drfunk

So, specifically I'm thinking of the complexes lining the west side of Renwick between Beechnut and Bissonnet, but I see this situation in many places around Houston.

Bellaire to the east is obviously nice and high-$ land, and most of the neighborhood to the west of these complexes is also pretty nice, leafy streets with some tear-downs, even (of course, Gulfton is on the other side of Bissonnet, and that's a whole different animal). I never quite understand how these complexes that are visibly decaying, crime-ridden, and ugly can survive surrounding re-development & appreciation. Do the complex owners really make enough money on the (assuredly quite low) rents that they aren't tempted to subdivide the land and sell it off, or else redevelop it into townhouses or something themselves? Also, are they really as sleazy as I imagine them to be, that they have no concerns at all about the effects of their little cesspools on the surrounding neighborhoods, i.e., gangs, drugs, homicides, petty theft, etc etc, that seem to emanate from them? Doesn't their insurance become prohibitively expensive as the buildings themselves rot, and the safety threats begin to escalate over time?

We're architecture aficionados, here, so it's easy to think that the credit or blame for the success of a project is attributable to its spatial layout. There's some truth to that, but it is a very limited truth. When it comes right down to it, retail success is linked chiefly to employment and personal income, especially in an environment like downtown Houston where none of the competing retail spaces will never be so visible as a wide open shopping center off the interstate. Consumers that want to shop downtown really have to know and understand the scene, no matter what their destination, and so HP is not at any competitive disadvantage.

I don't think it's as complicated as that. I went to Victory Park a few months ago, and after paying something like $10 for parking on a Sunday afternoon, I had to walk around for literally 15 minutes before I could even figure out where the pedestrian areas were. The development is quite poorly designed. I had to use the Google Maps on my iPhone to find any of the specific stores I wanted to visit because there was no logical pedestrian access to them and the area is poorly signed and mapped.

Because every time I pull it out, I have to look at a picture of Austin's skyline. Does this mean I am now a true Houstonian? Does this annoy anyone else?

from http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staf...on/pr042209.pdf

TheNiche +∞

I think new-build smaller homes, be they bungalows or otherwise, can still fill a niche - consider empty nesters who want to move back in town but 1) don't want to rattle around in in a 5-4 McMansion and 2) want the feel of a neighbourhood that a street of townhomes can't provide. Or a couple with a small family who don't want the hike in from the burbs every day. I know of one on new build Craftsman bungalow on Nicholson in the Heights that was designed by the same company that did the remodel on ours that is just amazing. Granted it was built to spec by the owners, which is the reason it exists. And developers have to make a living and pay their bills so I don't subscribe to the point of view that there should be too much oversight by neighbourhoods over what's built beyond considerations of setback and height - variety is the spice of life after all. But as a consumer I would just like to see a bit more variety in inner city residential development in desirable neighbourhoods beyond townhomes and McMansions.

I totally agree with this, and feel the same way. But, ask any realtor and they will tell you: spend a million bucks on a human-sized house and you will never get your money out of it. It's stupid and bad for neighborhoods, families and people. But it's reality.

Way to revive a 4-year-old topic, I know.

But... this discussion was very interesting to me. Anyone have any new thoughts on the McMansion trend around the city? Seems like it's only accelerated since 2005.

Some random observations:

• It seems to me that speculative buliding is an essential component of McMansionism. Many of the so-called "teardowns" are really being bought by builders with the idea of building a 4,000sf house and selling it at a profit.
  
• Also, re: "teardowns", at what point is it actually OK to replace a house? I'm quite sure that many of the houses replaced over the decades/century in Houston were quite deserving of the wrecking ball. Is it really such a bad thing that modern safety/construction standards be continuously implemented in aging neighborhoods? And considering the cost of retrofitting/updating many houses built in the 50's (e.g.), it isn't unimaginable that it's worth starting anew. There probably aren't many people still living in original 1850's pioneer dugouts--there's a reason for that.
  
• Now, I do think most of these replacement "McMansions" are built to unfortunately low standards. Also, I think the lust for square footage is unproductive. However, the economic realities of real estate dictate that it just isn't a good idea to spend $1mil on a really detailed, finely appointed 2,000 sf house. No matter how much you like it, it will never sell. I personally would rather live in that house, but it would just be foolish to build/buy it.
  

I don't really think Austin is all that much weirder than any other city or college town I've visited. Hell, I think I've seen weirder things right here in Houston.

Having lived in both places, Houston is MUCH weirder than Austin. For the most part, Houston just doesn't self-mythologize in the same way.

I always have to smirk when I see a 32-year-old millionaire walking around Whole Foods in designer jeans and a "Keep Austin Weird" T-shirt. Will the luxury condo tower for which they razed Shady Grove trailer park keep Austin weird? What about all the high dollar yuppie restaurants metastasizing around the high dollar yuppie South Congress district? Or the D/FW-ish luxury corporate retail/housing development at the Domain? WEIRD! And any Austinites who say that Austin is a more diverse city than Houston are smoking something.

There was weirdness in Austin in the 70's and 80's. There are little pockets of it that remain, but for the most part it is now Fisher-Price's My First Big City. TexasVines nailed it: Austin is only worthwhile these days for the dudes that sold a patent on their comp sci grad school thesis for a few $million and now just basically dude around town all day. For people that work for a living, it is the same melange of horrible traffic, expensive housing, and crowds everywhere that most other non-"weird" large cities offer.

I don't want to make this a tedious Austin-v.-Houston debate, but the notion that Austin is "weirder" than Houston, or anywhere else, is nothing more than internalized marketing.

Really interesting!

Good view of First Presbyterian and Polk Street Methodist in that first shot.

What's the drive like from Bellaire to the Med Center? I'm about to start making the drive from the area around the intersection of Bellaire Blvd and Bissonnet, and I wasn't sure of the best way to go, factoring in things like lights, construction, etc. 59 to main? 610 to main? Bissonnet? Bellaire/Holcombe? Braeswood?