The Heights Craftsman Style Homes

[Tricky Matt]

1. http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cf...931&class=1

These are examples of what I call progress.

Please tell me you're joking.

[TheNiche]

I've no doubt you're right - in thirty years time everyone'll be pulling up to their McMansion and being swallowed up by a front loader garage. If you consider that progress, that's an interesting perspective.

So, you're saying that interesting people live in McMansions, then? Apparently that attitude makes me an interesting person, too, even though I don't live in a McMansion or have any desire to.

I have no personal appreciation for porches because I don't use them--I don't smoke, I don't like getting all bitten up by mosquitoes, and I don't care for the pages of a book becoming all wavy in our humid air. Other than those activities, what does anyone actually do on a porch? I suppose one could eat meals, but the porch would have to be screened in to keep flies at bay. And I truly have no desire to sit there for hours on end, get buzzed, and wave like a retarded person at every pedestrian that passes by.

I do have an appreciation for the convenience and security that goes hand-in-hand with an attached garage. Whether it ought to face the street comes down to whether there's a usable alley. And even then, do I really want to start and end every experience I'll ever have in that home by having to drive down a dingy and narrow alleyway? I'd really rather look at front yards on egress and ingress. It's a better way to start a day.

I don't have much appreciation for bungalows, either. They're just the ticky tacky legacy of another era...yesterday's McMansions. There's nothing unique about them. You'll find them in the Heights just as readily as you'll find them elsewhere in the city and throughout the rest of the country. Ho hum. This bungalow vs. McMansion subcultural schism just seems so absurd. Both types of people engaged in this issue are so completely normal and are equally uninteresting.

Show me someone who has applied creativity and originality to the design of their domicile and that is someone I should want as a neighbor. Perhaps I shall build something next door that completely differs and contrasts against their home and they will thank me for it.

[sevfiv]

I see what you're saying - I'll just add that while I agree that your average ranch house and bungalow may not be very architecturally distinct from one another, they are there already. In the case of a "livable" home (and I know this definition differs between folks, especially regarding the copy in real estate listings), I think the waste of demolition is idiotic, but it happens. So why build another ho-hum, overpriced, badly finished, and what I'd call "underdesigned" home in its place. Because the general public doesn't care? Obviously, because they sell, and for quite the large price tag.

It's not like they're replatting the whole neighborhood from scratch and need to fill it in with a large stock of housing (say 1950s Bellaire or 1920s Heights). It's a real opportunity to be creative with a single lot. And I just don't see that often.

[TheNiche]

I see what you're saying - I'll just add that while I agree that your average ranch house and bungalow may not be very architecturally distinct from one another, they are there already. In the case of a "livable" home (and I know this definition differs between folks, especially regarding the copy in real estate listings), I think the waste of demolition is idiotic, but it happens. So why build another ho-hum, overpriced, badly finished, and what I'd call "underdesigned" home in its place. Because the general public doesn't care? Obviously, because they sell, and for quite the large price tag.

It's not like they're replatting the whole neighborhood from scratch and need to fill it in with a large stock of housing (say 1950s Bellaire or 1920s Heights). It's a real opportunity to be creative with a single lot. And I just don't see that often.

I would concur that demolition is (oftentimes) a waste. I really wish we'd see more of these homes moved out to vacant lots or for use as guest houses on rural estates, and awareness of that option is really something that I wish that the GHPA would promote more often.

But the appropriate question that is raised in response is where else in the inner city are you going to build the replacement ho-hum ticky tacky residences, if not on an existing residential lot? One way or the other, ticky tacky is going to happen because, frankly, that's a good description for most of our population. It isn't even that the public doesn't care that something is ticky tacky--it is that they embrace it willfully. They want it.

...and that's aside from the price issue, which we touched on earlier in this thread. Financing anything unique is terribly difficult because resale of unique homes is always an abysmal experience. And of course, designing anything from scratch or with complicated engineering ratchets up the price to a point that would make most people want to throw up their hands and relegate themselves to the ticky tacky alternative.

[sidegate]

So, you're saying that interesting people live in McMansions, then? Apparently that attitude makes me an interesting person, too, even though I don't live in a McMansion or have any desire to.

