The Heights Craftsman Style Homes

[Porchman]

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.

This one? http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cf...s=311%20W%208th

EDIT: or this one? http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cf...s=804%20Rutland

[Tricky Matt]

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?

I live on a deed-restricted block. I'm told everyday how to live my life

[EMME]

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?

The thing is, you can always build new, old takes more time.

[Tiko]

This one? http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cf...s=311%20W%208th

EDIT: or this one? http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cf...s=804%20Rutland

The second one. It has no alibi.

[TheNiche]

The thing is, you can always build new, old takes more time.

The other thing is, you can never build new land.

[EMME]

The other thing is, you can never build new land.

There is plenty of undeveloped land about. There is a lot at the end of my street for sale. There are several lots for sale throughout the Heights thanks to IKE. The East End has a ton of vacant lots.

Stop it Niche, don't need no stinking devil's advocate. There's enough real ones around.

[TheNiche]

There is plenty of undeveloped land about. There is a lot at the end of my street for sale. There are several lots for sale throughout the Heights thanks to IKE. The East End has a ton of vacant lots.

Stop it Niche, don't need no stinking devil's advocate. There's enough real ones around.

Urban land in any particular location is both finite and scarce. Several lots becoming available is vastly insufficient to satiate demand for lots in the Heights. And the East End is an inferior market for McMansions as compared to the Heights by virtue of its location.

It will probably be a while longer before a McMansion trend takes root in the East End. And when it does, it will no doubt affect those neighborhoods that have a significant stock of attractive old homes occupied by vocal preservation-minded individuals before it affects neighborhoods that have many vacant lots and are still afflicted by--shall we say--indigenous populations. The great irony is that McMansion owners wouldn't conceive of buying such a big and expensive house in your neighborhood if people like you didn't already live there. Your kind cleaned up the neighborhood's character to the extent that their kind is willing to invest in the replacement of it.

Like it or not, that's my description of how the world works. I'm not advocating anything or anybody.

[EMME]

Urban land in any particular location is both finite and scarce. Several lots becoming available is vastly insufficient to satiate demand for lots in the Heights. And the East End is an inferior market for McMansions as compared to the Heights by virtue of its location.

It will probably be a while longer before a McMansion trend takes root in the East End. And when it does, it will no doubt affect those neighborhoods that have a significant stock of attractive old homes occupied by vocal preservation-minded individuals before it affects neighborhoods that have many vacant lots and are still afflicted by--shall we say--indigenous populations. The great irony is that McMansion owners wouldn't conceive of buying such a big and expensive house in your neighborhood if people like you didn't already live there. Your kind cleaned up the neighborhood's character to the extent that their kind is willing to invest in the replacement of it.

Like it or not, that's my description of how the world works. I'm not advocating anything or anybody.

Afraid you got that right. They weren''t moving here when we were fighting gangs, drug dealers and prostitution. Wait a minute, we are still fighting gangs, drug dealers and prostitutes. Oh that explains their tall fences and gated communities.

[Native Montrosian]

As my brother put it, "Montrose was a nicer neighborhood before the yuppies realised they wouldn't catch gay from us".

[crunchtastic]

A number of times I have wanted to jump in this thread, and I hesitated, I think now I know why. I'm quite struck by the modern American notion of home ownership and property rights. The attachment of some sort of deeper philosophical meaning to a 6,000 square foot lot with some hardi and stucco on it. Or that same lot with a 1925 frame house.

I'm having a hard time articulating what I mean--but land--property, to me, is vastly different from owning houses. It is a means to make money when done in bulk, sure. But for the average single-house homeowner? It's quite often more trouble than it's worth. Especially since we move so frequently.

