Can Houston save its historic structures?

[dachmation]

sooooooooooooooooooooooooo

i heard a committee of city council is meeting june 12 to see if any citizens show up to voice concern over houston "puny" historic preservation ordinances-----rumor is the mayor doesn't think there are "any" citizens that will take the trouble to drive down town and voice their opinions----

i'm hoping the mayor is wrong---and there will be someone in addition to myself who will be there at that committee meeting to speak--i'm tired of nice useable historic homes of 70 years and older being torn down and replaced with townhome boxes built from sidewalk to back fence--phewy!

large trees--close proximity to restaurants and shops--historic architecture--even funky architecture--this is what makes a neighborhood. . . . attractive . . . . diverse and likeable. . . . .to live in---but if all the old homes are torn down--seems a grim prospect

[TheNiche]

sooooooooooooooooooooooooo

i heard a committee of city council is meeting june 12 to see if any citizens show up to voice concern over houston "puny" historic preservation ordinances-----rumor is the mayor doesn't think there are "any" citizens that will take the trouble to drive down town and voice their opinions----

i'm hoping the mayor is wrong---and there will be someone in addition to myself who will be there at that committee meeting to speak--i'm tired of nice useable historic homes of 70 years and older being torn down and replaced with townhome boxes built from sidewalk to back fence--phewy!

large trees--close proximity to restaurants and shops--historic architecture--even funky architecture--this is what makes a neighborhood. . . . attractive . . . . diverse and likeable. . . . .to live in---but if all the old homes are torn down--seems a grim prospect

Is a townhome built in 2004 not historic? Is 2004 not history? Is the negation of what had been on the site not also indicative of history, and of those forces that have shaped it?

For trees, I'd compromise. Seek to mandate that the uprooting of one mature tree must be offset by the planting of some number of new trees, or perhaps a lower number of particularly large new trees. Something that ensures that the urban forest is re-planted...even if it must be reconfigured.

New townhomes and apartments are actually precisely what it takes to support a greater diversity of neighborhood restaurants and shops. Low-density arrangements of single-family homes can't do it alone.

Many townhomes are not attractive--to me--but I wouldn't live in those. Somebody who thought otherwise might live there, however. Who is to say that they're absolutely wrong and you're absolutely right, and that your preferences must be dominant? Would you really seek to keep that element out of your neighborhood? Is architectural design something you really want to stifle? Is that the kind of intolerant behavior that is appropriate for a diverse and vibrant urban area? Or might you be more at home in a gated community in the suburbs?

I don't like a lot of what gets built, either, just to look at it (and we may even share a lot of views on what is tasteful and what is not), but I don't begrudge people the opportunity to live where and how they like. I'm no facist.

[dachmation]

Is a townhome built in 2004 not historic? Is 2004 not history? Is the negation of what had been on the site not also indicative of history, and of those forces that have shaped it?

For trees, I'd compromise. Seek to mandate that the uprooting of one mature tree must be offset by the planting of some number of new trees, or perhaps a lower number of particularly large new trees. Something that ensures that the urban forest is re-planted...even if it must be reconfigured.

New townhomes and apartments are actually precisely what it takes to support a greater diversity of neighborhood restaurants and shops. Low-density arrangements of single-family homes can't do it alone.

Many townhomes are not attractive--to me--but I wouldn't live in those. Somebody who thought otherwise might live there, however. Who is to say that they're absolutely wrong and you're absolutely right, and that your preferences must be dominant? Would you really seek to keep that element out of your neighborhood? Is architectural design something you really want to stifle? Is that the kind of intolerant behavior that is appropriate for a diverse and vibrant urban area? Or might you be more at home in a gated community in the suburbs?

