Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sevfiv

Old Sixth Ward

Recommended Posts

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

Edited by sevfiv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.... B) ....Maria, was that you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

Edited by dbigtex56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by cwrm4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by sevfiv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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'. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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'. :wacko:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :blink:

Edited by sevfiv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Edited by musicman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A flat roof is not a nuisance under any circumstances, nor is a town home.

Insenstive townhome development can be a huge nuisance for adjacent property owners, and Houston has plenty of examples:

-Multi-level townhomes (and McMansions) in bungalow neighborhoods are often out of scale with the surrounding structures. The increased height blocks sunlight and views from the yards of their neighbors.

-Subdivision of lots for townhome development usually results in a very small buildable area. To maximize the use of this space (and maximize profit), townhome developers will build right up to the property line. This can cut off sunlight light from the nieghboring property. (Not to mention, it makes the backyard of the nieghboring property very unpleasant.)

-Townhome development often leaves very little greenspace on the lot. This increases the amount of stormwater run-off, and can create drainage problems for adjacent property owners as storm drains are over-taxed. Drainage problems can also be created if the townhome development is graded higher than the adjacent properties. Water will drain onto adjacent properties, and will have nowhere to go.

-Increased denisty brought about by townhome development creates an increased demand for utilities. When townhomes are built in older areas of town with infrastructure that was not designed to handle such large capacity, residents can experience power outages and backed-up drains.

-The increased number of driveways brought about by townhome developments dramatically increase the number of curb-cuts on residential streets. This, in turn, eliminates the amount of street parking available. Nieghborhoods that were developed before the advent of the automobile (6th Ward, for example) do not have a large amount of space available for off-street parking. When street parking is elimated due to townhome development, area residents have fewer places to park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was actually thinking of Chapter 201: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/...0.000201.00.pdf

Some activists in the Heights tried to follow this procedure, but found that they could not get enough support to create new deed restrictions.

yeah i'm kinda familiar with 201 and 204 both which are deed restriction related. since this was done as a historical designation, it would be interesting to see what the actual process is.

Edited by musicman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have been questioning the percentage of homeowners/property owners in the Sixth Ward who supported the protections, you can rest assured that there was a supermajority. There have been several petitions/surveys run by three groups, with the last one issued by the city. The city-issued survey confirmed an earlier in-house petition that 76% majority of property owners within the district supported the proposed protections and only 24% were against it. The city posted the survey responses on a website and it was shown that most of the opposition were business owners and developers who bought land with the intention to build townhouses or mid-rises.

Insenstive townhome development can be a huge nuisance for adjacent property owners, and Houston has plenty of examples:

-Multi-level townhomes (and McMansions) in bungalow neighborhoods are often out of scale with the surrounding structures. The increased height blocks sunlight and views from the yards of their neighbors.

-Subdivision of lots for townhome development usually results in a very small buildable area. To maximize the use of this space (and maximize profit), townhome developers will build right up to the property line. This can cut off sunlight light from the nieghboring property. (Not to mention, it makes the backyard of the nieghboring property very unpleasant.)

-Townhome development often leaves very little greenspace on the lot. This increases the amount of stormwater run-off, and can create drainage problems for adjacent property owners as storm drains are over-taxed. Drainage problems can also be created if the townhome development is graded higher than the adjacent properties. Water will drain onto adjacent properties, and will have nowhere to go.

-Increased denisty brought about by townhome development creates an increased demand for utilities. When townhomes are built in older areas of town with infrastructure that was not designed to handle such large capacity, residents can experience power outages and backed-up drains.

-The increased number of driveways brought about by townhome developments dramatically increase the number of curb-cuts on residential streets. This, in turn, eliminates the amount of street parking available. Nieghborhoods that were developed before the advent of the automobile (6th Ward, for example) do not have a large amount of space available for off-street parking. When street parking is elimated due to townhome development, area residents have fewer places to park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those who have been questioning the percentage of homeowners/property owners in the Sixth Ward who supported the protections, you can rest assured that there was a supermajority. There have been several petitions/surveys run by three groups, with the last one issued by the city. The city-issued survey confirmed an earlier in-house petition that 76% majority of property owners within the district supported the proposed protections and only 24% were against it. The city posted the survey responses on a website and it was shown that most of the opposition were business owners and developers who bought land with the intention to build townhouses or mid-rises.

for deed restricitons all the signatures are notarized and filed at the county. i don't believe anything like this was done in the 6th ward. i'm just trying to figure out the process. if you can point out the details it would provide more awareness on the subj and help other hoods do the same thing.

