Old Sixth Ward

[sevfiv]

This morning, City Council passed the measure...now, instead of delaying demolition for ninety days, the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission has the authority to prevent it.

more news in a little bit

[Vertigo58]

Fantastic news!

I know a couple in that nabe that have at least 3 turn of the century structures near each other and they went through hell to save, have moved, then renovate to original splendour. This is a victory for 6th ward.

[Guest danax]

This morning, City Council passed the measure...now, instead of delaying demolition for ninety days, the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission has the authority to prevent it.

more news in a little bit

I'm glad, but we know Ms. Isabel isn't.

I was at a PIP meeting a few weeks back and one of the Magnolia Park civic club officers stood up and told everyone that LULAC had told her that the City was trying to pass a law that would force old neighborhoods to become historic districts. As discussion ensued, it became clear that what she was talking about was this ordinance doing away with the 90 day waiver.

She mentioned the Old Sixth Ward group and it made me wonder who would've contacted LULAC to try to spread misinformation to scare the uninformed into mounting an opposition to this.... ....Maria, was that you?

[sevfiv]

yeah - Ms. Isabel, if she even plans on still building on that empty lot, will have to face the HAHC (and she obviously doesn't seem to like the style of the neighborhood).

this protection won't have total control over what can be built, but will dictate things like building placement. and of course, a prohibition of demolition, if necessary.

and only one council member voted against - Mr. Berry.

[sixthwardguy]

Ms Isabel was able to slip under the wire by re-submitting her CoA (certificate of appropriateness) to build her dream house, better known as the garage mahal due to more than 3/4 of the first floor being devoted to garage space, at last week's HAHC meeting and she is still allowed build after her 90-day waiver expires in October

The protections for the Old Sixth Ward are accompained by design guidelines that regulate new construction by defining what materials can/cannot be used, height limit, massing, setback, garage placement, and so forth. However it does not regulate style. It was written to prevent future inappropriate construction such as garage mahals, corrugated metal 'tin cans', townhouses, and structures built with styrofoam blocks sprayed with EIF (stucco). The guidelines were several years in the making.

Starting today, anyone who submits a CoA must follow the design guidelines as well as the criteria set forth in the Sixth Ward portion of the city's historic preservation ordinance.

We, in the Old Sixth Ward, are very pleased with the protections. Several of us have fought for over 30 years to preserve our precious little neighborhood.

yeah - Ms. Isabel, if she even plans on still building on that empty lot, will have to face the HAHC (and she obviously doesn't seem to like the style of the neighborhood).

this protection won't have total control over what can be built, but will dictate things like building placement. and of course, a prohibition of demolition, if necessary.

and only one council member voted against - Mr. Berry.

[Dan the Man]

It's about time...

[EatSleepMOD]

Aug. 2, 2007, 7:40AM

City grants protection for the Old 6th Ward

District shields historic homes from demolition

By CAROLYN FEIBEL

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

The City Council created Houston's first protected historic district Wednesday, shielding more than 200 buildings from demolition in the Old Sixth Ward.

Preservationists hailed the 12-1 vote as a new era in Houston's cultural consciousness.

The 33-acre protected district contains the highest concentration of historic homes in Houston, many dating back to the late 19th century. The neighborhood has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places since 1978.

"We're very happy," said Jane Cahill of the Old Sixth Ward Neighborhood Association. "We were afraid the trend of abolishing the neighborhood's historic construction would continue."

Since 1998, 10 historic structures in the Old Sixth Ward have been demolished, 51 inappropriately altered, four relocated, and 12 replaced with new construction incompatible with the neighborhood's character, according to the city's Department of Planning and Development.

Link to full article

(deleted copyrighted material, added link) dbigtex56

--------------------------------------------------------------

Check out: http://www.old6ward.org/

[KinkaidAlum]

Congrats to the Old Sixth Ward. Hopefully other neighborhoods take notice and start the process to protecting their spaces.

I am a firm believer in regulations like these. There are plenty of places where fake stucco, tin cans, and garage mahals (I love this description) can go up without destroying the character of established neighborhoods.

[musicman]

The protections for the Old Sixth Ward are accompained by design guidelines that regulate new construction by defining what materials can/cannot be used....

so what can/cannot be used? do you know where the adopted design guidelines are located?

