Montrose Cited As Great U.S. Neighborhood

[IronTiger]

Because I'm not a homophobe. That makes me better than them. Suburban/Urban is a matter of preference, but intolerance is just classless and it exemplifies poor breeding and worse rearing.

You are kind of missing the point. Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a homophobe, the word has been tossed around and is now just a general insult to the other side, that's all.

------------

Montrose definitely isn't "full of freaks", though. I went down to Molin Gallery last summer, and the neighborhood seemed nice and quiet. But that was just one part of Montrose in mid-day. Montrose is a city in itself in a way.

[AtticaFlinch]

You are kind of missing the point. Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a homophobe, the word has been tossed around and is now just a general insult to the other side, that's all.

Let's analyze that concept. Is it possible to dislike something and not fear it or hate it? I say sure. As in, I dislike homosexuality... for myself. Though, I couldn't possibly fathom why anyone would give a crap about it if they're not participating in the act. Let me be very frank here, I have to admit the thought of homosexual intercourse turns my stomach probably as much as it does yours, but I also have to say I get the same feeling in my stomach with the thought of straight obese people doin' it. There's a lot of sex and people who have sex that don't sit well with me, but you know what? I'm not having sex with them, and it doesn't affect me in any way. I could easily say I loathe going to the 'burbs because odds are good if I step foot in a Denny's or a Joe's Crabshack, my senses will be overwhelmed by fatties being affectionate with each other. It's exactly the same concept. An area like Montrose can't be dismissed simply because there's a few gay bars here any more than I can dismiss the 'burbs because it's full of lard eaters and chubbie chasers. So, in that respect, sure you can disagree with homosexuality for yourself, but when you take it beyond simply wanting to stay out of the acts, it becomes something more, something deeper, something irrational, something that resembles fear and hatred.

Give me one good solid irrefutable reason why it matters to you or anyone else if someone is gay and not ashamed of it, and I might be willing to reconsider my haughty attitude about this.

[sarahiki]

Let's analyze that concept. Is it possible to dislike something and not fear it or hate it? I say sure. As in, I dislike homosexuality... for myself. Though, I couldn't possibly fathom why anyone would give a crap about it if they're not participating in the act. Let me be very frank here, I have to admit the thought of homosexual intercourse turns my stomach probably as much as it does yours, but I also have to say I get the same feeling in my stomach with the thought of straight obese people doin' it. There's a lot of sex and people who have sex that don't sit well with me, but you know what? I'm not having sex with them, and it doesn't affect me in any way. I could easily say I loathe going to the 'burbs because odds are good if I step foot in a Denny's or a Joe's Crabshack, my senses will be overwhelmed by fatties being affectionate with each other. It's exactly the same concept. An area like Montrose can't be dismissed simply because there's a few gay bars here any more than I can dismiss the 'burbs because it's full of lard eaters and chubbie chasers. So, in that respect, sure you can disagree with homosexuality for yourself, but when you take it beyond simply wanting to stay out of the acts, it becomes something more, something deeper, something irrational, something that resembles fear and hatred.

Give me one good solid irrefutable reason why it matters to you or anyone else if someone is gay and not ashamed of it, and I might be willing to reconsider my haughty attitude about this.

I love your posts.

[kylejack]

You are kind of missing the point. Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a homophobe, the word has been tossed around and is now just a general insult to the other side, that's all.

------------

Montrose definitely isn't "full of freaks", though. I went down to Molin Gallery last summer, and the neighborhood seemed nice and quiet. But that was just one part of Montrose in mid-day. Montrose is a city in itself in a way.

What does it mean to disagree with homosexuality?

[IronTiger]

Let's analyze that concept. Is it possible to dislike something and not fear it or hate it? I say sure. As in, I dislike homosexuality... for myself. Though, I couldn't possibly fathom why anyone would give a crap about it if they're not participating in the act. Let me be very frank here, I have to admit the thought of homosexual intercourse turns my stomach probably as much as it does yours, but I also have to say I get the same feeling in my stomach with the thought of straight obese people doin' it. There's a lot of sex and people who have sex that don't sit well with me, but you know what? I'm not having sex with them, and it doesn't affect me in any way. I could easily say I loathe going to the 'burbs because odds are good if I step foot in a Denny's or a Joe's Crabshack, my senses will be overwhelmed by fatties being affectionate with each other. It's exactly the same concept. An area like Montrose can't be dismissed simply because there's a few gay bars here any more than I can dismiss the 'burbs because it's full of lard eaters and chubbie chasers. So, in that respect, sure you can disagree with homosexuality for yourself, but when you take it beyond simply wanting to stay out of the acts, it becomes something more, something deeper, something irrational, something that resembles fear and hatred.