Edited by musicman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with deed restrictions is that they must be implemented with 100% consent of the property owners within a neighborhood. God knows how long and hard we've tried to get deed restrictions in place for the Old Sixth Ward and the only feasible solution was to ask the city for help.

The Old Sixth Ward protection was done as an amendment to the historic preservation section of the city ordinance.

for deed restricitons all the signatures are notarized and filed at the county. i don't believe anything like this was done in the 6th ward. i'm just trying to figure out the process. if you can point out the details it would provide more awareness on the subj and help other hoods do the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with deed restrictions is that they must be implemented with 100% consent of the property owners within a neighborhood. God knows how long and hard we've tried to get deed restrictions in place for the Old Sixth Ward and the only feasible solution was to ask the city for help.

that's not true. texas property code sure doesn't say 100% consent. it varies depending on the chapter the area/hood is using.

The Old Sixth Ward protection was done as an amendment to the historic preservation section of the city ordinance.

i looked but couldn't find anything specific. the proposal i saw had words used IMO that left loopholes. i was just wondering what the passed ordinance looks like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insenstive townhome development can be a huge nuisance for adjacent property owners, and Houston has plenty of examples:

-Multi-level townhomes (and McMansions) in bungalow neighborhoods are often out of scale with the surrounding structures. The increased height blocks sunlight and views from the yards of their neighbors.

-Subdivision of lots for townhome development usually results in a very small buildable area. To maximize the use of this space (and maximize profit), townhome developers will build right up to the property line. This can cut off sunlight light from the nieghboring property. (Not to mention, it makes the backyard of the nieghboring property very unpleasant.)

-Townhome development often leaves very little greenspace on the lot. This increases the amount of stormwater run-off, and can create drainage problems for adjacent property owners as storm drains are over-taxed. Drainage problems can also be created if the townhome development is graded higher than the adjacent properties. Water will drain onto adjacent properties, and will have nowhere to go.

-Increased denisty brought about by townhome development creates an increased demand for utilities. When townhomes are built in older areas of town with infrastructure that was not designed to handle such large capacity, residents can experience power outages and backed-up drains.

-The increased number of driveways brought about by townhome developments dramatically increase the number of curb-cuts on residential streets. This, in turn, eliminates the amount of street parking available. Nieghborhoods that were developed before the advent of the automobile (6th Ward, for example) do not have a large amount of space available for off-street parking. When street parking is elimated due to townhome development, area residents have fewer places to park.

There is a difference between something that is an annoyance and a legal nuisance.

A development that causes flooding on your property could be a nuisance, but you can sue for damages if that happens. That should never happen as new plats and building permits are not issued unless there will be adequate drainage.

For those who have been questioning the percentage of homeowners/property owners in the Sixth Ward who supported the protections, you can rest assured that there was a supermajority. There have been several petitions/surveys run by three groups, with the last one issued by the city. The city-issued survey confirmed an earlier in-house petition that 76% majority of property owners within the district supported the proposed protections and only 24% were against it. The city posted the survey responses on a website and it was shown that most of the opposition were business owners and developers who bought land with the intention to build townhouses or mid-rises.

Then why didn't the preservationists use the provisions of the Texas property code which create new restrictive covenants with 75% approval?

You sound dismissive of the rights of business owners and developers. Do they not have property rights that are just as strong as those of a homeowner?

Edited by nate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this article is from another thread focusing on urban enclaves (West University is highlighted), but i thought this quote from the article was appropriate for this thread:

"The one way that neighborhood character is maintained is if areas have been designated landmarks or if the type of architecture in a particular neighborhood is protected in some way," says Deborah Fischer, a broker at Koenig & Strey in Chicago. Here, strict zoning laws in the outlying suburbs force citywide expansion, which can make it difficult for Chicago's urban neighborhoods to maintain their character. "That way, new construction builds on the neighborhood character, rather than trying to change it."

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2007/08/02...realestate.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You sound dismissive of the rights of business owners and developers. Do they not have property rights that are just as strong as those of a homeowner?

I certainly hope not. Priority must be given to those who live in a neighborhood, not to those who exploit it solely for their own enrichment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly hope not. Priority must be given to those who live in a neighborhood, not to those who exploit it solely for their own enrichment.

i think that is what he's saying too. the people who live there didn't make this decision, city council did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think that is what he's saying too. the people who live there didn't make this decision, city council did.