I don't like a lot of what gets built, either, just to look at it (and we may even share a lot of views on what is tasteful and what is not), but I don't begrudge people the opportunity to live where and how they like. I'm no facist.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm begruding people to live where they want means your a facist? i was hoping for a like minded someone who would be pining to keep those things that make an "historical" neighborhood---- historical--2004 will be historical in 2104--maybe--right now though it's the houses that were built between 1900 and 1930 that are being torn down to be replaced by townhomes--townhomes that are awkward on those small lots and hard to plumb with the ancient sewer line,and hard to have friends park in front of because of the double driveway--2 foot easement--double driveway etc-and when i speak of large trees--i am really refferring to the canopy of the large trees--something that is hard to replace with 6 inch diameter trees(this could be the reason trees for houston changed their minds on replacing older trees with an equivalant amount of younger trees down kirby )-architectural design--in townhome stucture? sure maybe 5% of the time--otherwise it's rather like shoeboxes on their sides--no thought to architecture --just square footage--to loom over small bungalows next to them--intolerant? in the neighborhoods where useable houses are torn down for townhomes that sit vaccant---well---intolerant seems a harsh word for being on the side of wanting useable houses to be USED---doesn't seem to warrant being banished to the suburbs--gated or not--of course having townhomes in my neighborhood is no big deal--IT'S WHEN USEABLE HOUSES--HISTORIC HOUSES ARE TORN DOWN TO BUILD TOWNHOMES-geeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz

i may have misspoke---i was hoping only to cast out hope that others might want to see if historic homes could be saved through stronger preservation laws in houston---THE MAYOR DOESN'T THINK ANYONE CARES ABOUT OLD HOUSES---once those homes are gone--they are really gone--and no amount of architecture of townhomes will replace them--townhomes by their nature lend themselves to be built anywhere--historic homes are hard to move--

i live in a 90 year old house in a 100 year old neighborhood in the heart of montrose--i'd like to encourage houston to preserve old homes--to care for them--keep them as a legancy for our children and save building townhomes for the empty lots that seem to be everywhere-NOT TEARING DOWN USEABLE BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC HOMES THAT SEEM TO BE FEWER AND FEWER-forgive my transgress

[Ptarmigan]

I bet all those townhouses and houses built today will be considered historic in 50 years.

[RedScare]

While I would have expected someone as technical in his word usage as Niche to properly use the word "fascist" in a sentence, there is some merit in what he says. And, as an owner of a 90 year old home in a 100 year old neighborhood myself, I am sympathetic to dachmation's argument. However, both posters tend to the extreme in making their points. It might be useful to point out that virtually every "historic" city in the US tore down a lot of buildings prior to building the ones we consider historic. Houston is simply doing so 100 years later than they did. Is that what makes the difference? And, I must say that I am not naive enough to miss the irony of spending my weekends renovating my 1920 "suburban cookie cutter tract home" in the Heights, because it has so much more charm than those "suburban cookie cutter tract homes" that are being built farther from downtown.

These are not easy questions to answer, especially when the solutions proposed might, or might have to, apply citywide. I, too, wish to encourage people to save these old homes, and if the Mayor thinks no one cares about old homes (he does not think that, and suggesting otherwise does not advance your cause) I would be more than happy to correct him, but I am leery of draconian ordinances to force my love of old bungalows onto others. I already am subject to several ordinances in the Heights that have had the exact opposite effect than intended, and am not willing to give well-intentioned, but near-sighted preservationists any more opportunities to screw things up while fixing them.

There are some pretty lively discussions on these issues in the Heights topic area. Feel free to dig them up to see some of the unintended consequences that I allude to.

[GREASER]

I bet all those townhouses and houses built today will be considered historic in 50 years.

They will be landfill in 50 yrs.

[musicman]

They will be landfill in 50 yrs.

you give em more credit than i do

[Vertigo58]

If other cities can save their treasures we can, just takes time, $$$ and people of course.

[gwilson]

What is historic? Everything has history related to it. DOes that mean that all should be saved with no room for progress?

I love old historic buildings as much as anyone, but I think we are a bit too nostalgic.

[skyphen]

I love old historic buildings as much as anyone, but I think we are a bit too nostalgic.

Houston? TOO nostalgic? That's a first.

[beckster]

Houston is about as nostalgic as that cigarette after sex...

[TJones]

Houston is about as nostalgic as that cigarette after sex...

HA........I found my new sig !!!

Houston is nostalgic...........for the friggin' 80's it seems, but I digress. What I feel is a problem we face regarding these "historic" buildings and landmarks is that just because they are old, that people believe they are "historic" ? Most of these "historic" places are quickly becoming rundown and in disrepair. Houston simply doesn't have the types of buildings that a San Francisco or a Chicago or a New York have. Back 100 or more years ago, the people that built these types of "historic" buildings in these other cities were building them as solidly as humanly possible because these men who commisioned these buildings were hellbent on leaving their names on something that would last forever, and it basically turned into a "ps-n contest" to see who could build a bigger and better building. This city has been built on a swamp with no real reason to build anything significant or substantial until oil was discovered, and the men that had the oil money were buying LAND with it and spreading out, not going up with their profits. The few historic buildings we do have left downtown weren't built to last forever, they were built to be a storefront for awhile to see if they could putdown some roots here, but especially not last forever when they don't get taken care of properly. Rare gems in The Heights and other "historical" places around the city are a consorted effort put forth by people like Redscare and HeightsYankee who have taken care to restore or at the very least not let things get worse to their homes and businesses, because they LOVE the architectural style, or because they LOVE the area as a whole.

