samagon

Austin is all of that but I think he would have referenced the Hipster music too.

Got an actual response from Rep. Alvarado regarding the HD stuff... Very thoughtful response, wish there were others on the council like her.

I don't know that this can be answered without a doubt either way. In a city the size of Houston there's a host of variables at play.

A. whether it is walmart or another retailer DOESN'T MATTER. You know, the city cannot hold Walmart to different standards than other retail developments in the city, as that's certainly illegal. So it would be best if you don't try to hold Walmart to a different standard than what the city can either. Everyone's equal, but Walmart is less equal, amirite? B. what's interesting is that I specifically left other Walmart locations out of the mix... Check Walmart on Westheimer/Kirkwood, Walmart on 288/Broadway Both of these have adjacent streets that feed the Walmart parking lot, and after the Walmart they trim down in size. additionally.... I'm not usually one to give people advice in the middle of a competition, be that competition a sport, video game, or online debate, but.... It's always good to check whether or not what you are about to say is a factual statement or not. All it does when you make a statement such as the one quoted, is show that you don't do any kind of research before saying anything which you present as fact. That does nothing to embolden people to your cause, and certainly if you were to take such a statement to the CoH as reason for a retail development to not be placed on the site, it wouldn't do much for your cause either.

I can think of countless retail developments that directly border residential developments, and guess what, they've all got the same thing, the street is bigger by the retail, but then goes back down to a residential street in the residential area. This is done to make people feel less inclined to drive through residential areas, and direct people to go on the streets they are wanted on. Hell, in some cases, the city has blocked off certain streets from accessing certain roads to keep people from using residential streets as through streets. To see some examples of what you fear in action, you only need to head over towards San Filipe and Sage. South of SF, Sage is 2 lanes in each direction, north of SF, Sage is 1 lane in each direction. People going northerly towards Memorial, or Woodway can and do travel down Sage, but it's much better if you use SF and go to chimney rock, or the loop. Go over to W. Gray and Shepherd and you can see W. Gray turn into Inwood, which even though Inwood is a residential street, people use it as a through street all the time to get over to Kirby. and Inwood is a 1 lane in each direction kind of street, where W.Gray is a 2 lanes in each direction, with a suicide down the middle! Go over to Memorial City Mall, Barryknoll across Gessner, 4 lane, drops to 2 lane residential that people use all the time. Hit up Bunker Hill, north of Barryknoll it is 4 lane, south it drops to 2 lane with a suicide in the middle. Hell, you don't even have to leave the Heights for this next one! Travel east down 11th street from Heights, pass by all of the shops and retail shops, and instead of using Studewood to get over to I-10 (of which there is no entrance to I-10 east from Studewood/Studemont) keep going, it turns into a street called Pecore, where the street drops from 2 lanes in each direction to 1 lane in each direction, and is absolutely a residential street! I could go on for DAYS proving that what you are showing is being done all over this city already and is completely a normal practice that is not refutable or in any way a burden to the surrounding neighbors that live on those streets, but my lunch hour is over, and this Friday sure does feel like a Monday

That isn't how I read it, you've got 30 days from when the ordinance goes into effect to generate 10%, then they will send out mailers and 51% have to want it repealed. It doesn't seem to have any reference for how long they will wait for the postcards to be returned before they consider the tally final? I do like the change to 67% to introduce new HDs, and it looks like you guys that are affected right now from the ordinance being changed are given some fair due process to change your HD status, and an appeal process if the historic committee doesn't give you a CoA, which they pretty much had to do, according to the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution. It isn't perfect, by a long shot, but it certainly makes it more legal, from a constitutional standpoint. Thankfully for me, I don't currently live in a HD, and if did vote, I'm hopeful that since I live on the edge of the neighborhood that my property would be ones they draw around, should they decide to re-draw the district based on votes, to try and reach that 67%. Hopefully for you guys that are currently in one of these districts, you can either get it changed now (to be removed from HD status), or in the future the ordinance will be updated again to be less draconian.

