Heights Homeowner

Ten bucks says s3mh couldn't tell us what subdivision that is without looking for it.

BTW, the infamous and vaunted Norhill deed restrictions allow construction to a height of 40 feet. This proposed structure will only be 60 feet. Though s3mh claims it will be triple the size of the surrounding neighborhood over on Swamplot, it will only be a mere 20 feet higher than the most restrictive neighborhood allows. Hardly seems worth getting one's panties in a bunch.

You would win that bet. I haven't looked but might be Stude 2. I just know its not Heights proper because it ends at Oxford on the East side. Interesting about the Norhill deed restriction. But his group gets their panties in a bunch over anything new.

Have you ever seen the movie Somewhere In Time? Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymore chick flick. Reeve time travels in his mind, in a sort of trance, back to Victorian times and falls in love with an actress played by Seymore. They have a sweet little love affair until Reeve finds a penny in the pocket of his suit which has a date from the future. Seeing the penny snaps him out of it and brings him back to the current time. Well, seeing new construction for the Heights yellow sign buggers is like that penny. It brings them back to reality and the real world and they realize it isn't 1911 but it is indeed 2011. They want to live in a trance like state, pretending it is a century ago. Reeve dies because he can't go back, BTW.

Just because you aren't into sunrises doesn't mean that it is a good thing for a developer to take away the sunrise for a block of bungalows (and they probably will take away some of the sunset for the homes on the other side of Studemont).

All the Heights needs is some height restrictions and some reasonable division between commercial and residential. The city was supposed to use the design manual's traffic section to clamp down on unreasonable densification, but has turned that into a rubber stamp process after getting sued by the Ashby developers. The only thing left with any teeth is the parking lot requirement. But, when building up, you can just include parking as additional floors. And that is the big risk for the Heights. If these guys make a pile of money off of $400k condos and retail space, then everyone and their brother will be buying up land in the Heights to do copy cat developments.

Historic districts and deed restrictions only go so far and rely on landowner consent. The whole point of zoning is to prevent the guy who wouldn't consent to restrictions from doing something that harms the neighborhood.

I'm stunned you have now sunk to worrying about sunrises and sunsets being seen from "a block of bungalows." Honestly, I thought my neighbor was the only nut who talked about that nonsense. He's one of you yellow sign kooks and he, with all seriousness and sincerity said his idea for building restrictions were sunlight laws the restricted how much sunlight you could block! I have a hundred year old tree in my back yard that blocks the sunrise every morning and I'm thrilled it does. If you want sunrise/sunset moments, go live on an island. Nothing to block your view every morning/evening. But Chicken Little, you live in an urban area. Your view is going to be blocked. Get over it.

Fortunately, you will get NO MORE restrictions. You and your friends have poisoned the well and no one will ever support any effort for more restrictions.

The Studewood development is only unreasonable densification to you. It won't create a traffic problem in any way. The traffic regulations are over used by everyone now who thinks just like you. And the planning commission will tell you that. There is no rubber stamp but there also is very little development that can happen in the inner city that will impact traffic enough to stop development. You once again prove you know nothing about urban planning.

And there you go again Chicky - "the sky is falling, the sky is falling...everyone and their brother will be buying up land in the Heights to do copy cat developments." Chick, what land are you talking about? I’m really starting to worry about you. You obsess about this stuff way too much and the delusional predictions you constantly make might lead to a diagnosis of paranoid. Or maybe its just a phobia of big buildings. I'm not a psychiatrist but a fear of big buildings probably would respond to systematic desensitization. Let's discuss your options because your building size phobia might be easily treated.

My "McVic" (your term, not mine; I am starting to like Heights Homeowner's term "Victorian Revival") is way taller than two stories.

Victorian's were born from a revival of many styles from ancient architecture. So, Victorian Revival seems appropriate for the revival of the styles seen in the charm of the homes built in the Heights today. Not every builder gets it right but the good ones sure try to. The hysterical restriction group wants everyone to believe the only architectural style original to the Heights is California Bungalow but their bungalow revival movement for new construciton is never going to happen. They don't understand the economics of why and we are all weary of explaining it to them. Fortunately, in the historic districts, what little new construction that can happen can now be appealed to the city council and hopefully they can see how ridiculous the HAHC's decisions are.

We do? I’m OK with how the shopping and dining options developed over the past few years, and I don’t want for anything within a reasonably drivable, bikeable or walkable radius. Perhaps in the “Heights proper”, within its ancient borders now largely obsolete, there is a paucity of options created by the prohibition of alcohol? Or are you referring to a specific retail outlet? (Please do not say “drive thru Starbucks!” I am tired of people pining for coffee to drink while they text and drive!). There are certainly enough disused/unused lots in the Heights to accommodate commercial redevelopment, but let’s not get crazy and think our consumption is somehow circumscribed because we live in the Heights.

As for input on the Studewood development, I’m not sure in this case. I live nearby, and there were no indications on site (signage etc.) that detailed impending development, not that the developer website provides any real details either. We made suppositions when the leasing sign disappeared, but it was not very long after that the barrier fence went up. But I am also not “plugged in” to city hall permitting or development, so chances for input may have gone unnoticed by me, whereas those who monitor city websites etc. may have seen it coming. I believe that side of Studewood is in the Heights Association “jurisdiction”, but if those gadflies were watching they probably don’t have much interest in something that far away from Heights or 19th that isn’t Walmart.

