samagon

I was having a similar discussion last night with one of my neighbors. the same thing that draws youths to want to live in a city, is what will draw visitors to want to visit. All of the popular cities (that were 'hip' to live in) of the later half of last century were all driven by art. There is some art at the heart, or natural beauty surrounding the city and I think this is what drives people to live in one of those places. Houston has always been viewed as a working town. I mean, look at our city seal, a train? We've always been industry, oil/gas, NASA, etc. Houston has never been known for music, movies, art, counter culture, and we certainly aren't known for the beauty of our bayous. Those big draws of other cities, the arch, times square, 6th street, height-ashbury, the french quarter, all those places are physical symbols of what makes the town attractive. Between us and Dallas we've always been in this big fight about which one of us is more cosmopolitan, but in reality, we're both a pair of working cities. But that is a bigger problem we have than making downtown more vibrant and alive. As far as downtown, I would love to see signs hanging to attract business, if you can't have advertisement that people see, no one knows you're there. I know there's a CVS on main, I've passed it while riding the train a few times, but to actually get to the store and buy something, it takes me time cause I end up going the wrong way to get there. It's silly. If Houston can not have any signs that would be okay, because it makes the buildings look clean, sterile, and they aren't detracting from the beauty of those buildings, but at the same time, the streets are dirty, there are bums, and neither of those are clean, sterile, and they certainly detract from the beauty of the buildings. They city needs to finish the job. Clean it up, and keep it clean, and get rid of the bums (whoops, transients, don't want to offend any of them that may be reading).

I think it's more the historic district. the walmart opposition from some of the heights residents was comedic at it's most intrusive. the historic district though. As S3MH was so kind to point out, was downright offensive in that, to get what they were wanting in their neighborhood, they were willing to put a good majority of people who didn't want anything to do with their historic districts right in the path. it's true that what passed is much more fair to homeowners who aren't currently in a HD, but they were supporting it all the way, which in its original draft was horribly intrusive. it still isn't great, since a good many people will still be squarely in the cross-hairs.

I don't have a sense of ironing. I just hang shirts in my shower and let the steam do it's work.

that comes from living in the house, and seeing everything every day! what is normal every day to you is unique and interesting to someone else cracks in drywall is a feature of older foundation types, if you didn't have cracks, I'd be worried, and mix/match furniture is the best cause you've got something different to sit in no matter the mood you're in I hope to make it next year, just had too much going on this time around.

Celsius??!!! I think it would be great (as TTS points out) for some additional lighting, as a cyclist, I do most of my movement downtown at night on the streets, and they are poorly lit (imo). where there are streetlights, it's fine, but we need more of them. and we need sidewalk lights as well, light up those dark entry ways at night, it will discourage vagrants from sleeping there, and it will let people walking see that there is no one hidden in the shadows (cause there aren't any). This can be done tastefully, and without using too much energy, if L.E.D. technology is used.

Don't just look at the wastelines... It was June, and half of those men were wearing full suits!!! Crazy!! You want to know what killed sights like this, Air Conditioning. For those people, it was an option of sweat in the car, or sweat walking on the sidewalk, and then sweat when you get home. I imagine that it was cooler (temp wise, not hip wise) to walk, with a nice breeze blowing between the buildings, than it would be to sit in a car with one window down (no auto windows) and the sun beating on the roof. The artificial environments we have created for ourselves is what has killed scenes like those from ever coming back, and it is what has made fitness centers so popular, workout in the AC? rather than walk 2 miles every day, or bicycle, or anything else.

