The Heights High-Rise Condominium Boom

[RedScare]

I'm not opposed to development, but I'm sympathetic to the argument that this should be opposed on general principal as it could be a hole in the dam. Witness the way that the NRA fights almost any gun control, or Pro-Choicers any restriction on abortion.

Pardon the melodramatics, but this brings to mind:

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.

And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

Tiko,

thank you for your comparisons of your position to the NRA and Nazi Germany. If I had done so, I would have been severely ridiculed. Since you did it for me, I may make the comparison without reprisal. Actually, I agree with you. Your position is as over the top as the NRA's position that anyone who does not favor assault weapons wants to outlaw all guns. Thank you for making my reasonalable stance sound reasonable.

[Tiko]

Tiko,

thank you for your comparisons of your position to the NRA and Nazi Germany. If I had done so, I would have been severely ridiculed. Since you did it for me, I may make the comparison without reprisal. Actually, I agree with you. Your position is as over the top as the NRA's position that anyone who does not favor assault weapons wants to outlaw all guns. Thank you for making my reasonalable stance sound reasonable.

I'm not talking about my position (like I said , I'm not generally opposed to development). I'm only making an observation - that a successful tactic used by many lobbying organization is to oppose any concession as a weakening, and that this is what the petitioners are adopting (I think it's odd that simply noting that the NRA uses this tactic sends everyone diving for their bedcovers). I don't think your tactic of only opposing a development if it's across your street is going to be nearly as effective as theirs.

[Tiko]

I fail to see how a condo development just off the freeway merits a comparison to the Holocaust, melodrama or not. Somehow that doesn't strike me as a way to increase the credibility of your position.

Ridiculous. If I had substituted a quote from a Founding Father, would you say I was comparing the condo to the American Revolution? Quotes are generally derived from large historical events - that's one reason they're so darned quotable.

[heights_yankee]

I'm not opposed to development, but I'm sympathetic to the argument that this should be opposed on general principal as it could be a hole in the dam. Witness the way that the NRA fights almost any gun control, or Pro-Choicers any restriction on abortion.

It's like my husband hating Amy Goodman b/c she's too much of a conspiracy theorist. I tell him "If you have Rush on one side, you need Amy on the other."

This has been my defense of groups like Heights Homeowners Assoc and, say, their opposition to Starbucks. If developers are at "A" and we want them to be "M", you need someone like HHA to be at "Z." If you try to meet developers at C, it's not going to work. The hole in the dam.

Again, though, this fight is just silly. It's eroding credibility and the ability to fight real battles.

[heightsfan]

Good Afternoon All,

Question - Is the Heights really against Starbucks being built in our neighborhood ? Wow did the Heights truly stop Starbucks from building in the area ?

Is the condo invasion more of an arguement because of older homes being torn down and making this area a "newer " neighborhood with new restaurants, shops, and homes ?

[nmainguy]

Good Afternoon All,

Question - Is the Heights really against Starbucks being built in our neighborhood ? Wow did the Heights truly stop Starbucks from building in the area ?

Is the condo invasion more of an arguement because of older homes being torn down and making this area a "newer " neighborhood with new restaurants, shops, and homes ?

The Heights association was against Starbucks but I'm not sure the residents of the Heights were against it. I commend the Heights Association in stopping Walgreens' irresponsible developement at Yale and 20th and applaud them along with CVS for a more responsible developement that not only served the profit motive of CVS but addressed the concerns of our neighborhood.

But at times the Heights Association has been an unreasonable opponent of reasonable development. A point in fact is the beautiful new period structure adjacent to the CVS on E. 19th that is now a Washington Mutual with an added drive through banking facility. All Starbucks ever wanted was a space in that lovely building. It calls into question the Heights Association's motives when they oppose a simple coffee house in lieu of a full service bank with a traffic producing drive-thru off of Yale.

[plumber2]

This type of commotion happened in Galveston a few years ago when Walgreens decided to build a store at the corner of Broadway and 25th St. (across from the the Sealy mansion). The historical gang was adament about approving the look of the building and how the building was oriented on the site and how it would fit in to the neighborhood. Well, while all thier eyes were on Walgreens nobody noticed the circus like carwash establishment being built across the intersection. It got built virtually overnight without a single objection.

[TheNiche]

Ridiculous. If I had substituted a quote from a Founding Father, would you say I was comparing the condo to the American Revolution?

Absolutely, if the quote was referencing something about the American Revolution as being analogous to condominium construction.

But frankly, the founding fathers are better known for quotes as they pertain to individual liberties and the role of government than they are for quotes that pertain to the revolution. That might be more fertile ground if you insist upon quoting other people in lieu of personal creativity.

[houstonfella]

I guess all this boils down to the fact that we are in the 21st century. To live close in and still get a bungalow is beginning to be impossible. So... those developers... build up and get more bang for the buck. It seems to make some people happy while others aren't (the ones who want those bungalows to stay forever). I think the Heights is paying the price of growth. Thanks, you all, for the posts on this subject. I don't live in the Heights any more, but I certainly love the place.