Anyway, at this point I’m just hoping the developer really does create an addition to the neighborhood that works with the overall aesthetic, but pushes it towards the future and doesn’t screw up traffic and parking. But I don’t feel so powerless or anti-corporate that I need to freak out

Sure we need more retail/commercial. Shopping and restaurants anyway. 19th Street has a bit more diversity than it used to but we need a lot more specialty/boutique type biz. We also need more restaurants. But no, I'm not longing for a Starbuck because I don't drink the brew. We don't have much available land on the major thoroughfares to fear any over development but more choices for everything would be just fine with me. I have been around the Heights a long time and remember the days when there was virtually no where decent to eat and no shopping but antiques. Its better now but by no means is where we need to be. We'll get there though and the preservation nuts won't be able to stop businesses from coming here as they once did.

The Studewood location is not in the Houston Heights, per se and the HHA has no "jurisdiction" anyway. They are a civic association. One that has improved in the last few years and hopefully that will continue.

Stick a few more buildings like these around the Heights and there will be a serious loss of the character of the area that homeowners pay a high premium for.

A loss of character? Got news for you - the character on Studewood is long gone as is the case on all of the major thoroughfares in the Heights. You can't bring back the 1950's. The character that remains in is the residential areas that cannot be redeveloped for commercial. Please stop with the scare tactics. They won't work here.

So, you are left with a choice, preserve the neighborhood with some reasonable height restrictions or have 6, 8, 10, 14 story buildings popping up on every unprotected lot large enough to build on.

14 story buildings popping up on every unprotected lot??? Seriously!!! That is laughable. This is the kind of stuff people attack you over. No "towers of terror" are going to be popping up next door to you.

Houston is not so land starved that we need to rip up the Heights for density.

Puhleeeaaasse! Rip up the Heights for density. This is one development, small in foot print. No one has ripped up the Heights. The hyperbole and drama is what has earned you the title of Chicken Little. No worries, Chick. The sky isn't falling.

There is a ton of land in Midtown, near east side (west and north too), and west end that is conducive to dense, mixed use development that would help lift up the neighborhood (there was a great plot of land off of Yale, but looks like that will just go suburban).

We need retail/commercial in the Heights and the residents don't want to drive to the East side or out West or up North or to Midtown. Aside from the fact that all urban planners agree that Houston needs more density in all forms, the Heights in particular has a serious deficit for shopping and dining. The residents here want more, not less...aside from your little minority of those who want to live in the 1950's and no one minds that it is on the major thoroughfares like Studewood or 11th Street or Yale, or 20th, or 19th. It's not going next to you - unless perhaps you haven't gotten deed restrictions on your block. LOL!

As far as the Walmart plot of land, why didn't you pony up the money to buy it if you were so concerned about what was built there? Ainbinder probably would have sold it had you made him an offer, especially given your stated propensity to purchase property in excess of the asking price. One of the problems with complainers like your group is that all you can do is complain. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. There was a period of years for people to work with Ainbinder to secure an anchor. No one did a thing. There was plenty of time to work with the developer (not dictate) for the Studewood project as well. Being content with sitting on the sidelines until something is planned you don't like is never going to be effective and there certainly isn't the will in the Heights to stop any reasonable commercial/retail coming into the community.

No chance. I get attacked because I present opposing viewpoints and call out those who normally go unchallenged. If anything, I have been a benefit to this board by keeping it from becoming a clique only accessible to those who are in the pro-development club. If you don't like dissenting voices, stay off the internet or just visit foxnews.com all day.

No, you don't get attacked because you present an opposing viewpoint. You get attacked because you make posts making personal attacks or threats. You actually are the one who attacks those with a disenting opinion and you make threats against those who disagree with you. I've not read a single threat towards you however.

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.

You also get attacked because you are constantly talking as if you are an expert in everything when in fact you don't appear to be an expert on anything you post about. On this thread, you claimed the development was a "fishing expedition" among other things, like there is nothing else in the area that is 6 stories. You are clearly wrong but if you weren't always making personal attacks and threats, likely people would be much more tolerant of your wrong opinions and false facts.

The levels of condescension and sarcasm have made this post unreadable to me.

My sincere apologies. I suppose I do get my hackles up a bit when I read threats on forums like this. See Below.

http://swamplot.com/houstons-historic-districts-will-remain-as-they-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.

And you think your realtor stays in touch with you to be nice? You don't see a business motivation behind that? A business motivation that involves . . . commissions?

I don't have prejudice against any groups. I just don't share the prevailing view that developers are infallible gods and realtors are actually concerned about historic preservation and not commissions that permeates this board. If you feel threatened by some dissent on this board, that is ok. I understand. But this board would be worthless if everyone just sat around and showered praise on a six (or maybe eight) story building that will have single family bungalows as its next door neighbor (literally) with no other buildings of similar height anywhere in the neighborhood.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, where to start with you Chicken Little.

So you have a problem with Silver's realtor staying in touch because they might have a business motivation? I take it you aren't in sales or ever buy anything. People I buy stuff from stay in touch in the hopes that if I decide to make another purchase, I think of them. I get a Pottery Barn email a couple times a week, for example. It's Sales 101 Chicky, Sales 101.

