Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Wow...a private residence? Nice.

I've gradually watched the building take shape and felt it was too commercial-looking to be private, but too private-looking to be commercial. Glad it will be a private residence...I feared for a while that they would be jamming a parking lot in front.

Regardless, I agree that it is an exceptional design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

ehh...the gold paint on the exterior columns is odd. i like the interior windows and tile. the columns would be neat to wrap crap around ^_^

1546292-18.jpg

edit - i didn't even notice there was a picture of a kitchen in there until closer look! bleh

Edited by sevfiv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not feeling the love for those gold columns. It looks like it should be a "gentlemen's club" on Winrock or something.

"AHHHHHHHHHHHHH YEAH! Destiny report to the stage, Jada on deck.."

lol.. A few people here might not get that one. I bet TJones will though! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I've been browsing around the Third Ward (Washington Terrace/Riverside Terrace) area but have also noticed this in parts of the Heights and elsewhere, these awful listings that show a cute little house in need of work and then -- apparently as a selling point????!!! -- photos of hideous new townhouse developments in the area. I'm glad the realtors put them up b/c they function as an unintentional warning to me. Would hate to be across the street or god forbid next door to one of those. Often the listing description will actually come right out and promote the property as a tear-down, even when it looks to be in mostly good condition.

Could someone please explain this to me? Why would people pay more money to live in an ugly box in a row of boxes than in a real house with a yard and character? This is not a rhetorical question. I am honestly curious and really want to know. If it is just the newer fixtures/kitchens/bathrooms, why not "update" (a word I am starting to dread seeing in the listings) the older house rather than tearing it down? We don't have townhouses here in New York, so I just don't get it. No one here, in their right mind or not, would tear down an old brownstone or prewar apartment building to build something new. Ever. As for landmarked or historically significant buildings, the zoning codes and community boards are such that you would have to mount a real campaign just to change the paint color. A little exaggeration but I really wish more Houstonians valued their architectural heritage because it looks as though you have some great neighborhoods there that are being blighted by careless development. Okay, didn't mean to rant. It's very late (1:44AM), baby didn't nap today, I am exhausted and hope I haven't offended. Off to bed.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

soho, this seems to be a function of the Houston mentality of new being better than old, and bigger being better than smaller. That is not to say that everyone here believes this, but it does appear to be a strong belief throughout a wide segment of the population. I suspect this phenomenon is not unique to Houston. However, I constantly talk to people who tell me they HAVE to have a bigger SUV, since their family is si big...2 kids! My parents had 7 kids, and we got around fine in a station wagon. Go figure. The same rationale applies to their homes.

The proliferation of TV shows with fancy big new houses on display probably don't help.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Houston City Government is very hands-off as far as regulating development. I'm assuming you realize that there is no zoning here, so it's really very Libertarian in that stopping insensitive development depends on grass-roots efforts and deed restrictions, and deed restrictions only work if neighborhood Civic Associations are constantly vigilant, as developers and residents will sometimes try to get one over on neighborhoods who might be napping.

The result of this is, depending on your state of mind, either a mish-mash or a colorful mosaic, as one New York writer (HAIF topic from 12-04) recently discovered and described as such, or maybe a little of both. From a development standpoint, little regulation allows for rapid reinvention of neighborhoods, often to the dismay of preservation types. One area known loosely as Rice Military has gone from humble bungalows to wall-to-wall townhomes in about 5 years.

Why are townhomes so popular as opposed to older homes? I'm with you but obviously lots of people aren't interested in old house restoration and many seem uninterested in yard and garden chores. Plus, the allure of granite countertops, laminate flooring and master baths must seem more appealing to the "modern" buyer than what is found in old homes.

Plus, alas, our old home housing stock has been reduced to precious little so what's available is often either in "the ghetto", falling down, or just plain ugly. Washington Terrace is one area with East Coast style 1920s-30s architecture (originally a Jewish upscale neighborhood, another interesting story) that has been neglected and ignored until......there's probably nothing to stop those homes from getting knocked down once development gets there, and it's just recently got there.

