MOpens Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Jeremiah 5:21: ""Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not..."Hey, I don't read that stuff. Does it end with "that the Heights will never be what s3mh wants it to be"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Hey, I don't read that stuff. Does it end with "that the Heights will never be what s3mh wants it to be"?But you did just read that stuff. Comprehension is a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOpens Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 But you did just read that stuff. Comprehension is a different matter.No, I did not. I read your quote, nothing more, and asked what the rest said, coupled with my best guess as to what it might say, with a little humor (layered on top of fact) added in. I am not sure how you translate that into lack of comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 In response to my post that you cannot see the sunrise for the trees, you post a quote from a guy that lived in the desert?Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 In response to my post that you cannot see the sunrise for the trees, you post a quote from a guy that lived in the desert? Brilliant. I must admit that that's a clever remark. Still, I have trouble accepting the premise that trees block sunrises as effectively as townhomes. The Heights isn't exactly the Black Forest, from which residents emerge, blinking, into the sunlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 As a Heights resident, I have to say that I cannot see the sunrise until it clears the one story house across the street. By that time, it can hardly be considered a sunrise, at least not one worthy of restricting the right of property owners to build there. But, then, if you are so important that everyone within your view must bow to your wishes, I guess anything is possible. I DO wonder how the sunrise poster gets away with blocking the sunrise of the resident immediately to her west, though...and why she is so thoughtless as to block it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights Homeowner Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 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 Sure we need more retail/commercial. Shopping and restaurants anyway. 19th Street has a bit more diversity than it used to but we need a lot more specialty/boutique type biz. We also need more restaurants. But no, I'm not longing for a Starbuck because I don't drink the brew. We don't have much available land on the major thoroughfares to fear any over development but more choices for everything would be just fine with me. I have been around the Heights a long time and remember the days when there was virtually no where decent to eat and no shopping but antiques. Its better now but by no means is where we need to be. We'll get there though and the preservation nuts won't be able to stop businesses from coming here as they once did. The Studewood location is not in the Houston Heights, per se and the HHA has no "jurisdiction" anyway. They are a civic association. One that has improved in the last few years and hopefully that will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights Homeowner Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 My "McVic" (your term, not mine; I am starting to like Heights Homeowner's term "Victorian Revival") is way taller than two stories. Victorian's were born from a revival of many styles from ancient architecture. So, Victorian Revival seems appropriate for the revival of the styles seen in the charm of the homes built in the Heights today. Not every builder gets it right but the good ones sure try to. The hysterical restriction group wants everyone to believe the only architectural style original to the Heights is California Bungalow but their bungalow revival movement for new construciton is never going to happen. They don't understand the economics of why and we are all weary of explaining it to them. Fortunately, in the historic districts, what little new construction that can happen can now be appealed to the city council and hopefully they can see how ridiculous the HAHC's decisions are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 The Studewood location is not in the Houston Heights, per se and the HHA has no "jurisdiction" anyway. They are a civic association. One that has improved in the last few years and hopefully that will continue.Ten bucks says s3mh couldn't tell us what subdivision that is without looking for it.BTW, the infamous and vaunted Norhill deed restrictions allow construction to a height of 40 feet. This proposed structure will only be 60 feet. Though s3mh claims it will be triple the size of the surrounding neighborhood over on Swamplot, it will only be a mere 20 feet higher than the most restrictive neighborhood allows. Hardly seems worth getting one's panties in a bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 BTW, the infamous and vaunted Norhill deed restrictions allow construction to a height of 40 feet.Have the Norhill deed restrictions affected property values? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights Homeowner Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 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.I'm stunned you have now sunk to worrying about sunrises and sunsets being seen from "a block of bungalows." Honestly, I thought my neighbor was the only nut who talked about that nonsense. He's one of you yellow sign kooks and he, with all seriousness and sincerity said his idea for building restrictions were sunlight laws the restricted how much sunlight you could block! I have a hundred year old tree in my back yard that blocks the sunrise every morning and I'm thrilled it does. If you want sunrise/sunset moments, go live on an island. Nothing to block your view every morning/evening. But Chicken Little, you live in an urban area. Your view is going to be blocked. Get over it.Fortunately, you will get NO MORE restrictions. You and your friends have poisoned the well and no one will ever support any effort for more restrictions. The Studewood development is only unreasonable densification to you. It won't create a traffic problem in any way. The traffic regulations are over used by everyone now who thinks just like you. And the planning commission will tell you that. There is no rubber stamp but there also is very little development that can happen in the inner city that will impact