There are a few realtors who support this ordinance. Very few but three of them are David and Sharie Beale and Hillary Cobb. They are the ring leaders of your merry little band of hysterical preservationists, right? So, are they not concerned with preservation too? What is their motivation? Do they stay in touch with their customers? Or do they simply get a pass because they agree with your twisted perspective on preservation? And I would trust realtors to know better about this stuff than some one who feared being sandwiched by two larger homes and calls themselves a preservationist when their real objection is the kind of development they want to prevent. At least a realtor doesn't suggest that saving an 800 sq. ft 1 bedroom, 1 bath bungalow in original condition is a good idea. Or that it is more reasonable to save the front wall of one of these bungalows that isnt' worth saving than it would be to just tear it down and start over. I trust both builders and realtors who tell me that the people who buy property to either redevelop or remodel will simply do it where they don't have to contend with dealing with the HAHC and that their opting out will result in many undesirable properties losing value because no one wants them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that undesirable property lowers the value of the property around it too. So, while you might hate realtors because they make money doing their job, normal, rational people trust them over someone like you with an obvious axe to grind and little knowledge of the development industry in general. You constantly prove how little you know.

And I think you have more than amply demonstrated your prejudice against many groups. Saying you aren't doesn't give you a pass.

Have you ever looked at the original plat of the Heights? There are strets that have become major thoroughfares that weren't planned that way (probably because we have progressed in a 100 years and actually need some streets that move lots of traffic in and out and through the neighborhood) but, now that they are, there is little attraction for the streets that have become major thoroughfares to remain residential. Frankly, who wants to live on a major thoroughfare? Those streets are going to move more and more towards commercial development as they should. The remaining residential property will get redeveloped.

There are other buildings of a similar height. Heigher actually. Off the top of my head, there is the building at the corner of Heights and 20th. There are two on 20th (the hospital and the professional building). There is the old folks home on 19th. Do you make yourself dizzy when you twist the facts so completely?

It is a shame we have to keep explaining elementary concepts of development and many other subjects to you. This discussion thread would not be worthless if we didn't have to explain everything to you like you are a six year old. It actually might have more meaningful discussions about real facts.

And by the way, your the work is continuing nicely on your so called "fishing expedition" - another thing you were clearly wrong about. So embarrassing!

More from @hubcap_grill

@Hubcap_Grill Ricky Craig

"It's ridiculous! Some peeps in the heights are trying to stop me ( Hubcap ) from opening. I'm not WalMart. Geez"

Here we have a local business interested in investing in the Heights/Shady Acres area in a down economy and people are jumping to conclusions. Maybe we can get really lucky and get a Red Robin or a Fuddruckers.

For instance from the Shady Acres Discussion Group:

My link

"Live bands? I don't think i am ok with this. Will the civic club work

with the owners to ensure the residents interests are being voiced?"

One of the things I've learned is that no matter who you are and what kind of retail/commercial you are bringing to an area, SOMEONE is going to complain about it. Sit down at the Planning Commission a few times and you realize that a small number of people are willing to go down to City Hall to try to prevent anything they don't like the idea of, no matter how benign. The Heights seems to have more than it share of these types but they're a very tiny minority so business owners just need to ignore them. They used to control the Heights Association and they chased off business after business but they are on the outs and will stay that way. Business owners just have to shrug off the nutcases that would complain about Grandma opening a quilting business.

There is way more support for some sort of zoning in this city than ever before. This is a very different city than the last time zoning came up for a referendum. Last time zoning came up, there was a fraction of the development that currently exists in midtown, the Heights, the West End and upper Kirby, for starters. Ashby high rise, walmart and other idiotic developments have turned a large number of people against Houston's zoning free land use environment.

Times are changing, whether you are willing to admit it or not. Zoning won't happen today. But if developers keep doing stupid things at the current rate of stupidity, zoning won't be too far away.

Gosh, you got one thing right, Chicken Little, times are changing. Not enough to get zoning on the ballot again, but they are changing. This is a very big city and the few people who squawk about inner city development aren’t going to get very far. The Mayor’s lobbyists are lobbying for zoning outside the loop, not inside. She is smart enough to know that real zoning will never fly. And she could never get the votes on Council either. We have one council member who was elected to be the developer’s voice on council and if you really knew about development, you would know this.

Like developers today, Mr. Carter and his nice, albeit rich developer friends thought the Heights was theirs to develop as they pleased. Did you know they tried to do zoning in Houston way back in 1947 and it was defeat then, and several times since. We like our development in our town. Just as they did in 1893. I’m afraid you are hanging with the wrong crowd, Chicky because they are giving you bad information if you believe that zoning will happen in Houston in our lifetime.

Times were a changing back in the late 1890’s too. But that is something that can be said for all times. We LOVE change Chick. It’s the American way. You and your hysterical preservation folks are the ones who hate change. One of the Heights founders who wanted to change the area of the Heights was William A. Wilson. Do you know who he was? Well, Chicky, he was one of the original investors in the Heights too. He built a number of homes in the Heights and lived for a while at 812 Heights Blvd. What he is mostly known for in these parts is as the founder of Woodland Heights. And his house, the jewel of the neighborhood is owned by the famous Bill Baldwin.

Now here is the funny part. The hysterical preservation staff have deemed the William A Wilson home a non-contributing structure! Isn’t that hilarious! Mr. Baldwin went to great expense to replicate every window, every piece of siding (out of old growth cypress), and every balustrade and yet, they don’t think his house is contributing. The real reason behind this is that if it is considered contributing, then they can’t prevent new construction from equaling it in size and scale. That is what we call irony, Chick. And here is one more bit of irony. Mr. Wilson, like Mr. Baldwin was a REALTOR! Isn’t that simply amazing? Again, those pesky realtors are responsible for development. It is truly baffling how your little friends can vilify the very profession that brought them the neighborhood they claim they love so much. There is little difference between those realtors back then and realtors today. They want to build a wonderful community of beautiful homes for nice people to live in. So the next time you are on the playground, chatting with your friends, be sure to let them know that the Heights was built by realtors. The truth hurts.

