Gooch

Just curious...do people favoring this project do so out of spite for the NIMBYs, or do you genuinely think it's ideal to errect high-rises in the middle of low-density neighborhoods consisting primarily of two-story homes and businesses? On one hand, maybe this is our best hope for residential densification in this city, since it's clearly not happening in the CBD. On the other hand, maybe such buildings will in fact degrade the surrounding neighborhood and diminish the desirability, as these are car-dependent developments that aren't going to make neighborhoods more walkable and livable for existing residents, at least with the revised plans. I have similar mixed feelings about 1111 Studewood.

I think much of it is spite, but that's just speculation and stereotyping from comments on here.

Honestly, I don't get the favor of this project in the name of "density" and "walkability". Things like "density" and "walkability" only occur when high capacity facilities are built within walking distance from other high capacity facilities. Building an island of "density"... a single building... in the middle of a residential neighborhood does nothing for "density" nor "walkability" because one still has to drive through the neighborhood to reach other neighborhood-surrounded islands of single building "density".

I suppose someday... eventually... in like many, many years all of the islands will infill and the utopic ideal of "density" and "walkability" will be achieved. But it would occur much, much faster if the high capacity facilities were built closer together, within walking distance from each other. If only... only... there were some mechanism to encourage that.

Smart of Weingarten. SInce it looks like every other strip mall in this city, who would complain when they go to demo it in a couple of years? I mean... it's just another strip mall, right?

Northbound Waugh sees a lot of traffic volume turning left onto Washington. The left hand turning lane backs up almost to Feagan during peaks. I've always assumed this was traffic seeking I-10W while avoiding Shepard between Allen Pkwy and I-10. It's conceivable that some portion of that traffic will continue NB on Heights to I-10W once there is an on ramp available there.

My other quesion is how will traffic flow from eastbound Washington to this development? Heights is no left turn. Left turns at Yale are premissible. There is no left turn arrow and a ton of oncoming west bound traffic in the evenings (peak time for weekday shoppers). Yale is only one lane northbound at that point. With the close proximity of the Center St. red-light... I can easily see this backing onto Washington.

No historical knowlege for this... but I've always suspected that the configuration of Yale/Heights/Waugh/Washington traffic controls and lack of on-ramps was intended to keep traffic out of the Heights. Northbound Waugh has right and left turning lanes to Washington encouraging turns off of Heights. It's difficult to go from eastbound Washington into the Heights, you can only do it on one-laned Yale no protected arrow and a lot of oncoming flow.

Oh, totally not related, but just an alert for folks in the hood... Heights is down to one lane at I-10E/W because of the construction. It was backed up all the way to Washington yesterday evening.

Edit: And, typical of Heights snobbery, you neg a post where I advise your ilk to do something to help the world rather than disguise your Walmart hate as something noble. Go figure. You're a stereotype now.

No! I negged your post because you wrote this:

You have no moral purpose, and you'll be first in line when the red, white and blues doors on Yale open for the first time. You're a hypocrite, and a hypocrite of the worst kind. You've rallied around a cause that you can't possibly actually feel a great conviction about unless you're a soulless snob, and it helps no one but yourself, which again, makes you a snob.

...which is nothing more than a cheap personal attack. If I taking offense to that makes me a snob.... than SO BE IT.

Then again, Montrose isn't as well know for its snobs as is the Heights. The Heights is full of people from the Woodlands who got tired of the long commute into town. There is little difference these days. It's just a bunch of snobbery snobnose snobs.

No bigotry there...

That wasnt my point. The point revolved around my opinioin that from a property value/tax basis standpoint, "new" construction has added value to the Heights bungalows, not to mention the city tax coffers.

There are those predicting wholesale market value collapse if this passes. To see if that concept has validity, we must consider what's driving the demand. You post implied that new construction is driving the demand for Heights bungalows. That without large out-of-character construction, prices would not be assending. Not sure I buy into that. Looking around... there are swaths with largely intact houses, as well as historic districts that seem to have plenty of demand sans McVics. Perhaps the price inflation isn't as rapid, but seemingly certainly still healthy, and above local and nationwide expectations. I just don't buy into the disaster mentality some do. Nor do I believe that new construction is the sole (or even primary) driver of demand in the neighborhood.

Thats a question that a realtor is more likely to answer better than I with statistics.

