would prevent a majority of what is generally feared (mcmansions on small lots). The city should be making it EASIER to renovate your historic home by providing legitimate tax breaks for renovations. Imagine if the city provided incentives for builders to renovate bungalows, I would have no problem requiring the plans to be approved by the HAHC for legitmate tax breaks/incentives. Maybe waive some permit fees? I'm quite certain that a majority of people could support something along these lines. But this isn't want the preservationist wanted, they wanted it their way, they wanted it now, they didn't care who they pissed off to get it done. Congratulations on your victory. You got what you wanted, but you also caused a major turmoil in our neighborhood. Is saving a few more bungalows worth pissing off a lot of your neighbors? One of the greatest parts of the neighborhood is how ecclectic it is, and I believe that the passing of the Historic Ordinance has done a great blow to that part of the neighborhood. Is physical history more valuable to you than cultural? From reading your post before, i'm guessing so.

As far saying "you only had to get a simple majority"... I refuse to believe you really feel that way. The 2008 presidential election was a record setting vote, ~56% of voters voted. If non voting would have cast a vote for spaghetti monster, guess who'd be president. And this wasn't even a vote, you had to send in filled out forms and etc. within 15 days during the holidays. If your such a majority (as you claim) why not just put it to a straight vote?

Your internet tough guy threats are hilarious.

How can you support Mayor Parker???.... she is pro-Walmart!

http://swamplot.com/...are/2011-01-04/

It is over. All districts surveyed failed to muster the 51% needed to opt out.

Yes, I know. You all are going to crow on and on about the survey process. Do yourselves a favor and move on. Anyone in the Heights who was against the ordinance had to have been living under a rock to not know what was going on. The opposition sent out piles of mailers. And if there was such overwhelming opposition, as Bill Baldwin and others claimed, it should have been no problem to hit 51%.

It is over. Opponents had their chance to make their case and failed. The Heights wants to preserve its historic buildings and get rid of the block busting builders and their realtor friends (who had no problem advertising the historic districts as a benefit in property listings). Lastly, don't think that people are going to foregive and forget. We know who was funding the fight against our community. We will remember who you are when it is time to do an addition. We will remember when we sell our homes and buy another. We will remember when we renovate. The Heights is a small town in a big city. We have fought for years to protect our historic neighborhoods and have won. We will remember who was with us and who was against us.

Well its good to know that you plan on abusing your (most likely short lived) power like we were all worried about. YOU have not fought for years, you just got here. WE didn't fight for years.. we all just got along and enjoyed our neighborhood. You obviously don't care about the neighborhood nor your neighbors, or you would show us more respect. And when I say you, i don't mean preservationist, i mean you, S3mh.

Do you even live in a historic house?

Really, really, really bad taste. Two people may have died a pretty horrible death in that house. The owner was reported to have been home the night before the fire. Now is not the time to go there with the anit-preservation crap.

And, as is typical with the anti-preservation crowd, what you say is completely false because the house is not in a historic district. The true colors of the opposition come shining through.

Bad taste begets bad taste... why not just keep your mouth shut?

and in continuation of bad taste here is my contribution.

From this map here http://www.preservehouston.org/Historic%20Districts%20Pages/Houston%20Heights_East/pages/HoustonHeights_East_jpg.htm on the preservehouston website this house is in a historic district...

but niche... the evil walmart chupacabra will destroy us all. The Heights/Upper West End/Rice Military/Washington/1960/Cinco Ranch Walmart devolpment demands it.

Mixed Use Development will not only add density, but decrease traffic???? Yay Fuzzy Math.

For someone who slams ring wingers S3mh... you sure do a lot of Fear Mongering...

What I have done is talked to traffic engineers, read the City's design manual, talked to urban design/planning experts and generally educated myself about the issues, whether legal, economic or social. I have done more than that, but am not willing to share that on a message board inhabited largely by right wingers who believe that developer's poop doesn't smell. So, let's just say I have done plenty, and there is much more to come.

And don't give me the "why don't you buy the land" crap. We still live in a democracy. Land use affects everyone. Government has a legitimate interest in regulating the externalities of land use decisions. Houston doesn't have zoning, but traffic impact analysis, drainage requirments and parking lot ordinances are almost as powerful land use regulations.