One other interesting and timely factoid from the 1890’s is that Houston had its biggest snow fall ever recorded in 1895. 22 inches of snow fell. Can you imagine? The residents of the Heights, while not accustom to snow, nonetheless did not confuse it with the sky falling. Nor did they confuse all the new construction all around as the sky falling either. They liked it! Just like all the new residents who have moved into the Heights in the last 10-15 year. They like the new stuff. As it was back in the day, they liked modern conveniences although back then, things like running water, indoor bathrooms and electricity were modern. Things evolve Chick. Things change. For the better.

One benefit of today is that no one will be building factories and manufacturing plants near our homes, as they did in the late 1880’s-early 1900’s in the Heights. In my next story, I’ll tell you about a few of those factories. But we don’t build them here now because, like you said, times change. We aren’t a manufacturing economy anymore. So, the Studewood development will be service oriented. And it will be built in the old style with housing above retail. That should make you happy Chick. But, because we have less density than most major cities, they will have to throw some parking in there too because like most inner city development, parking is a big problem.

There, that should help you rest easier tonight. Much of the early Heights was built by realtors who wanted a nice place to live. Realtors are our friends Chick-A-Dee. Nothing to fear in them at all. Sleep tight and dream of all the great new places there will be to shop and eat and live in our wonderful community, all brought to you by realtors and developers who, like their forefathers, have a vision of the Heights that you can’t prevent because, as you said, times are changing.

Times are changing, whether you are willing to admit it or not. Zoning won't happen today. But if developers keep doing stupid things at the current rate of stupidity, zoning won't be too far away.

The Heights has real historic districts. The tide is turning against irresponsible developers and builders in Houston.

Do you think that times were changing in 1893? Maybe there were folks back then who thought Carter and the Omaha Land Co were irresponsible developers and builders. They didn't seem too be bothered by large homes. Tonight's story continues with a bit more on the first homes in the Heights. Chicken Little, those McVics you love to talk about really do take their character from the original homes built in the Heights, which were all Victorian in their styling’s. We call it Victorian today, but really it was an era, in which there were a number of popular styles, Queen Anne, Italianate, Romanesque, Gothic Revival, etc. and each had a period of popularity (if I remember correctly from my art history courses in college) But from what I can tell from the photos and drawings of all the original structures built in the Height were the Victorian era's popular styles. Bungalows were more of an after-thought. In fact, we don't see homes widely built in the bungalow style until about 1910; 17 years after the first homes were built in the Heights.

Now, Mr. Carter had attracted lots of friends with a similar desire to live away from the swampy town of Houston, where yellow fever was rampant. 17 homes were built by Mr. Carter's company, the Omaha and South Texas Land Company. Most of them were built on Heights Blvd. Five of these were the homes for himself, DD Cooley, GB Hengen, John Milroy, and NL Mills. You can see drawings of 3 of these on the old Heights map poster, (Mills, Hengen and Cooley) and there is a photo of the Mills house in the book I mentioned to you. That house was considered the "most pretentious and highly decorative, with its intricate gingerbread fretwork." If you get a chance, Chick, ride your two-wheeler past Bart's house on Harvard or past the Milroy house at 11th and Heights. It was originally built for HF MacGregor but he never lived there. Incidentally, Milroy was a realtor and ran Houston Heights Real Estate. He was one of those horrible realtors you love to hate. He was also the second mayor of the Heights. You may think that realtors are bad people and they build McMansions or McVics where there could be a lovely little bungalow but back when the Heights was originally developed, they were men of vision who built and sold fine lovely homes, truly historic.

Chick, the really cool thing about these homes is that they were built from plans by George F. Barber. Barber published a catalog for plans for these Mc(fill in the blank for the Victorian style of choice). You could also order material and millwork from his company. He lived in Tennessee in his later life but he was born in DeKalb, IL and went back there to live and work building houses later as a young man. Here is a weird little twist - some of my family is from DeKalb. Really! I was just there last summer visiting family that still lives in the area. I even got to go see the Victorian McMansion my family built there in the late 1800's. My great-grandmother went to a church designed by Mr. Barber and I think there are a few Victorians in town he helped out with too! Barber's Victorian Cottage Architecture catalogue was quite popular and he is generally credited for popularizing the American Queen Anne Style. Although, I must admit, there wasn't a lot of "cottage" about it. These were large, elaborate, fairly ornate houses. You might Google it one of these days. You could benefit from some further education on the architectural style of the ORIGINAL housing style in the Heights.

More tomorrow Chick, on the style and curious questions about why these styles are considered so inappropriate by your fellow cluckers. One really funny thing is that these original styles also were not just two stories, but some were three! Imagine that, half the stories of the Studewood development and they were residential. Tall residential. Hard to believe old Mr. Carter didn't want to restrict it. Maybe he was okay with Mid-rise residential construction. And when we get done with our little lesson on residential architecture, we can talk about the commercial development that Mr. Carter and his buddies brought to the Heights. Imagine that, big factories right near a residential community. What the world must have been like to have commercial so close to people homes!

And again, no snow or sky falling so you can sleep well.

I'm sure s3mh either doesn't appreciate, or believes your story to be revisionist history, but I like it, and am looking forward to the next installment!

Are you saying Chicken Little might believe I am making up the story I'm telling him. I sourced my story and he could go read it if he is concerned about my facts. And I think he appreciates my story. Everyone likes a good bedtime story. But, you might be right. He doesn't seem to appreciate anything except his own perspective so he might not. I'll keep trying tho. There is a point at the end.

