Condo Slated For 11th & Studewood St.

[callisthenes]

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... the Heights in particular has a serious deficit for shopping and dining.

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.

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

[Angostura]

Just because you can point to a few exceptions doesn't mean that they should then become the rule. In fact, the few exceptions in the Heights are a much better argument for a rule against building up in the Heights than for maintaining the status quo.

Leaving aside the somewhat ironic call for restricting development in the Heights to suburban-style projects, there's one big risk with wanting more rules/zoning to govern development: the very real possibility that the people writing and enforcing the rules won't make the decisions you would like them to.

Houston does have a number of rules governing how property can be developed, and a lot of these have a detrimental effect. The reason we have so many strip centers, for example, is that they're an economically efficient way to comply with minimum parking requirements and setback restrictions.

Given the coziness of the relationship between our city's government and its property developers, you might want to familiarize yourself with the term "Regulatory Capture".

[SilverJK]

Very weak. Putting up 6, 10, 12 story buildings in peoples back yards in the Heights is ok because Houston is Houston. Just because Houston has made mistakes in the past doesn't mean it then must become a source of civic pride (or popular folklore about the lack of zoning being the secret to Houston's success). Just because someone put up four ugly 5-6 story buildings in one part of the Heights does not mean that it is fair game to put up more. If you think a few odd buildings around 20th street make a 6-8 story building on 11 1/2 street appropriate, you really don't get it. All you have to do to get it is drive around a bit in the Heights. You will not seen anything taller than two stories, with a few very, very odd exceptions. Just because you can point to a few exceptions doesn't mean that they should then become the rule. In fact, the few exceptions in the Heights are a much better argument for a rule against building up in the Heights than for maintaining the status quo. The Heights fought like hell against a little cell phone tower in virtually the same spot. The Heights will have a much bigger fight if developers continue to abuse the neighborhood.

I wasn't around during the cell phone tower issue, (neither were you). Does the company that owns the tower own the land it is on, or is it city owned?

Saying you will see nothing taller than two stories is simply not true, there are several 3 story original houses in the heights. I almost bought this one. (The third story may have just been a built out attic, but regardless this thing is tall)

(http://www.har.com/HomeValue/3401-HOUSTON-AV-HOUSTON-77009-M8387210.htm#)

The buildings on 19th are taller than this will be. Just because you don't want it, doesn't me that should become the rule. How are the exceptions a better argument for a rule against building? Don't they just prove that buildings of this size do indeed fit in with our neighborhood?

I think the true issue is your wants aren't achievable. You have stated the Heights is like a small town, but you don't want to allow any development. This means to go to restaurants, retail, etc. you will have to travel outside of the heights. Then you say there is plenty of places to build in midtown/east end etc. NIMBY. If you got your way, you'd complain about traffic to go to these new places in midtown/east end. It doesn't matter what happens, you are going to complain. If you get your way, you'll complain. You got your Historic District, your still complaining about something that is NOT in a district. What you really want isn't a small town feel, nor an urban environment. You want suburban master planned community, with cute bungalows. You want to prevent anyone who doesn't live in the heights for having any reason to go there. I don't know about the rest of the neighborhood (I can't speak for them all like you do) but I personally, and many of my friends/neighbors I've spoke with want more retail/restaurants etc. in the neighborhood. Adding some density will increase the draw for these things.

If your so worried about lots having 12 story buildings built on them (there are not that many lots in the heights left that are big enough for this 6 story development, much less a 12 story) why don't you and your cohorts buy the property and put some deed restrictions on it? You wait until someone else buys it (will full rights to build something like this project) and you start complaining and trying to stop it when they start construction? You aren't willing to spend your money on the lot, but you want to have control of what gets built there, after someone else has bought the land and started construction? Makes you sound a bit like a spoiled brat.

If one of these buildings gets built in someone's backyard, i'm pretty sure that would be illegal, it would be beyond their yard, in a totally different lot. Your backyard does not extend pass your lot line.