On the other hand, you obviously don't have a clue when you throw out something like the quote above. Traffic volumes for different uses are well established in traffic engineer's manuals. Big box retail always has more car trips than office space because the office tenants come and go once a day, maybe twice if they go out for lunch. And unless you are talking about a high traffic medical office, office tenants have very little traffic in terms of vistors over the course of a day. And office traffic is largely done by 6 pm when the restaurant/bar traffic picks up. A big box has customers coming and going all day. Thus, their traffic counts are always significantly higher than similar mixed use developments. The main argument for mixed use instead of the Walmart development is lower traffic counts, and much higher tax value per sq ft because you are building up and building for the immediate area, not for a 3-4 mile radius of grocery and consumer goods shoppers.

Talk/Educated/not willing to share.....

Internet speak for you haven't done anything other than talk loud on message boards.

My quote from above is completely accurate, as Niche pointed out roads are built with max load in mind... I thought this was blatantly obvious but i forgot who I was addressing.

I also love your "we still live in a democracy" quote... obviously from the historic district issues you don't give a crap about democracy.

The fact that you single out right wingers is just laughable, you can't just throw out sensationalized terms when people oppose you. I actually have a mind of my own, so I don't adhere to any particular group's beliefs (I can't prove this, but I'm under the impression that there are a lot of people on here like me). Sometimes I agree with conservatives, sometimes with liberals, sometimes with neither, sometimes with both. If you honestly think that from the issues we discuss on this board you can generalize people's political beliefs, your even more out of touch with reality than I previously thought (which would be no small task)

Would like to get your feedback on land prices in the Rice Military / West End area. Is $30/sq.ft a reasonable price or is that high or on the low side.

Will be interesting to get feedback on this question now and 5-6 years later once all the development on Washington has taken place, and Yale is redone with the new Walmart and the fancy gas lamps on the repaved bridge across the Bayou!!!

sorry for not addressing the topic...

This seems pretty reasonable (not knowing any rurther details). I've been looking at lots around 10,000 sq ft and they seem to range from the $25-40 per sq. ft range. Of course the price can vary drastically depending on where on washington, whats on the lot, etc.

The point is that this is the last place where people should be doing suburban big box anchored strip malls. If you think it is a good thing to let development run wild and create Manhattan-esque traffic in a city with no subway system, then that is your problem. The rest of us would like to use our brains and see development that is appropriate for the area and that improves the area, instead of lining the pockets of one developer and giving Walmart symbolic competition with the nearby Target.

The development with the 360 bar is what should be on Washington. Mixed use with a multilevel parking garage in back that balances day time commercial with night time restaurants and bars is a good efficient use of space. The traffic impact is reasonable because the development is limited in the sq footage that is there for night time use.

A 152k sq ft Walmart with another 80-100k sq ft of strip mall space is not what needs to go into the West End. If you think that is what city life is, then you have probably only read about Manhattan in magazines.

For someone who sure is loud about what everyone else should do, what are YOU doing to help this situation. Why don't YOU get investors together and build what YOU think Washington businesses should look like. With all the different streets that run in parallel to washington, it will never be what your are trying to make it out to be. As stated before, the deveolpments that you speak of and want (like that of the 360 bar) will draw much more traffic than a big box retailer of similar size. Your argument for why they shouldn't be there (yet again) is simply a guise so you can slam big box retailers. You don't honestly care about the traffic, or you'd want NO development on Washington.

And quit saying things like "the rest of us" "we". You don't speak for everyone. Frankly we're tired of it (haha you see what i did there?)

Look at the plans for the Walmart development and the ORR development between Heights and Yale. There is your FM 1960. All strip malls with Walmart as a big box anchor. Where Walmart goes, other big boxes will follow. Add the new stretch of feeder along I-10, and big boxes will begin to spring up everytime an old industrial facility moves out (like the one on the NW corner of I-10 and Yale). A few developers have done a decent job of putting parking in back, widening sidewalks out front on Washington and putting office space above retail. But, Orr and Ainbinder's strip mall will throw the area firmly in the direction of FM 1960. Why should anyone else take a chance on a mixed use development when the major retail development in the area is pure FM 1960? Developers are sheep. If Ainbinder and Orr fill up their space, everyone else will look to do a strip mall. Land use economics is efficient for the developer. The developer gets the fast easy cash from a strip mall. Everyone else has to eat the externalities.

