jamesw

I think it was called Studio 319 (or whatever the address is), if you want to look it up...

I was always under the impression that the house on 13th was an 'adult' modeling studio. Now I know! Cheers James

I live down the street from 1213 Harvard and I can not believe what the commission told them! Their house was enlarged in the past w/ one of those 80's horrible looking "pop-outs" that looks like sticking a big box onto a house made of triangles. The proposed addition will make the house fit in MUCH better w/ the historic character of our street and will look MORE compatible after this proposed addition is done. But it was denied??? This is after the commission also denied their neighbor's addition (overturned on appeal) which is next to a multi-story apartment building... Anyhow this makes no sense to me what the commission is doing. The proposed addition for 1213 would meet the needs of the homeowners (it's THEIR house and they have 2 young kids now) and will better the neighborhood while becoming MORE conforming to the historical character. And Lauren - put all the nut-job hyperbole aside that you read here (it's pretty out there) and just have a drive by the house(s) in question on the way home and you'll see what I mean. Cheers James

Good op-ed piece on 380's in general: http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Tax-incentives-for-the-deserving-4721551.php "In principle, using public funds to reimburse wealthy developers and corporations for building infrastructure that their projects require to be successful is bad public policy. Those who will make the profits should also bear the expense of development." Cheers James

I wrote a support email as well. As a homeowner on Harvard street I find this a bit silly. On my block alone there are at least a half dozen homes that already exist and that are larger in scale than this project. It's WHY Harvard is one of the premiere streets to live on in the Heights, lol. I have two young boys and I can't see living in a 2-1 or an upgraded 2-1 with a small addition on the back. I want more young families to move to the Heights so that the schools improve and there are some kids for my sons to play with. If people are going to be denied the right to appropriately upgrade their own home I think that is an overall hindrance to the quality of our great neighborhood. I also don't like the insinuation that if you support someone's appeal you are not "for historic preservation." That is ridiculous. I support historic preservation and keeping the character of the neighborhood feeling "old homie." I also support some amendments to the ordinance - as it should be a process of continuous improvement. On a separate topic - but relevant to 1811 Harvard - this should have nothing to do with the SIZE of the homes. That just doesn't make any sense. Is the Glassell home historic? You bet. Is it a massive house on a giant lot? You bet. Did the massive house at 11th and Heights (the one that burned) look historic and fit in? It certainly did - it was beautiful and contributed to the character of the neighborhood. As does Sara's B&B and the list goes on... Cheers James

Thanks for the feedback Mark. I have a non-contributing structure (Built by Gomburg ~1998) just East of Heights so I'm pretty stoked :-) Cheers James

As a counterpoint to Mark's post (holding his bungalow in the HD for a better price) my neighbor just sold her 2-1 bungalow on Harvard and it was on the market for less than a day. She got exactly what I would have expected for it (mid 300's) both in and out of the HD's) It was bought specifically by someone wanting to do an addition. I think the market in the Heights (both in and out of the HD's) is comparable. I think the best person to talk to about his would be a realtor, as they see a large sample set - unlike us who see one or two. I think the ordinance is a PITA. I also think the dry district in the middle of the Heights is a PITA. But on the other hand, I'm glad nobody can build and run a bar next to my house. Nor can anyone build a 6 story solid brick wall next to my house (see 12th st). I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too. Cheers James

Just as a general comment - I think that builders ARE agressively buying lots in the HDs. In fact, they are even buying 2-1 bungalows on spec in hopes that they will get their "camelback" addition approved. Sure it's a lot harder and takes a lot longer to get something "sellable" but they are still doing it and there is little to no inventory in the Heights right now. The house next to mine was just sold to a developer in fact. She must be pretty savy about the process because what she has done is bought the house, and gotten a 6-month lease w/ a renter. This will provide income while she gets the addition design through the CoA process. In my mind what the ordinance has effectively done is kept developers from buying lots w/ old bungalows on them and tearing down the bungalow to build a 5,000 sf lotline to lotline house - and I'm OK with that. I'm not saying there isn't a problem w/ the process because there is - the board needs to follow their own rules and enforce them consistently EVERY time. What a "market" hates is uncertainty. Cheers James

That is great news! Sorry I couldn't be there yesterday too. Cheers James - your future neighbor

Wow is all I can say. I live down the street from this house and I have to say, it is just about the ONLY house on the street that does NOT fit in w/ the surrounding houses. Most of the houses on the blockface are large and just about every house across the street is a two story - in fact one of them is a 3-story uber-house that must be at least 3,500 square fee. Not to mention that it is right next-door to a hideous apartment building, and I would LOVE to see this house remodeled, as would everyone on our street. We used to call it the Haloween house because the previous owner/tenants painted it black and orange one year... I hope the new owners get their approval for the remodel and addition shortly. Cheers James

Did anyone go to Vinoteca back when it was there on 6th and Studewood? Failed wine bar in a similar location - I really liked the setup and it was very comfortable inside...too bad. Cheers James