[LTAWACS]

The taller the better.

[RedScare]

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

Me too.

[dbigtex56]

The taller the better.

I like pie. Yum. Tasty pie.

[samagon]

I like pie. Yum. Tasty pie.

how tall can one make a pie?

interestingly there are multiple resources online for different types of pie, but they are usually for the largest pie, not for the tallest.

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/set/pie.html

http://www.foodmall.org/entry/the-largest-pumpkin-pie-in-the-world/

http://www.recipesource.com/desserts/pies/12/rec1267.html

I guess the arena is wide open for going tallest!

[dbigtex56]

how tall can one make a pie?

interestingly there are multiple resources online for different types of pie, but they are usually for the largest pie, not for the tallest.

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/set/pie.html

http://www.foodmall.org/entry/the-largest-pumpkin-pie-in-the-world/

http://www.recipesource.com/desserts/pies/12/rec1267.html

I guess the arena is wide open for going tallest!

An appropriate and humorous response, especially since this thread started off as an April Fool's joke. Thanks.

The whole discussion about preservation and development in the Heights is giving me a headache. Because I have to think. I hate that.

On one hand, the charm and culture of the Heights could easily be overrun by exploitive thoughtless development. As a 30 year resident of the Montrose, I'm not delighted by the insensitivity and greed shown by some investors and developers. I hate seeing my neighborhood being treated like a Monopoly board. And I'm from a place (up Nawth) where hard won victories by preservationists have been vindicated. History is jealously guarded, and people willingly abide by strict building codes. A shame, some of the things which have been lost. I hope Robert Moses rots in hell.

On the other hand, this is a different battle. We're not talking about massive government clearance of 'slum' neighborhoods. This is part of the growing pains of a young, healthy city. Although I appreciate the charm of the typical Heights bungalow, it cannot compare in substance to the 18th and 19th century buildings which have been preserved elsewhere. This ain't Penn Station we're talking about - just old, economically constructed houses. We appreciate the honest materials from which they were built - the cost to authentically duplicate even a humble 1920's cottage would be prohibitive. But this is now. People have the same right to build their dream houses now as they did a hundred years ago. And if that includes faux Victorian designs, granite countertops and Jacuzzis, so be it. But be aware that a massive, crudely executed replica of Barbie's Dream House may not be appropriate - or appreciated.

I've tried to avoid posting on this topic, because passionate arguments make me lose my cool. I may have lost a friend or two already, and that saddens me. I hope that this discussion remains lively - and civil. The posts which have had the most influence on my opinion were thoughtful and respectful of others.

So, where do I come down on preservation ordnances in the Heights? Hell if I know.

[Angostura]

At the end of the day, the largest determinant of building height is the value of the land underneath it.

The higher the value of the land, the more densely it must be used for a project to be economically viable. Conversely, the increased building costs associated with taller structures are only justified when the cost of land outweighs the increase in building costs.

Out in the sticks, where land values are below $10/sf, you very rarely see anything vertical, with the possible exception of mid-rise office buildings, hospitals, hotels and the like, where there is intrinsic value in additional density for operational reasons. In Manhattan, where land values are in the thousands of dollars per s.f., single-story construction is exceedingly rare. At the prevailing land prices in the Heights (around $30-35/sf), it's difficult to justify high-density, urban-style construction. Land values would have to double from where they are for multi-level parking to be more economical on a per-space basis than surface parking. Even then, many consumers prefer to utilize surface parking over multi-level structures, so developers seem to favor it even when the cost per space may be lower for multi-level.

The point being: the chances that the major thoroughfares in the Heights will become lined with 8 and 10 story buildings is pretty remote. Land values in the Heights continue to favor low-rise development. There are a lot of large-ish parcels of land that are either available or recently sold, and this is the only one with any indication of a building higher than 3 stories. Most development in the Heights continues to be sufficiently suburban to satisfy those opposed to this project.