In fuedal systems, land really meant something. 100 acres of aerable land means something. Homesteads where families raise generations mean something. But the realized value of a small 1-structure lot that changes ownership every few years doesn't really seem to be that much, other than the smallish dollars distributed to the middle men on all the various transactions over the life of the structure. Someone else is mighty rich owning all that land that's not ours, and owning the businesses associated with the transactions, but our little piece of dirt never seems to be all that. We all wish we could be the old dude in Oakland who sells his crappy, paid-for pre-war shack for $750,000. But what's the reality for most of us? I think deep down we know our little quarter- or half-million dollar plots of land and lumber are temporary and ulitmately no source of real wealth, and we compensate by attaching too much intellectual value to the idea of ownership. And we distract ourselves with progress vs. preservation. Meanwhile, ugly ass stuff is built all around us and we make it a moral discussion. Building and craft can, and should, be valued separately from ownership and property rights. Perhaps I'm thinking of Europe and Japan, where the concept of shelter and home ownership is vastly different, but a history of both innovation and preservation exist. Not to mention a much greater appreciation of the aesthetic . As Americans we want to boil an economic argument (property equals riches) down into a moral or aesthetic one (don't dare tell me what to do with my bunga-shack/crappy stucco box) just for the sake of argument, when the truth is we mostly live in houses lacking both realized value and aesthetics. Result? We keep building and buying crap as punctuation to our little moral dilemma, rather than for the sake of comfort, shelter and a little beauty.

[Gooch]

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?

Why do they have no obligation to 'fit in'. What if the people already there are living in their dream house? And that dream doesn't include a McMansion next door? Does their dream house not count?

[20thStDad]

Why do they have no obligation to 'fit in'. What if the people already there are living in their dream house? And that dream doesn't include a McMansion next door? Does their dream house not count?

Um, not really. My dream of what my neighbor's property should be really doesn't count. You can move somewhere partially due to its surroundings, but you have to know that you don't have any control over it. If you want control over it, move to suburban Stepford land and you'll have it. Well, someone will have it, maybe not you.

EDIT: use real words

[Marksmu]

Um, not really. My dream of what my neighbor's property should be really doesn't count. You can move somewhere partially due to its surroundings, but you have to know that you don't have any control over it. If you want control over it, move to suburban Stepford land and you'll have it. Well, someone will have it, maybe not you.

EDIT: use real words

Agreed - I like my house just the way it is - But I dont have any say and cant get mad about what my neighbors do - if they decide to sell and I want to prevent something I dont want from going up next door my only option is to buy their lot. If I cant afford it - I definitely dont get to complain about what goes there.

Thats a problem that this country is digressing too - everyone thinks that everything should cater to them - everyone feels entitled to something that they have no legal right to, and have not earned.

I live in the city b/c thats where my wife wants to be - but I get out every weekend and head to the country - its much nicer away from neighbors, out in nature, and the petty problems of the city.

[Gooch]

I understand the precept of free property use. And agree with it, mostly. Many say... "It's their property they can do what they want, neighbors be darned." when it comes to building size and style. Yet we wouldn't apply that logic to many other things. In any confined urban environment, we are limited by courtsey and consideration of our surroundings. If the neighbors blasted music all night, for example. We wouldn't say, "It's their property they can do whatever they want with it, neighbors be darned." That would be considered an intrusive nuisance.

If a building is so large, and so close to it's neighbors it can be an intrusive nuisance to the neighbors. I'm sure we could come up with some examples. Especially in the Heights. Why do we expect no consideration on part of the builder? I think the fundamental question is: At what point does a neighboring structure become an intrusive nuisance to it's surroundings?

[sevfiv]

At what point does a neighboring structure become an intrusive nuisance to it's surroundings?

There's no hard line, so it's whenever someone speaks up about it.

In any confined urban environment, we are limited by courtsey and consideration of our surroundings. If the neighbors blasted music all night, for example. We wouldn't say, "It's their property they can do whatever they want with it, neighbors be darned." That would be considered an intrusive nuisance.

Good illustration..

[20thStDad]

I understand the precept of free property use. And agree with it, mostly. Many say... "It's their property they can do what they want, neighbors be darned." when it comes to building size and style. Yet we wouldn't apply that logic to many other things. In any confined urban environment, we are limited by courtsey and consideration of our surroundings. If the neighbors blasted music all night, for example. We wouldn't say, "It's their property they can do whatever they want with it, neighbors be darned." That would be considered an intrusive nuisance.

There are nuisance laws such as noise rules because sound doesn't magically stop at the property line, but my neighbor's big house doesn't keep me from sleeping at night. They can't throw trash over the fence and can't have their yard drain into yours, but aesthetics never come into play until there's a fire or safety issue. Just like people can do whatever they want IN their house.

As for the Heights, we observed its randomness before we moved there, and I really didn't expect it to change. Pretty much all of inner-loop has that randomness to it save a few places.