The work that these folks have done looks impressive. http://www.lucascraftsmanship.com/index.cfm I have not used them. Cheers James

Firstly, the mail-in card process is not to overturn the ordinance - it is to dissolve the historic district you live in. The ordinance is here to stay :-( Secondly - I was given ONE days notice about the meeting last night at the west end center. I was literally IN THE AIR at the time of the meeting. Did anyone go to "get the facts?" Cheers James

Am I not getting this? Mcains - a high end grocer and deli that FAILED is being replaced by another high-end grocer and deli????? James

Ok that's one point of view. But what about homeowners in the Heights east or west that have non-contributing homes - what have you had to run through HAHC in the past? Cheers James

I read the ordinance but I don't understand the distinction between contributing structures and non-contributing, and how the rules would be applied. Since my house (built by Gomberg 1997) is non contributing, I could tear it down without a CA? What about exterior modifications? To make it even more confusing, I have a garage/guesthouse that is an original structure and I think it IS considered contributing. BUT it has hardi-plank siding, etc. Very confused. Cheers James

I've thought about this a lot over the last week. Here's my take on the ordinance, and the sides for and against the proposal: (1) Preservationists want everything in the neighborhood to stay the same as it is now - no matter what the cost or hardship to current property owners. (2) Developers want a very loose or no ordinance so that they can keep buying lots w/ 2+1 bungalows for $250,000 building big houses from lot line to lot line, and selling them for $650,000 (3) Current homeowners are split as they don't want either of the above, and the ordinance as it is currently written favors (1) Right now my personal position is that I know I do NOT want 1 because I want families to keep moving to the heights (so the schools keep getting better, etc) and not be scared off by the ordinance. But I don't really want 2 either as about 2/3 of the time I'm pleased with the new-builds and how they look and "improve" the neighborhood - but the other 1/3 of the time I see a realtor/builder/developer buy up a 6,600 sf heights lot and splitting it down the middle and cramming two hideous McVic town-homes onto it. Cheers James PS: does anyone else see the irony of the city "allowing" a giant wall-mart 3 blocks outside the Heights, while at the same time trying to ram-rod through these changes to the HAHC ordinance??? Hello Houston?????!!!!!

Mark, I agree that the ordinance is very broad. However the things you are citing are already in the ordinance NOW. It's just that people whose designs are not compatible can wait 90 days and do it anyways. I'll make it easy for the lazy readers: Read Section 33-236 and read Section 33-240 The underlined text is new in the ordinance and the strikethrough text will be removed. After living in the Heights for 12 years now, I can definitely see both sides of this issue. I have lived in Proctor Plaza, Pinelawn, and now Historic Heights. One the PRO side, I want more families in the Heights so that the schools improve (more). That means people will need houses bigger than a 2-1 bungalow. But on the other hand, I don't want to see any more bungalows torn down and replaced with giant New Orleans Revival style homes that stretch from lot line to lot line and rise like a giant white wall from the sidewalk :-/ It seems like that is the INTENT of the ordinance, but as it is written right now, it IS very prescriptive and could potentially be very broad reaching. As it is written, almost EVERYTHING about the fate of my house would be in the hands of the HAHC board. :-( One suggestion I would have is for section 33-240 to refer to a design guide similar to the existing guide, but with MUCH more details about what is acceptable for not just the shape of the house, but for details, etc. Cheers James

I received an email from the Senior Planner - Historic Preservation stating that under the amended ordinance Hardi Plank and Vinyl Windows will now be considered "appropriate." The point about considering the other houses on the block is a good one though as there is a small 2-1 bungalow next door. But then again, if I lived next door, I wouldn't want to look out the window at a giant exterior wall of someone else's house. Cheers James

For those worried about expanding their houses in a historic district, have a look at the design guide for the Historic Heights: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/houston_heights_design_guide.html Before I read that I was definitely worried, but it clears up a LOT of misinformation that's been posted here. For example, you CAN add on to the side of your house, not just the back. Cheers James

SC: very good point. All of this has REALLY got me thinking about applying for a permit. The thing is, I might just do away with the driveway completely (I have a corner lot w/ garage access from the sidestreet) and build one room upstairs and one downstairs where the driveway goes along w/ the house. That would be considered an addition on the side of the house and I can see the commission having a problem w/ that even if I make it look VERY good (wrap the porch around, use appropriate style and materials, etc). It's just so frustrating that this can get passed w/ no public vote, no re-petition, etc. How is that possible???? Cheers James

I too am not too happy about this. I recently bought a house in the Historic District (moved over from Pinelawn) and it has a set of double doors from the second story ONTO NOTHING. I guess the builder ran out of money... I've been thinking of either adding a deck or deck/port cachere up there but that would require a CoA. Since it's on the side of the house, would I get one???? Anyhow, at first I was not worried about it because my housing is a Non Contributing Structure. But now that is all getting tossed out the window! I guess if this passes, I can just ask the city for the money back that I just spent on this house which is Non Contributing but I will STILL be prohibited from remodeling....argh! Cheers James