LookyHere

it did not say:

The GHPA will not tell you what your house must look like

The GHPA will not tell you what materials you may use on your house

The GHPA will not tell you what size your home may be

The GHPA will not tell you what landscaping is required

The GHPA will not make you bring up to their "standards" before issuing any permits to do work

The GHPA will keep their not intrude upon individual homeowners private property rights.

The GHPA will not change their mind and add hundreds of new restrictions at a later point.

There are alot of things they did not say....those are just a few....its safer to keep them out of your business from the get go.

I still cant believe there is actually a discussion on whether or not a POLITICIAN, gets to decide for YOU, what YOUR house should look like. ITS INSANE!

I had the City Counsel meeting streaming on line to hear the Heights Walmart speakers and Lovell brought up a couple of these other topics. I couldn't tell you exactly what it was because I was only half paying attention at this point but I definitely heard her say that repairs would not be cause for the city to make you bring your house up to the new standards. She mentioned set back as an example, saying that if you had to do repairs or make changes this would not force you to meet the set back requirements if your house was not in compliance before the ordinance is passed. I believe she also mentioned "not" and "landscaping."

One other thing I just noticed is who would make up the 13 member HAHC panel. This is straight from the proposed amendment:

1. Professional achaeologist

2. Professional historian

3. Achitectural historian

4. Representative of a cultural history organization

5. Registered architect

6. Landscape architect or an urgan planner

7. Professional real estate appraiser certified to perform appraisals for the city.

8. Remodeler or builder registered withthe TRCC, with knowledge of and interest in restoration, historic building renovation and compatible new construction.

9-13. Citizen representatives

If you didn't think this was weighted in any way, read on....

Positions 1-9 shall be appointed by the MAYOR, subject to confirmation by city council.

Postions 10-13 shall be appointed by city council.

If you need 7 votes, good luck.

I have been to a couple variance hearings and I can tell you that the builder in question is well known for siding with new development. I know that's only one vote but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Was this said and gone with the wind, or can you point us in the direction of a source for this information? Or is this just hyperbole?

I wonder the same thing. I have been following this to a degree and feel pretty informed but I have never heard anything about this. Oak Forest and Garden Oaks? I doubt it, plus those neighborhoods are 100% outside the loop.

I have talked with many of these historic preservationist people. They oppose almost all new builds in the neighborhood. There are many beautiful new construction homes that fit perfectly in the neighborhood, even with their large size. The people who are supporting this ordinance, do not want ANY new construction. Look at Nicholson between 12th and 13th as a good example of new/old mixing well. You have the worst house on the street Corner of Nicholson/12th proudly supporting the historic ordinance....while the house is nothing more than a bunch of garbage that the owner thinks is art...rebar with winebottles, a stack of rocks still in the metal packaging it came in growing weeds out of it, an overgrown sidewalk, and 20' tall bamboo sticking straight out of the back.

Then look down Nicholson towards 13th...you have a older home, then one huge home that takes which looks nice, but could have done more to fit in, then 2 smaller old homes, and 2 new homes that look great and fit in perfectly, followed by a small home, and then a tear down.

This block is an attractive block with the exception of the ugly old support the historic district home on the corner.

These people want to pass all of their dream ordinances/laws/restrictions before the public wakes up and realizes what has happened and then votes them out. It is ugly politics, but I believe that they truly do want to control every aspect of everything they have proposed.

These people are losers with nothing better to do than waste their time imposing their beliefs on everyone else.

I wouldn't call myself a preservationist, certainly not by your definition. However, houses like this were here when we bought our house and are part of what we like about the Heights. It will be a sad day when the old or eclectic residents that made the Heights desirable for the rest of us are gone.

He's not. He and I are the bastard children of the Heights. And we get to act out here. If the ordinance passes, our property values will increase because people will be able to modify their property the way they want.

Block people from building homes that look like Jiffy Lubes. However do not tell people that they cannot modify the crown molding above their door, that they cannot use Hardiplank, that they cannot modify the color of their house, or that they cannot replace the windows on their porch with French doors. This ordinance feels like an over-reach. As others have suggested ,it could do more harm than good. The perspective I would seek is preserve the front-porch aspect of the neighborhood, not the specifics individual buildings.