So what you're saying is that Victorian is the true original style of the Heights, and that the bungalows were basically the pre-fab/tract homes which acted as in-fill. Well those bungalows have kept our property values down long enough, I say let's zone 'em out!!

Actually, I didn't go into too much detail for Chicken Little's bedtime story. I will give him a more in-depth explanation for tonight's story. The short answer is yes, of course the homes first built in the Heights were what we now term Victorian because they were built in the Victorian era (I'll go into this distinction in his story). So, when Chick is complaining about McVic's he really should be calling them Victorian Revival because they are a revival of styles found in the Victorian era. I am just wondering if back in the day they called Greek Revival, Romanesqe, Gothic Revival - McGreek, McRomanesqe, McGothic, etc.?

As for your assessment of MAP immenent defeat at the hands of CO "crime lab" Bradford, don't quit your day job and head out as a political consultant any time soon. Bradford has just over 4k in his campaign account to run for relection for city council (if you think it is possible to win an election with no campaing finances, you are really out there). The guy is going to need to step it up asap and actually RUN for mayor if he is going to have any chance. And unions? What do you think this is, Chicago? Unions are dead in Houston. The mayor is taking on the firefighters union because they are weak. and she scores major points with conservatives for being fiscally conservative on municipal pension obligations. Sorry, your anti-ordinance savoir is not even stepping up to the plate.

Hahahahahaha, so you thought I was talking about Bradford? Hahahahahahahaha! And you thought I was talking about the city's unions? Hahahahahahahaha!

That is almost as funny as your "it's a fishing expedition" on Studewood. The back-hoe was out there today digging your fishing pond. ROTFLOL! Chicken Little, you really must stop being so afraid. The sky isn't falling but be sure to carry your umbrella just in case.

Maybe another installment of your bedtime story might help you.

When we left off, that nice man, Mr. Carter had a vision for the Heights. One of his nice friends, Mr. Silas Wilkins, bought the first lots in the Heights in 1893. He was a carpenter and helped get the area ready for the new venture. Remember when I told you these guys were developers? Well, that is what developers do first. They clear land and get it ready for something to be built. Mr. Wilkins also bought a lot for himself. And guess what he built, Chicky? He built a two story house! Not a bunglaow, Chick but an honest to goodness two story house in a style commonly referred to as Greek Revival. And not only did he build a two story house, he built one with double front porches. One on the first floor, and one for the second floor, all the way across the front! Now, I know some of your little friends down at 900 Bagby tell tall tales about the Heights being planned as a bungalow community and there were no two story homes with double front porches way back when the Heights was developed, but you know kids. They say silly things sometimes. The next time you are out riding your bike, go by 1541 Ashland. That was Mr. Wilkins house, and you will recognize it by the double front porches.

Mr. Carter had a lot of good friends. And they came to the Heights and built houses too. Mr. Carter's friends liked big houses, Chick. They liked a style of architecture known today as Victorian, named after Queen Victoria, who was the Queen of England until 1901. She ruled England for more than 60 years and they used to name architectural styles after the ruling monarch so Victorian architecture was around for a long time. Cool huh? Well, the early founders of the Heights of course wanted to build the popular architectural style of the times, so they built Victorian. And next time, I'll tell you about a few more of those because I fear you are under the mistaken impression that the Victorian style of architecture wasn't really built here because you keep calling replica's of Victorian style McVics.

Night, night chick. No nightmares about the sky falling, McVics or Ashby Towers of Terror. People have made you afraid, Chick and I feel bad for you.

The Heights is thriving just fine. A long list of restaurants have committed to come into the neighborhood, mostly in existing spaces. We don't need incompatible development that will collectively detract from the neighborhood.

Deed restrictions work fine where they are in place. But, they do nothing where they are not. And, deed restrictions can go away if someone buys out the entire restricted block. The majority of the commercial fronted streets are not deed restricted. The owners of those properties are not going to want deed restrictions so they can one day build in a way that will violate the restrictions. So, some sort of zoning is the only way to keep 6, 8, 10, and 12 story buildings from popping up on every lot that currently has an un-restricted parcel. And, like the historic ordinance, the short term interests of those looking to make a quick buck off of the Heights will have to take a back seat to the long term interest of the residents who want to preserve the character and quality of this important neighborhood.

If you think the Heights will be a better place with mid-rise and highrise buidlings sticking up everywhere, then that is your problem. But the vast majority in the Heights do not want to see that. And Mayor Parker just might have enough guts to actually take on the anti-zoning nutbags. (By the way, if you were keeping score, MAP has just over 1 mil in contributions for relection, @900k more than anyone else. Looks like she is a lock for another term.)

Chick, Chick, Chick, I am not sure where to begin with you –

The Heights is thriving just fine. Glad to see you admit it. It didn’t need your ridiculous, draconian ordinance to restrict what you term as Incompatible development to thrive just fine.

Of course deed restrictions do nothing where they aren’t in place, they aren’t restricted. But you and your pals chose to do nothing about deed restrictions in favor of city control, which will do nothing about the density issues that you are complaining about. Hello???

Zoning isn’t necessary if you deed restrict for single family or for anything else that the MAJORITY do not want to see here. And quite frankly, if you knew anything about or understood the limitations of development in urban areas, you would be clucking about 12 story buildings in the inner city. Parking is the issue. Chicky, please spend some time learning about parking variances for inner city property because yet again, open mouth and remove all doubt. My dad and your dad need to chat about this old adage.