Give me one good solid irrefutable reason why it matters to you or anyone else if someone is gay and not ashamed of it, and I might be willing to reconsider my haughty attitude about this.

That sounds like a libertarian talking (as opposed to a liberal). (Are you a libertarian?)

Anyway, while I'd like to discuss, this isn't the place or time. Like I said: the "suburbs" and Montrose are not necessarily better than each other.

@kylejack: Please don't stray off-topic, I'm trying to steer this topic back on track...unless you want this topic moved to the Off-Topic Thread. I don't.

[AtticaFlinch]

That sounds like a libertarian talking (as opposed to a liberal). (Are you a libertarian?)

It's tough to define my political leanings, but it's safe to say they lean much more heavily to liberal than libertarian, for whatever those terms are worth anyhow. In actuality, I consider myself a moderate, a true moderate, not like one of those disguised wolves who hide behind the word moderate because they think it hides their bigotry.

[kylejack]

@kylejack: Please don't stray off-topic, I'm trying to steer this topic back on track...unless you want this topic moved to the Off-Topic Thread. I don't.

Well, you said that you can disagree with it without hating it. I don't know if that's true until I know what you mean by disagree with it. For example, if you mean that homosexuality is a choice, when did you decide to be straight? (never, sexuality is an innate quality) If its not a choice, its God's fault for making people gay.

[names]

This is random, but does anyone know why Montrose is laid out in a grid pattern w/ roads running North-South, East-West... but the Cherryhurst/Hyde Park area along Waugh is all crooked such that the grid get's bent up? That one section between Dunlavy, W. Gray, Waugh, and Westheimer never made sense to me.

Prevailing breeze. It's the same grid shift for downtown and midtown. The Cherryhurst nab must have been developed for smaller, more compact blue collar households versus the mansions and middle class bungalows for which Montrose is renown for.

[AtticaFlinch]

Well, you said that you can disagree with it without hating it. I don't know if that's true until I know what you mean by disagree with it. For example, if you mean that homosexuality is a choice, when did you decide to be straight? (never, sexuality is an innate quality) If its not a choice, its God's fault for making people gay.

From a purely evolutionary standpoint, it's straight people's fault there are so many gay people. Culturally, we've vilified gays for so long, the only way they could lead a normal life was to act straight. They'd breed, pass on their genes, and have gay babies. Those gay babies would do the same for generations, leading us to the point where we are now. And now, homosexuality is somewhat tolerated. Gay people are allowed to act like gay people, and they're not unnecessarily breeding with non-gays. They're not unnecessarily passing on their icky gay genes. If conservatives really wanted to get rid of teh gheyness, they would allow gay people to be gay. Their lifestyle is a genetic dead end (two dudes or two chicks don't a baby make), and eventually it would be bred out. But, that viewpoint requires an understanding of science, and that's not so common with those guys.

I honestly think the best thing conservatives could do to "combat" homosexuality would be to allow it to exist, encourage gay marriage and encourage gay adoption over other more easily employable methods for gay people to have children. But first, they'd have to come to grips with the point that gay isn't a communicable disease that spreads merely by association. And really, if it was so easy to turn a person gay, wouldn't the whole world be gay?

[htownproud]

interestingly, one of the three pictures of "Motrose" on the APA website is from Stanford accross from the Channel 11 building, so it would appear that the APA considered Montrose to be more than just the intersection of Westheimer and Montrose.

http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/neighborhoods/2009/index.htm#M

[BryanS]

From a purely evolutionary standpoint, it's straight people's fault there are so many gay people. Culturally, we've vilified gays for so long, the only way they could lead a normal life was to act straight. They'd breed, pass on their genes, and have gay babies. Those gay babies would do the same for generations, leading us to the point where we are now. And now, homosexuality is somewhat tolerated. Gay people are allowed to act like gay people, and they're not unnecessarily breeding with non-gays. They're not unnecessarily passing on their icky gay genes. If conservatives really wanted to get rid of teh gheyness, they would allow gay people to be gay. Their lifestyle is a genetic dead end (two dudes or two chicks don't a baby make), and eventually it would be bred out. But, that viewpoint requires an understanding of science, and that's not so common with those guys.

I honestly think the best thing conservatives could do to "combat" homosexuality would be to allow it to exist, encourage gay marriage and encourage gay adoption over other more easily employable methods for gay people to have children. But first, they'd have to come to grips with the point that gay isn't a communicable disease that spreads merely by association. And really, if it was so easy to turn a person gay, wouldn't the whole world be gay?