I don't have any stats either. But I've never seen "Next to a McVic" or "New construction next door!" or listed as a feature of a bungalow advertisement on HAR by said realtors. I'd suspect if that was driving the sales of bungalows, it would be touted up more often.

The land that the 90 year old houses are sitting on is worth what it is today in part because of the re-development activity that has occured in the last 10 years. Not all of it "bad" as some would argue. I can recall land now selling for $250k that was once selling for $75k with a house on it ten years ago. You wouldnt be excited if I offered you $75k for your bungalow now would you?

So your assertion that is that the demand for 90 year old bungalows, is driven by buyers that actively seeking out houses with adjacent McMansions? And that bungalow buyers would be less likely to purchase a home if the adjacent structure were a restored bungalow?

Maybe this is why Proctor Plaza and Norhill bungalow prices are so low and the neighborhood such a ghetto.

I think the time and location were a nasty trick by the HAHC and that it gave the HDers a big advantage. The GRB at 6:30 on an Astro's game night? Really? It took me 30 minutes and $10 to enjoy my right to attend a public meeting (and my car was broken into, thank you).

So it wasn't the same for everyone? Did the HAHC give away free parking and police escort to the supporters to avoid the parking and traffic? WOW!

NIMBY's want to avoid -- providing a place for poor people to congregate...

Can you provide some evidence of that?

My only crime prediction (and it's not necessarily a crime) is that the panhandlers at all of those newly red-lighted intersections will be epic.

very often in this thread I read someone saying crime will be increased with walmart, and that the strain on the existing police force will be increased.

Recognizing that any large-scale development will increase crime does not equal belittling the customers that shop there. The customers are the prey. Most criminals that burglarize autos or robbing customer don't stop off to pick up the week's groceries on the way in and out of the parking lot.

The difference between this location and the other developments is proximity to residences. Criminals often work on ease-of-opportunity. There is no inventory of concentrated housing directly surrounding Target's borders (other than the Sawyer Lofts, but apartments are good burglary targets). Apples/oranges. I agree, though, that increase in crime isn't the most valid reason for opposition. The majority of crimes committed in/around a Walmart will be shoplifting and employee theft. Neither of which have a great impact on the surrounding neighbors.

Or you get a real estate panic when a bunch of stock is dumped on the market at the same time, inevitably driving down total values of all homes in the area.

Anything is possible. Are there any examples of that in the other historic district in Houston, or other cities?

Say what you want, but your vision of the future has no basis in reality. There are already a number of other fringe communities surrounding the city core with as equally viable housing stock as the Heights, and they're less expensive and have fewer restrictions.

May be the best argument for the ordinance in this thread. If someone in the Heights doesn't want to deal with the restrictions, they can reap their profits and move. Reducing their mortgage and increasing their equity in the process...

What exactly is so bad about Walmart's clientele? It seems like folks are constantly belittling Walmart shoppers as some kind of underclass that will wreak havoc on the community (with poor fashion sense I presume).

There isn't anything wrong with Walmart shoppers. I've read back through some of this thread, and I don't see where the shoppers were belittled by anyone. I did see lots of straw man accusations that opposition was based on that. Maybe I missed it?

I think the real issue is the quantity of shoppers...

Yale and Heights will be upgraded to handle the needs of the area, yet you seem to be complaining about that. There is nothing the least bit good or attractive about this 3 block stretch of road, yet it seems that there are people who seem to be suggesting that the crappy pavement is charming too. New concrete with new timed lights is a good thing. Along with those new streets and timed lights will come new sidewalks and landscaping, perhaps suggested by area residents (if they can stop the fear and loathing of Walmart for a few moments). Maybe Heights residents view potholed streets and broken sidewalks as some sort of urban adventure or something. Maybe they see ratty infrastructure as charming and historic. All I know is that the most vocal ones do not seem to even know what it is they are trying to save or why. I call that obstructionism, not preservation of character.

It's disingenuous to suggest that opponents are fond of potholes. Streets can be repaired and retain their character. To suggest otherwise is...

Indeed, there are those that oppose upgrading Heights and Yale. Not because of some perverse affection for potholes but because of the addtional traffic to the neighborhood. To many the relative lack of traffic in the area adds to the quality-of-life. While that isn't a measurable metric, it is important to many in the neighborhood, and the valuation of their property.

Taking this to the illogical end (slippery slope!) .. Would it be reasonable to 6-lane Heights if Walmart paid for it?