Bottom line; if you love old architecture, Houston will break your heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent question, sohomod. Browse through the posts in HAIF and you'll find that (some) Houstonians are asking the same thing.

I've been here for 25 years, and still marvel that words like 'ambience' and 'quaint' are met with blank looks or giggles. The concept simply doesn't exist to many Houstonians. Part of the local charactor is a fierce opposition to regulation and even fiercer defense of property rights. Having moved from a neighborhood (in Rochester NY) where repainting ones front door involved going before a committee and several weeks of discussion, I was initially appalled by the slap-dash approach to urban development one sees in Houston. I still am, sometimes. A little thought and cooperation could do wonders. The local market supports the idea that bigger and newer is better; architectural or historical significance decidedly takes a back seat.

Yet, this is part and parcel of the messy vitality which is one of the city's chief charms - a boomtown mentality which places more importance on the present than the future or past, and on the individual than the common good. People tend to be more pragmatic than idealistic: imagine, that one can own a huge new townhome in Houston for half of what a cramped apartment would cost in Manhattan! And if you have to tear down something small and old, who cares? Many people prefer to have a new townhome because (presumably) they're trouble-free and require little maintenance. By the time major repairs are needed, they will have moved on to greener pastures anyway. People are more attracted to the opportunities in Houston than its physical qualities. They come here to live well, make a buck or two, and spend them as they damn well please.

(disclaimer: these are broad, general observations and exceptions abound.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which places more importance on the present than the future or past, and on the individual than the common good.

While all this is true, these houses are just too small for most families today.

Most people's PC equipment takes up an entire room today. Sure, you can downsize everything, but that is getting increasingly hard to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about maximizing your initial investment. Tear down one house that including land value is probably about 100-200,000 dollars and squeeze 4 "condos" on that one lot and sell them for 500,000 each.... it's all about the money. Oh and the maintenance fees... you gotta pay those for the rest of your existance on that property too!

Edited by groovehouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent question, sohomod. Browse through the posts in HAIF and you'll find that (some) Houstonians are asking the same thing.

I've been here for 25 years, and still marvel that words like 'ambience' and 'quaint' are met with blank looks or giggles. The concept simply doesn't exist to many Houstonians. Part of the local charactor is a fierce opposition to regulation and even fiercer defense of property rights. Having moved from a neighborhood (in Rochester NY) where repainting ones front door involved going before a committee and several weeks of discussion, I was initially appalled by the slap-dash approach to urban development one sees in Houston. I still am, sometimes. A little thought and cooperation could do wonders. The local market supports the idea that bigger and newer is better; architectural or historical significance decidedly takes a back seat.

Yet, this is part and parcel of the messy vitality which is one of the city's chief charms - a boomtown mentality which places more importance on the present than the future or past, and on the individual than the common good. People tend to be more pragmatic than idealistic: imagine, that one can own a huge new townhome in Houston for half of what a cramped apartment would cost in Manhattan! And if you have to tear down something small and old, who cares? Many people prefer to have a new townhome because (presumably) they're trouble-free and require little maintenance. By the time major repairs are needed, they will have moved on to greener pastures anyway. People are more attracted to the opportunities in Houston than its physical qualities. They come here to live well, make a buck or two, and spend them as they damn well please.

(disclaimer: these are broad, general observations and exceptions abound.)

Hey dbigtx, I'm from Rochester too!! I actually grew up in Fairport. What part of town are you from?

In line with what you are saying, Rochester now has (or at least used to have) some of the strongest preservation ordinances in the country. It came about in the '50's and '60s when the city destroyed an entire section of downtown that connected to Corn Hill in order to build the Inner Loop/490 interchange, the Civic Center, and the War Memorial. I wish Houston would take some of the same lessons from its own teardowns.