[cwrm4]

so what can/cannot be used? do you know where the adopted design guidelines are located?

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/historic...-guidelines.pdf

It's really well done document, though there is a lot more "should have" than "will have"...I guess this is what they mean by not being able to regulate the architectural style of the properties.

[nate]

Terrible news.

While I am not surprised that the city continually tries to take away property rights, I am terribly disappointed that they do so with the cheering approval of so many people. Wake up people. Ordinances like this diminish the rights of individuals to control their property and decrease the architectural diversity of Houston.

[sevfiv]

i say demolish and build whatever you'd like in the 99.97% of Houston that isn't within a noted historic district.

Terrible news.

While I am not surprised that the city continually tries to take away property rights, I am terribly disappointed that they do so with the cheering approval of so many people. Wake up people. Ordinances like this diminish the rights of individuals to control their property and decrease the architectural diversity of Houston.

[nate]

i say demolish and build whatever you'd like in the 99.97% of Houston that isn't within a noted historic district.

Well, thankfully I don't own any property in the Old Sixth and therefore I did not have my rights confiscated by the City.

What I fear is that because people willing to accept the confiscation of the rights of others, this kind of expropriation will continue.

If the city wishes to preserve the Old Sixth, then it should pay the property owners for the rights that it takes. That is fair.

[rps324]

Terrible news.

While I am not surprised that the city continually tries to take away property rights, I am terribly disappointed that they do so with the cheering approval of so many people. Wake up people. Ordinances like this diminish the rights of individuals to control their property and decrease the architectural diversity of Houston.

This is hardly an exotic measure. Well maybe by Houston standards it is. Most major cities have land use controls of some sort or another and do fine.

Bulldozing everything so the whole city looks like Rice Military or Bellaire does not make it look more architecturally diverse. Sorry.

Thank you for your opinion, but this is great news.

[Vertigo58]

i say demolish and build whatever you'd like in the 99.97% of Houston that isn't within a noted historic district.

Sunnyland welcomes it. Best thing that could happen. Newcomers would have best location, location, location to downtown, Med Center, U of H, etc. Majority of old homes are considered tear downs anyway. Get out the tambourines?

[musicman]

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/historic...-guidelines.pdf

It's really well done document, though there is a lot more "should have" than "will have"...I guess this is what they mean by not being able to regulate the architectural style of the properties.

i would say it isn't well done if they are recommendations. recommendations and requirements are two different things. a court sure would have an opinion.

[dbigtex56]

Terrible news.

While I am not surprised that the city continually tries to take away property rights, I am terribly disappointed that they do so with the cheering approval of so many people. Wake up people. Ordinances like this diminish the rights of individuals to control their property and decrease the architectural diversity of Houston.

Yessiree.

At this rate, pretty soon you won't be able to open a tire dump, a mobile home park, or even pee off your own front porch without the Gummint interfering with your 'rights'.

[KinkaidAlum]

Yessiree.

At this rate, pretty soon you won't be able to open a tire dump, a mobile home park, or even pee off your own front porch without the Gummint interfering with your 'rights'.

LOL.

Funny thing is, I guarantee you that home values in the Old Sixth Ward will really begin to take off now that people who have moved to the area or are drawn to the area will know they have some protections that will prohibit people from tearing down houses to park their Winnies or set up a used-tire lot!

This is incredible news.

If you hate that the 6th Ward now has protections, you have EVERY RIGHT to not buy there. If you live there now and hate the new protections, wait about 6 months and then sell your house. Prices are gonna soar.

[sixthwardguy]

LOL.

If you hate that the 6th Ward now has protections, you have EVERY RIGHT to not buy there. If you live there now and hate the new protections, wait about 6 months and then sell your house. Prices are gonna soar.

I believe the prices have already started to soar. The Olle Lorehn-designed house at the NE corner of Kane/Henderson, known as the "Queen of the Sabine" just sold within one week at full asking price. Last time it took almost a year for it to sell. Last week another house in the neighborhood came on the market and got a contract within 14 hours in a bidding war. These happened before the protections were passed.

[Subdude]

Eeep! A pig flew by!

I can't figure out why some people consider this kind of thing such a big infringement on their freedom and property rights, when probably every single master planned community has design and development guidelines, down to the color of your paint. Everyone just wants to protect their property value and the quality of their neighborhoods.