...and sometimes I wonder... when and if a genetic test can be done to test for sexual orientation... that those who so strongly oppose abortion... may be a little more open to it if they were told: "You're going to have a healthy, blue-eyed, boy... who is going to be gay." This is, by far, the most effective way to combat homosexuality: the final solution.

How will the haters ever deal with this moral dilemma? Suddenly, you may find pro-gay rights activist also anti-choice... and anti-gay activists pro-choice, in general terms...

What will the world come to? Does it sound like a far stretch? Not really:

http://www.sfgate.co...26/NEWS3525.dtl

CHICAGO - A Chicago lawyer who has published articles about the legal and ethical issues of sexual orientation research says that if a so-called gay gene is ever isolated, parents should have the right to abort a gay fetus or manipulate its genetic makeup.

So all those looking for that genetic, "I-told-you!" link... careful what you ask for.

[AtticaFlinch]

Well, you said that you can disagree with it without hating it. I don't know if that's true until I know what you mean by disagree with it. For example, if you mean that homosexuality is a choice, when did you decide to be straight? (never, sexuality is an innate quality) If its not a choice, its God's fault for making people gay.

I know I've already commented on this, but another thought's occurred to me. For someone to "disagree" with something, wouldn't that require that thing to be an opinion? Purely by definition? Semantics, and all? It seems silly to "disagree" with something that very obviously is. Disagreeing with a fact seems counterintuitive and slightly dumb. In other words, it's not really logically possible to disagree with homosexuality, a person would necessarily have to be against homosexuality. And again, I have to say yet (sigh) again, who cares? I'd rather a clown car full of law-abiding hobo homos live near me than one single straight former Enron executive. (I've eaten Thanksgiving dinner with at least one (1) Enron CFO - though not the 'bad' one who had the public burning - so I waaay obviously speak from experience.) I've got to give my baby positive role models and all!

interestingly, one of the three pictures of "Motrose" on the APA website is from Stanford accross from the Channel 11 building, so it would appear that the APA considered Montrose to be more than just the intersection of Westheimer and Montrose.

http://www.planning....009/index.htm#M

I think they just wanted a photo of Montrose that had the downtown skyline without a McDonald's sign.

[AtticaFlinch]

...and sometimes I wonder... when and if a genetic test can be done to test for sexual orientation... that those who so strongly oppose abortion... may be a little more open to it if they were told: "You're going to have a healthy, blue-eyed, boy... who is going to be gay." This is, by far, the most effective way to combat homosexuality: the final solution.

How will the haters ever deal with this moral dilemma? Suddenly, you may find pro-gay rights activist also anti-choice... and anti-gay activists pro-choice, in general terms...

What will the world come to? Does it sound like a far stretch? Not really:

http://www.sfgate.co...26/NEWS3525.dtl

CHICAGO - A Chicago lawyer who has published articles about the legal and ethical issues of sexual orientation research says that if a so-called gay gene is ever isolated, parents should have the right to abort a gay fetus or manipulate its genetic makeup.

So all those looking for that genetic, "I-told-you!" link... careful what you ask for.

Right?! There's a little secret part of me that would schadenfreude the crap out of it if morally righteous people all the sudden started supporting abortion, even if it was for limited circumstances like gaybies.

[IronTiger]

There is a topic for this in "Way Off Topic", you know...I want this to be about Montrose, not controversial statements.

[barracuda]

From a purely evolutionary standpoint, it's straight people's fault there are so many gay people. Culturally, we've vilified gays for so long, the only way they could lead a normal life was to act straight. They'd breed, pass on their genes, and have gay babies. Those gay babies would do the same for generations, leading us to the point where we are now. And now, homosexuality is somewhat tolerated. Gay people are allowed to act like gay people, and they're not unnecessarily breeding with non-gays. They're not unnecessarily passing on their icky gay genes. If conservatives really wanted to get rid of teh gheyness, they would allow gay people to be gay. Their lifestyle is a genetic dead end (two dudes or two chicks don't a baby make), and eventually it would be bred out. But, that viewpoint requires an understanding of science, and that's not so common with those guys.

I apologize IronTiger that this is waaaay off topic, but there's something uncomfortable about being whittled down to a genetic dead end. Homosexual behavior occurs throughout much of the animal kingdom, just as it has in humanity for as long as recorded existence. It seems unlikely that Gattaca-style genetic selection or even a gay-friendly world where nobody feels compelled to act straight could possibly eliminate homosexuality. And woe to thee who says it should.