Excuse me for asking a silly question... What does it matter what the house will be worth? When you bought your house, presumably, you bought the land that it sits on as well, right? So it is a package deal. If you are worried about value, you have to include the price of the lot with the price of the sticks that are situated on that lot. so if the land was worth 70k and the house was worth 140k when you bought it, but now the house is worth 70k and the land is worth 200k, what does it matter? if the numbers add up to more than the value you bought the combination of house and land at, you've made a wise investment. if it hasn't well, that is part of investing, go ask people that invested in the stock market, IT IS A RISK. Am I seeing this wrong? There are people who buy old houses for the very specific reason of not having their neighbor try and thrust their belief system upon them, before you say it, that should never be a risk one has to take. Lets play a game here, what if the government said screw the church and state thing, we're going Muslim. Guess what guys, if you want to not be fined, you're gonna have to start praying to the east. That's illegal you say? Not any more, 10% of the people over there voted for it, we approved it, and now you gotta do it, sorry, the 10% that voted for it mentioned that when you were not praying to the east it was invading their rights. That's a stretch, but it is govt invading rights that you and I each have protected based on the desires of a few to have conformity in their surroundings so that they feel better. I also saw someone reference what happened to the old homes that were in Rice Military, yeah, it's townhouse central today, but had you gotten in your car and driven around out there before all those townhouses were there, and the old houses were still up? Yeah, they were being lived in, and yeah, the original structures still stood, but the best thing that could have happened did happen, they put those things out of their misery. Some houses just aren't houses that individuals want to invest in. not because they aren't as big as their neighbors house, but because they are rotten to the core from lack of maintenance and care. Sure there are a few people who knock down a perfectly well maintained home in favor of something larger and styled to a taste they enjoy, but the majority are buying a house to live in. No matter the size of the house compared to the neighbors house, if it is livable, someone probably wants it, and not just to tear down, but to enjoy without all the restrictions they face out in suburbanlandia where every house has a perfectly manicured lawn, and a coordinating paint scheme that follows some pattern set in place by some designer in a cubical in some office building in Atlanta. People bought in the Heights cause if they want to paint their front door lime green, they can, or maybe some bright yellow trim, or heavens forbid, maybe they want to paint each slat of wood on their house a different color! Sometimes I wish I had wood rather than brick exterior... oh well, I digress. 'Scuse me for another silly question, but did the contract when you bought the house guarantee you a certain number of days with sun shining in your backyard? Did they not tell you that yeah, your neighbor may build a house that will shade your backyard. Would it still be an invasion of your rights if your neighbor planted a tall pecan tree that cast a shade on your backyard? What if the owner of the pecan tree built a treehouse for his kids, and it had direct line of sight into your backyard? Build a bigger fence. There is absolutely no protection afforded to anyone in this country, real or implied for getting a specific amount of sun in their backyard, it is not an inalienable right. Property rights however, are protected. The only preservation I will agree to is the preservation of individuals rights as homeowners and landowners to do with their own property that with which they had the option to do when they bought the house/land. Cause you know what, while I don't live in the Heights, that is the Heights I know. It's also the neighborhood I live in that I know, and my home is 80 years old. Point of fact, I moved in to this area with the express interest in the lack of any restrictions. I may wake up one morning and decide I want to paint each brick on the exterior of my home a different color, or I want to put an old toilet in my front yard as a planter/bird bath. I want to replace the roof with something that is more energy efficient, I want to put solar cells on my roof. I want to take out the lamppost in my front yard and replace it with a lamppost I design out of old car parts (okay, maybe not that, I don't know how to weld), I want to have the option to raise the foundation on my house so it looks like a beach house on Galveston. Right now, assuming I get permits from the city for the stilt thing, I can do any of that and not have to wait for approval from some committee that wasn't even elected. I hope that at some point the slum apartments 2 streets over are knocked down in favor of a 5plex of townhouses, or the duplex with a caved in roof on the corner gets demo'd in favor of a mcmansion. I can't wait. I love the dynamic of an area that changes and isn't the same from day to day. I love people being able to do what they want with what they own. Why am I here in the Heights forum responding to and reading this? Cause right now this ordinance that was created specifically for the heights and another few areas is being changed drastically so that it could reach as far as my house with little support from my neighbors, and I don't like that. I've contacted as many people as I can to garner support for the preservation of individual property rights, I've petitioned the people that represent me, and I plan on asking for the help of developers, architects and anyone else who has money directly tied in housing to help the cause as well. They've got as much as stake here as you and I, in that they put food on their table by doing what they do, and while you may not think it is pretty, it is well within their rights to do what they do, and no matter how you try to play it, they are not invading upon your rights when they do it. hmmm, You've not looked at HAR listings in the east end too often. Almost every one says something like: "lots of new developments in the area", or "New townhouses right across the street!", or some other such. I haven't trolled HAR in the Heights, but I'd suspect that all the HAR listing needs to say is "House is located in the Heights" and people feel all warm and fuzzy, but I'd still imagine that they will say something to the effect referencing lots of positive activity in the area, as this does denote that the area is on its way up. Decided to do some trolling to see if there was any mention of anything, didn't find anything, but I did find this gem. It's a fixer upper right? Not allowed to demo that baby, lots of historic value there. http://search.har.co...HAR31662746.htm probably a very extreme example, and I admit I just glanced through, didn't stop at the townhouses, or mcvics, or even a lot of nicely renovated bungalos, that just caught my eye, so please don't shoot me for only referencing one place... but rolling over the pictures, there are 6 pictures total, 2 of the house, 3 of new constructions on the street, and one of the street itself. While the listing doesn't say in the description that there are new constructions, half of the pictures show that, and describe it, again, extreme example...