Newly created - means I lost rights, I lost value. The restrictions will reduce the value of the property as people like me (the silent majority) no longer want to move there. Builders will be much less interested in building there because of the probable delays, increased costs, and increased construction time to get materials and approvals. Its a negative for every single person except that small vocal minority of people who want everything to be the way it was in 1920. Unfortunately the small minority is just louder. I am free to move, but I am not leaving till I get paid for the lost value in my home because of the restrictions.

No one is gaurenteed a profit on their property. Nor have you incurred a loss (nor damages) until you sell it. Any fixed asset investment includes some degree of risk perceived and unperceived. Especially one as illiquid and subject to irrational pricing as real estate. There was always a risk pesent that the rules could be changed thus affecting your value.

I'll assume that you factored in the incurrent risk of unrestricted property in your purchase. Unrestricted property includes specific risk of devaluation by what get built next to it. Construction of apartments, commercial businesses, crack houses, etc. could all devalue your property. The ordinance could potentially reduce some of those risks. You may not consider that a significant benefit, but there are those that would disagree with your analysis.

Your assumption that protected property equates to lower value and smaller potential buyer pool may or may not have merit. The statistics could be bent each way. Personally, I wouldn't consider owning property in an unrestricted area, because of the risk of devaluing by what gets built on adjacent parcels. So... your property would gain atleast one potential buyer .

Finally, let's assume that this measure would cause economically tragic and wide ranging devaluation of property values in the area. How hard would it be to assemble a repeal of the ordinances?

Unrestricted property is worth more money, that is why it is sought out.

I came from a neighborhood with deed restrictions...very harsh deed restrictions. I hated it. I intentionally moved where I did because there were no deed restrictions. I bought where I bought for a reason. Now your trying to change the rules. There was never any expectation by anyone of anything when I bought. It is all new and its wrong.

May I humbly (and gently as possible) suggest that your choice of a property in the core of the city, in the oldest and most intact neighborhood in Houston, with adjacent historic districts, and an active preservation association, wasn't the wisest choice? If unencumbered property was your goal, perhaps a rural setting would have been more appropriate?

You didn't attend White Linen Night, I gather. The WASPs were handing out anti-Wal-Mart yard signs to other WASPs...in between browsing Wind-Water Gallery, Harold's, Urban Soles, and checking out the BMWs and Minis on offer by Momentum.

I'll concede a point, if only for the sake of reasonableness. There aren't many hipsters in the Heights. You're right. It's mostly just very WASPy. They would prefer to think of themselves as hipsters, but aren't fooling anybody. The ones wearing the anti-SJL stickers came off particularly as Woodlanders.

I'm not sure how your blatent bigotry against WASPs is any different than their supposed bigotry against Walmart shoppers.

Gooch, this is where I disagree with you. The owners who bought bungalows bought knowing full well they owned in an area without the rules. Why can't the city grandfather an exemption for current owners? That seems to me the only fair compromise.

I agree that ALL owners should factor in the risk of buying into a wild-west-no-hold-barred area. Owners that like it as it is have the risk of the character changing. AND Owners have the risk that some type of rule will be imposed in the future. Both are possible, and likely. One simply cannot anticipate the regulatory climate to be static. It's as poor of an assuption as assuming the character of a neighborhood is static. Given that there almost zero rules, that land use regulation is the norm rather than the exception, and governments ever forward regulatory creep, it should have been obvious that rules would be added at some point.

Some in the Heights, the first residential suburb in the city, with a large stock of original houses, and an active historical preservation group, are acting surprised that the area is being made into a historic district. They shouldn't should be.

That may require you to move, b/c lots are now at least $200,000 for a 66x132

True enough. And if one doesn't want to live in a newly created historic district they are free to move to have the benefit of unrestricted property use. See how that works? 

  

What egregious things are we talking about??  I really do want to know what egregious things you object to

I'm not about to start criticising specific homes. If you can't think of a single home in the Heights that doesn't fit the scale, heightline, and setback of it's neighbors... I can't help you understand why some form of restriction is needed. Sorrry.

Most people just want to know what they are buying, and then find something they are happy with, and be left alone. They dont expect the rules to change half way through the game

what about those that bought a house  because it as in a neighborhood of bungalows. Thier rules are getting changed, too. 

