s3mh

Sorry. Not taking the bait. Every thread ends up about the historic districts. It is old. And this is apples to oranges. For those who are not obsessed with arguing about the historic districts, the City has agreed to defer the application to do further study to formulate the staff's recommendation. They will go back before the planning commission on March 28. I hope the Coltivare folks start lobbying the City and the planning commission members heavily. The City planning staff likes to hold their recommendation off until the day before the meeting, making it impossible to lobby the planning commission members to go against the planning commission. With enough time to lobby, you can get the PC to go against the staff (as they did with the new Audi store on Greenbrier and SW Freeway feeder). Hopefully, the City staff will get this worked out and support the variance.

There is no doubling down. People who work in the warehouse currently park there and people going to the new restaurant will park there regardless of whether the variance is granted. If the City decides to improve the sidewalks along White Oak (don't hold your breath), they will be able to build across the parking spaces and Coltivare will have to find another lot or get rid of the garden. If someone redevelops the warehouse, the City will require them to build a sidewalk across the parking spaces and Coltivare will have to find replacement parking. But, the only difference between granting the variance and not granting it is a garden v. a parking lot. Building a parking lot will be a major expense for the owners as they will have to dig out a sewer connection for the drainage. Of course, they knew that parking was an issue when they bought it, but that doesn't mean the City should deny a variance in order to enforce a right of way requirement that they have never enforced. But, kicking a small business owner in the pants in order to celebrate form over substance is the kind of thing that keeps people from redeveloping the Heights.

Thanks to pressure from the community, the City and Town in City have made peace on the variance issue. The deferral is to give Town in City time to have their architect finalize a compromise plan that the City will support for the 15 ft variance.

Ask the City. They permitted it long ago. If this really mattered to the City, why haven't they cited the property owner and forced them to fix the sidewalk? The fact of the matter is that without the variance, they are not going to be able to have a nice garden, people will still park in those spots along the warehouse when the surface lot is full and the sidewalk will still be along the building. If you think that is a good thing for the neighborhood and a reasonable way to treat a small business owner who has added a lot of value to the Heights with Revival Market, then that is unfortunate. But, everyone else wants to see a nice garden and not a parking lot next to this restaurant and sees that the City is being unreasonable in refusing to count parking spaces that the City has already approved as parking spaces and failed to enforce the right of way.

No, there is no problem with pedestrian access. Whoever built the warehouse built a sidewalk along the building. Unless you are incapable of making a 90 degree turn, you will not have any trouble walking by while people are parked in the parking spaces. This is just the City literally saying "we allowed someone to build these parking spaces in the right of way, but now we won't let you count those parking spaces to meet your parking requirement."

Coltivare is seeking a parking variance tomorrow from the planning commission. Long story short, they want to use the parking spaces along the warehouse next door and keep the greenspace next to the building as a garden. The City is stuck on ROW issues again and thinks that the pull in parking spaces along the warehouse should not be used because they do not clear the ROW. Please email the planner Dipti.Mathur@houstontx.gov, and the planning commission pd.planning@houstontx.gov, Marlene.Gafrick@houstontx.gov to voice your support for the variance. If they do not get the variance, they will have to use the greenspace/garden as a parking lot. The parking crush along White Oak is far enough away from this location that there is no reason to be militant on parking for this restaurant.

I have posted camelbacks to show that the historic districts did not result in the real estate armageddon that opponents predicted. Opponents repeatedly argued that the restrictions would be so onerous that no one would buy old bungalows, and they would be left to decay bringing down the entire neighborhood. I would like to see a much more restrictive ordinance and would be perfectly happy to see an end to the humper houses. They are a design that builders and realtors are inflicting on the Heights. I know people who saw a bungalow that was going to be rennovated by a builder but the first buyer fell through. They wanted 1500-2000 sq ft and asked if the builder was willing to do a different design. The builder would not do anything less than 4000 sq ft. And I am not playing semantics with the definition of tract homes. There is a very specific meaning in real estate terms to what is a tract home. Tract homes are built at the same time by a single builder. There are only a few designs for hundreds of houses. Earliest versions of tract homes were often built with only one design. Tract housing was a response to the massive demand for housing after WWII. By using a single design and prefabricated plumbing trees and other building elements, tract home builders were able to build up to thirty houses a day to meet post war demand. By contrast, the craftsman bungalows of the Heights were mostly built from designs selected by the buyers. The designs were catalog designs, but that was just how it was done back then. Catalogs had designs for everything from the smallest 800 sq ft home to 2000+ sq ft residences. There were numerous different catalogs for craftsman homes back in the early 1900s. Each different catalog took a slightly different spin on the simple craftsman designs of the Greene brothers that became very popular in California after the turn of the century. So, in the Heights, while most of the homes are two bed/one bath buildings, there are rarely two identical homes on a block. In fact, there are usually dozens of very different designs on every street. Some bungalows are narrow, some are wide. Some have Victorian influences (Queen Annes, mostly) others have more influence of the modern prairie style. And there are some four squares and dutch colonial revivals mixed in as well. Thus, any claim that the craftsmen bungalows of the Heights are nothing more than "tract housing" simply denies the existence of architecture and design altogether.