That's how our government works. Elected bodies make decisions such as this, usually not people banding together as individuals. Property use restrictions are typically in the remit of city councils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's how our government works. Elected bodies make decisions such as this, usually not people banding together as individuals. Property use restrictions are typically in the remit of city councils.

take a look at texas property code chapters 201 and 204.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly hope not. Priority must be given to those who live in a neighborhood, not to those who exploit it solely for their own enrichment.

So, do you believe that the owners of rental properties should not be given "priority" (whatever that is) because they "exploit" their property "solely for their own enrichment"?

The reality is that the people that live in or own property in the Old Sixth are not of uniform opinion on this matter. There are many people that feel differently and their rights and opinions have been overruled by the city council. It isn't the residents who have "taken back" the neighborhood from "greedy developers", but a city that is increasingly taking control of individual liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these type of restrictions have been in the works for decades...no surprise, it was a matter of time (a long time, albeit).

if this were any other large city, i believe they would have been put in place a hell of a long time ago.

so again, why would someone that is historically insensitive buy into a historic neighborhood? (and one that has been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1978 and has a high concentration of individual landmarks).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so again, why would someone that is historically insensitive buy into a historic neighborhood? (and one that has been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1978 and has a high concentration of individual landmarks).

IMO location is more important to most and it's a good location. for most a house is just a place to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

They've already soared before the council took action. We invested in rental property 5 years ago on Lubbock knowing this was inevitable. Now we're up for sale knowing the properties won't be sold to a nate or musicman that would just level it for another bail bonds outlet

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.

No kidding. I know alot of people like nate who don't get that there are alot of people that see the value in properties like this-culturally, monetarily and historicly that trump any fake argument that the "gubmint" is taking over. I just don't get why nate would want to invest and/or live in an area where he clearly wasn't wanted. What's the advantage in that?

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

Then don't move into or invest in an area that has those restrictions. It's a huge city with opportunities to build any tacky shack you choose. This is just one tiny area where the majority choose not to have that done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's HBJ reports that as part of the celebration surrounding its convention at the GRB 1/23 through 1/30, Mary Kay cosmetics is making a $20,000 donation to The Old Sixth Ward Neighborhood Association in honor of its founder, Mary Kay Ash, who grew up in the neighborhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today's HBJ reports that as part of the celebration surrounding its convention at the GRB 1/23 through 1/30, Mary Kay cosmetics is making a $20,000 donation to The Old Sixth Ward Neighborhood Association in honor of its founder, Mary Kay Ash, who grew up in the neighborhood.

Yes, we are very excited about the very generous gift from Mary Kay. Here is a copy and paste from a post to the OSW neighborhood yahoogroup (old6wardhouston@yahoogroups.com ), from earlier today, written by the immediate past president of the OSWNA:

The 2100 block of Kane was a sea of pink Cadillac's this morning as the Mary Kay Foundation, of Mary Kay Cosmetics fame presented the Old Sixth Ward Neighborhood Association a $20,000 check! They handed over the check to new OSWNA President Phil Neisel on the porch of Mary Kay's childhood home on Kane. A slew of dignitaries, Mary Kay executives and OSW friends and neighbors were on hand to cheer them on. Mary Kay Cosmetics is holding their Annual Leadership Conference in Houston this week, and filmed a video about the presentation and the neighborhood to be shown at their meetings this week. Expect alot of drive throughs of the neighborhood over the next week as attendees want to see the streets where she walked to Dow Elementary, and played with her friends. Watch for media coverage as well. Today was designated Mary Kay day in Houston, and in Harris County. The foundation was also given a key to the city. The donation is designated for signage for the OSW, marking her house, and the boundaries of the Protected Historic District. The Mary Kay execs and family members present were all very proud of everyone's work to preserve the house (thanks Emily and Vlad), and the neighborhood. Larissa

Edited by OSWisHome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larissa posted this on the sixth ward email list, but i thought it might be of interest to the folks here, too (thanks for digitizing!)

It's an interesting video from MECA about Old Sixth Ward (c. 1989):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Larissa posted this on the sixth ward email list, but i thought it might be of interest to the folks here, too (thanks for digitizing!)

It's an interesting video from MECA about Old Sixth Ward (c. 1989):

That was fascinating! Thank you SEVFIV!

Take a good look at the houses in the background, most still have original gingerbread ornamentation, bargeboards, turned posts, etc. :P

Sort of frustrating that some of us here on Haif know people that live there and have painstakingly restored many of these relics to their former glory since this filming. Only "they" do not know of Haif? Need their stories to be told to the world!

I could just plotz I tell ya!

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...