Office Buildings At 3110-3112 White Oak Dr.

[heights_yankee]

i'm not saying art deco will be an eye sore or shouldn't be considered, but i think its silly when people say things like art deco (or new orleans revival) "fit" the neighborhood when it's not an art deco neighborhood. while this isn't the worst, an arts and crafts style would be really cool and fit the neighborhood at the same time. i love all the modern takes on a&c we are seeing in the hood, like the 2 great houses on 16th around nicholson...

[aggie92]

I wonder what's going on down the street with the Burroughs property...

http://swamplot.com/wet-and-wild-strip-red...3-23/#more-7586

Here is one of the renderings from Swamplot.

[Heights CPA]

i'm not saying art deco will be an eye sore or shouldn't be considered, but i think its silly when people say things like art deco (or new orleans revival) "fit" the neighborhood when it's not an art deco neighborhood. while this isn't the worst, an arts and crafts style would be really cool and fit the neighborhood at the same time. i love all the modern takes on a&c we are seeing in the hood, like the 2 great houses on 16th around nicholson...

The tenants in 2802 White Oak moved out this weekend after 13 years there. The owner was making noises about re-leasing the property. They had talked previously about tearing it down so now I am not sure what they will do. It seems that the partners may not all be on the same page.

[Gooch]

Noticed these signs have sprouted up across from the propose renovations in the last couple of weeks. Anyone know if they are in response to anything specific, or just pre-emptive?

[tmariar]

I'd just seen the sheet sign, but had wondered the same thing. Especially given that I first noticed it about the same time I learned that the two projects that had been discussed for the parcels on either side of Onion Creek/Charles' Liquor were not going forward as originally conceived (and from the sound of it, now possibly won't involve any tear-downs at all).

Likely just coincidence, though. Homeowners in that area across the street (east of Oxford, south of White Oak, west of Studewood, north of WO Bayou) - near where the sheet sign is - have had to fight a number of battles over the years.

The boundaries of "Freeland Historic District" itself can be seen on this pdf - essentially, it's lots fronting Frasier, Granberry, or Reserve. The sheet sign was the first I'd heard of it - but see this press release.

And I noticed that there is an application pending to demolish the house at 536 Granberry (owner Dale C. Moore, applicant Jack Preston Wood). See also this document. So maybe that's got something to do with the signs?

Could we give Gooch's post a new thread? The White Oak parcels aren't within the Freeland Historic District...

Edited March 25, 2009 by tmariar

[RedScare]

They need a catchier slogan. How about "Live in Freeland Or Die"?

If it catches on, just give me appropriate credit.

[tmariar]

They need a catchier slogan. How about "Live in Freeland Or Die"?

If it catches on, just give me appropriate credit.

The attribution would put a certain spin on the slogan...

"Live in Freeland or Die" - RedScare

[tmariar]

Could we give Gooch's post a new thread? The White Oak parcels aren't within the Freeland Historic District...

Still hoping for a new thread for this topic...

Someone left the following comment on Heights Blog:

"The Freeland Historic District is the ONLY district left in the city of Houston with all original bungalows! It consists of 36 original homes. It is currently endangered of having one of of the bungalows demolished and replaced by two 4 story homes. Please support our efforts to preserve our small unique historic district by stopping by Onion Creek to sign the petition book located on the bar. Thank you for your support! Living in the past and loving it! Sincerely, Freeland residents."

[Gooch]

They had some some protesters out yesterday. KTRK (Ch.13) covered it. Heres a link http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=...&id=6734092. As noted above by tmariar it is indeed the Granberry property that's endangered.

[sheeats]

Noticed these signs have sprouted up across from the propose renovations in the last couple of weeks. Anyone know if they are in response to anything specific, or just pre-emptive?

They're in response to this guy's attempt to build an apartment building that's going to be a bazillion times taller and larger than anything else in the neighborhood:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/20...and_houston.php

Surprise, surprise.

[tmariar]

They're in response to this guy's attempt to build an apartment building that's going to be a bazillion times taller and larger than anything else in the neighborhood:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/20...and_houston.php

Surprise, surprise.

There are drawings of the proposed structures in the last link in post 126.

My understanding is that they are not a "giant modern apartment building" (like the yucky one built a couple of blocks away, fronting I-10), but two single-family houses to be built side-by-side. And I think the Freeland District is the only neighborhood the new constructions would "dwarf" - they would dwarf their neighbors, just like many (if not most) of the townhouses and houses-you-really-shouldn't-call-freestanding-without-a-wink that builders have squeezed into subdivided lots in the Heights.

I'm certainly not in favor of anyone tearing down 536 Granberry and replacing it with two 50'-tall new constructions crammed into a single 50' lot in an otherwise undisturbed, albeit small, historic district. I'm against it for all the reasons cited by the HAHC in that same link, plus more. I admire the Freeland District residents for fighting to protect the historical integrity of their pocket of the Heights, and am fully behind them. I think there was just a misunderstanding along the way about the nature of the proposed structure(s).

Or does someone have some more recent info suggesting the plans have changed? The lot is VERY deep (maybe 150'+ feet?), but I still can't imagine trying to build an apartment building there.