I just recently decided to read this, as I am not too concerned with the Heights Historic Districts, I didn't pay it much mind, but I got bored at work last Friday and decided to dig in. I've read through this post in its entirety, and well, after reading I think this post needs to be moved to an area that will get more observers, and possibly contributors with valid thoughts. As has been referenced in this thread, this concerns all people who live in Houston in areas that are over 50 years old, and indeed other areas have already been targeted, my neighborhood has not been targeted, but as my house and most of those in my neighborhood are over 80 years old, it's very likely that we will at some point be mounted in the crosshairs. Anyway, please move this to a more appropriate area that will be by more potentially affected Houstonians. edit, and did my part as a concerned property owner and contacted the city council.

I personally find that development a treat for parking inside the loop. but then, most big sites like that have good parking. even when hurricane ike blew through and the bookstore was one of the only places with power to charge cell phones and stuff, the store was packed and finding an open plug for my charger was harder than finding an open parking spot.

Guess it is easy to read things differently depending on whether you want a walmart close to your house or not. I read that the city wanted to ensure that things were done correctly so that when the inevitable few people who are against walmart wouldn't have much to argue against. It should be rather obvious to you that the city is not a fan of representing the general community, or they would not be pushing as hard for the historic districts as they are. I can't remember ever having a city government that hasn't been ruled by special interests, and not the community. It just so happens, that in this case, they city has been wise in their actions, but you disagree, so oh well? I also deleted your second paragraph as I didn't see anything to show that it was indeed the case, so it's kind of pointless to even write it, and it would be even more pointless to respond to it. I have no problem parking at that location. how do you feel about other developments they've developed? are you saying that everything this developer has made has small parking spaces? or are you just using one example that fits your fears and ignoring everything else that the developer has done? The only thing I can say about the development on kirby and w. alabama is that I was disappointed when the pub that was on that corner closed to make room for the bank. they had some damn good food and a great atmosphere. but that's life, some things happen that I don't like, hell, there were a fair number of people that didn't like it. ultimately though, someone owns that property, and assuming they meet the rules and regulations set in place by the city, there is nothing I can do about it, cause they own it, and no matter how unhappy I am, or how much I whine, it ain't gonna change.