[Porchman]

Building and craft can, and should, be valued separately from ownership and property rights. Perhaps I'm thinking of Europe and Japan, where the concept of shelter and home ownership is vastly different, but a history of both innovation and preservation exist. Not to mention a much greater appreciation of the aesthetic . As Americans we want to boil an economic argument (property equals riches) down into a moral or aesthetic one (don't dare tell me what to do with my bunga-shack/crappy stucco box) just for the sake of argument, when the truth is we mostly live in houses lacking both realized value and aesthetics. Result? We keep building and buying crap as punctuation to our little moral dilemma, rather than for the sake of comfort, shelter and a little beauty.

...And as we move from one box to another, our sense of community breaks down that much more, which, in turn, undermines the collaboration and shared values needed to render innovation, preservation, and good aesthetics.

[Gooch]

There are nuisance laws such as noise rules because sound doesn't magically stop at the property line, but my neighbor's big house doesn't keep me from sleeping at night.

10-4. But consider that the effect of an oversize structre, by virtue of its size, extend past the property line as well. It can block the sun. It can block the breeze. The view from the 3rd story can overlook the neighboring yard, opening it to prying eyes. That would suck if you were a shy sunbather! Or have a Mrs. Kravitz next door! Perhaps it doesn't keep you from sleeping, but from enjoying yourself when awake.

I realize that in any dense urban environment there's no practical way to have zero-impact on the neighbors. But a small amount of consideration can go a long way to reducing the intrusional effects. Is it too much to expect a little self-restraint by builders? A lot of the new-builds display contempt more than consideration. That's poor design and leads to ill will and calls for regulation. That's not good for anyone.

[TheNiche]

If a building is so large, and so close to it's neighbors it can be an intrusive nuisance to the neighbors. I'm sure we could come up with some examples. Especially in the Heights. Why do we expect no consideration on part of the builder? I think the fundamental question is: At what point does a neighboring structure become an intrusive nuisance to it's surroundings?

Would the dimensions of a building adversely impact the physical health of adjacent residents or passers-by on public rights of way? If there is a way to answer in the affirmative, then it may be an intrusive nuisance.

[20thStDad]

10-4. But consider that the effect of an oversize structre, by virtue of its size, extend past the property line as well. It can block the sun. It can block the breeze. The view from the 3rd story can overlook the neighboring yard, opening it to prying eyes. That would suck if you were a shy sunbather! Or have a Mrs. Kravitz next door! Perhaps it doesn't keep you from sleeping, but from enjoying yourself when awake.

I realize that in any dense urban environment there's no practical way to have zero-impact on the neighbors. But a small amount of consideration can go a long way to reducing the intrusional effects. Is it too much to expect a little self-restraint by builders? A lot of the new-builds display contempt more than consideration. That's poor design and leads to ill will and calls for regulation. That's not good for anyone.

I do agree with you. I guess I just don't feel it to the same extent on that end of the spectrum, my worries lie more toward the crackhouses and empty buildings that are both visual blight and safety hazard. Most of the time those were there first, but hey, some well-aimed fireworks are fun sometimes. If something "nice" is going in place of nothing or crap, that's ok. What I'm learning to appreciate from this forum is the shame of tearing down a perfectly good old house for no great reason. But if someone wants to raze all of the shotgun crack shacks down near Lawrence Park I'll show up with my crowbar. It's already happening without me.

[Marksmu]

10-4. But consider that the effect of an oversize structre, by virtue of its size, extend past the property line as well. It can block the sun. It can block the breeze. The view from the 3rd story can overlook the neighboring yard, opening it to prying eyes. That would suck if you were a shy sunbather! Or have a Mrs. Kravitz next door! Perhaps it doesn't keep you from sleeping, but from enjoying yourself when awake.

I realize that in any dense urban environment there's no practical way to have zero-impact on the neighbors. But a small amount of consideration can go a long way to reducing the intrusional effects. Is it too much to expect a little self-restraint by builders? A lot of the new-builds display contempt more than consideration. That's poor design and leads to ill will and calls for regulation. That's not good for anyone.

Again - its a pretty slippery slope. Is a 2 story house to tall or to big? It probably is to a small bungalow - it blocks the light, it blocks the breeze - but its not possible to build a 1 story house of sufficient size anymore to justify the price of the lot. When your lot exceeds $200,000 if you put a little one story house on it - for yourself or anyone else, you have built yourself into the most expensive house on the street per square foot, whether you wanted to or not.