[samagon]

My theory is that the charm and culture of an area is defined by the people that live there, the people that work there, and the types of business that occupy the area. The structures that comprise that area create a visual aesthetic that may enhance that charm and culture.

I look at Montrose as a guide and example of that theory.

Yeah, there have been a fair number of homes that have been replaced with townhomes, and some storefronts that have been replaced by new (and bland) strip centers.

But what made Montrose what it was? Not the buildings, it was the people, and the places.

The same is true for any neighborhood, or area of a town. zoning, no zoning; historic, not historic.

I don't know, I guess it's different philosophy on what is important. To me, I found a house that I liked, the size, the flow, the construction materials used, in an area that I wanted to be. The last thing on my mind was what comprised the rest of the neighborhood, or what kind of structures rested within a mile or two of my house.

I won't be disappointed if my neighbors remain the same people they are (along with cars in the yard, chickens that roam free, and everything else), or if they are replaced by different people (along with their luxury German cars, super sized houses that engulf the yard, and whatever else that comes with it). I also wouldn't be unhappy if the industrial building behind my house stays as it is for 40 more years, or is traded in for a 10 story mixed use condo.

Heh, to be truthful about that, I feel sorry for the people who peek in my backyard and see me watering my flowerbed in pajama pants and flip flops. My next door neighbor has learned it is best to not look out of his side window when he hears my lawn mower!

Life moves, life changes, and I've found it's a lot more enjoyable if I accept that, and don't sweat the small s**t.

[RedScare]

An appropriate and humorous response, especially since this thread started off as an April Fool's joke. Thanks.

The whole discussion about preservation and development in the Heights is giving me a headache. Because I have to think. I hate that.

On one hand, the charm and culture of the Heights could easily be overrun by exploitive thoughtless development. As a 30 year resident of the Montrose, I'm not delighted by the insensitivity and greed shown by some investors and developers. I hate seeing my neighborhood being treated like a Monopoly board. And I'm from a place (up Nawth) where hard won victories by preservationists have been vindicated. History is jealously guarded, and people willingly abide by strict building codes. A shame, some of the things which have been lost. I hope Robert Moses rots in hell.

On the other hand, this is a different battle. We're not talking about massive government clearance of 'slum' neighborhoods. This is part of the growing pains of a young, healthy city. Although I appreciate the charm of the typical Heights bungalow, it cannot compare in substance to the 18th and 19th century buildings which have been preserved elsewhere. This ain't Penn Station we're talking about - just old, economically constructed houses. We appreciate the honest materials from which they were built - the cost to authentically duplicate even a humble 1920's cottage would be prohibitive. But this is now. People have the same right to build their dream houses now as they did a hundred years ago. And if that includes faux Victorian designs, granite countertops and Jacuzzis, so be it. But be aware that a massive, crudely executed replica of Barbie's Dream House may not be appropriate - or appreciated.

I've tried to avoid posting on this topic, because passionate arguments make me lose my cool. I may have lost a friend or two already, and that saddens me. I hope that this discussion remains lively - and civil. The posts which have had the most influence on my opinion were thoughtful and respectful of others.

So, where do I come down on preservation ordnances in the Heights? Hell if I know.

A very thoughtful and pragmatic response. Thank you.

[sunsets]

I also suspect that there's a bit of disconnect regarding what constitutes "The Heights" in this case. s3mh says

All you have to do to get it is drive around a bit in the Heights. You will not seen anything taller than two stories, with a few very, very odd exceptions.

And there are several replies pointing out that original Victorians, such as those on 11th and Heights, are taller than 3 stories. All true.

But the proposed building somewhere between the Woodland Heights extensions and Norhill, both of which are newer (1920s or so) than the Heights proper and contain smaller, more modest bungalows.