Now I just wish they could extend the same protection to the Heights.

[nate]

I can't figure out why some people consider this kind of thing such a big infringement on their freedom and property rights, when probably every single master planned community has design and development guidelines, down to the color of your paint. Everyone just wants to protect their property value and the quality of their neighborhoods.

There is a huge difference when restrictions are voluntary compared to this instance when they were imposed on owners without their consent.

From the Chronicle article,

But the new protections in the Old Sixth Ward apply to all property owners, even a minority there who did not want it. One objector was David Farrales, whose family owns property in the district. Farrales wanted to retain the ability to demolish. ''The property, as it sits now, is not economically feasible to rehab," Farrales told the council Tuesday.

Justin Despot, who lives on Lubbock Street in the district, also opposed the protections.

''In my interpretation, that is going to impose a taking of private property rights," he said.

Mr. Farrales and Mr. Despot bought in the neighborhood expecting to be able to build whatever they liked. They have had that right taken away from them without compensation.

[sevfiv]

i suppose i don't understand why historically insensitive people would purchase property in a historic neighborhood. especially when historic neighborhoods here are not widespread.

to me, it just shows insensitivity and lack of forethought and research, since this small neighborhood has been working toward this for so many years

[editor]

Mr. Farrales and Mr. Despot bought in the neighborhood expecting to be able to build whatever they liked. They have had that right taken away from them without compensation.

What sort of compensaion is appropriate? Why do their rights trump the rights of the others who supported the measure?

[nate]

What sort of compensaion is appropriate?

Money. The measure would be the difference between the property value at its highest and best use, and the value as-restricted.

Why do their rights trump the rights of the others who supported the measure?

This question makes no sense. Please explain.

Those that supported the measure have no right to control their neighbor's property.

Prior to the city's confiscation, property owners in the Old Sixth could tear down their home and rebuild whatever they like. They have lost that right. They have also lost the right to build in the style of their choice.

[KinkaidAlum]

Money. The measure would be the difference between the property value at its highest and best use, and the value as-restricted.

This question makes no sense. Please explain.

Those that supported the measure have no right to control their neighbor's property.

Prior to the city's confiscation, property owners in the Old Sixth could tear down their home and rebuild whatever they like. They have lost that right. They have also lost the right to build in the style of their choice.

And I for one am glad they lost that right.

My family and I explored the 6th Ward today after checking out Christ Church's new digs downtown (talk about a nice parking garage...Hines could take a lesson). There is overwhelming support in that neighborhood for this ordinance. Yard signs showing owners'/renters' support were everywhere.

Quite frankly, I am glad the will of the majority of the property owners has won out over random individuals and especially the builders.

[Subdude]

Money. The measure would be the difference between the property value at its highest and best use, and the value as-restricted.

This question makes no sense. Please explain.

Those that supported the measure have no right to control their neighbor's property.

Prior to the city's confiscation, property owners in the Old Sixth could tear down their home and rebuild whatever they like. They have lost that right. They have also lost the right to build in the style of their choice.

First of all, "confiscation" is a little OTT. Even though they inconvenience a minority here, I don't think it is fair to the majority in the neighborhood to say that they can never have the same rights to neighborhood protection as would a home-owner in, say, First Colony. Since the majority in the area supports the designation, shouldn't their views be respected?

Those that supported the measure have no right to control their neighbor's property.

As it happens, laws do create privileges for governmental entities, from national goverment down to local design or zoning boards. There's nothing new about that.

Regarding compensation, the whole idea behind design guidelines, deed restrictions, etc. is that the entire neighborhood will receive the benefit of better design and more consistent development. In other words, homeowners receive a benefit from the regulations, not economic harm. People are willing to pay more when they know that the quality of a neighborhood will be preserved, and that their neighbors won't be able to open slaughterhouses or whatnot. So since Farrales and Despot will receive the same benefit from the restrictions as everyone else in the district, there's no rational or legal basis for compensation.

[nate]

And I for one am glad they lost that right.

My family and I explored the 6th Ward today after checking out Christ Church's new digs downtown (talk about a nice parking garage...Hines could take a lesson). There is overwhelming support in that neighborhood for this ordinance. Yard signs showing owners'/renters' support were everywhere.