My partner and I discussed this and we feel the City is starting at the extreme end because they know there will be opposition and this gives them wiggle room for negotiating. I know many die hard preservationists and the thing that most of them want to see is an end to the 90 day rule and adoption of a "No Means No" for tear downs. I don't think anyone who supports preservation really want to control their neighbors' paint color but they also want to save buildings like Ashland Tea House and the historic homes on Heights Boulevard that were torn down in the last few years. We do not think this will go forward as proposed and that the current proposition is as much a smoke screen as anything.

I think the one at Carter & Cooley on 19th is surprisingly good.

A lot has certainly changed since this thread first started.

For those of you who like studies, here are the results of several.

http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-studies-walmart-and-bigbox-retail#1

I'm sure he's tired of saying it. Many of us are tired of saying it.

It's tiring to justify the word affluence, especially as to how the meaning changes along with the context. Walmart's corporate affluence isn't the same thing as a Heights resident's desire to appear affluent.

It's all so Holier-Than-Thou to think the arguments against Walmart are all about "appearing affluent" or that anyone against it is being disingenuous. Perhaps it's even more plausible that people who support it are doing so only to be contrarian.

Many people in the Heights just plain ARE affluent. Apparently this is some grave sin in the forum. The guy who started the Facebook page lives on one of the streets where the Walmart may be built. Surely it's more for him than the appearance of affluence; than trying to impress others. Frankly, if people were really only in it for the looks they would welcome the Walmart purely so they could snub it.

I think the earlier criticisms were accurate. Most of those criticizing Walmart wished for fancier stores to shop at. Examples given were specialty shoe and clothing stores, HEB (a new chic one, as opposed to the old one located right inside the Heights), boutique hotels, and now, a Trader Joes. Those debunking the criticisms are not uber-consumers. In fact, that's the point. If you're shopping for necessities, Walmart is just fine. If you're shopping for status, Walmart simply will not do. Which sounds more affluent and superficial to you?

This rationale is tired.

Yeah, there’s a lot of WalMart “hate” out there.

Some object to WalMart on “moral grounds”, which I gather is in part a result of being in the habit of using WalMart as a proxy to relieve personal angst over consumerism, affluence, evolution of small town life or urban development.

Funny that you say this because far earlier in this thread, some people against Walmart were being criticized for being too affluent and superficial.

It was a comparative analogy. Let me break it down for you mathematically.

Marksmu, in all his eloquence, merely wondered how people could be bothered by x but not by y, especially since y contained elements of x. In this case, x = Walmart = (development/only a handful of disconnected people making decisions for the entire group), while y = (historic preservation/only a handful of disconnected people making decisions for the entire group). Either way, the denominator is the same.

Point taken.

Still, individuals don't have to be "All in" or "All out" on issues. It sounds as if MarkSMU was using one person's stance on one issue to belittle their opinion on another. To believe that everyone has to fall only in to one camp at all times seems short sighted and even a misunderstanding of the complexity of the human condition (There. I have satisfactorily added my own hyperbole to the thread).

I hope they rebuild with a drive thru. That was the only reason the Main Subway was worth going to over the Heights Blvd location.

Traffic is WAY better in the loop. Because the streets are grid patterns, not planned communities with one entrance/exit. Backup or accident on one street? Move a block over and drive around. Find different through-streets. Everyone has their favorite option, this keeps traffic spread out.

In contrast, go out to Cypress and try to drive north. You have two road options. One is under construction. That's it. Wait in line with everyone else who needs to use the same road to get home to their subdivision. Yes, it's faster to zip around in the suburbs where there are fewer lights, but not if everyone else is trying to do the same thing!

I could not agree more. My sister, bless her heart, lives in Humble. We go out there a lot because she has a pool but I nearly grind my teeth flat every time. There are some areas where the feeder road is 5 lanes wide but every commuter needs to go right and you can only turn from one lane. It takes 3-5 red light cycles to make a right hand turn. That has never happened to me in Houston, even in the worst Galleria rush hour traffic.

Just curious, because it was a done deal when I moved here, but did the Heights show this much opposition to the Target development? I suppose it was more a Woodland Heights/Norhill issue, since our neighborhoods are closest.

Seems to me they are very similar in location and aesthetics. And my neighbors were thrilled when that Target opened.