It is yet unknown whether genetics determine sexual orientation. It is know that certain traits reside in a family lineage and skip generations to only become active at certain points. Consider that most gays do not have gay parents, and again assuming genetics is a major factor, plenty of gay and lesbian couples use surrogates for the purpose of having children. It's also possible that genes may alter due to various factors over time. There are lots of unknowns, and even more ethical concerns. The whole topic of letting people determine their own genetic selection would probably need it's own thread.

So I agree with you Attica that conservatives should just accept gays, just not for the dark purpose you laid out.

[CHiPs]

Congrats Montrose! Saw the piece on CH11 last night.

[AtticaFlinch]

So I agree with you Attica that conservatives should just accept gays, just not for the dark purpose you laid out.

I'm just trying to come up with some reason for them to loosen their understanding of morality, even if the catalyst must be dark.

[rsb320]

And I saw it on CH2 - makes me proud to be a resident. It may be walkable, but many of the sidewalks are in bad shape because of tree roots.

On the gay thing. I'm not so sure why Montrose (snicker, snicker) is still pegged as a gay neighborhood, gays are all over this city. It must be because they moved in in the 70's and attempted to spruce up a declining area. This is still going on in other areas, such as Westbury, Galveston and, of course, The Heights. It's unlikely that these areas will ever be pegged as gayborhoods, though.

[kylejack]

And I saw it on CH2 - makes me proud to be a resident. It may be walkable, but many of the sidewalks are in bad shape because of tree roots.

On the gay thing. I'm not so sure why Montrose (snicker, snicker) is still pegged as a gay neighborhood, gays are all over this city. It must be because they moved in in the 70's and attempted to spruce up a declining area. This is still going on in other areas, such as Westbury, Galveston and, of course, The Heights. It's unlikely that these areas will ever be pegged as gayborhoods, though.

There's still a higher incidence of gays living there, though not like it used to be. This is also where you will find by far the highest concentration of gay bars.

[sheeats]

In an effort to slightly get this back on track, I just moved to the Montrose a month ago after living in the suburbs my entire life. And I couldn't be happier. My commute downtown is non-existent (and will be even more fun when I buy a bicycle) and I can get to most parts of town with relative ease and swiftness. I can walk to some of my favorite restaurants and bars with extraordinary ease. I can even walk to see live music if I want to (although I don't really ever want to go to La Strada or Numbers at my age and will probably only go to Mango's on Wednesday nights for throwback 70s country night). And the walk? IS NICE. Neighbors are out. People are walking their dogs. Kids are riding their bikes. Everyone is friendly and says hi - even the trannies and the drunks.

I love that fact that my local coffee shop is Taft St. or Antidote - not Starbucks. I love the fact that my local hardware store is Southland - not Home Depot or Lowe's. I love that my local bookstore is Dark Matter or Domy - not Barnes & Noble. I love that people are so accepting here and that they immediately embrace you as a fellow resident. I love that there are so many little cafes and restaurants that are doing their own thing and thriving. In short, I love the "small town" vibe that Montrose possesses. No other areas in the city come close to mimicking this, and I'm so happy to call it my home now.

[AtticaFlinch]

My commute downtown is non-existent (and will be even more fun when I buy a bicycle) and I can get to most parts of town with relative ease and swiftness.

Question is, are you going to buy it at Houston Bicyle Co on Taft or shop at a box retailer to save a few bucks?

Everything you wrote is spot on. My wife and I live in Greenway now, but I miss Montrose dearly. Even though I'm only three miles down the road from my last Montrose home, it feels like I'm in another city.

[kylejack]

In an effort to slightly get this back on track, I just moved to the Montrose a month ago after living in the suburbs my entire life. And I couldn't be happier. My commute downtown is non-existent (and will be even more fun when I buy a bicycle) and I can get to most parts of town with relative ease and swiftness. I can walk to some of my favorite restaurants and bars with extraordinary ease. I can even walk to see live music if I want to (although I don't really ever want to go to La Strada or Numbers at my age and will probably only go to Mango's on Wednesday nights for throwback 70s country night). And the walk? IS NICE. Neighbors are out. People are walking their dogs. Kids are riding their bikes. Everyone is friendly and says hi - even the trannies and the drunks.