However, I don't see how that building is going to destroy the neighborhood(s). It's in a commercial zone. There's a large self-serve car wash right behind it, for goodness sake! There's a permanently-under-construction former 7-11 that I have no idea what's going on with sitting next to a bright lime green corrugated metal building just to the south of the new building. How could it make anything worse?

I-45 cutting through the east side did not destroy the character of Woodland Heights. The rich-person compound of 4-5 story monstrosities that overlook White Oak bayou at Houston did not destroy the character of the Woodland Heights (though I envy their views), nor did the condo development to the west of them. Heck, Skylane Central sits on the edge of Woodland Heights. Talk about a blight on the landscape! The neighborhood has changed, to be sure, but the core has remained, and probably will continue to do so, given the deed restrictions in place.

[s3mh]

I also suspect that there's a bit of disconnect regarding what constitutes "The Heights" in this case. s3mh says

And there are several replies pointing out that original Victorians, such as those on 11th and Heights, are taller than 3 stories. All true.

But the proposed building somewhere between the Woodland Heights extensions and Norhill, both of which are newer (1920s or so) than the Heights proper and contain smaller, more modest bungalows.

However, I don't see how that building is going to destroy the neighborhood(s). It's in a commercial zone. There's a large self-serve car wash right behind it, for goodness sake! There's a permanently-under-construction former 7-11 that I have no idea what's going on with sitting next to a bright lime green corrugated metal building just to the south of the new building. How could it make anything worse?

I-45 cutting through the east side did not destroy the character of Woodland Heights. The rich-person compound of 4-5 story monstrosities that overlook White Oak bayou at Houston did not destroy the character of the Woodland Heights (though I envy their views), nor did the condo development to the west of them. Heck, Skylane Central sits on the edge of Woodland Heights. Talk about a blight on the landscape! The neighborhood has changed, to be sure, but the core has remained, and probably will continue to do so, given the deed restrictions in place.

I never said one six or eight story building would destroy all of the Heights. I also never said that I would try to do anything to stop this development. I certainly don't like it. I feel for the bungalows on 11 1/2 who will no longer have a sunrise.

There are certainly plenty of examples of bad development all around the Heights. But why does the standard have to be that it is ok as long as it doesn't destroy the entire community? And at what point will we find so many 6+ story buildings going in at every nook and crany in the Heights that we find ourselves saying "oh crap, they did destroy the character of the community." I counted about half dozen apartment complexes on Heights Blvd that could be torn down and replaced with similar or even taller buildings (didn't count the section of Heights included in the historic dist, so don't start). There are probably at least another half dozen old beat up apartments or machine shops around the Heights that could also be the future home of 6, 10, 12 story buildings. Taken to its logical developer zeal limits, there could be a not so distant future where almost every homeowner in the Heights looks out onto a 6+ story building when sitting in their back yard. That would certainly destroy the character of the Heights.

This development is a turning point for the Heights. We can sit on our hands and hope developers won't build next to our house, or we can start thinking about some reasonable rules to keep the Heights the Heights.

[MOpens]

This development is a turning point for the Heights. We can sit on our hands and hope developers won't build next to our house, or we can start thinking about some reasonable rules to keep the Heights the Heights.

Definition of HYPERBOLE

: extravagant exaggeration (as “mile-high ice-cream cones”)

or "This development is a turning point for the Heights."

[RedScare]

This development is a turning point for the Heights. We can sit on our hands and hope developers won't build next to our house, or we can start thinking about some reasonable rules to keep the Heights the Heights.

After shafting me in mid-renovation, if you think I or any of my neighbors are going to help you oppose ANY development or support more regulation in the Heights area, you're stoned, as well as delusional. Get this stinkin' hysterical ordinance off of my house and we'll talk. Until then, I'm supporting the builder.

[SilverJK]

I never said one six or eight story building would destroy all of the Heights. I also never said that I would try to do anything to stop this development. I certainly don't like it. I feel for the bungalows on 11 1/2 who will no longer have a sunrise.