Note to self: don't use euphemisms on HAIF any more.

[MaggieMay]

......Show me someone who has applied creativity and originality to the design of their domicile and that is someone I should want as a neighbor. Perhaps I shall build something next door that completely differs and contrasts against their home and they will thank me for it.

I have no right to speak since I'm only a renter, but here's my opinion, anyway.

Speaking aesthetically, what bothers me about some of the newer places is their scale, not their style. My neighborhood is between The Heights & Woodland Heights; most of the homes are more cottages than bungalows. There are a couple of quite contemporary places that look good because they fit comfortably on their lots. This is not Colonial Frakking Williamsburg.

There are a few huge new monstrosities that just look pitiful--how sad that the owner could not afford a lot to match their dream home. Many of them have porches because they are "supposed" to have porches--but they aren't used. Authentic Craftsman-style lighting fixtures from Restoration Hardware will not transform a nondescript, poorly built pile into a Craftsman home. (I've seen the stages of construction & in many cases was not impressed.) The good new ones even supply "homes" for the cars that are convenient yet not butt-ugly.

Over in The Real Heights there are a few streets of "little" Victorians. I've seen them criticized as insufficiently Craftsman, but they quite resemble some Galveston vacation homes built just after The Great Storm. They are situated on alleys--well kept ones, not particularly dingy. And some of the old housing stock in that area includes shotgun shacks. Interesting--but they just won't do....

So build something with imagination! Including a big garage to store your kayak. (Edited since reading your latest entry: The better new places show some creativity but aren't redolent of the Ant Farm/Southcoast era--as amusing as that might be.)

[EMME]

I have no right to speak since I'm only a renter, but here's my opinion, anyway.

Speaking aesthetically, what bothers me about some of the newer places is their scale, not their style. My neighborhood is between The Heights & Woodland Heights; most of the homes are more cottages than bungalows. There are a couple of quite contemporary places that look good because they fit comfortably on their lots. This is not Colonial Frakking Williamsburg.

There are a few huge new monstrosities that just look pitiful--how sad that the owner could not afford a lot to match their dream home. Many of them have porches because they are "supposed" to have porches--but they aren't used. Authentic Craftsman-style lighting fixtures from Restoration Hardware will not transform a nondescript, poorly built pile into a Craftsman home. (I've seen the stages of construction & in many cases was not impressed.) The good new ones even supply "homes" for the cars that are convenient yet not butt-ugly.

Over in The Real Heights there are a few streets of "little" Victorians. I've seen them criticized as insufficiently Craftsman, but they quite resemble some Galveston vacation homes built just after The Great Storm. They are situated on alleys--well kept ones, not particularly dingy. And some of the old housing stock in that area includes shotgun shacks. Interesting--but they just won't do....

So build something with imagination! Including a big garage to store your kayak. (Edited since reading your latest entry: The better new places show some creativity but aren't redolent of the Ant Farm/Southcoast era--as amusing as that might be.)

The entire block of my street is 99% bungalow from the 20s. The four homes out of twenty three that differ are an old machine shop which has been converted into a beautiful loft and the adjoining lot that was vacant now has a wonderful, contemporary home built by and for the homeowners, to scale and did not drop a single tree. The house next to me is a ranch style boring brick home and there is a boring brick ranch next to the contemporary (both ranches built in the 50s on what were vacant lots).

[20thStDad]

Marksmu, so you like McMansions (some) but hate townhomes. I think we've run through the definition of McMansion in another thread, but what's a townhome? I'm guessing there are just as many definitions as there are people here, but to me a townhome is a house built as part of a "complex" - that share a driveway off the street (non-alley), that may or may not be joined to other units. To you, and others, is it defined by its configuration or its look? I've heard people call my house a townhome, and in no way do I think it is. We have a front yard, back yard, aren't joined in any way to neighbors, have a detached garage with alley access, and it's on a "full" Heights lot (3275 sq ft) as they were originally platted. It's not big or fancy enough to be a McMansion, but it was built in 2004 so it has some newness to it. Just wondering what people out there consider "townhomes".