I am yet to see a NEW one story house be built in the heights - notice the word new - not a bungalow revival or anything. People are going to two stories - neighbors be darned, and you may upset your direct neighbors, but even the most strict deed restrictions are not preventing a house from being 2 stories....the most strict I have seen keep the top of the roof below 50 ft. 50 ft is WAY up there. You will have a hard time convincing anyone a 2 story house is too much house because you live in a one story. In fact just saying it out loud even sounds stupid.

[heights_yankee]

What all of you McMansion haters dont seem to realize is that the reason your little "bungalo" is going up in value is because of the larger new homes in the area, not in spite of them. There is an area of the heights (woodland heights) that is going up in value because its getting safer, people are taking care of their property, and many people want to downsize and still be close in - but the rest of the heights, the larger area - is going up BECAUSE of the new homes - Not in spite of them.

But I personally cant stand the term McMansion - Its a snobby term that people in the older smaller houses use to try to feel like that are somehow better than those who are in the bigger nicer houses - I think it cheapens a new home that is in all ways superior to the older home it replaced. I know for many people in the heights its an ego thing though - I drive a prius, I live in a small house, my footprint is small - and they are proud of that. Thats fine - but alot of people are not that way and its almost certainly going to become a minority voice in the Heights as the transition continues (with the exception of Woodland Heights)

well, if you look at North Norhill, where I live, there are no large homes. there are only 2 new homes in the whole subdivision. we are bungalow dwellers and i know from your previous posts on here that you think we all fit your stereotype and you don't like us. well, just so you know even with no new homes, houses in this neighborhood tend to sell faster and for more per sq ft than McVics (do you like that better) in even more established parts of the Heights.

McMansion is about a lot more than just size. It's about going to The Woodlands and not knowing which house is your friend's b/c they all look the same. It's about a lack of character- like McDonald's food lacks character and flavor. There are plenty of new homes in the Heights that don't qualify as Mc-anythings. HOwever, when you tear down a real Victorian (that was plenty big) and replace is with a fake, you're Mc-ing the neighborhood. It's Disney and it's cheesy. As always, if you don't like that we feel this way in The Heights, don't buy a home here and don't be friends with people who do. Easy enough.

Additionally, just b/c you love the stereotype you have of Heights residents so much, let me say I drive an SUV and my husband has a Lexus. we don't drive Priuses and, while we live in a bungalow, 3bed/2bath and almost 2000 sq ft is hardly small. So what is your point? I know more people like me in the Heights than people like the ones you suggest live here- although I do know them as well and I adore them.

I personally like the term. It sums up as much a way of life, an attitude, as it does a physical structure.

this.

[Gooch]

I am yet to see a NEW one story house be built in the heights - notice the word new - not a bungalow revival or anything. People are going to two stories - neighbors be darned, and you may upset your direct neighbors, but even the most strict deed restrictions are not preventing a house from being 2 stories....the most strict I have seen keep the top of the roof below 50 ft. 50 ft is WAY up there. You will have a hard time convincing anyone a 2 story house is too much house because you live in a one story. In fact just saying it out loud even sounds stupid.

I can't offhand recall any new one story houses being built either. I also see lots of multi-story-to-the-lot-line homes, built on spec, that are empty and unsold. I'm sure there's more than one spec-McMansion bulider holding onto houses in the Heights wishing they built something smaller right now. Can we say that's what consumers demand? Just because it's the only hometype developers are building on spec doesn't mean that's the only hometype the market demands. To some extent people buy what's available. Bungalows sell at a premium. Is that because there's no market for that type of house? I don't think they sell at a premium because they are old, but in spite of it.

Regardless. Two, three, four, ?? stories could be perfectly appropriate with a decent set back. With an 18-in. setback; a single story is going to put a squeeze on some properties. There are many strategies to mitigate intrusiveness without imposing draconian size limitations. For example, many blocks in the Heights have driveways all on the same side of each house, creating a natural set back while minimizing the unused lot space. When a new builder comes along and builds a wide width front elevation centered on the lot, it eliminates that natural setback. The builder could build the same sized house, just moved over ten feet and the garage on the side instead of the front. It just takes a bit of thought to choose the right stock plan to rubber stamp onto the siteplan. Is it such a burden for builders put some thought into it?