No one said the Heights will be better with highrise buildings (p.s. six stories doesn’t meet the definition of midrise, let alone highrise) so stop twisting what is said (this is like your “paint” red herring). And no one ever said they were for or against zoning, only that it will NEVER pass in Houston because it requires a referendum, which has been defeated FOUR times! You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

And no one gives a flip about how much dough MAP has in her war chest. It's irrelevant, especially considering who her opposition is. She has to get endorsements so she has to get the special interest groups. You seem in denial that she is a big “D” Dem. She is being opposed by an African-American, so she loses their vote, and he is courting the Hispanic vote who is well liked in that community. He has the unions and he will get some conservatives who don’t like MAP and are looking to defeat her at any cost. Who does she have with her? LOL! Money won’t save her. She’s toast!

Bedtime story continued later, chicky. The forecast isn't for the sky falling, just snow but be sure to carry your umbrella just in case the weather forecast missed the sky falling too.

The issue is building four floors taller than anything in the neighborhood.

My little Chick-a-Dee Little,

I fear your folks didn't read you bedtime stories nightly to foster and stimulate your creativity and imagination. And I’ve been picking on you and I feel bad about that (despite the fact that you made some pretty ugly threats against us). To that end, I've decided to make up for it by providing you a brief story of some of the history of our Heights community (from the HOUSTON HEIGHTS 1891-1991, A Historical Portrait and Contemporary Perspective”.

Once upon a time, (the 1890’s) a nice man name Oscar Carter had a “utopian vision for the approaching twentieth century.” Now, Mr. Carter was very rich. A millionaire and he dreamed of building a new type of town where “successful entrepreneurs and working people alike could live and work, in health and safety, as neighbors.” He knew that major industries would come to Houston and he wanted them in his planned community. He sort of had that Field of Dreams, “if you build it, they will come” kind of vision. One of the things he built was a commercial strip on 19th Avenue and arranged for stores to open there. There was a fine hotel and many other businesses.

And ya know what, little Chick? No one has found a single height restriction placed on any of those businesses requiring them to limit their buildings to 2-stories. It is rumored that Mr. Carter was known as a “developer.” I know, I know, this word is very scary for you Chick but developers are our friends and our friends the developers know that silly restrictions are a deterrent to bringing new business into the community. Mr. Carter understood that new businesses had to come to the Heights for his utopian, master planned community to be successful so surely he didn’t want to tell them silly things like their business could only be 2 stories high.

Pretty cool, huh Chick? The nice man who founded the Heights was a bit of a developer who wanted business and industry and retail in the Heights.

They also built many fine, fine homes along the 60 foot wide Boulevard. Victorian homes, Chick! (McVic’s to you, Chick). But, I’m sleepy and need to get to bed so I can get to work on time. I will tell you more later about Mr. Carter, his vision, and the business and homes he and his friends built.

Note to s3mh. MY lot is deed restricted, which is why I don't need a ridiculous ordinance to protect me. Why haven't you done yours?

Nuther note to Chicken Little. MY LOT is deed restricted too. MY BLOCK is deed restricted. MY NEIGHBORS BLOCKS are deed restricted. My neighbors didn't spend their time getting their buddies at City Hall to tell entire community what to do. Instead, they worked with their neighbors to ensure that townhomes and condos and highrise development wouldn't occur on their block and their block wouldn't have too many homes built on lots designed for a single home. We did not want to be the style police for our neighbors. We simply wanted some reasonable restrictions on needed revitalization and development.

Here is the list of deed restricted properties, Chicken Little. Get started.

http://www.houstonheights.org/deedrestrictedproperties.htm

I wonder if this is what people said when they jammed apartment complexes and commercial businesses in various odd spots all around the Heights thirty and forty years ago. I am sure apartment buildings replaced vacant lots and run down buildings. I am sure people thought "it is good to see a new building go in, it will raise property values and attract development". And they looked at the rapid development going on in other parts of town and were happy to see a bit break off and go into the Heights. But, today, we are all wishing that something other than these apartments, chicken plants and other odd industrial facilities had been built.

A six story building with offices, restraunts and whatever sounds nice today instead of a vacant lot. But down the road will we regret that this project and, assuming it is successful, the many imitators that will inevitably come in and further chop up the Heights? This building may only affect a few properties, but the next one, and the next one and the next one will eventually collectively affect the entire area.

Tell me Chicken Little, is the sky always falling where you live?

30 or 40 years ago, no one gave a damn about what was built in the Heights. It was one of the most undesirable neighborhoods in the city and it looked like the only thing it would be good for was multi-family development but even that proved to be a bust because they had a hard time renting them in a neighborhood that was increasingly more crime ridden.

Any pray tell, how will the Heights be further chopped up? Much of it is deed-restricted, a fact you extremists like to deny but true nonetheless. The fact is that the Heights needs more retail/commercial development to thrive. We need restaurants and retail shops. We need the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. The Heights had LOTS of retail back in the day. And as an expert in economics, (along with everything else it seems) you clearly know that it isn't economically viable for developers to come and build on the tiny spaces available for commercial development unless they can get enough square footage. (Of course, this is the part of the economic picture that your hysterical preservation group has trouble wrapping their arms around.) The small areas available will see more multi-story development just as the un-historic areas will see more multi-family development. Quit your complaining and get out there and DEED RESTRICT the rest of the Heights. And before you whine about deed restrictions, please remember that your pal Parker said your hysterical ordinance doesn't restrict density and Marlene Gafrick told you at your meeting up there on Waugh the same thing. Get some deed restrictions in place if you want to restrict height and density. If people love restrictions as much as your group claims, they will be happy to sign up for prevailing lot size, set back and single family restrictions. In fact, my guess is they would welcome those more than your style restriction ordinance, any day!