[mkultra25]

I guess all this boils down to the fact that we are in the 21st century. To live close in and still get a bungalow is beginning to be impossible. So... those developers... build up and get more bang for the buck. It seems to make some people happy while others aren't (the ones who want those bungalows to stay forever). I think the Heights is paying the price of growth.

As I was driving down 19th St. after work one day last week, it occurred to me that in another ten years or so, 19th may very well wind up looking similar to the Rice Village area. And as someone who lived in very close proximity to the Village for a number of years during the 80s and 90s, I'm really not a fan of what it has become. While I recognize and accept the economic and other forces inexorably driving such changes, it doesn't mean I have to like them.

[Porchman]

As we're discussing the plot just to the north of Viewpoint at the Heights is proposed, what's up with this project?

[beckster]

I'm a bit taken aback by the apparent "I don't care - progress is progress" mind set here. What exactly is it about the term "HISTORIC" that is hard to understand? This is a designated HISTORIC area of Houston. It was given that designation for protection and the desire to preserve what exists in this neighborhood. That didn't mean the "feel good attitude" of the neighborhood or the proximity to down town - it meant the structures (houses...).

Not meaning to be tacky, but to the person who thinks the prevailing lot size is killing the Heights - wake up! I would suggest you might feel differently if someone built a couple of X-story condominiums on both sides of you. But, hey progress is progress....

As for the 5th Street debacle, the project gave not a bit of thought to how this might impact traffic on 5th Street - a one lane road. So implying there is no cause for those houses to be alarmed is just a bit short sighted.

I don't want to get into an argument on should the Heights move into the latest century or not - I love the HISTORIC feel of this neighborhood and applaud those home owners who want to seek out a bit of preservation.

[jfre81]

Funny how that works in places like Ann Arbor, Austin, and the Heights...

I couldn't agree more with Red. He made a very thorough and convincing argument.

And a rare time that I agree with Red and Niche at the same time...

This is as bad if not worse as the whining over the Ashby high rise when there is already an apartment complex on the plot and there are already highrises a short distance away (like on Montrose @ Barkdull)

I don't think this is going to make any drastic changes for the Heights at all. And although seven stories is technically a highrise, it's hardly tall by modern Houston standards.

[RedScare]

Not meaning to be tacky, but to the person who thinks the prevailing lot size is killing the Heights - wake up! I would suggest you might feel differently if someone built a couple of X-story condominiums on both sides of you. But, hey progress is progress....

Heh....if you only knew what is next door to me NOW.

OK, beck, I am awake. Tell me how the lot line ordinance is helping. I notice you used the word 'preserve' in bold type, so I'll be looking for the explanation about how the lot line ordinance preserved the bungalows across the street from me, even though all I can see is five 4,000 sf homes.

BTW, could you post the boundaries of the historic district in which this plot is located? That piece of land is not located in the Houston Heights, so it must be some other historic district. Additionally, I can verify that the Heights area nearby is not a historic district, since I live in it.

Edited June 24, 2008 by RedScare

[swtsig]

I'm a bit taken aback by the apparent "I don't care - progress is progress" mind set here. What exactly is it about the term "HISTORIC" that is hard to understand? This is a designated HISTORIC area of Houston. It was given that designation for protection and the desire to preserve what exists in this neighborhood. That didn't mean the "feel good attitude" of the neighborhood or the proximity to down town - it meant the structures (houses...).

Not meaning to be tacky, but to the person who thinks the prevailing lot size is killing the Heights - wake up! I would suggest you might feel differently if someone built a couple of X-story condominiums on both sides of you. But, hey progress is progress....

As for the 5th Street debacle, the project gave not a bit of thought to how this might impact traffic on 5th Street - a one lane road. So implying there is no cause for those houses to be alarmed is just a bit short sighted.

I don't want to get into an argument on should the Heights move into the latest century or not - I love the HISTORIC feel of this neighborhood and applaud those home owners who want to seek out a bit of preservation.

what a joke.

we're talknig about a 7-story, 77-unit condominium... not a 35-story behemoth. how bout you re-read what redscare posted over a year ago. if you oppose, that simply means you're a NIMBY.

[jfre81]

what a joke.

we're talknig about a 7-story, 77-unit condominium... not a 35-story behemoth. how bout you re-read what redscare posted over a year ago. if you oppose, that simply means you're a NIMBY.

I didn't know that anything that close to I-10 was really the historic Heights anyway. The freeway sure as hell wasn't part of the old Heights.

[20thStDad]

Actually it was, but I think one can say it no longer is. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd streets did used to exist (a very small part of 2nd still does I think, just south of the bridge off Heights), and those used to be part of the Heights before the freeway took them out. At least that's what an old map tells me, maybe it was a plan that never came to be.

I don't know about current historic district boundaries though.

[jfre81]

Actually it was, but I think one can say it no longer is. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd streets did used to exist (a very small part of 2nd still does I think, just south of the bridge off Heights), and those used to be part of the Heights before the freeway took them out. At least that's what an old map tells me, maybe it was a plan that never came to be.