There are certainly plenty of examples of bad development all around the Heights. But why does the standard have to be that it is ok as long as it doesn't destroy the entire community? And at what point will we find so many 6+ story buildings going in at every nook and crany in the Heights that we find ourselves saying "oh crap, they did destroy the character of the community." I counted about half dozen apartment complexes on Heights Blvd that could be torn down and replaced with similar or even taller buildings (didn't count the section of Heights included in the historic dist, so don't start). There are probably at least another half dozen old beat up apartments or machine shops around the Heights that could also be the future home of 6, 10, 12 story buildings. Taken to its logical developer zeal limits, there could be a not so distant future where almost every homeowner in the Heights looks out onto a 6+ story building when sitting in their back yard. That would certainly destroy the character of the Heights.

This development is a turning point for the Heights. We can sit on our hands and hope developers won't build next to our house, or we can start thinking about some reasonable rules to keep the Heights the Heights.

I can see a 75 story building from my house... I actually find that to be awesome.

I would absolutely love for the run down shoddy apartments near my house to be replaced with a development like this.

[MOpens]

I can see a 75 story building from my house... I actually find that to be awesome.

I had the exact same thought. I love this time of year - with no leaves on the trees, the view of downtown, as well as AIG and Williams Tower, is amazing. Especially from the upper reaches of a Victorian Revival.

[sunsets]

Taken to its logical developer zeal limits, there could be a not so distant future where almost every homeowner in the Heights looks out onto a 6+ story building when sitting in their back yard. That would certainly destroy the character of the Heights.

This development is a turning point for the Heights. We can sit on our hands and hope developers won't build next to our house, or we can start thinking about some reasonable rules to keep the Heights the Heights.

I don't know about your block, but I have deed restrictions on mine. So no one is going to build a 6 story building next to my bungalow. They might manage a "Victorian Revival" or a "Camelbacked whale" but they won't be higher than 2 stories. And if I were worried about a commercial building like that, I wouldn't buy on a lot next to a commercial area like Studewood.

This isn't Disneyland. We can't "Imagineer" the perfect neighborhood. (That's for places like Bridgeland and Cinco Ranch). I'll take the mix and the mess and my little house and my delightfully strange mixed neighborhoods (and delightfully strange neighbors), and, possibly, a mixed-use multistory building in a reasonable spot like Studewood and 11th.

[samagon]

I don't know about your block, but I have deed restrictions on mine. So no one is going to build a 6 story building next to my bungalow. They might manage a "Victorian Revival" or a "Camelbacked whale" but they won't be higher than 2 stories. And if I were worried about a commercial building like that, I wouldn't buy on a lot next to a commercial area like Studewood.

This isn't Disneyland. We can't "Imagineer" the perfect neighborhood. (That's for places like Bridgeland and Cinco Ranch). I'll take the mix and the mess and my little house and my delightfully strange mixed neighborhoods (and delightfully strange neighbors), and, possibly, a mixed-use multistory building in a reasonable spot like Studewood and 11th.

Irvine, CA is really a great place to go to see an amazing job of zoning, and restriction. Disney Imagineering at its finest.

I think they even have people that go around and scrape the gum off the ground, just like disney world.

[samagon]

I feel for the bungalows on 11 1/2 who will no longer have a sunrise.

I think it will depend more on the time of year, and where they are standing as to whether they will get to enjoy the sunrise.

I don't get to 'enjoy' the sunrise from my house on weekdays as I'm generally either getting ready for work, or driving in to work. on the weekends I'm asleep during the sunrise.

I don't think many others are different, or put as much stock into seeing the sunrise from a specific spot on their front porch as you appear to. I could be wrong, I certainly haven't canvassed your neighbors to find out.

I'm much more into the deep colors of a sunset reflected off the clouds in the afternoon.