EDIT: quick Google search, all of the first 5 definitions pulled up for townhome say they are attached to other homes. So I guess I don't have one.

[EMME]

Marksmu, so you like McMansions (some) but hate townhomes. I think we've run through the definition of McMansion in another thread, but what's a townhome? I'm guessing there are just as many definitions as there are people here, but to me a townhome is a house built as part of a "complex" - that share a driveway off the street (non-alley), that may or may not be joined to other units. To you, and others, is it defined by its configuration or its look? I've heard people call my house a townhome, and in no way do I think it is. We have a front yard, back yard, aren't joined in any way to neighbors, have a detached garage with alley access, and it's on a "full" Heights lot (3275 sq ft) as they were originally platted. It's not big or fancy enough to be a McMansion, but it was built in 2004 so it has some newness to it. Just wondering what people out there consider "townhomes".

Townhome to me is a rental townhouse. Townhouse is (to me) a house that is adjoined to others, but has it's feet on the ground and no units over it (as opposed to a condo). Usually two or more stories. Driveway or location of garage does not have anything to do with defining the townhouse as a townhouse. (all my opinion, I am sure there is a different architectural definition, but architect, I am not)

Now there are houses that stand alone that I call "like townhouses." They are usually narrower in width than they are in height.

[Marksmu]

Marksmu, so you like McMansions (some) but hate townhomes. I think we've run through the definition of McMansion in another thread, but what's a townhome? I'm guessing there are just as many definitions as there are people here, but to me a townhome is a house built as part of a "complex" - that share a driveway off the street (non-alley), that may or may not be joined to other units. To you, and others, is it defined by its configuration or its look? I've heard people call my house a townhome, and in no way do I think it is. We have a front yard, back yard, aren't joined in any way to neighbors, have a detached garage with alley access, and it's on a "full" Heights lot (3275 sq ft) as they were originally platted. It's not big or fancy enough to be a McMansion, but it was built in 2004 so it has some newness to it. Just wondering what people out there consider "townhomes".

EDIT: quick Google search, all of the first 5 definitions pulled up for townhome say they are attached to other homes. So I guess I don't have one.

When I think of a townhome - I usually think 3 stories and a common wall - most are three stories here in houston, though not all. I also think of a design that the builder uses frequently in a townhome community, even if its a standalone house. Tricon builds a lot of what I call townhomes on their small lots. I think of a townhome as a house not much wider than the garage, the garage in front with an offset front door, usually the master is above the garage if its two stories with a porch facing to the front. If its a 3 story townhome - the entire second floor is entertainment area. I think what I dislike the most about the new what I call townhomes, is the garage out front being the whole downstairs front of a house - its just not attractive.

I dont know what the definition of a McMansion is though - to the people in the 1300 sq ft "bungalow" or the 900 sq ft "cottage" I guess 2000 sq ft is a mansion - I really dont think the word mansion should show up in any house under 5000 sq ft, but thats just me. My house is on a 6600 sq ft lot (1.5 lots) and Ive heard it called a McVic and a McMansion and I dont think of it as either, and its usually a greeny snob saying it.

I also think alot of the demo that goes on is a waste. There are lots of houses I would absolutely love to have that get crushed monthly, the most recent being at the corner of 13th and Waverly. I have a ranch that I would love to have one of these houses on, but I looked into the price of moving them - and its rediculous - not to mention the delays to get a permit to remove them and reset them. I can build a new one for what they want to move and reset one. If they made it more affordable, or offered some incentive people would do it.

But there is a bigger problem that is being overlooked here - There are not many places left in Houston that you can buy a lot and build whatever you want on it. Neighborhoods with the cookie cutter houses have deed restrictions that require another cookie cutter house if yours burns down. People who have a dream home in mind, and want to live in a safe area of town have few options if they want to build something themselves. The heights has a great diversity of homes and some affordable land left. The heights has - shacks that should be torn down, cottages that are cute and old, bungalows, modern monstrosities, victorian, cookie cutter, all the way to mansions. Its a great place to build what you want in a good area - people who dont like the changing look and the rising property values that raises their taxes, are unhappy - and are usually very negative. Personally I think all the negativity is pathetic but thats just my opinion.