The builders who are putting up attractive new homes where blight used to stand are doing a great service to the neighborhood. They are allowing families who need/want more than 2 or 3 bedrooms and 1 bath to come into the neighborhood. They bring with them their money. They increase the value of your property,

IF you own one of the new builds. Existing bungalows get reduced to teardown value, example: Rice Military.

they increase the tax base which benefits everyone,

Not the person paying the taxes!

Also, there is no chance of the Heights turning into a Bellaire - Almost all the builders who are building new homes in the area are at least trying to go with a Victorian/New Orleans style....

No chance? Not even a little bit? The neighborhood is depending on nothing more than developer's sense of good will to build something asthetically suitable. Counting on developer's goodwill is... umm... well... a brave exercise in trust. How can we trust the developer's any more than HAHC.

nobody, or at least very few are trying to throw up a bunch of spanish style homes with orange roofs, or the stucco homes that are throughout Bellaire. There is no chance at all that the Heights will ever look like Bellaire.

What (other than builders good will and sense of style) prevents that from happening? Everyone seems to think HAHC is trying to prevent The Heights from becoming another Bellaire. I think the risk is becoming another Rice Military.

While this ordinance gives the HAHC way too much arbritrary power; the current situtation puts too much power into developers hands. Largely the ordinance is backlash to some of the egregious things we've all observed in the neighborhood. There's got to be some middle ground.

but an after the fact imposition of a restriction is just wrong.

Yes and no. Expecting to live in the core of the 4th largest city in the US, while it's undergoing a drastic population expansion with its attendent densification, while expecting absolutely zero land-use regulation is a bit optimistic. While encouraging those that own historic properties to accept change in the form of new intrusive structures... you are conviently leaving out yourself. Change is indeed hard in whatever form it takes.

I would bet my bottom dollar that if this Walmart was going to be built where they tore down warehouses on Studewood, back by Arne's, there would be a lot less resistance.

I agree. Would have zero problem with Walmart in that location.

Just a few thoughts:

1)Case-Schiller doesn't even cover Houston

Correct. And when I wrote of rising inventories, that would be nationally. However...

For Houston, the latest inventory numbers are from June, 2009. Total inventory: 45,989. DOWN 14.5% from June 2008. Not sure where you came up with increasing inventories. [...] Sales of single-family homes for the greater Houston area continued to improve in June, with the highest volume recorded since August 2008 and the highest median price in history.

I dont' know the source of your stats. But typically, single-family homes does not include condos. While the "latest real estate summary" may paint a rosy picture; it paints a rosy picture only of SFRs. It is not directly indicative of the condo market. The condo market could be completely tanked and not show up in the SFR stats pointed to. Not saying the market is tanked (or not). Just that could be without the fanfare of grim market indicators. I didn't intend to imply anything deeper than that, sorry.

As a consequence, people are gravitating to houses, townhomes, or apartments, which are easily substituted for a condominium.

TheNiche is probably already aware but... it's worth remembering that housing statistics like months of inventory, housing starts, existing home sales, Case-Shiller indicies, etc. do not include condominiums. Even without them, inventories are still increasing. If condominiums were included the real estate picture would be that much more grim. Best of luck to the 2727 developers. They are going to need it.

The Galleria area is not only famous it's shopping but also its gridlocked traffic. It's not unreasonable for people to react negatively to the (preceived) impending traffic situation.

its funny how we all respond on here (for the most part wanting it) and how they respond on the Chron (not wanting it). Its hard for the regular Houstonian to understand the value of this type of development.

I think a lot of folks on here are developers, afficionados of architecture, construction folks, etc. Audience is important.

I once heard the president of a large engineering firm say he'd never put an engineer in charge of bidding turn-key jobs. His reasoning was that engineers want to build things. Because of that, they are sometimes blinded by that desire and it influences how they evaluate the economics and viability of the project. I think developers do that too. Like engineers they want to build things that make their fellow developer friends and associates go "ohh, you worked on that!?" or "ohh, look how neat that is". It's only natural.

At the end of the day, no matter how cool it is... if the market demand isn't there it won't end well. And the mass market a project this size requires isn't fellow developers. That mass-market includes most a LOT of those Chron readers.

They had some some protesters out yesterday. KTRK (Ch.13) covered it. Heres a link http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=...&id=6734092. As noted above by tmariar it is indeed the Granberry property that's endangered.