Sorry to repeat myself but, if a moderator reads this, could we please have posts 125 forward moved to their own Freeland Historic District thread?

Edited April 9, 2009 by tmariar

[SilverJK]

bringing this thread back up...

Scaffolding and other equipment around the building. It looks like they have started renovations. Anyone know whats going to end up in the building? There seems to be lots of activity on white oak right now.

[tmariar]

Scaffolding and other equipment around the building. It looks like they have started renovations. Anyone know whats going to end up in the building?

I know the rendering doesn't guarantee anything, but I'm hoping for a restaurant.

Edited August 7, 2009 by tmariar

[heights_yankee]

I know the rendering doesn't guarantee anything, but I'm hoping for a restaurant.

while the building definitely needs to be improved, the rendering is ridiculous. the heights is not art deco. if you're going to put so much time and money in to a project, why not take the time beforehand to make it something people will want to be a part of. or make it modern and representative of the time in which it's being rebuilt/renovated. but faux art deco? leaves me going

[RedScare]

It's not art deco. It is art moderne. And, there are numerous examples of deco and moderne architecture in the Heights, including the newly revealed building at 11th and Yale. But, whatever your taste in architecture, this does not appear to be so much an 'art deco' renovation as a cleaning up of the style that is already there. The renderings seem to show that all of the main lines of the building remain. Only a parapet has been added.

[heights_yankee]

It's not art deco. It is art moderne. And, there are numerous examples of deco and moderne architecture in the Heights, including the newly revealed building at 11th and Yale. But, whatever your taste in architecture, this does not appear to be so much an 'art deco' renovation as a cleaning up of the style that is already there. The renderings seem to show that all of the main lines of the building remain. Only a parapet has been added.

i stand corrected on the exact style, but still those are far and few between. do you think this building is original to the heights?

[RedScare]

i stand corrected on the exact style, but still those are far and few between. do you think this building is original to the heights?

I have no idea. It was built before I was born. But, it has been part of the fabric of the neighborhood for nearly 60 years. Who are we to fault the builder of this building in the 1950s? More importantly, who are we to demand that it be covered with some faux craftsman facade, as opposed to restoring it to its original look? The neighborhood is not a snapshot in time. It is a living breathing neighborhood, that began in one decade 100 years ago, but was built out and lived in throughout the other 90. It is not a museum, nor is it a theme park. These are people's homes and businesses, and while a nod to the character of the neighborhood is appreciated, it is not required. What I really cannot understand is the vitriol toward restoration. Is that not what we wanted?

[heights_yankee]

I have no idea. It was built before I was born. But, it has been part of the fabric of the neighborhood for nearly 60 years. Who are we to fault the builder of this building in the 1950s? More importantly, who are we to demand that it be covered with some faux craftsman facade, as opposed to restoring it to its original look? The neighborhood is not a snapshot in time. It is a living breathing neighborhood, that began in one decade 100 years ago, but was built out and lived in throughout the other 90. It is not a museum, nor is it a theme park. These are people's homes and businesses, and while a nod to the character of the neighborhood is appreciated, it is not required. What I really cannot understand is the vitriol toward restoration. Is that not what we wanted?

i agree it's not a museum and i am in favor of smart development in the heights. i have said many times on this forum that i wish more new construction would reflect the time period in which it was built, rather than pretend to be something its not. there are some great craftsman style homes that are thoroughly modern on 16th which reflect this, as well as the white "modern vic" previously discussed on this board. as far as it not being a theme park- that is my issue with this building. it looks like it belongs in a theme park. i half expect to see an old timey photo booth where you can dress up as a flapper or wear a zoot suit. i think it's ugly. it's not about the act of restoration in and of itself. it's specific to this building. to me this building has always looked like a cheapy that went up in the 80s with no architectural merit. the fact that i am wrong about that is great but that doesn't mean i have to love what it is about to become. and i think "vitriol" is a very strong word.

the beauty of the building on the corner of 11th and Yale is that something was discovered under years of poor renovation and redevelopment; that something was given a second life with that restoration. i just have my doubts that the original building we are discussing here looked at all like the current rendering. i could easily be wrong, but i have my doubts. i also have residual issue with the developer due to his prior plans. the fact that he thought a high rise on white oak was a good idea makes me skeptical about him, his current project and his level of caring or understanding about where he is building. that is an emotional reaction to the project. i know that. yeah yeah- he's probably a nice guy and lives here and loves it and thinks he's doing the right thing and whatever else. i just couldn't buy that if you tried to sell it to me.

[tmariar]

I don't mind the original look of the strip center, and think the update looks even nicer - though that just comes down to personal aesthetics, I suppose. Apart from personal aesthetics, though, things I like about the update: (1) it's respectful of the building's original lines; (2) it's retaining a style that to me echoes other older buildings in the neighborhood, per post 119 above (though someone who knows more about architecture may say I'm totally wrong on that score); and (3) the more money that's put into updating the building, the less likely it is (I assume) to be replaced by something along the lines of the new owner's original conception.