All of the arguing though is stupid - some people really do love the small homes and that is great for them these people are usually quite nice. Others love the idea of a small home and think they are better than everyone else because they have a small old home and a stupid little smart car (worst car ever - http://www.autoblog.com/tag/small+vs+midsize+crash+tests/) and I dislike those Im better than you people. And yet others like me just want a nice home in a nice area, that is not small and old with cramped bathrooms and closets. Did that mean getting rid of a small old house? Yep - do I feel bad about it - not one bit. Though I didnt do it - our builder did and it was a spec home. I saw some photos of the house though - it was time to go.

I may have disrailed this thread though - the whole point I was making was some peoples attitudes towards the new homes in this area are very negative and its usually those who are snobs about how green they are, those who hate change in any way (historian types), and those who just dont want to pay more in property taxes. - the worst being the greeny snobs. Maybe the new home owners should band together and start calling all the old houses shacks or crack houses - even when they look real nice.

[EMME]

Maybe the new home owners should band together and start calling all the old houses shacks or crack houses - even when they look real nice.

I'm afraid many do. They think that if it is not new, not to their standards, whatever those are, they are teardowns. Live and let live. But please, don't build a big house next to me and block out all my sunshine? That would make me cry.

[sidegate]

And yet others like me just want a nice home in a nice area, that is not small and old with cramped bathrooms and closets.

Inner Loop, forget about it. McMansion developers are boxing you out of the market, unless you want a $4000 a month mortgage, five bedrooms and 4.5 bathrooms. Have fun looking in the burbs!

[TheNiche]

But please, don't build a big house next to me and block out all my sunshine? That would make me cry.

Shade is good. It reduces the need to run A/C as much and reduces electricity consumption.

[toadfroggy]

I think a lot of the newer houses in the Heights are quite lovely. Some of them sit their lots quite gracefully and fit in well with their neighbors. And some of the older houses aren't really worth saving.

I don't really like the house that started this discussion. I'm not a huge fan of the Craftsman style and to me that house has a lot of the things I don't like about the style and few of the things I do. It seems to me that vernacular elements such as the clipped gables don't belong on a house of that size. It just looks "off" to me. Just because much of the Heights was originally Craftsman style, doesn't mean anything that's describable as Craftsman is going to fit in. Some of them do, but it's not a given. That particular house looks huge in person and I don't think it's worth the money, but it will probably find a buyer at or near that price. Most of the properties in the immediate vicinity have already turned over into new builds and besides, it's within walking distance of Starbucks. It's also not one I would characterize as a McMansion. It's too big and I think it's ugly, but since it lacks a turret, I'll spare it that label.

Part of what bugs me about all the new builds in the neighborhood is that my little house is starting to look pretty shabby by comparison. I'm virtually certain my house won't survive its next change of ownership. That makes me kinda sad. It also means I look at improvements differently. Improvements really have to enhance liveability because they don't add anything to resale value (even if I was planning on ever moving and I'm not), but the increased value of the dirt it sits on just means my taxes go up.

I get why folks are attracted to new. Some of the funky things about my house I could do without. At the same time, I don't think folks realize that part of what gives the Heights its "feel" comes from those funky old places and the kind of people that are OK with a little funk.

[sidegate]

I dont know what the definition of a McMansion is though - to the people in the 1300 sq ft "bungalow" or the 900 sq ft "cottage" I guess 2000 sq ft is a mansion - I really dont think the word mansion should show up in any house under 5000 sq ft, but thats just me. My house is on a 6600 sq ft lot (1.5 lots) and Ive heard it called a McVic and a McMansion and I dont think of it as either, and its usually a greeny snob saying it.

Others love the idea of a small home and think they are better than everyone else because they have a small old home and a stupid little smart car (worst car ever - http://www.autoblog.com/tag/small+vs+midsize+crash+tests/) and I dislike those Im better than you people. And yet others like me just want a nice home in a nice area, that is not small and old with cramped bathrooms and closets. Did that mean getting rid of a small old house? Yep - do I feel bad about it - not one bit. Though I didnt do it - our builder did and it was a spec home. I saw some photos of the house though - it was time to go.

usually those who are snobs about how green they are, those who hate change in any way (historian types), and those who just dont want to pay more in property taxes. - the worst being the greeny snobs. Maybe the new home owners should band together and start calling all the old houses shacks or crack houses - even when they look real nice.