You might be able to demo your house if it meets the requirements of the ordinance. There are definitely some partially contributing houses in the HDs that have very little craftsmen architectural elements. Many of them were built later in the 1930s (Craftsman architecture is part of the Arts and Crafts movement, not Art Deco). I am not opposed to seeing some of those houses get demo-ed. Despite the beliefs of the folks on this message board, people who support historic preservation in Houston do not just look at the date a building was erected to determine what is worthy of preservation. I think the Glenbrook district goes too far in that it extends out beyond the great mid-century modern homes to very ordinary ranch style houses in the neighborhood. Residents have used the HD to try to keep people in the neighborhood from doing ugly DIY additions and renovations instead of preserving worthy architecture. The MCMs are definitely worthy of preservation, but too much of the rest of the district is architecturally insignificant.

See prior post. Given that you do not know the difference between tract housing and craftsmen architecture, I would not expect you to be able to understand that it is possible to distinguish between architecture that is worthy of preservation and what is not.

No. There are actually a large number of people in this world who understand and appreciate architecture. There is a widely held consesus about certain architectural periods and styles. A lot of the late decco early modern designs are very poor examples of design, both aesthetically and practically. They have low ceilings, are filled with asbestos and have very little in design elements, but are not striking enough in their minimalism to have any value as an example of modernism. The Macy's downtown and the office building on Montrose that used to have the Sky Bar are examples of this transitional architecture that just did not hold up well, although at least one side of the Macy's had interesting oversized pleats on the facade, but the rest is just a brick box. Likewise, craftsman architecture is well recognized for its aesthetics, but the subsequent ranch style suburband homes of the 1940s is not. If you choose to not have any appreication or understanding of architecture and aesthetics, that is your choice. But that doesn't mean that those who do understand and appreciate architecture act arbitrarily whenever they have an opinion that one style is worthy of preservation over another.

I am hearing that the AT&T building has sold to a developer looking to convert the property to multifamily. No idea whether they will demo the building. As an ardent preservationist, I will actually say that this building could take one for the team. It is a fairly plain box with early modern and just a touch of late deco. Very little in design elements worth saving, just as long as the replacement is of an appropriate scale.

I am really tired of the argument that cycling won't happen in Houston because it is hot in the summer. First, riding a bike in the evening during the summer is actually very pleasant. It is the least humid time of day and when you are out of the direct sunlight, it is very pleasant. Second, while people may not like riding three to four months out of the year, the other eight to nine months are wonderful for riding. Third, one of the most bike friendly cities I have ever visited in North America is Montreal. There are well protected bike lanes that go all over the core urban neighborhoods and longer trails like the Lachine canal that take you out to the suburbs completely protected from cars. For at least three months out of the year, there is so much snow and slush around and it is so cold that people do not ride their bicycles anywhere. But that did not stop them from creating an excellent cycling infrastructure that is essential in the dense urban core neighborhoods where parking is very limited. Lastly, enough with the hipster crap. This is the Heights not Montrose. I see lots of families out biking in the Heights. I actually prefer taking a bike with my kids to go out to eat because it is easier to lock up a few bikes than to try to find parking on White Oak.

Interesting. Surpising that the mortgage broker would hold the property and not set up a separate entity to do the development. If an employee at the mortgage broker does something stupid and gets the mortgage broker sued for big dollars, that new development is an asset of the mortgage brokerage that is subject to sale to satisfy a judgment. That is why I thought they must be building out a new space for their business. But, it does look like they are going to run a mortgage brokerage and do real estate development under a single entity.

Of course, when you resort to your childish insults, it just means that I am spot on. The revision to the parking lot ordinance is coming from all the people in Mayor Parker's neighborhood in Montrose complaining about all the parking overflow from Westheimer. I went to Poscol a few weeks ago and had to park a block away from S. Alabama. It doesn't bother me that I had to walk a few blocks to get to the restaurant. But, it does bother the residents that people will frequently block their driveways, barf on their lawns as 2:30 am and get into horn honking fights with other drivers over parking spaces at 10:30 pm on Friday night in their neighborhood. They are the ones complaining about the parking issue.

They are saying summer opening: http://revivalmarket.com/coltivare-preview-dinner/ Building is gutted and ready for build out.

According to the SOS, Texas Loan Star, Inc. is the managing member of 2301 Yale, LLC. It sounds to me like Texas Loan Start Inc. may have outgrown their digs on Heights and are building out a new location on Yale.

Shade is in the dry area and does the private club thing. Coltivare is opening in the dry area and will undoubtedly do the private club thing too (unless they are in that little carve out along White Oak that is wet). And then you have Beck's Prime, Lola, Jenni's, Collinas, Thai Spice, Revival Market, Dry Creek, Happy Fatz, soon to be Heights General Store and Torchy's (should both be club locations if they serve), Kraftsmen, and a bunch of others that do not serve (Angela's oven, Crickets, La Carreta, etc.). Frankly, the best thing about the dry area is that it keeps bar concentration down and keeps out the possibility of another Washington Ave-esque booze district from crashing the Heights. I will gladly take the improved quality of life over being short a few restaurants and bars in the Heights. Montrose will always have better restaurants than the Heights because there are no restrictions. But, Montrose has some major traffic and parking headaches that we avoid in the Heights thanks to the dry restriction.