So, take out your umbrella before you go out, Chicken Little. The sky is falling and you wouldn't want it to hit you in the head.

There you go.. speaking for everyone again. You must be a very special person to argue for mixed use mid rise, and against it, all while telling everyone how they feel and how things "should" be. People in the Heights are getting well organized your right... but that is to get this rediculous ordinance overturned. The two groups you speak of (walmart and ordinance) are actually the same small group of loud mouth internet trolls. FACT.

There actually are quite a few folks in the Heights who oppose the Wal-Mart project because they hate Wal-Mart. A few are concerned about traffic but mainly that company offends the sensibilities of people who gravitate to our neighborhood. However, many of those anti-Wal-Mart folks are also anti-ordinance people too. And you won't see them up in arms about a reasonable development on that site. People are only going to get up in arms about development that isn't on a major thoroughfare. The pro-ordinance, anti-development folks think that 100 years ago, there were no 6 story buildings so of course the whole neighborhood will hate a 6 story building. I'm a Yank, and grew up with lots of historic architecture all around. Their idea of what existed comes from a perspective of an imaginary land they envision they can impose on their neighbors.

They don't live in 2011. They want their neighborhood to be a postcard from the early 1900's so they can pretend they live in another time that they imagine their lives better than they are. They would be so much happier living in a small rural town where nothing much happens and life stays the same, no progress, no prosperity, no change. They can't wrap their little minds around the realities of 21st century urban living.

I think this is accurate. This project reminds me of the proposed mid-rise condo development some guy planned for Westheimer in Montrose. It was called "The Westheimer" and was supposed to be where the empty lot is next to Buffalo Exchange. You can still see the sign on google maps. He wanted to cram 8-10 stories into a tiny lot. He had drawings, a website, a fence and even started messing with some site prep. Of course, it never happened.

I think this guy knows the neighborhood will go crazy if he tries to put six stories on a 25,000 sq ft lot and is floating this idea in order to look like a saint when he is unable to deliver on the six story project and has to scale down to a two story development with ground level parking.

Frankly, I hope this guy builds six stories. People in the Heights are getting very well organized between stop walmart and the historic preservation group. Another stupid development will just grow the ranks of those who will push for some sort of limited zoning ordinance. Houston is not post-1980s foreclosure crisis Houston. We are not desparate for any development. People are tired of bad land use choices and are going to demand a greater public role in private development in the City. The question for developers is whether they want to see this happen sooner or later. If they try to dot the Heights with mid and high rise developments, they are going to see zoning much sooner.

Sheesh, I have never seen anyone who is so out of touch with the realities of politics, the workings of government, and development. First of all, do you really think that the rest of Houston gives a flip about whether the Heights gets a Wal-Mart or saves 2/1 bungalows in perpetuity? Zoning is prohibited by the city charter. Do you know what it takes to change the City Charter? It takes a referendum. Houston has had at least four of them, all failed, and there is zero chance that there will be enough support to allow zoning. Yes, yes, we realize your pal Parker wants to try zoning outside the loop. We know she has lobbyists working on it. But you clearly know nothing about the development community in Houston if you think they will ever let any real zoning happen. And truthfully, your little band of hysterical preservationists won’t have enough support to even affect the project on Studemont. Most Heights people WANT more retail. Wal-Mart is only opposed because it is Wal-Mart. If it was some other retailer, everyone would have welcomed it. The only people who are going to go crazy are the 38 people who signed your ridiculous flyers that ended up just pissing off most of the neighborhood because you had the bad taste to think that everyone wanted to be bombarded with your propaganda. The NUMBER ONE complaint I have heard from my friends, some who support your ridiculous ordinance is that they HATE you people. They still support some protections BUT are completely disgusted with the yellow sign group. So, please so get started trying to stir up the neighborhood. They’ll love you!

And everyone knows you “are not desparate (sp??) for any development. Your group has long opposed ALL development in the Heights. You have a history and the neighborhood suffered for it, but not any more.

And while you are wandering around aimlessly crying about a fishing expedition, we will be working towards fostering a good relationship with the developer and finding ways to attract great retailers and restaurateurs to go in to his development. And while you are working on trying to get a referendum on zoning, I’ll be sipping a nice cold margarita in the new restaurant that will be blocks from my house and laughing ourselves silly about your fishing expedition.

I'm sick and tired of your rabble. You keep calling the anti-ordinance people anti-preservationist. Most of us are for preservation, and several of us have went to great lengths to preserve buildings/art/antiques/culture. Your labeling of "anti-preservation" is blatantly offensive, and I think you owe us an apology. And you have the audacity to constantly accuse others of Strawman arguments. LOL

Some of the things said (paint color/political signs/hvac) were exaggerations yes, but that was the WHOLE point. You have to be concise/clear with the ordinance. If you leave an area open to interpretation crazy things can happen. Especially when people like you, who claimed after your "victory" that those who opposed it will pay for it.

In truth, you must admit that the Walmart will have very little effect on your daily life. You blab about traffic, getting fat??, and all the terrible things that will happen from walmart (walmart chupacabra will eat your animals) but I know for me personally, I maybe drive by this location once or twice a month, if traffic really is bad on Yale (which i seriously doubt it will be any worse than Target on Sawyer), I'll just take one of the other choices to get back to the Heights. Sawyer should be even faster because Walmart is dilluting their share...