As far as Sawyer Heights, the traffic is pretty contained. Everybody gets off 10, goes shopping, gets back on 10. Not too terrible. It can get backed up during weekends, holidays, but it seems that the parking lot is where most of the traffic gets stuck. I even biked on Watson/Taylor to shop at Target before the completion of the bike path, and traffic wasn't that awful.

I have trouble buying the argument that a big box development will kill the Washington corridor revival. Big Boxes don't tend to stray more than 1/2 mile from the freeway frontage. If anything, I'd argue that Washington Ave businesses might do better, if Joe and Jane Wal-Mart shopper decide to go explore the neighborhood a bit and decide to check out some of the eating establishments, for instance.

It may seem like a small difference but the location is not the same at all. I would bet my bottom dollar that if this Walmart was going to be built where they tore down warehouses on Studewood, back by Arne's, there would be a lot less resistance. Studewood is a pretty big, busy street and the Taylor/Sawyer exit was barely used by neighborhood residents before the Target was built. In contrast, this development will be right in the middle in an area with noticeable, existing congestion issues relative to the rest of the area. North bound at Washington, Yale is only one lane. There are several different factions at work here: I hate everything Walmart-ers; I don't want any big box development in the neighborhood-ers, and I don't like the idea of that development in this location-ers.

Does anyone know anything about Mango's down by Stude Park? I thought I heard they have raspas but I still haven't been down there to check it out.

Did Mango's reopen? It was closed for a while and I never saw if it reopened again. The building is still the same.

Has it occurred to you that Wal-Mart uses the threat of an ugly facade as cheap leverage and that they'd probably end up using an upgraded facade one way or another in the kind of community that would care enough to protest? In places with lots of discretionary income...it's a good business practice.

No, it hasn't. It isn't true. I gave you the facts of what happened in the Garden District and I do not believe from reading this forum topic that you were a part of that effort. My partner was involved with the project and, therefore, I can tell you with certainty Walmart did not come to the table with a compromise in mind. It would be foolish to proceed as though they will in this case.

Several have said exactly that...that though Walmart is an aggressive, cutthroat and not overly generous retailer, one who buys from overseas suppliers that pay less than generous wages in harsh working conditions, so are Walmart's competitors, making the demonization of Walmart without also chastising Target, Academy, Kroger and HEB, disingenuous at best, and a lie at worst. And, targeting their faults while ignoring the benefits is only telling part of the story.

Since Walmart's entrance to Yale Street is assured (if they choose to build there), as there is no viable way to keep them out, I'd much rather see my fashionable neighbors direct their efforts toward a fight they can win...demanding that Walmart spend a bit of their considerable construction budget on a more attractive building, with better landscaping, and efficient traffic patterns for its formidable parking lot. At least this way, they would not be as offended when they drive past it, as we know they would never shop there. Pragmatism has served me well over the years. It may work well here.

Can you cite any examples of WalMart complying with local interests in such a way? Or will the Heights be the first instance?

If so, lucky us!

Sorry, but I don't see any link from "attractive building, with better landscaping, and efficient traffic patterns" to somehow being associated with race, or even class for that matter. If Wal-Mart, or anyone for that matter, wants to build on that site, any concern I have about how that building looks (that I drive by everyday) or traffic patterns, has nothing to do with race. HEB is meeting with neighborhood residents for their proposed location on Alabama, with I believe three potential designs. And this is just to extend an olive branche to the existing neighbors since HEB is the one moving into their area.

(P.S. I left in a mis-spelled word on purpose, just to give you an excuse to dismiss my opinion)

I live in the Heights and found this forum linked on the Facebook page. My initial thought was "Cool, a forum about the Heights." Then I read it.

There is going to be a Walmart in the Heights area. This is probably a given. This is not a good thing for many reasons beat to a pulp in this forum. It does have some redeeming qualities for many reasons beat to a pulp in this forum.

When the New Orleans Garden District fought Walmart, they had significantly stronger protections and zoning in place then SuperNeighborhood 22 does in Houston. New Orleans lost. They did end up with a building much more suited architecturally to their area, but hey had to start by wanting to keep them out completely and the better building was the compromise. We can't start by asking for what we may actually want because Walmart will negotiate us down from whatever point that is. Never start a negotiation resigned to failure. We have to start at one extreme if we expect them to meet in the middle.