Some of these older homes simply need to be let go, because they are a firehazard, not ALL of them can be saved, and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be enough folks willing to shell out the money or care enough about them to preserve them. Now, in those new townhomes defense, there was a brief period there in the early 2000's where corugated tin was thought to look very chic on those townhomes, because it was "different" I do feel they will be there longer than 50 years, and you can thank the city council and their ordinances for that, as building codes have become MUCH more stringent than those "historic" buildings built 100 years ago. However, I think it is pride in craftsmanship 100 years ago, that has helped those 100 year old building pass the test of time.

Edit: Oh Red, and by me using you as an example, I am in no way, shape, or form trying make you out as some sort of hero, nor am I trying to kiss up. I just know you have done some extensive work to your house, but I still question your choice for the purple SHAG carpet in the "Love Dungeon"? Not that I know anything about the room, your AGF told me about it that night at The Happy Days.

[musicman]

I do feel they will be there longer than 50 years, and you can thank the city council and their ordinances for that, as building codes have become MUCH more stringent than those "historic" buildings built 100 years ago.

i'll have to disagree with you. particularly since the inspection process is lax. it'll be interesting to see what happens

[TJones]

i'll have to disagree with you. particularly since the inspection process is lax. it'll be interesting to see what happens

I challenge you to try and build something in the city of Houston without proper permits and inspections being done. there is nothing lax about them, they are hoping you screw up so they have to come out again until THEY (the inspectors) feel it is done right.

[crunchtastic]

I challenge you to try and build something in the city of Houston without proper permits and inspections being done. there is nothing lax about them, they are hoping you screw up so they have to come out again until THEY (the inspectors) feel it is done right.

Come to my hood. You'll see about that whole permit thing.

But in the meantime, I need to know how Red was able to make space for a love dungeon in under 1500 square feet. I'm having a hard time making room for mine. The regular dungeon takes up so much room as it is.

[musicman]

I challenge you to try and build something in the city of Houston without proper permits and inspections being done. there is nothing lax about them, they are hoping you screw up so they have to come out again until THEY (the inspectors) feel it is done right.

contact ANY civic club and see what they tell you. i think you'll be surprised. this was even brought up last night at the airport meeting regarding building structures to mitigate sound. who's going to verfy? NOT the inspectors the audience said.

[stolitx]

I challenge you to try and build something in the city of Houston without proper permits and inspections being done. there is nothing lax about them, they are hoping you screw up so they have to come out again until THEY (the inspectors) feel it is done right.

Are you serious? Not in my area. Permits smermits. They don't even stop for red flags, just work at night when the inspectors are off duty. Not everyone building or remodeling in this city is legit enough to care about rules and regulations of the city or the deed restrictions of the neighborhoods.

[TheNiche]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm begruding people to live where they want means your a facist? i was hoping for a like minded someone who would be pining to keep those things that make an "historical" neighborhood---- historical--2004 will be historical in 2104--maybe--right now though it's the houses that were built between 1900 and 1930 that are being torn down to be replaced by townhomes--townhomes that are awkward on those small lots and hard to plumb with the ancient sewer line,and hard to have friends park in front of because of the double driveway--2 foot easement--double driveway etc-and when i speak of large trees--i am really refferring to the canopy of the large trees--something that is hard to replace with 6 inch diameter trees(this could be the reason trees for houston changed their minds on replacing older trees with an equivalant amount of younger trees down kirby )-architectural design--in townhome stucture? sure maybe 5% of the time--otherwise it's rather like shoeboxes on their sides--no thought to architecture --just square footage--to loom over small bungalows next to them--intolerant? in the neighborhoods where useable houses are torn down for townhomes that sit vaccant---well---intolerant seems a harsh word for being on the side of wanting useable houses to be USED---doesn't seem to warrant being banished to the suburbs--gated or not--of course having townhomes in my neighborhood is no big deal--IT'S WHEN USEABLE HOUSES--HISTORIC HOUSES ARE TORN DOWN TO BUILD TOWNHOMES-geeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz

i may have misspoke---i was hoping only to cast out hope that others might want to see if historic homes could be saved through stronger preservation laws in houston---THE MAYOR DOESN'T THINK ANYONE CARES ABOUT OLD HOUSES---once those homes are gone--they are really gone--and no amount of architecture of townhomes will replace them--townhomes by their nature lend themselves to be built anywhere--historic homes are hard to move--

i live in a 90 year old house in a 100 year old neighborhood in the heart of montrose--i'd like to encourage houston to preserve old homes--to care for them--keep them as a legancy for our children and save building townhomes for the empty lots that seem to be everywhere-NOT TEARING DOWN USEABLE BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC HOMES THAT SEEM TO BE FEWER AND FEWER-forgive my transgress

You hit on a lot of issues here, and I want to try to respond as well as possible. But I want to be perfectly clear: you may have sought partisan solidarity and I'm not going to go along with that. Whether you ultimately agree on it or not, oppositional dialogue is beneficial to arriving at a mature policy stance. Groupthink is only dangerous, and I have no patience for it.

Now, to be clear, 2004 is history. So is 1904. One year is not inherently superior to the other insofar as it merits political interventional. To the extent that there are people (myself among them) that prefer the older stock of buildings, we are free to invest in those properties as homes and businesses...just as I have in the East End. To the extent that there are people that dissent, I'm very OK with that. I sincerely hope that they can find the home that they like in a location that they like.

The majority of buyers of new homes will ultimately live somewhere that is not particularly unique or inspiring, but that is nothing new. If anything, it is a continuation of a centuries-long trend. As Red pointed out, cookie-cutter homes are nothing new...although I will say that the fact that they have to be adapted to old lots and street grids actually does mean that they were impacted by a former use, long gone, the knowledge of which is betrayed only to a careful observer, delighted by the discovery. That is my experience, anyway.

I am not opposed to unreasonable building codes, for instance to provide for adequate parking by being more picky about curb cuts or by requiring the replanting and even the expansion of the urban forest.

You complain about vacant townhomes. They generally don't stay that way (and as they become used, they exist in greater density so as that more of them can be used as households per acre than had been the case with the former building). Whether owner-occupied or rented, they must be paid for by way of mortgate or rent. And they will be in short order. In truth, there are many subidivisions in Houston that are in worse shape and if you think that's bad, pay a visit to Miami, Vegas, or Phoenix.

Townhomes cannot be built anywhere. In some areas, they are economically infeasible, either for lack of demand or for such high demand that the land prices are prohibitively high, necessitating apartments or condos. Most other cities don't permit them.

I would suggest that you tweak your political strategy. Being for historic preservation is a misnomer that brings with it a lot of baggage, the worst of which is that there are slums of unattractive cookie-cutter 'historic' homes that will only ever improve if the land under them appreciates as a result of redevelopment potential. But I'd suspect that you really don't care so much about those anyway; you want to protect good architecture (even if most of our older architecture are not actually a local vernacular, but appropriated from national pop culture). Be for 'landmark protection' and you'll get much further than 'historic preservation'. You'll still undoubtedly annoy me with what you think are landmarks, but at the very least you won't send up quite as many red flags, and I can guarantee you that this is something that more people will feel comfortable with.

[TJones]

contact ANY civic club and see what they tell you. i think you'll be surprised. this was even brought up last night at the airport meeting regarding building structures to mitigate sound. who's going to verfy? NOT the inspectors the audience said.

You know, I will apologize for something. I can only go by what I have experienced. I have done remodels in West U. Westchase, Sugarland, Stonegate, RiverOaks, Memorial, W.Memorial. You guys are right, I guess it does become a matter of what part of town you are in or perhaps I was just unlucky and always got checked up upon. I have always run into inspectors, some just happened to "show up" to take a look around. Permits were never really needed out in StoneGate, because that is county, but remodels and builds in the city limits always caught delays because of inspectors.

As far as building near the airport where sound is of a concern. IT'S A FRIGGIN' AIRPORT, THAT IS WHY YOU DON'T LIVE NEXT TO AN AIRPORT !!!