And you need to try to drive Washington Ave late on a Friday or Saturday night. The actual traffic count is the cause of congestion. 5-6 pm is also pretty crappy on Shep/Stude/Heights/Yale. No parking issues. Just lots of cars.

I would say one of the major causes of traffic moving slow on Washington on Friday/Saturday nights is all of the PEOPLE that are in the street, constantly crossing the street to get to/from restaurants/bars. That sounds just like 1960.... (you can see prime examples of this by eating at El Rey during this time)

How can someone say in one of their post that just because someone drives on yale it doesn't make t hem an expert, then in the same thread say you need to actually drive on Yale. This implies that S3mh considers their driving on Yale and observing traffic and etc. credible, but not others. Just another facet of your anti-walmart hypocrisy.

I'm still waiting on the answer to this questin, "Why is traffic on Yale a problem for YOU?" Yale (not to mention south of I-10) is easily avoidable for anyone who lives in the Heights. I know you can't possibly be concerned about (non-heights) through traffic... but it would be hilarious to see you use that as your argument.

According to the 8th edition whatever you call it traffic manual, a Walmart supercenter generates 10,000 car trips a day. This number has been controversial because it is based on the assumption that a 24 hour store will have fewer trips than a store with limited hours. Thus, a CNBC documentary about Walmart stated that the real number of car trips for a Walmart supercenter is 22,000. Both figures are well sourced and not made up. The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

And thanks for saying that it isn't in the Heights. So what? Really, so what? And just because it used to be a steel mill doesn't mean that any use for the site is compatible. The neighborhood has changed immensely since the site was industrial. The immediately surrounding neighborhood is seeing a lot of new residential construction in an area that was a no-go zone just a few years ago. Put in a giant Walmart and you kill off a neighborhood that is in the midst of a revival. Put in a responsible develoment (mixed use/smaller grocer), and you compliment the neighborhood and spur further investment. It is a simple choice, stuff a suburban Walmart supercenter and watch all the dollars get sucked out to Arkansas or develop something that will be a benefit to the neighborhood.

Yes, those are the ONLY two options that are possible. (give me a break)

What are the traffic counts for walmart supercenters that do not have tire/auto departments or gas stations?

Why does an increase in traffic really matter to you anyway, as I've said before, this is an easily avoidable street to the residents in the heights... one could argue that this will decrease the amount of rush hour traffic on yale North of I-10 because it will no longer be a quick cuthrough (coming from anywhere south of washington or heading to south of washington) to bypass I-10/610 traffic.

What evidence? Do you have the traffic counts? Have you done the traffic impact analysis? Does the drainage plan meet the standards of the city's design manual? Is there no diversion of floodwaters that will impact surrounding residents? Are you just going to trust the City's bureacracy to protect the citizens from an incompatible development? Or would it be better to have someone who really has the community's interest at heart analyzing these issues with qualified professionals to make sure the City bureacracy doesn't rubber stamp a Walmart because the City is afraid of developers after getting sued by the Ashby developers and has too many connections with the developer and Walmart to be trusted? If you don't believe me, go around town and look at where all the Walmart's are sited. You do not need to be a traffic engineer to see that putting a supercenter in the Heights with a street like Yale as the only thoroughfare access is completely unprecedented in Houston. Most Walmart supercenters are sited on two thoroughfares or directly off of a feeder road, not on a single road (Yale) that may end up with 5 traffic signals in just over a half mile and a grade separation just a few hundred feet from the main entrance.

So, no. I am not promoting Don Quixote-ism. Houston does not have zoning, but does have standards. Those opposing this development have every right and an important duty to see that these standards are properly applied. If the traffic problems can't be mitigated, they can't get permits. If they drainage plan does not meet the design manual's standards, they can't get permits. The idea that you can do whatever you want on your land without zoning is just flatly false. If you want to trust the City with how this will all turn out, that is your problem. Don't go around telling people that everything is going to be fine just because you think it is and trust the City.

What evidence? Do you have the traffic counts? Have you done the traffic impact analysis? Does the drainage plan not meet the standards of the city's design manual? Is there no diversion of floodwaters that will impact surrounding residents?

Seriously... just because you don't like walmart, you don't get to make things up. Incompatitble development, are you kidding me? If you live in the Heights, and hate walmart, I don't see why you would EVER even come in contact with this section of Yale. It is ENTIRELY avoidable. But keep up the good fight, you don't have a mayor to strong arm this one.