Very interesting indeed. It shows that the City was very proactive concerning issues that people used as their scapegoats for why they didn't want the Walmart. And the article itself makes it hard to tell, but it seems that Ms. Reed was more unhappy that the city knew the development was going to be a Walmart in June, than the fact that there were plans for a development at all. Maybe I misread it. Is there some kind of controversy that those emails bring to light?

they were talking about it on the radio last night, and I found this article... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/7236704.html best thing about it is the Astros are footing the bill.

790, they have a soccer talk show at 7pm. They said that on Monday, I think.

heard on the radio that construction is likely to begin in dec. along with a groundbreaking ceremony/party.

I may not be remembering rightly, but isn't the land being turned over to the dynamo this month? Should start seeing some work happening maybe soon?

it used to be very common in NYC (well, a friend told me this, so I'm going on his word) for people to put half empty softdrink cans, or cups on the hoods of cars that would pull into the crosswalk. In my car, I got tired of being worried about people being able to stop behind me, so I usually start stopping for a red light well ahead of where I could, it also saves my brakes. if people behind me don't like that I am stopping for a red light a couple hundred feet before where they would start slowing, they either go around me, or just sit behind me being pissed that I didn't wait until the last possible second to stop. doesn't do much to help if I am already stopped and someone waits till the last second to do their stopping, or if I have to slam my brakes after a light changes to yellow. right of way, and who should have priority is only as good as the other people on the street. that doesn't abdicate the person who didn't yield the appropriate right of way from being at fault in an altercation, but it does make good sense for people to assume everyone else on the street is an aloof idiot to be as alert as possible and give up some right of way to ensure their safety. keep in mind also that erratic behavior attracts attention, and people will be more likely to give you a wide berth. So as a pedestrian, flailing your arms about madly, and swerving as you walk may look silly, but it may also save your life because the drivers will steer well clear of your path

oh no doubt, peds that do not cross at crosswalks, do not wait to walk until the lights are in their favor, they should be 'at fault' for their own stupidity. the same goes for cyclists, or other non-motorized vehicles using the roads. I don't proclaim to be innocent, I'll walk across a street at random points, and I'll walk when the sign says don't walk, but I have enough sense of self preservation to wait for cars to pass, and to look before I even think about entering the street. The same goes for when I am on my bicycle. even if I have the green light, I still look, and I even do it in my car, cause I enjoy living. even still, when I drive I try to remember that I am in a 1.5 ton object traveling at speeds that physics dictate isn't going to lose momentum if I hit a ped or a cyclist, and I do keep an eye out for potential stupidity, cause whether it's my fault or not, I don't want to hit a ped or anyone else. and besides, I enjoy honking profusely at the douches who don't at least look before they walk, so I pay attention for any possible scenario when I can do it

Even when in a car it's a good idea to check the road to be sure no one's coming before you go. That was the mistake of the peds. I don't buy the "I didn't see them" If you can't see people walking across the street in time to stop (assuming said driver is going at or around the speed limit), you don't need to have a license, or you were distracted by whatever was more important than driving at the time. This guy got off easy with just a ticket for running a red light, he should have gotten attempted manslaughter, especially with kids involved. I don't see how the sun could have been a factor at 5pm, it's still not low enough on the horizon to interfere with the lights, let alone being able to see people in the middle of the street.

unfortunately, I still haven't seen the game, but from the game stats the game looks to have been won with turnovers, that and we couldn't convert in the redzone when we were there. but the numbers were evenly matched, we had 40 yards less through the air, and 20 more on the ground (and Foster rushed over 100 yards on the day, which no single RB has done to the Dallas defense in a long time). I'm still up on the Texans, and while our secondary still is a work in progress, I think they are getting better, as the Cowboys only threw for 280 yards, and while Romo may not be allstar, the Cowboys receivers are damn close.

Whether walmart, or that article calls it urban won't make it so. it may serve some urban areas of town, if people are willing to drive to it, but urban it won't be.