One thing I miss about that area is the tight-knit sense of community that developed in city neighborhoods such as around Park Ave., and around the surrounding historic towns and village centers. Houston, on the other hand, can sometimes seem like one massive suburb with little character or distinction between the various communities. I mean Katy pretty much looks like Kingwood, which looks like Pearland etc... Houston needs to work harder at developing a sense of place and community, and cookie-cutter town homes and fakey "town center" developments just don't cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Houston's high property tax rates are directly responsible for the townhome phenomenon. Many historical homes that ultimately become teardowns are under 1200 sq ft, with a significant amount closer to 1000 sq ft. When the value of land in a given area rises several intervals beyond the value of the 1200 sq ft structure/house sitting on that land something has to give.

Consider what happens with a typical Montrose/Midtown 1200sq ft bungalow on a 5000sq ft lot. First, you'll be paying to $250 per sq ft for living space, compared to $100-$150 for a townhome. The bigger problem is your tax bill. Assuming the Homestead deduction is available, you'll be taxed at approximately 2.5%, or $500 per month. This works out to a little over .40 cents per sq ft of living space, per month in property tax alone, most of which is a result of your backyard. Needless to say, this is not a good deal for homeowners.

Homeowners are left with two possible solutions. First, build a bigger house (i.e. West U), either by tearing down or adding on. The problem with this approach is that many buyers are priced out of the market altogether. The second approach is to subdivide the property into narrow lots and build vertically (i.e. townhomes). Given Houston's lack of zoning, and the upper limit on potential buyers for $500,000 homes, it's not surprising that townhomes are the favored approach in neighborhoods lacking restrictive covenants.

Edited by jdbaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have townhouses here in New York, so I just don't get it. No one here, in their right mind or not, would tear down an old brownstone or prewar apartment building to build something new. Ever. As for landmarked or historically significant buildings, the zoning codes and community boards are such that you would have to mount a real campaign just to change the paint color.

I personally like the notion of adaptive reuse, but I'd hate to live in a place as restrictive as New York.

What do people want in a home? A nice place to live and plenty of time to enjoy it, right? Houston's free markets are a vast experiment in which individuals are allowed to reveal their preferences. And if individuals desire to be located near their place of employment, that's reasonable. And if individuals would prefer to spend less money by buying a 3,000sf corrugated steel box than they would have had to spend to restore a 1,200sf bungalow, well that's reasonable too. And if individuals would prefer to have homes that aren't in constant need of repair and landscaping, that's reasonable. And if individuals would like to express themselves artistically by, say, repainting an older home or designing and building something entirely unique, isn't that reasonable as well?

Non-Houstonians seem to have all these romantic notions of how cities can 'live'. I submit to everyone here that a city's capacity to live is determined by its citizenry's freedom to live as the citizenry sees fit. Cities don't have a beating heart, people do. In Houston, if you want a steel cube, you can live in a steel cube. If you want an old bungalow, you can have it. If you want a highrise condo unit, you can have that too. And you can have all of those things everywhere at once, all mixed together, precisely as the populous determines. And if you don't like it, well then move to The Woodlands or don't even bother coming here--we don't need another outsider voting for the subjugation of Houston's local culture into an era of zoned predictability.

We need bumper stickers that read "Keep Houston Weird". Austin lost its battle--look at it--its just a cheap yuppified corporatized knockoff of San Francisco...boring.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need bumper stickers that read "Keep Houston Weird". Austin lost its battle--look at it--its just a cheap yuppified corporatized knockoff of San Francisco...boring.

Not even close. If it were that I would have moved a long time ago, even if it were a cheap knock off of SF.

I like Keep Houston Ugly :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally like the notion of adaptive reuse, but I'd hate to live in a place as restrictive as New York.

What do people want in a home? A nice place to live and plenty of time to enjoy it, right? Houston's free markets are a vast experiment in which individuals are allowed to reveal their preferences. And if individuals desire to be located near their place of employment, that's reasonable. And if individuals would prefer to spend less money by buying a 3,000sf corrugated steel box than they would have had to spend to restore a 1,200sf bungalow, well that's reasonable too. And if individuals would prefer to have homes that aren't in constant need of repair and landscaping, that's reasonable. And if individuals would like to express themselves artistically by, say, repainting an older home or designing and building something entirely unique, isn't that reasonable as well?