Yeah, i don't understand why they said Studewood when it was much closer to Houston Ave. Maybe because its Stude Park?

Try looking at a map or even getting in your car and going over to the site. There are residential neighborhoods to the north, south and west of the planned supercenter. The live in houses and townhouses. Many have their life savings invested. They do not live in an old steel mill.

So it isn't ok for Walmart to impact peoples lives, but it is ok for the Historic Ordinance too.

BTW, i looked at a map and saw that this was not in a neighborhood. Do you EVER actually do your own research, or do you just spit out what they tell you?

sidenote: living in an old steel mill could be sweet.

It was actually Pecore, near Watson, but close enough. That isolated incident is the only one I have heard about in the last several months, too.

Yup. I believe the 900 block. They also robbed the homeowners of the house, who were about to go on a trip (labor day weekend). This was a very bizarre instance. Normally Pecore is pretty quiet other than tow trucks and cop cars flying down it going to/from 45. I've only heard a few car break ins, and someone stole my neighbors poinsettas, in the little over a year that I've lived on Pecore (and i live on the rough side closer to Main)

Bull. Did you have to through out your tenants? Are you unable to use the property as a residence? Grow up. We live in a complex society with many interrelated rights and responsibilities. We do not live in the wild west. Our community through their elected representatives have decided that the value of preserving historic properties outweighs the ultra-conservative right to do whatever you want, regardless of whether you crap on your neighbor or the community in the process. Yes, government bureaucracies are not fun and easy. But they are that way because there are piles of people out there who think they are better than everyone else and cannot be expected to follow the law. The funny thing is that I know people who live under historic preservation laws in Boston, and they thought this ordinance was a complete joke because it was so incredibly weak. They couldn't believe we were allowed to add a two story addition to a single story bungalow and only had to sumbit very basic documentation for approval and did not have to hire experts to certify the work before submitting for approval.

If you are looking for stupid idiots, look at the people who knock down bungalows and replace them with giant monsters, or the people who do idiotic crappy diy rennovations on bungalows, leaving them looking like a bad version of a KB home from the burbs. They are the ones that made this necessary.

Property rights are subject to reasonable regulation. Historic preservation ordinances have been upheld around the nation (and in Texas) against takings claims. It is only the reasonable investment backed expectations that are a protected property right, not your wildest dreams.

You are now in a historic district. If you don't like it, sell. We won't miss you at all.

This is quite possibly the most rediculous post I've ever seen on HAIF. Congrats.

I don't even know where to start.

The fact that you support the ordinance so completely, knowing that it downright infuriates your neighbors is enough for me to know that YOU are bad for the neighborhood.

The ordinance should be thrown out.

And before you start your rant about bulldozing bungalows and conservatives, know that althought not bleeding heart, i'm definitely left of center. I live in a 1925 bungalow in Woodland Heights but outside of the proposed Historic District. My house is very much the same as the original house (although apparently it was once converted to a duplex during WWII then back to a single family home in the 70s). Guess what... I'm NOT going to bulldoze it. Guess what else... I bought the house at pretty much lot value, after it had sat on the market for 9 months. Seems like a prime candidate to doze and rebuild... guess that means that I saved a bungalow... without the ordinance. Go me.

what does walmart have to do with people cutting through on yale??? They were building those exit ramps anyway. Unless the Evil walmart Chupacabra was behind the contruction of the exits in the first place...

I already make it to this section of White Oak at least once a week... between this and Christian's coming in... I might as well set up a tent or something there. Can't wait.

om nom nom nom.... burgers. Can't wait for this to open

And you think the Yale location will be any better?

YES.

Seriously??? All of this is ONE person, not people, complaining. EVERYONE I have talked with in the neighborhood is excited and ready for Hubcap to open, they are not trying to stand in the way at all. "@Hubcap_Grill Ricky Craig" needs to get over it and open already! All of this childish drama is beginning to turn-off those of us who are excited about a new, cool place to eat and hang out.

I'd consider it a legitimate concern in the Heights, where the vocal minority gets their way.

You are in luck. It just opened on I-45 and Crosstimbers. Go get your low prices.

yeah, that location will be fun to drive to around 5-6pm.

i had the taco-mexi and it was good. Wife had the Rustic, and it was also good. They are definitely still working out the kinks, but it was still a good dining experience. It did sit a bit heavy on the belly(i ate the whole thing) I'll definitely be going back soon.