traffic enough to stop development. You once again prove you know nothing about urban planning.And there you go again Chicky - "the sky is falling, the sky is falling...everyone and their brother will be buying up land in the Heights to do copy cat developments." Chick, what land are you talking about? I’m really starting to worry about you. You obsess about this stuff way too much and the delusional predictions you constantly make might lead to a diagnosis of paranoid. Or maybe its just a phobia of big buildings. I'm not a psychiatrist but a fear of big buildings probably would respond to systematic desensitization. Let's discuss your options because your building size phobia might be easily treated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights Homeowner Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Ten bucks says s3mh couldn't tell us what subdivision that is without looking for it.BTW, the infamous and vaunted Norhill deed restrictions allow construction to a height of 40 feet. This proposed structure will only be 60 feet. Though s3mh claims it will be triple the size of the surrounding neighborhood over on Swamplot, it will only be a mere 20 feet higher than the most restrictive neighborhood allows. Hardly seems worth getting one's panties in a bunch.You would win that bet. I haven't looked but might be Stude 2. I just know its not Heights proper because it ends at Oxford on the East side. Interesting about the Norhill deed restriction. But his group gets their panties in a bunch over anything new.Have you ever seen the movie Somewhere In Time? Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymore chick flick. Reeve time travels in his mind, in a sort of trance, back to Victorian times and falls in love with an actress played by Seymore. They have a sweet little love affair until Reeve finds a penny in the pocket of his suit which has a date from the future. Seeing the penny snaps him out of it and brings him back to the current time. Well, seeing new construction for the Heights yellow sign buggers is like that penny. It brings them back to reality and the real world and they realize it isn't 1911 but it is indeed 2011. They want to live in a trance like state, pretending it is a century ago. Reeve dies because he can't go back, BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverJK Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 As a Heights resident, I have to say that I cannot see the sunrise until it clears the one story house across the street. By that time, it can hardly be considered a sunrise, at least not one worthy of restricting the right of property owners to build there. But, then, if you are so important that everyone within your view must bow to your wishes, I guess anything is possible. I DO wonder how the sunrise poster gets away with blocking the sunrise of the resident immediately to her west, though...and why she is so thoughtless as to block it.I'm sandwiched between two orginal two stories... and i still have a view of the sunrise. I can't really see the sunset due to trees (stupid beautiful river birch), but I get a sweet mirror effect off of downtown's highrises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 On the plus side, the additional shading should help mitigate summer cooling costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 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. You seriously championed a ordinance that you have no idea of the contents, didn't you?I really think you should spend the time, rather than making ludicrous claims in here, reading the ordinance in full.I've linked it in other threads, and here it is again... http://www.houstontx...ed_20101013.pdfGo ahead and go to page 27, they talk about what you can and cannot do with a noncontributing structure that is located in a historic district, that only counts for additions, or renovations. and guess what, they still have to get approved by the HAHC.I assume (it doesn't state it anywhere) that if you rip out a noncontributing structure in a historic district (actually very easy), you would have to replace it with a contributing structure, since there is no longer a noncontributing structure, and you are in a historic district.With that in mind, all you have to do is get the 10% for the consideration of a historic district that includes the land you don't want some 7 or 9 story tower on, and go to town. again, with the support for historic districts, this should be easy. There is nothing that says a historic district can't include land used for other uses than residential by the way.So, the question again is, what other tools do you need? With as much support as your group has, and with all of these people up in arms about their precious sunrise, making everything in the heights that you care about a historic district should be easy as the worlds tallest pie, which should be really easy, because no one's ever made the worlds tallest pie, all you have to do is make a pie that is taller than a standard pie, and there you go!oh yeah, and to your point that you have to have a certain number of structures, didn't see that in there either, just that the council would decide whether it was worth a vote from the people living in the proposed district or not. even if it did have something like that, if a full block went in for the HD designation, that apartment complex is on that block, and it only gets one vote (even if it owned by multiple people). so if there's 20 homes and 1 apartment complex, obviously (well, outside of the people on this forum that are against it) every homeowner would vote in favor of the district, so then guess what, the apartments become a noncontributing structure in a historic district. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I wonder if this construction is related to the big gas leak reported at 11:06 am at 11 1/2 and Studewood. I can smell the gas from my house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights Homeowner Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I wonder if this construction is related to the big gas leak reported at 11:06 am at 11 1/2 and Studewood. I can smell the gas from my house.It was on the news and they showed the construction site but didn't know at that time if it was related. BTW, the planning director will present her (the mayor's) recommendations on Wednesday but there won't be a vote so no need to go speak at council on Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.