You did get one thing right though. I'm the biggest green, small-closet-having, sitting on my porch with my neighbours-drinking-wine snob you ever met. I read every post that tries to defend these houses, the people who build them and the people who buy them with a snort of derision. Ditto all this stuff about freedom of expression - I've seen the result of this in my own neighbourhood and cringe every time I pass it. TheNiche I've read about your dream house and all I can say is thank heavens for deed restrictions! And before you strip a gear decrying my personal taste in houses, just as you crank your megaphone up to max to declare yours, I'll save you the bother....I don't care.

[heightslurker]

my two cents, since everyone is entitled to theirs...

(disclosure: homeowner of a 1920's bungalow...)

All new builds are not mcmansions, regardless of the actuall square footage, in my opinion. I consider the mcmansions obnoxious when they are built to the furthest boundaries of the lot combined with it being 3 stories. It is like trying to squeeze a pig into a bikini or something...it ain't pretty. I've seen a handful of very tasteful properties that don't tower over everything around it that are comparably the same square footage as the majority of the ugly stuff going up. As someone said earlier in the thread...it is sad to see people who couldn't afford a bigger lot...and obviously couldn't afford a good architect either.

I think the lovely new build on heights between 11th and 12th is a wonderful example of proper scale.

I feel like I'm in a freakin' fish bowl when i go outside and have all these windows facing down into my backyard from three and four lots over, even.

we're not trying to be green, or envy those with bigger houses (we could afford one too)...i like history but it is not my main motivation.....

I have no problem with people living in bigger houses, at the end of the day, I just get pissed off when it affects my quality of living....If I didn't want an outdoor space with dirt to grow things in, I would have bought a townhome. When the time comes when I have tall 2/3 story mcmansions on all sides of me, I might as well live in a townhome because it will begin to feel like a compound......

[TheNiche]

TheNiche I've read about your dream house and all I can say is thank heavens for deed restrictions! And before you strip a gear decrying my personal taste in houses, just as you crank your megaphone up to max to declare yours, I'll save you the bother....I don't care.

Cool. There should be more folks like you in the world. Any interest in coming to our Happy Hour on Friday?

[SaintCyr]

Cool. There should be more folks like you in the world. Any interest in coming to our Happy Hour on Friday?

You have a HH on Friday?

[sevfiv]

^ http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...showtopic=20222

[EMME]

my two cents, since everyone is entitled to theirs...

(disclosure: homeowner of a 1920's bungalow...)

All new builds are not mcmansions, regardless of the actuall square footage, in my opinion. I consider the mcmansions obnoxious when they are built to the furthest boundaries of the lot combined with it being 3 stories. It is like trying to squeeze a pig into a bikini or something...it ain't pretty. I've seen a handful of very tasteful properties that don't tower over everything around it that are comparably the same square footage as the majority of the ugly stuff going up. As someone said earlier in the thread...it is sad to see people who couldn't afford a bigger lot...and obviously couldn't afford a good architect either.

I think the lovely new build on heights between 11th and 12th is a wonderful example of proper scale.

I feel like I'm in a freakin' fish bowl when i go outside and have all these windows facing down into my backyard from three and four lots over, even.

we're not trying to be green, or envy those with bigger houses (we could afford one too)...i like history but it is not my main motivation.....

I have no problem with people living in bigger houses, at the end of the day, I just get pissed off when it affects my quality of living....If I didn't want an outdoor space with dirt to grow things in, I would have bought a townhome. When the time comes when I have tall 2/3 story mcmansions on all sides of me, I might as well live in a townhome because it will begin to feel like a compound......

Congratulate me - I submitted a complete MLS MLB petition this morning, so my street at least now has that protection going forward (pending outcome). My block has not been invaded as yet. We do have one contemporary home, built by and for the occupant within existing scale of the neighborhood, mature trees left standing and is a welcome addition to our street.

[SaintCyr]

Ah I see on the HH thing... Sucks we are leaving for Austin noonish on Friday.