Non-Houstonians seem to have all these romantic notions of how cities can 'live'. I submit to everyone here that a city's capacity to live is determined by its citizenry's freedom to live as the citizenry sees fit. Cities don't have a beating heart, people do. In Houston, if you want a steel cube, you can live in a steel cube. If you want an old bungalow, you can have it. If you want a highrise condo unit, you can have that too. And you can have all of those things everywhere at once, all mixed together, precisely as the populous determines. And if you don't like it, well then move to The Woodlands or don't even bother coming here--we don't need another outsider voting for the subjugation of Houston's local culture into an era of zoned predictability.

We need bumper stickers that read "Keep Houston Weird". Austin lost its battle--look at it--its just a cheap yuppified corporatized knockoff of San Francisco...boring.

On the one hand, I wouldn't want to go through zoning boards to have to pick my paint color, but on the other hand it would be nice to have assurances that a Walmart SuperCenter isn't about to locate next to my house or that I'm not going to have some tacky billboard built across the street from me. Also, it would be nice to have reasonable assurances that 100 year-old landmarks won't be destroyed with little or no public warning.

I don't think most other cities lack for choices in living arrangements and a modicum of control wouldn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While all this is true, these houses are just too small for most families today.

Most people's PC equipment takes up an entire room today. Sure, you can downsize everything, but that is getting increasingly hard to do.

I looked up my bungalow on the 1930's census records to discover that a husband and wife were raising their four sons in our two bedroom, one bath bungalow...

i think people these days are (a) obsessed with square footage, (B) have too much crap and c) don't get out enough - too much tv, computer, playstations, etc..back in the old days the whole neighborhood suplemented your lack of square footage..

i sometimes think people must not like their family members as they insist on getting these huge houses out in the 'burbs where you can possibly not see/hear another human for hours if not days..

heck, i probably know more about my neighbor's habits than those *blessed* with crap loads of square footage do about their own family members...

i hate to harp on about the trend to go bigger but we had a hard time finding living room furniture that wasn't abnormally gigantic..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand, I wouldn't want to go through zoning boards to have to pick my paint color, but on the other hand it would be nice to have assurances that a Walmart SuperCenter isn't about to locate next to my house or that I'm not going to have some tacky billboard built across the street from me. Also, it would be nice to have reasonable assurances that 100 year-old landmarks won't be destroyed with little or no public warning.

I don't think most other cities lack for choices in living arrangements and a modicum of control wouldn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would people pay more money to live in an ugly box in a row of boxes than in a real house with a yard and character?

Another way to look at it would be to compare NYC 150 years ago with Houston today. When the brownstone rowhouses were built en masse, I'm guessing many citizens complained that they all looked the same, too many people were getting crammed into the neighborhoods and probably many homes with land were sold by profiteers to developers. Apparently there was a demand for affordable homes close to town and the solution was density.

Houston is now entering the same era.

Without being an island like Manhattan, or just plain crowded like the Boroughs, Houston never had to get dense, and just kept spreading unhindered since its birth, until just recently.

There are actually quite a few affordable old homes still around but, as previously mentioned, the nabes scare most off or the homes are too small or have been so neglected there's little demand. The brownstones are often small too, but somehow New Yorkers make do. But would they live in them as avidly as they do if there were new townhomes going up everywhere?

Some old affordable neighborhoods not usually mentioned by boutique realtors; North Main, for example, might be Houston's Spanish Harlem. Victorians everywhere, some larger 2-story, most humble Queen Anne cottages, and only a mile or two from DT. Magnolia Park on the East End has 100 year old homes on tree lined streets you can get for under 100K. Where are the buyers? Where were the buyers for Harlem, Lefferts and Bed Stuy 20-30 years ago? People have to be either economically forced or just plain adventuous to move into areas that others shun, and the first wave has been doing that here for a few years now. The fastest way though to get people to move into decayed areas around here is to build townhouses.

Whether these townhomes are still standing 100 years from now remains to be seen, but I think we are seeing more of a trend towards preservation so if they last another 50 or so, there might be an ordinance that would prevent them from ever being destroyed, and then they might be the equilvalent of a NY brownstone today, with a few remaining 20th century homes spaced in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...