Shady Acres is way cheaper than along N. Shep., especially back when Cedar Creek, et. al first moved in. Washington and White Oak are comparable in some parts, cheaper in others. But it is a no brainer if you are looking for a site for your restaurant or bar whether you want to be along 4 lanes of one way traffic or on White Oak or Washington. There is a ton of real estate between 6th and 16th on N. Shep, but not a single decent restaurant or bar. That is not because they are close to the dry zone. That is because no one wants to have a bar or restaurant where patrons sit on the patio and watch 4 lanes of I-10/610 cut trhough traffic.

But if it is not hard to imagine another Witchcraft in the dry zone, then why isn't there anything even close in the thousands of square feet of retail space between White Oak Bayou and 16th st? Could it be because I am right that bar and restaurant owners do not want to be on N. Shep? If you want to fill 16th to 26th with stuff like Buffalo Fred's Ice House and the Fiesta Liquor Mart, then that is your problem. I am very glad that the dry zone has kept that stuff out. Car dealerships are not pretty, but they close by 9 pm and don't blast music and fill the streets with drunk drivers and noisy Harleys. And if not wanting ice houses and liquor stores lining the street in your neighborhood makes you a snob, about 95% of Houstonians would be snobs.

The restaurants in Shady Acres succeeded because the land was bargain basement. No one wanted it at the time they moved in. The land along Shep is cheap, but nowhere near as cheap as Shady Acres land back when those folks set up shop. If you are going to argue whether the cruddy booze barns and ice houses north of the dry zone on Shep would have occupied the areas that are now dry, I will not oppose that argument. I also do not want to see cruddy booze dives infest Shep and am glad the dry restriction is there to keep them out. The smattering of restaurants and bars in between Washington and I-10 are more a function of history than any modern trend. Pizzitolas, Cadlillac (pre-Landry-ification) and Spaghetti Western have been there long before the area gentrified and Washington became an entertainment district. And if the lack of alcohol restriction equals good restaurant development, there should be something between White Oak Bayou and 14th St. But, there is almost nothing, except for Nundini's wonderful food, great wine selection and pleasantly laughable service. For all practical purposes there is no difference between 6th-14th and 14th-19th on Shep, but both areas are devoid of anything other than Fast Food garbage a great Torta shop and Nundini. Thus, there is no reason to expect any kind of miracle along 14th-19th without an alcohol restriction.

Anyone who is a real cyclist knows that this is about as dangerous as anything when you are out on the road. You never know if someone is going to open a door at a light to drop someone off at work or something. Hitting an open car door on a bike guarnatees at least some sort of back injury as you will more often than not flip over the door and land on your back or butt. There is also the chance that someone may decide to try to cut through a parking lot and make a turn right in front of you. I saw a cyclist get flipped on Heights NB at the feeder when he went over the top of someone's hood who decided to cut through the parking lot of the building with the Yoga studio.

As usual, the only way to argue against me is to say that I said something I did not say. I actually was arguing that there was some potential for redevelopment up N. Shep as a result of a gradual turning of the tide along the street. It was in a thread that I started about a new townhome development at N. Shep and 6th in what is now a storage lot for the Ford dealership. I noted that there is a new storage facility planned for 15th and N. Shep. My conclusion was that these were signs that the tote the note shops were giving way to new development. You said that nothing would happen along N. Shep because alcohol sales are restricted from 11th up to 20something-th. So, you were actually wrong. Development can proceed in the dry section of N. Shep. My point about traffic was that the restaurants and bars that have redeveloped Washington Ave would not want to open along N. Shep because of the one way traffic that patrons would have to deal with. Fat Cat Creamery does not need the traffic to be successful. They have a big following with the foodies that, like with Revival Market, will translate into a larger following. People will go find Fat Cat. That is why they are able to take a less desirable location in exchange for lower overhead costs.

Ha. They took it down. Swamplot caught it: http://swamplot.com/more-retail-moving-north-on-yale-st/2013-02-27/ I guess they did not want the rabble to see what they were planning to do to their neighborhood. Only the landed aristocracy is privy to such things.

Not quite that bad. They are going in at 1901 N. Shep. That is the old building on the NW corner of 19th and Shep that is going to be redeveloped. That intersection is also one of the few you can actually cross on foot as the traffic on 19th is pretty slack (everyone uses 20th as a cut through instead of 19th). N. Shep is generally a dump, but it is changing. Given that this is just a local business and not a Baskin and Robins franchise, it is understandable that they have to seek out cheap rent for their first location. I am sure you could say the same thing about the location for Jus Mac and Cedar Creek, but both are printing money.

http://www.29-95.com/restaurants/story/fat-cat-creamery-open-heights-ice-cream-parlor I think my property values just went up 10%.