I don't know about current historic district boundaries though.

That's interesting. I don't think I knew that.

I would like to see the "old" stuff in the Heights preserved (no tearing down Victorians for McMansions, etc.) but allow some development where prior change has already turned something historic into, well, history. It's the same location but the old buildings and such are gone. It's a freeway now. Is it that we should make everything inside 610, north of 10 and west of 45 "historic?" All the other freeways in Houston cut through areas that we could call "historic" if they had been left as they were, but that didn't happen. I could understand a little better if they were trying to put this up on 19th or something.

[20thStDad]

Based on the map on their site it looks like you would only have access to this from E 5th St or E 4 1/2 St. If there were access directly from I-10 right along the bayou that might lessen any added traffic. It's only a couple blocks off I-10, but people who live on those blocks probably have more to say about this than I do.

I'm going to ride my bike down there today, I just can't get a handle on the location and potential layout in my head right now. I know the old rail ROW is right there in the pictures they show on the site, but I thought that was planned for the hike and bike trail. I don't know where else there is space to stick something besides that wooded looking area west of the ROW, sort of between e 5th and e 4 1/2 st. I have to go check it out.

[TheNiche]

That's interesting. I don't think I knew that.

I would like to see the "old" stuff in the Heights preserved (no tearing down Victorians for McMansions, etc.) but allow some development where prior change has already turned something historic into, well, history. It's the same location but the old buildings and such are gone. It's a freeway now. Is it that we should make everything inside 610, north of 10 and west of 45 "historic?" All the other freeways in Houston cut through areas that we could call "historic" if they had been left as they were, but that didn't happen. I could understand a little better if they were trying to put this up on 19th or something.

Where are historical preservationists when we tear up and replace a freeway? Are our old freeways not a critical part of our local history and cultural heritage?

Personally, it strikes me as though most 'preservationists' are just NIMBYs hiding behind more socially-acceptable rhetoric. All they want is what they perceive as a nice place to live, and that doesn't much impress me (my homage of the week to George Carlin).

[N Judah]

Where are historical preservationists when we tear up and replace a freeway? Are our old freeways not a critical part of our local history and cultural heritage?

They are typically straightforward about the desire not to "tear up and replace" a freeway. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they are in favor of replacing freeways with other, larger ones.

[tmariar]

Actually it was, but I think one can say it no longer is. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd streets did used to exist (a very small part of 2nd still does I think, just south of the bridge off Heights), and those used to be part of the Heights before the freeway took them out. At least that's what an old map tells me, maybe it was a plan that never came to be.

I don't know about current historic district boundaries though.

I-10 sticks pretty close to White Oak Bayou near the Heights, which I always imagined was an attempt to lessen the impact of the construction of the highway on the neighborhood. The 1913 map shows a 2nd and a 3rd street, but no 1st, as far as I can tell. And 2nd and 3rd streets were relatively short. The 1912 vote to make the Heights had the dry area defined as extending south to the bayou, and so I imagine the bayou was considered as some kind of boundary - though I recall reading that the Coombs House was on the southern side of the bayou. I might be able to find out more regarding whether the area south of the bayou was considered part of the Heights - but I think the area north of the bayou probably was. Camp Tom Ball (the Spanish Civil War training camp) was I think located at Heights and 3rd (just north of the bayou - the soldiers would go to the Coombs natatorium to cool off), and the camp was spoken of as being in the Heights.

Don't know their exact significance, but there are some Heights historic district maps here.

[20thStDad]

So, I did ride my bike over to that area. It's not very big. Alexan already backs all the way to 4 1/2 St. Riding down the RR ROW, there are a few trails off to the south, but you don't go far until you get to a pretty huge tributary/washout that I'm guessing would have to be filled or covered, or at least redone in some way. As far as access, maybe at the end of 5th, otherwise they would have to use the ROW or cut through the back part of the Alexan.

The old map I have shows 1st and 2nd each going a block out on each side of Heights, and 3rd was slightly longer to the east. Definitely none were very long.

EDIT: I can't believe I forgot to mention that someone was definitely smokin it up in the woods off those trails somewhere. I didn't see anyone, but the odor was clear. HAIFers by chance? Hmm...

Edited June 25, 2008 by 20thStDad

[TheNiche]

They are typically straightforward about the desire not to "tear up and replace" a freeway. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they are in favor of replacing freeways with other, larger ones.

Well yeah, the NIMBYs certainly are. They raise a big stink about every little thing.

But I don't hear any preservationists talk about the cultural significance or architectural merit of freeway alignments, designs, etc. They only talk about forgettable unimpactful little houses getting demolished...and even then not very loudly.

[jc281]

we should tear down all the heights, put in 50 story high rises with bars and retail ground floor. it'll be like downtown II, we'll call it up..no, mid...no, sidetown~!

[lockmat]

I'm interested to see the final plans...

The exterior architecture will integrate elements of Victorian style and architecture reminiscent of the Heights area