This development is a turning point for the Heights. We can sit on our hands and hope developers won't build next to our house, or we can start thinking about some reasonable rules to keep the Heights the Heights.

How about you go with the rules that are currently there?

you can always create a historic district, or deed restrictions. what other rules do you need? Why are those rules not sufficient to encompass what is being done?

those are both two very powerful tools that can do exactly what you are wanting, you just have to get people to agree to it, judging from the support you claim to have, this should be no problem at all. So I don't see the problem?

Why do you need more rules? How is it that either of those rules wouldn't have fit to keep this site from being developed as it is currently? How is it that either of those rules won't work for future developments?

[J008]

Why do you need more rules? How is it that either of those rules wouldn't have fit to keep this site from being developed as it is currently? How is it that either of those rules won't work for future developments?

I am just curious if there are any rules on noise at a construction site. I have been driving really early by this site and it is crazy busy with dump trucks before 7 and often before 6.

Additionally, at least this morning there were two north bound dump trucks in the turning lane which of course is one-way southbound at that hour.

[samagon]

I would imagine that they have to follow the same noise restrictions as any business, or otherwise.

if no one reports it though, nothing will happen.

[s3mh]

I think it will depend more on the time of year, and where they are standing as to whether they will get to enjoy the sunrise.

I don't get to 'enjoy' the sunrise from my house on weekdays as I'm generally either getting ready for work, or driving in to work. on the weekends I'm asleep during the sunrise.

I don't think many others are different, or put as much stock into seeing the sunrise from a specific spot on their front porch as you appear to. I could be wrong, I certainly haven't canvassed your neighbors to find out.

I'm much more into the deep colors of a sunset reflected off the clouds in the afternoon.

How about you go with the rules that are currently there?

you can always create a historic district, or deed restrictions. what other rules do you need? Why are those rules not sufficient to encompass what is being done?

those are both two very powerful tools that can do exactly what you are wanting, you just have to get people to agree to it, judging from the support you claim to have, this should be no problem at all. So I don't see the problem?

Why do you need more rules? How is it that either of those rules wouldn't have fit to keep this site from being developed as it is currently? How is it that either of those rules won't work for future developments?

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.

[SilverJK]

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.

given your logic, this development will provide amazing sunrise views for those living in the building... I'm guessing it will have even better views than the bungalows have of sunrises and/or sunsets (depending on the layout) and provide views for more people than currently do have them.

Unreasonable densification? I don't think so, this development is the example of reasonable densification. What would have them do, move 4-5 bungalows to this lot? That isn't densification. This is a commercial area. If you want to prevent this from happening on your block, (you don't even want two store Victorian Revivials next to you so obviously you are in this category) why not talk to your neighbors and set deed restrictions. You can't have the mayor do all your work for you. ACTUALLY get out there and get something done. Or keep on trollin on the internet because your too lazy to really do anything, arm chair activist.

I do feel sorry for the bungalows directly next door, but that is probably less than 10 bungalows that are really impacted. Meanwhile the other 3,500+ homes in the Houston Heights gain a neat mixed use facility (hopefully architecturally interesting). And is living next to a 6 story building really any worse than living next to a car wash? At least the guys who vaccum out there trunks while bumping their subwoofers with the volume turned to 11 will have more people to share their music with.

You are saying that you want something that goes beyond the current restrictions and doesn't need landowners consent. Oh Hell No.

[RedScare]

What's this sunrise/sunset crap? There are so many trees in the Heights that you can't see them anyway. I tell ya, the crap this poster comes up with to justify taking other people's rights is just beyond imagination. Now, a sunrise justifies taking your property?

[samagon]

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).

don't get me wrong, I never said I didn't enjoy them, just saying that because you are, doesn't mean that everyone is.

All the Heights needs is some height restrictions and some reasonable division between commercial and residential.

And if that were passed? I'm sure there would be something else that would be a reasonable addition to the rules...

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.

Ah, see, this is funny.