If the same guy still owns it, my recollection is that at least at the time the original rendering was unveiled on White Oak, he lived in one of those residential high-rises on Allen Pkwy.

i agree it's not a museum and i am in favor of smart development in the heights. i have said many times on this forum that i wish more new construction would reflect the time period in which it was built, rather than pretend to be something its not. there are some great craftsman style homes that are thoroughly modern on 16th which reflect this, as well as the white "modern vic" previously discussed on this board. as far as it not being a theme park- that is my issue with this building. it looks like it belongs in a theme park. i half expect to see an old timey photo booth where you can dress up as a flapper or wear a zoot suit. i think it's ugly. it's not about the act of restoration in and of itself. it's specific to this building. to me this building has always looked like a cheapy that went up in the 80s with no architectural merit. the fact that i am wrong about that is great but that doesn't mean i have to love what it is about to become. and i think "vitriol" is a very strong word.

the beauty of the building on the corner of 11th and Yale is that something was discovered under years of poor renovation and redevelopment; that something was given a second life with that restoration. i just have my doubts that the original building we are discussing here looked at all like the current rendering. i could easily be wrong, but i have my doubts. i also have residual issue with the developer due to his prior plans. the fact that he thought a high rise on white oak was a good idea makes me skeptical about him, his current project and his level of caring or understanding about where he is building. that is an emotional reaction to the project. i know that. yeah yeah- he's probably a nice guy and lives here and loves it and thinks he's doing the right thing and whatever else. i just couldn't buy that if you tried to sell it to me.

Edited August 9, 2009 by tmariar

[tmariar]

Keep forgetting to add that I noticed a few days ago that Aunt Mike's (NE corner of White Oak and Arlington) appears to have vacated its building.

HCAD says the building dates to 1950 - I'd figured it was older. The owner is (still?) listed as someone named Michael, so maybe he's just going to put something different in the space?

Edited August 9, 2009 by tmariar

[heights_yankee]

so, never mind the *ahem* moderne style strip center. what about the house between that and onion crek? it looks wonderful! i just drove by without a camera but hopefully someone else can grab a shot of it. love the green with brick red trim. wonder what's going in there?

[tmariar]

The house does look nice.

It looked this morning like they were putting the finishing touches next door on the strip center's tile work - I like it.

And then I saw a TABC sign outside Indian Summer Lodge that mentions Tacos-A-Go-Go having applied for a license for the location. I didn't have a camera with me, unfortunately. That's in the dry zone, but maybe they're trying to get a private club license like Shade has?

[sonic0boom]

And then I saw a TABC sign outside Indian Summer Lodge that mentions Tacos-A-Go-Go having applied for a license for the location. I didn't have a camera with me, unfortunately. That's in the dry zone, but maybe they're trying to get a private club license like Shade has?

I saw this sign over the weekend while on the hike/bike trail that goes through the neighborhood. The TABC sign mentioned something to the effect that Tacos a-go-go applied for the license for some place that included "Club" in the name. Sorry, that's vague, but the fact that the name had "Club" in it might indicate that, yes, they are going for private club status.

Now, if only i could figure out how it is you apply for an alcohol license in a "dry" area.... (that's rhetorical; no need to derail the thread )

[tmariar]

The TABC sign mentioned something to the effect that Tacos a-go-go applied for the license for some place that included "Club" in the name. Sorry, that's vague, but the fact that the name had "Club" in it might indicate that, yes, they are going for private club status.

Yeah, I saw that, too. I think that was probably what made me think they might be applying for a private club license. Their tacos are good enough that they probably wouldn't have to serve beer, but I bet they'd prefer to have the option.

[kylejack]

The house does look nice.

It looked this morning like they were putting the finishing touches next door on the strip center's tile work - I like it.

And then I saw a TABC sign outside Indian Summer Lodge that mentions Tacos-A-Go-Go having applied for a license for the location. I didn't have a camera with me, unfortunately. That's in the dry zone, but maybe they're trying to get a private club license like Shade has?

Uhh, I hope that's a second location because I like my main street location. Best way to get tacos on the way to work via train.

[sonic0boom]

Uhh, I hope that's a second location because I like my main street location. Best way to get tacos on the way to work via train.

I snapped a photo of the TABC sign the last time i was out..... haven't really noticed anything going on, though. I also can't imagine that they would close the one on Main, but who knows. Maybe someone can ask the next time they are there.

[tmariar]

I heard it would be a second location, not a move. If it happens.

[LTAWACS]

Interesting. I didnt know there was such a place in town. Are they any good?

[tmariar]

I like them a lot. And they've gotten some recognition in the press.

I also like the little El Gallo de Jalisco taqueria that's right across the street from this prospective location. Maybe both could make it at that intersection.

[Tiko]

so, never mind the *ahem* moderne style strip center. what about the house between that and onion crek? it looks wonderful! i just drove by without a camera but hopefully someone else can grab a shot of it. love the green with brick red trim. wonder what's going in there?

The strip center/house project won the Heights Association Commercial Community Improvement Award last Sunday. The guys from APD gave some interesting details on it and gave a touching tribute to a friend of theirs who was involved in the project and had passed away. Kind of shocking to find out tonite that they were probably talking about Carl Sims - if you knew him even as casually as I did you probably liked him, too.