Trashy? Sorry if I offended you, I imagine the only person that would be offended by that would be the author of the article. I should give you a neg because you gave me a neg, but then where would it end? The article was very obviously biased and misleading, doesn't matter who wrote it. A .) Washington avenue may be closer to middle density than most areas of town, but it is absolutely not the 'urban core' that the article makes it out to be. Heights is not urban in any way, in fact, as the first suburb of Houston, I'd say it is downright suburban despite the close proximity to downtown. if you want to argue that, I suggest going back a few pages and find notes from others regarding the population density of the area vs other areas of town. B .) While I can say I would not join the second group, is it possible that others that read the article were genuinely interested in joining the second group to have positive input? While I may have been somewhat sarcastic in suggesting that I wanted to join the group, it is a very fair statement to say that others may be interested, and that the article doesn't afford the same contact information for the second group as it does for the first, one has very limited means from that article to make contact. If you're trying to say that the RDA is the second group, that is a really hard dot to connect based on the article itself, and I don't doubt I'm the only one who is very confused. edited to change B .) from a smiley back to a B...

such as the obvious bias displayed by the writer? Calling the area the 'urban core' of the city is hardly accurate. in the article they call the walmart development the 'washington heights development' and it is represented above. So right away, by making it seem like that area is the urban core, it makes the reader feel like the area is high density living, walkable, and very urban, and that this development will bring it a step back towards suburbia. Anyone that knows the area knows that it is suburban (especially the area that houses the loudest opponents to the development). They want high density, mixed use, lets knock down some of those houses at heights and 11th and build a nice midrise with ground level retail, in fact, lets do that in multiple places in that area. so long as the facade looks like it is victorian, and it isn't walmart, it'll be alright, amirite? 'between several neighborhoods' heh, downtown is technically 'between several neighborhoods' as well. So's the target that was recently built a few years ago, just down the street. 'it serves as the primary thoroughfare' yale is hardly used as a primary thoroughfare, except maybe by 300 people a day. quiet residents and to the west and light industry, what about the railroad track directly to the south, and the businesses to the east? Finally, the piece references there are 2 camps of people that want to have input (one by asking them to go somewhere else, and the other asking for input). There is a link to the FB page of the stop heights walmart, and a written link to the .org page, as well as an outline of the purpose of the page. Where's the same for the second group? All that's said is that the group consists of 'activists and design professionals' what's the name of the group, how can I contact them? There's plenty of contact notes for the first group, and nothing for the second? what if I want to become an active participant? You'll show me how to fight it directly, but not how to work with it? I'm sure I have better ideas of better fitting in with that area than 'vertical parking'! From that point on, it seems to focus in on the fact that for a specific visionary site plan they didn't spend time accurately representing the surrounding area (like anyone wants to have railroad tracks and old industrial complexes in their renderings). Anyway, I certainly wasn't ignoring the issues brought up by the article, I just had a hard time seeing through the obvious propaganda to see the issues that are presented.

first, you should probably update your outlook, as it isn't if it will be built, it will be built. also, this may have already been covered, and you may have missed it... but to the south, there is a walmart at belfort and post oak, this services the areas bounded by 610/59 and 288, the journey is approx 15 minutes max from almost any location in that area. the new walmart that will be built at yale near washington will make the trip shorter for some, and a better option. to the southeast, there is a walmart at almeda and 45, for areas bounded by 610/288 and i-10 it can be up to about 20 minutes to get there. for most of the areas that would be more than 15 minutes from this walmart, they will be less than 15 from the one that will be built at the yale location near washington. this location is as central as any, and by putting it in an area that is more upscale than the other current location (and other planned locations) they stand to gain shoppers from higher income levels. that seems pretty obvious. so people from the area that could be serviced by both the locations I mentioned (but don't shop at those current locations due to their current location) could potentially shop at this one. Seems pretty straightforward, and I would say almost obvious.

try putting up outdoor lights on your property that are motion and light sensitive? not sure if it's an option, but change the carport into a garage (unless you already have a garage and it is filled with stuff that belongs in a yard sale too!). you could possibly build some lockable bins at the back of your carport that are immobile, couple of sheets of plywood, some hinges, and a lock for securing stuff that you find too valuable to leave outdoors for the pickers, but not valuable enough to keep inside.

I miss the reference :-(