Yes, the accusations of a strawman argument are frequent. He thinks this is a big word and describes those who differ from him or make logical points. And you are rigth about the traffic issue. It isn't about the traffic at all. Or the bridges failing. Or the crime. They hate Walmart. So do I. But I will simply demonstrate it by not shopping there. I won't make up a bunch of excuses or fake concerns to see if I can help influence the developer or the city to change their plans. It won't happen. Walmart is well versed in this type of stuff.

And we live in the inner city - operative word "city." Within an urban community, there is traffic. These folks all want to live in a world with no progress, no development, no traffic - essentially they want to live in a rural community where life is slow, progress is infrequent and there is never more than a one car wait at the towns one stop light.

They can yammer on all they want about traffic or failing bridges but Walmart is going in. Don't shop there and stop worrying about the boogy man. There has to be better causes to spend time on and to work to defeat like hunger, the homeless and illiteracy to name a few.

SHHHH - you are using logic! We do not use logic while opposing Walmart or Historic districts.

One of my favorite lawyers always says to me "you can't make a logical arguement with people who are illogical, particularly when it is illogical."

1. Marksmu said in a post that he thought the ordinance was broad enough that it could give HAHC the power to regulate what political signs you could put in your yard. This was back when anti-preservationists were telling everyone that HAHC would tell them what paint color they could use and regulate the kind and placement of HVAC systems when they were trying to scare everyone into supporting their cause.

The anti-ordinance folks never said that HAHC would regulate paint. That is one of your red herrings. And numerous homeowners had already experienced 3 day delays in permitting HVAC due to the hysterical preservation office. Telling lies about the messenger and distorting the message won't make it so.

2. HEB did not walk away. HEB was ready to close on a deal with the developer, but Walmart stepped in at the last minute and offered to buy the land at a ridiculous price that HEB could not beat. But for Walmart, HEB would be the anchor tenant. They were ready willing and able to open a store, but do not have the corporate largesse of Walmart to be able to operate at a loss just to dillute their competitor's market share (Now who is playing fast and loose with the facts)

You clearly have no idea what happened with HEB, which is typical with your posts. Since I had conversations with the lawyers representing the developer, I think I have a better handle on what happened with HEB than your rumor mill who KNOWS NOTHNG about the negotiations. They had been in talks for a long time and only when they were told they had to make a decision and subsequently turned it down did Aimbinder look for someone else. I get my info from the actual source, not Internet blogs.

3. It is not 1950. But it also isn't 1980. Suburban strip malls and big box stores are designed for the suburbs where there is plenty of land to build wide roads and large parking lots. With the addition of the feeder road, Yale will effectively become a one lane street at I-10 because of the need for dedicated turn lanes. This is not where you put high traffic big box strip centers. This is 2010. Mixed use developments have been proven to generate significantly more tax revenue that single story strip centers, mitigate traffic impacts by not having over the top supercenters that attract consumers from far beyond the neighborhood and lift up neighboring property values, spurring further development in the surrounding neighborhood. Walmart will just bust the streets with traffic, be a wash in terms of tax dollars for at least ten years thanks to the 380 agreement and crush further development in the immediate neighborhood (people are already putting their homes on the market).

The 1950 reference was about your groups desire to live in the 1950’s. And by the way, it is 2011. I realize progress of any time offends you but you can’t stop it or the march of time. And the claims of too much traffic are ALWAYS the cry of those who oppose progress and development. The Planning Commish is used to it. They hear it every other Thursday. So, people are putting their homes on the market because of Walmart? And you know this how? Or is this just another one of your areas of expertise. I have rarely in my life seen someone who posts on a message board every day espousing their vast knowledge of absolutely everything.

I don't have to be an expert on anything to know that someone is wrong when they put out a whopper like attorney's fees and expenses being bifurcated in med mal cases. Anyone who read the newspaper during the tort reform debate would have understood that the main argument against tort reform was that it would make it economically impossible to bring all but the most extraordinary medmal cases due to the expenses and attorney's fees that are taken out of a plaintiff's recovery.

You can attack me and call me names all day, but that won't make me go away. The anti-preservationists tried to turn the historic ordinance thread into their own little discussion group. Same for the pro-walmart folks. Sorry, but this is a public forum. If you do not want to hear opposing viewpoints, go hang out on the anti-preservationist facebook page.

It isn’t that you have an opposing viewpoint that is the problem. You constantly post on the HAIF as if you are an expert on every subject. Real estate, the lending industry, construction, urban planning, the law, medical malpractice, economics, and what ever else is under discussion. You posted threats on another thread and drew attention to yourself as a result. I am simply pointing out to those who read this that you are a phony who is always spouting half truths, conjecture, rumor and gossip and downright lies.

To me this looks like a developer on a fishing expedition.....he's got some property (or rights to it), he's got an idea, he gets some good-faith work from an architect with nothing else to do, pulls a few permits and then he starts selling. The most expensive thing is the rent-a-fence. Nothing "ground up" in the commercial sphere will happen on spec. It's a "new firm" probably some recent cast-offs from another under-water commercial developer. If he already has solid tenants to back financing, then he would be running in stealth mode. You'll know for sure when the big sign with the artist rendition appears before any real money is burned, kicking off the NIMBY parade. Mixed Use = We Have No Idea....and is one of the hardest to finance.

Maybe. The word also is he has cash to spend. Further, that it is a go. He talked with various folks who encouraged other retail development but this is what he decided on.

Is Someburger safe? Build the damn thing. Fill in empty lots. Is it in a historic district? If so it will probably fail because Wal-Mart made it.

Not in a district. The East district ends on the west side of Oxford.