EMME, Whats MLS MLB?

[NenaE]

You did get one thing right though. I'm the biggest green, small-closet-having, sitting on my porch with my neighbours-drinking-wine snob you ever met. I read every post that tries to defend these houses, the people who build them and the people who buy them with a snort of derision. Ditto all this stuff about freedom of expression - I've seen the result of this in my own neighbourhood and cringe every time I pass it. TheNiche I've read about your dream house and all I can say is thank heavens for deed restrictions! And before you strip a gear decrying my personal taste in houses, just as you crank your megaphone up to max to declare yours, I'll save you the bother....I don't care.

...Sorry, but i needed a good laugh, thnx, Sidegate, I was overdue. I admire your humor, & bold, straighforward statements. I like wine too.

[EMME]

Ah I see on the HH thing... Sucks we are leaving for Austin noonish on Friday.

EMME, Whats MLS MLB?

Sorry, should have been MBL

Minimum lot size and minimum building line protection.

Unfortunately, because of the original 3000sf platting, that is the largest MLS we could get. Hope to get a 25 or more sf setback, but that will be calculated by the city (average of existing). All of our homes within my block sit on 6000+ sf, so that is half of existing, but at least it's not 1/4.

[Tiko]

Anyone seen the new construction on 8th, I think, a block W of Yale? Some builder I've never heard of, on a slab with weird dimensions. Plus it's built on a old boatyard that I heard the other developers in the area wouldn't touch beacuse of the soil test results.

[emirate25]

Stop acting like little kids! Build whatever you desire, live in whatever neighborhood you want to live. At the end of day, we are all going to die anyway....geez!!!

[EMME]

Stop acting like little kids! Build whatever you desire, live in whatever neighborhood you want to live. At the end of day, we are all going to die anyway....geez!!!

Phooey on you.

So what do you feel passionately about?

If death finds you, may it find you alive.

[Tricky Matt]

Build whatever you desire, live in whatever neighborhood you want to live.

That's the problem. A lot of us HAVE been living in the neighborhood we've wanted to live in for years (decades!). And it's worked fine for us all this time and then here come the bulldozers followed by builders erecting these monstrosities... Tough to see my neighborhood change in a way most of us find ugly, even if the builders are perfectly within their rights to do these things and even if it does make my house worth more.

[flipper]

Sometimes I feel like people forget that builders are often contracted by homeowners to build big ugly houses that take up the whole lot and stick out like a conspiculously ugly sore thumb. Not every big, ugly, evil house full of snooty, non-neighbor-waving people was built by a greedy, heartless, builder in order to line their pockets on a speculative basis. Sometimes it's actually part of an even grander scheme to earn an honest living.

flipper

[emirate25]

That's the problem. A lot of us HAVE been living in the neighborhood we've wanted to live in for years (decades!). And it's worked fine for us all this time and then here come the bulldozers followed by builders erecting these monstrosities... Tough to see my neighborhood change in a way most of us find ugly, even if the builders are perfectly within their rights to do these things and even if it does make my house worth more.

I understand that you are passionate about your neighborhood, but life is full of changes. You may not agree with them and I may not agree with them, but it tends to happen. What about living in a neighborhood full of diversity? Why is it so hard to let other folks build their dream home? Let me ask you this, would you like for other folks to tell you how to live your life?

[EMME]

Sometimes I feel like people forget that builders are often contracted by homeowners to build big ugly houses that take up the whole lot and stick out like a conspiculously ugly sore thumb. Not every big, ugly, evil house full of snooty, non-neighbor-waving people was built by a greedy, heartless, builder in order to line their pockets on a speculative basis. Sometimes it's actually part of an even grander scheme to earn an honest living.

flipper

I find the homes built by a homebuilder contracted by the homeowner are much more meticulously designed. They look more custom with upgraded finishes. Spec houses are not (usually).

THe house across the street from me is beautiful. It is a contemporary home built on a street of mostly 1920s bungalows and two 50s ranches. It is properly scaled for its surroundings, and it is beautifully done. It was designed and built with the owners, who had purchased the vacant property, involved in each and every aspect.