Quite frankly, I am glad the will of the majority of the property owners has won out over random individuals and especially the builders.

Quite a shocking statement. You have no problem if "random individuals" have their liberty taken away by the whims of government.

I think that individuals have rights against big government and should have their interests protected....

As for the "overwhelming support", if the support were really so great, why didn't they use the state-law procedure that will create new deed restrictions with 75% support? I don't agree with the state process, but might their failure to choose this route suggest that there is not such "overwhelming support"?

[nate]

First of all, "confiscation" is a little OTT. Even though they inconvenience a minority here, I don't think it is fair to the majority in the neighborhood to say that they can never have the same rights to neighborhood protection as would a home-owner in, say, First Colony. Since the majority in the area supports the designation, shouldn't their views be respected?

It is not over the top. People bought in the neighborhood expecting to be able to do certain things with their property. They can no longer do those things. First Colony had deed restrictions before a single home was built. Everyone who bought there was on notice of them and purchased their property with full knowledge of what they were getting into. In the Old Sixth, dissenters were blindsided.

As it happens, laws do create privileges for governmental entities, from national goverment down to local design or zoning boards. There's nothing new about that.

Regarding compensation, the whole idea behind design guidelines, deed restrictions, etc. is that the entire neighborhood will receive the benefit of better design and more consistent development. In other words, homeowners receive a benefit from the regulations, not economic harm. People are willing to pay more when they know that the quality of a neighborhood will be preserved, and that their neighbors won't be able to open slaughterhouses or whatnot. So since Farrales and Despot will receive the same benefit from the restrictions as everyone else in the district, there's no rational or legal basis for compensation.

You are right, governments all over the country confiscate rights though land use restrictions and then divvy them out in pieces depending on who has political power and/or makes the biggest campaign contributions. That is relatively new in Houston, but we will probably be marching down that road soon...a shame.

As for added value from restrictions, that is possible under some circumstances. If it were in the Old Sixth, why did they not follow the procedure for obtaining new restrictive covenants by obtaining 75% landowner consent? I'm not sure how this is going to play out long term. I think that the values of existing homes which cannot be torn down will probably not increase in value as fast (or at all) as homes in other neighborhoods. Vacant lots can still be developed, but with architectural conformity requirements. I'm not sure how the ordinance will effect those lots. Perhaps it will increase development costs or make the condos/whatever less marketable.

As to the preventing nuisances point, uses such as slaughterhouses will never open in inner city neighborhoods because the land is too valuable. The reality is that land use decisions are made based on economics, not irrational fears. Even if a nuisance were to move in, there are laws prohibiting noxious uses. A flat roof is not a nuisance under any circumstances, nor is a town home.

[musicman]

It is not over the top. People bought in the neighborhood expecting to be able to do certain things with their property. They can no longer do those things. First Colony had deed restrictions before a single home was built. Everyone who bought there was on notice of them and purchased their property with full knowledge of what they were getting into. In the Old Sixth, dissenters were blindsided.

As for added value from restrictions, that is possible under some circumstances. If it were in the Old Sixth, why did they not follow the procedure for obtaining new restrictive covenants by obtaining 75% landowner consent? I'm not sure how this is going to play out long term. I think that the values of existing homes which cannot be torn down will probably not increase in value as fast (or at all) as homes in other neighborhoods. Vacant lots can still be developed, but with architectural conformity requirements. I'm not sure how the ordinance will effect those lots. Perhaps it will increase development costs or make the condos/whatever less marketable.

nate does bring up some interesting points. while i'm not sure what entity legally declares a neighborhood historic, in the state property code chapter 208 there are references to historic neighborhoods specifically what a historic neighborhood is.

"Historic neighborhood" means:

(A)an area incorporated as a separate

municipality before 1900 and subsequently annexed into another

municipality;

(B)an area described by a municipal map or

subdivision plat filed in real property records of the county in

which the area is located before 1900; or

[nate]

nate does bring up some interesting points. while i'm not sure what entity legally declares a neighborhood historic, in the state property code chapter 208 there are references to historic neighborhoods specifically what a historic neighborhood is.

"Historic neighborhood" means:

(A)an area incorporated as a separate

municipality before 1900 and subsequently annexed into another

municipality;

(B)an area described by a municipal map or

subdivision plat filed in real property records of the county in

which the area is located before 1900; or