I love that fact that my local coffee shop is Taft St. or Antidote - not Starbucks. I love the fact that my local hardware store is Southland - not Home Depot or Lowe's. I love that my local bookstore is Dark Matter or Domy - not Barnes & Noble. I love that people are so accepting here and that they immediately embrace you as a fellow resident. I love that there are so many little cafes and restaurants that are doing their own thing and thriving. In short, I love the "small town" vibe that Montrose possesses. No other areas in the city come close to mimicking this, and I'm so happy to call it my home now.

Yes, I agree with all this and also miss Cafe Artiste and the Diedrich's at Westheimer and Hazard, that was muscled out by the salon. I loved living just a couple blocks from Menil, and shopping at the Fiesta on Dunlavy, and trips to the Guild Shop (always careful to check the day of the next discount).

The only area that comes close in character is the Heights, but Montrose is a younger less family-oriented crowd, which is exactly what I liked about it.

[sevfiv]

I used to recently live in First Montrose Commons (and also Hyde Park and Menil areas in the past) - I miss it (close to work and places I like) but I was a renter and that's all I could probably ever be there.

[kylejack]

I used to recently live in First Montrose Commons (and also Hyde Park and Menil areas in the past) - I miss it (close to work and places I like) but I was a renter and that's all I could probably ever be there.

Yeah, that's the trouble with the Montrose. I've scanned HAR for an affordable place and its just not going to happen.

[BryanS]

I apologize IronTiger that this is waaaay off topic, but there's something uncomfortable about being whittled down to a genetic dead end. Homosexual behavior occurs throughout much of the animal kingdom, just as it has in humanity for as long as recorded existence. It seems unlikely that Gattaca-style genetic selection or even a gay-friendly world where nobody feels compelled to act straight could possibly eliminate homosexuality. And woe to thee who says it should.

It is yet unknown whether genetics determine sexual orientation. It is know that certain traits reside in a family lineage and skip generations to only become active at certain points. Consider that most gays do not have gay parents, and again assuming genetics is a major factor, plenty of gay and lesbian couples use surrogates for the purpose of having children. It's also possible that genes may alter due to various factors over time. There are lots of unknowns, and even more ethical concerns. The whole topic of letting people determine their own genetic selection would probably need it's own thread.

So I agree with you Attica that conservatives should just accept gays, just not for the dark purpose you laid out.

...I'll attempt to veer this back on topic... and just say we're talking about montrose gays living in "the montrose" (gag) for a minute...

...I've heard that point over and over. What people need to understand is that there are plenty of gay and lesbian couples who have children the natural way: in mixed orientation marriages. So the idea that G&L couples somehow need artificial means to reproduce is not entirely accurate. I know more gay fathers, with children from prior mixed sexual orientation marriages, than I do any other gay couples who have no children or adopted children... So the argument that gay people cannot reproduce “naturally”... totally false. It happens everyday. And eventually, they realize who they are, divorce their wives.... and eventually form more appropriate pair-bonds with someone of the same gender... who may also have children from a prior opposite-sex marriage. The modern day Brady Bunch family.

...I find it somewhat tragically comical... that some gay guys think that just because they're married, to a woman, and have kids... that somehow that makes them straight - and no one will question or notice. Not really fooling me - I've just seen this way too much. Some eventually wake up to that lie… others never do…

[barracuda]

Yeah, that's the trouble with the Montrose. I've scanned HAR for an affordable place and its just not going to happen.

I hear you. I recently moved to N. Norhill because everything I found in Montrose was either out of my budget or required major updating. By going five minutes north up Montrose/Studewood, I found a house for far less than a similar one in Montrose. It's ironic, really, considering what many people think of Montrose (I'm thinking of the chron.com commenters).

I will say this about the Heights...the neighborhoods to the east (Norhill, Woodland Heights) feel more individualistic and diverse than Heights proper, which has a strong Mayberry feel. I was actually struck by this dichotomy during an after-work bike ride last week...the areas near Heights Blvd. were seemingly one well-off white family after another.

[BryanS]

Yeah, that's the trouble with the Montrose. I've scanned HAR for an affordable place and its just not going to happen.

...there have been townhouses in Cherryhurst for $225-$235K range...

...treemont foreclosures in the 150's...

Seems pretty affordable to me.

[kylejack]

...there have been townhouses in Cherryhurst for $225-$235K range...

...treemont foreclosures in the 150's...

Seems pretty affordable to me.

Leaning away from condos, but we'll see.

[sevfiv]

Yeah I was leaning away from condos/townhouses, too (plus many of the fees made it unaffordable for me).

[sarahiki]

Add me to the list of Montrose-missers. I loved walking to the Menil, and Cafe Artiste before it closed. And up to Cherryhurst park. However, I don't miss those crazy Montrose mosquitos!