I can see you typing (in the hypothetical future) when zoning were approved.

The city was supposed to use zoning to clamp down on unreasonable densification, but has decided to do whatever they want, rather than what I had imagined in my Utopian dreams!

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.

of course it does, and by your own statement, there is towering support for historic districts, and such, so why is this a hurdle?

I don't see a problem, your group has so much support, it should be a cake walk making the rest of the heights a historic district, even if you don't stop this monstrosity, you can keep others from being built (even if they would be in an area that includes this tower, cause the tower is a non-contributing structure).

but why stop there, with as much support as your group has, you should be able to make everything a historic district, to preserve sunrises for everyone!

[dbigtex56]

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.

Someone's gotta say it: I appreciate and enjoy your comments.

I admire that you continue to post in spite of becoming HAIF's designated 'whipping boy'. The issues you bring up are legitimate; some of the details may be debatable, but isn't that the purpose of a forum?. The quality of life Heights residents enjoy can be eroded by irresponsible development, and I'm glad someone is addressing that issue.

There's a lot of discussions about property rights on this board, but very little about property responsibilities. That new townhome is likely to shade a neighbor's back yard, and kill any chances of having a nice garden there. Does that homeowner have no rights?

Some people enjoy mature trees, songbirds and, yes, sunlight. And some people want just to make a killing on real estate. There has to be a healthy balance; cheers for your thought-provoking posts.

[s3mh]

don't get me wrong, I never said I didn't enjoy them, just saying that because you are, doesn't mean that everyone is.

And if that were passed? I'm sure there would be something else that would be a reasonable addition to the rules...

Ah, see, this is funny.

I can see you typing (in the hypothetical future) when zoning were approved.

of course it does, and by your own statement, there is towering support for historic districts, and such, so why is this a hurdle?

I don't see a problem, your group has so much support, it should be a cake walk making the rest of the heights a historic district, even if you don't stop this monstrosity, you can keep others from being built (even if they would be in an area that includes this tower, cause the tower is a non-contributing structure).

but why stop there, with as much support as your group has, you should be able to make everything a historic district, to preserve sunrises for everyone!

In order to have a historic district, you need to have a certain amount of historic properties. The orange juice plant and 1970s apartment complexes don't make it. Nor do the chicken plant, 1980s strip centers and so on. In order to have deed restrictions you need a majority of the block. If the entire block is majority commerical, you will never get an agreement. Or if someone buys out the block, they can do away with the restriction (Greenway Plaza used to be a residential neighborhood). Life isn't always as easy as the realtors say it is (sorry, it has become a habit . . . I am working on it).

Zoning isn't perfect, but at least it gives people some sense of certainty and security. Right now, anyone buying residential property within a two or three blocks from Yale, Heights or Studemont may end up looking out on a 12 story building in their back yard. Some of you might think that is cool. But most in the Heights did not buy their homes in order to let people in midrise condos watch their kids play in their back yard.

[MOpens]

What's this sunrise/sunset crap? There are so many trees in the Heights that you can't see them anyway. I tell ya, the crap this poster comes up with to justify taking other people's rights is just beyond imagination. Now, a sunrise justifies taking your property?

Agree - between the trees and my detached garage, no sunrises are seen from our Victorian Revival. But I did not move to the Heights to see sunrises. Was not even a consideration. I don't think that is even listed on the sellling features on HAR. I go to an east-facing beach or the top of an east-facing mountain to see the sunrise. As far as sunsets are concerned, the ONE-STORY BUNGALOW across the street (which is in a very sad state of historical disrepair) blocks my view of the sunset. Beaches and mountains are good for those too (west-facing, of course).

[dbigtex56]

What's this sunrise/sunset crap? There are so many trees in the Heights that you can't see them anyway. I tell ya, the crap this poster comes up with to justify taking other people's rights is just beyond imagination. Now, a sunrise justifies taking your property?

Jeremiah 5:21: ""Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not..."