That's why I posed the question -when does it become intrusive to the builder or neigbhors? I'm interested in hearing ideas on how to delineate it (another thread perhaps?) It's hard to define in objective terms. It IS a slippery slope. One I don't want regulators to go down. But as builders construct without consideration of their impact onto their surroundings, people will get more and more motivated toward regulation.

[woodheightsguy]

There's no hard line, so it's whenever someone speaks up about it.

Good illustration..

That's not a good illustration, they're describing noise pollution, it doesn't matter what type of house it's coming out of.

[sevfiv]

That's not a good illustration, they're describing noise pollution, it doesn't matter what type of house it's coming out of.

OH geez! My bad.

I was referring to the general "courtesy and consideration of our surroundings."

[TheNiche]

As always, if you don't like that we feel this way in The Heights, don't buy a home here and don't be friends with people who do. Easy enough.

So...you're saying that if someone doesn't like something that someone else thinks, then they need to physically remove themselves from that person by proximity?

The notion that someone would promote ideological segregation is kind of scary, IMO.

[TheNiche]

Just because it's the only hometype developers are building on spec doesn't mean that's the only hometype the market demands. To some extent people buy what's available. Bungalows sell at a premium. Is that because there's no market for that type of house? I don't think they sell at a premium because they are old, but in spite of it.

The market demands lots of things. The price of land rises to eliminate the most frivolous demands from economic feasibility. For instance, there is a demand for trailer parks in West U, and no doubt a consumer would pay more for a space there than in Pasadena. However, the revenue does not justify the price of the land, and so you do not encounter trailer parks in West U; in fact, if there ever were any, it didn't make sense not to convert them into expensive McMansions because the opportunity cost of operating them as trailer parks was impossible to ignore. So there is >0 demand for trailer park spaces at some price >0, but there are 0 trailer park spaces. In economics, this is the critical difference between demand and quantity demanded. And it applies to bungalows in the Heights, too.

Also, I would contest the notion that bungalows sell at a premium for any reason other than that the underlying land is priced at such a level as reflects the demands by builders to replace the bungalow with a McMansion.

[RedScare]

Also, I would contest the notion that bungalows sell at a premium for any reason other than that the underlying land is priced at such a level as reflects the demands by builders to replace the bungalow with a McMansion.

And you would be wrong. The price that those bungalows fetch is determined by demand by ALL potential purchasers of the property, including the McMansion builder AND the bungalow restorer. Claiming that only the McMansion builders determine the price is just as intellectually dishonest as those that claim that only the bungalows create the demand.

[Porchman]

The market demands lots of things. The price of land rises to eliminate the most frivolous demands from economic feasibility. For instance, there is a demand for trailer parks in West U, and no doubt a consumer would pay more for a space there than in Pasadena. However, the revenue does not justify the price of the land, and so you do not encounter trailer parks in West U; in fact, if there ever were any, it didn't make sense not to convert them into expensive McMansions because the opportunity cost of operating them as trailer parks was impossible to ignore. So there is >0 demand for trailer park spaces at some price >0, but there are 0 trailer park spaces. In economics, this is the critical difference between demand and quantity demanded. And it applies to bungalows in the Heights, too.

Also, I would contest the notion that bungalows sell at a premium for any reason other than that the underlying land is priced at such a level as reflects the demands by builders to replace the bungalow with a McMansion.

Well, it's also tied to price point in the market. There are more people who can qualify/want-to-pay

$300k for a house than people who can qualify/want-to-pay $600k for a house. In the Heights, look at Tricon. They appear to be building and selling lots of the "firehouse" models like the San Francisco wonder versus McVics like this Megalomaniac dream house . In fact, they have shifted almost all their building practice to the former.

[TheNiche]

And you would be wrong. The price that those bungalows fetch is determined by demand by ALL potential purchasers of the property, including the McMansion builder AND the bungalow restorer. Claiming that only the McMansion builders determine the price is just as intellectually dishonest as those that claim that only the bungalows create the demand.

Nope, you can break out the value of any property into two components: land and improvements. The value of the improvements varies dramatically from house to house, based on size, condition, and other factors. The value of the land varies far less dramatically within any particular neighborhood, and the land price is supported by the highest and best alternative use of the land.

This is reflected by the fact that bungalows can be acquired outside of the Heights at very low prices per square foot. The determining factor is the land, not the building style.