Stretch the truth much? I can't imagine what other topic you could be talking about other than the Walmart. Walmart is not going to be in your neighborhood. In fact, it will not be in any neighborhood. Just because it is closer to you doesn't mean it is more in your neighborhood than it is in mine. You have no more say over what is done with that land than I do. You're pissed because it's a Walmart and not some random expanse of expensive boutique style places you see in your vision of the Heights, and the surrounding area. So while you have every right to be offended by what is being put up in that retail location, that's just about the only right you do have concerning what happens there (so long as it is within the law). You certainly shouldn't be offended that I'm asking for you to cite references for the claims you make, or pointing out that your supposed facts are wrong by providing my own facts and references to disprove what you are writing. Of course, he, I and anyone else who values the rights they have as owners of their property will take offense when you or anyone else tries to have influence over property that is not your own. You want your block, your neighborhood, your street to fit in that vision of what the Heights is supposed to look like, that's fine, but through the course that you and others have taken, there's a strong possibility that it will effect my neighborhood in the future. Personally, I would not be so selfish as to potentially ruin someones dreams of what homeownership is in order to fulfill my dreams of what homeownership is, but that's exactly what you've supported. That is offensive. Now that this has been addressed, keep in mind that every time you stretch the truth, or write something that you have heard is true without verifying it first, or write what you have formulated on your own as an argument (again without basing it on facts) people will care less and less about what you write. Eventually people are just going to ignore your posts all together. To be completely blunt, I find it offensive that even after you have been urged by myself and others to back your facts up with references and examples, you continue to not do that and just post invalidated remarks and stretched truths.

I can imagine the time it takes to do something like that. I also have lots of respect for them if they can keep it properly maintained. That's gonna be a lot of work.

that is good news, for sure, but just from observations, scott street appears to be in the same condition it was when this fiasco came up. I also haven't seen any crews out there, granted I work on weekdays, so I don't expect to.

I thought the house looked awesome! at least the paint. very cool.

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

not chapter 8, but still pretty damn bad. whole streets through downtown just torn up and nothing being done with huge holes and whatnot. sure it's a direct result of crappiness, but my momma always said, you can't make crappy better by making the situation even more crappy. well, that isn't what she said verbatim, but it's darn close.

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.

resolution is getting close, got called this morning from the city, we reviewed the notes that the officers at the scene collected. He mentioned that this guy had quite a history with the law (not a good one), and that he will likely be going away for quite a while. I asked them to contact me back with a resolution, as I wanted to know. My hope is that this guy is the same guy who's been burglarizing the area, and that he gets tossed away for a long time, and of course is rehabilitated to become a contributing member of society (fat chance of that, but a boy can dream, right?) when he is released. I'll keep you guys posted.

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.

yeah, the police caught the guy that broke into my house yesterday, I was able to provide an accurate description and a license plate number, I was lucky that nothing was taken, and he didn't have a weapon. I hope it was the same guy, and I hope they find other stolen items in his car/residence to link him to other robberies.

I agree that brick roads are more attractive and offer a greater variety, in color, patterns, etc. that's opinion though. as far as quality, the construction of the road is crucial for the ability of it to withstand heavier loads. in Europe quite a few high traffic areas are brick roads (and they carry tour buses in addition to their own metro, and other commercial trucks), so brick, if constructed properly should be able to withstand some punishment. I'm sure there are studies done, but my own thoughts are that probably a lot of the cost of brick roads is in the initial cost, and that maintaining is easier/cheaper than filling in potholes, or resurfacing every few years. since a pothole in brick can be fixed by pulling up some brick in a localized area, settling the base, and then putting the brick back on. I'd imagine though, that if the city is creating historic districts, that the roadways, signs, sidewalks, and whatnot would have to conform to the same historic regulations, and approval process as the residences in the area, so who knows, that area may be brick again? I know personally, if my house was going to be put under the microscope as it seems that people who live in those historic districts will, I would do everything I could to see that the city would have to abide by the same guidelines.

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.

thanks guys, I'd rather not have to chase people out of my house. what is the average number of times someones house will be broken into? so far I've been at home 4 times (twice at my parents house, twice at my house) during a break-in, and I'm just as freaked about it. Hope that's it for me.

In a country where we have warning labels on our coffee mugs warning of the contents being hot, i can see why insurance is a concern. The idea of having a bike path down a row of high power electrical lines sounds awesome. I'd rather be bombarded with the electrical radiation than have to breathe the contents of some persons tailpipe emissions. Not to mention the chances of an electrocution are probably slimmer than getting hit by a car. I bet if the city were considered at fault for bicycle /car accidents they'd find a safer way for us to get around, or at least tell the train companies to stuff it and make it work, same with utility companies.