Jump to content

Historic Districts in Houston


Recommended Posts

I live in a 1920 bungalow in a protected (fully!!!) district. How about you? Do you even live in the Heights? In a historic house? In a historic district?

And when I say "we", I am speaking on behalf of the silent majority in the Heights that are routinely shouted down by anti-preservationists on message boards and in public forums. The fight for historic districts has gone on for years.

This process has never been about the best way to preserve the Heights. It has always been a second bite at the apple for the builders, realtors and architects who originally fought the historic districts to try to undo what had already been done.

I am thoroughly enjoying reading about how all you anit-preservationists are going to do this that and the other thing. It is over. You had your remedy. You failed. Failed. All you had to do was get a simple majority to reject the new ordinance. That should have been like shooting fish in a barrel if this ordinance was such a radical violation of people's property rights. File all the lawsuits you want. It is well settled law that historic districts are not takings. And talk all you want about how you are going to get rid of Mayor Parker. According to off the cuff, it looks like she will run for reelection virtually unopposed. No one with any shot at beating her has taken any steps to run and time is running out. Good luck trying to get a candidate to run on an issue that affects a few hundred people in a City of three million (and don't even give me the argument that the Mayor intends on making every inch of the City a historic district, that is about as bad as the paint color argument).

It is over. You lost. You lost because you did not respect the intelligence of the homeowners in the Heights. All the mailings about how the historic ordinance would destroy property values, dictate HVAC systems, and lead to decay in the Heights made it clear that the blue sign crowd really wanted "no" to both historic districts and historic preservation and "yes" to higher realtor commissions, builder and architect profits.

If you are as intelligent as you claim, do you honestly, (be intellectually honest here if you are capable of doing so) believe that the process of voting was legitimate?

Do you believe the outcome would be the same if a non-vote was counted as a vote to keep historic districts out?

I do not believe there is a silent majority who favor preservation. I do not believe there is a majority who favor either side of this debate. 30/35% favor preservation, 30/35% favor no restriction, and the rest are apathetic, or completely uninformed.

I believe most people just buy a house they like and live in it, and want to be left alone. I believe most people did not return the ballot because they were either uninformed, misinformed, or just did not have a stamp. Only those who were active in the process are likely to have returned the ballot. Especially with the fact that you had to provide your own stamp.

I had to make a special trip to get a stamp to return my ballot. I seldom even check my real mail. I receive absolutely nothing in the mail except for the water bill that is of any importance. Everything else I receive comes electronically, and is paid electronically. I actually pay my water bill through my bank's bill pay option because I do not have stamps ever! I am not in the minority here.

The process was not democratic, and was completely rigged to favor a specific outcome. Can you imagine the result of the 2012 presidential election if you could vote against Obama by simply not voting at all? Really? Can you imagine that!? He would be voted out by the largest margins in voting history...it would be staggering.....it would be in the 80+% range or possibly even higher! This was no different....they conducted a rigged vote, during a very busy holiday season designed specifically to get the outcome they got. I actually bet they were surprised that the response against the ordinance was as high as it was.

This is not even taking into consideration how the votes were counted...we do not know. Did they count votes who may have left a zero off their hcad acct #?? I dont know....but I surely would not put it past them.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I was here before you "preservationists". It is because of people like me that you thought the Heights was worth moving to. If I were to tell you to go f yourself, would you find that offensive? Becau

This is not a bully and name calling situation so much as forcefully pointing out the callousness of your position. You and others claim that your position and this ordinance protects the character a

http://swamplot.com/houstons-historic-districts-will-remain-as-they-are/2011-01-04/ It is over. All districts surveyed failed to muster the 51% needed to opt out. Yes, I know. You all are going

Posted Images

I live in a 1920 bungalow in a protected (fully!!!) district. How about you? Do you even live in the Heights? In a historic house? In a historic district?

And when I say "we", I am speaking on behalf of the silent majority in the Heights that are routinely shouted down by anti-preservationists on message boards and in public forums. The fight for historic districts has gone on for years.

This process has never been about the best way to preserve the Heights. It has always been a second bite at the apple for the builders, realtors and architects who originally fought the historic districts to try to undo what had already been done.

I am thoroughly enjoying reading about how all you anit-preservationists are going to do this that and the other thing. It is over. You had your remedy. You failed. Failed. All you had to do was get a simple majority to reject the new ordinance. That should have been like shooting fish in a barrel if this ordinance was such a radical violation of people's property rights. File all the lawsuits you want. It is well settled law that historic districts are not takings. And talk all you want about how you are going to get rid of Mayor Parker. According to off the cuff, it looks like she will run for reelection virtually unopposed. No one with any shot at beating her has taken any steps to run and time is running out. Good luck trying to get a candidate to run on an issue that affects a few hundred people in a City of three million (and don't even give me the argument that the Mayor intends on making every inch of the City a historic district, that is about as bad as the paint color argument).

It is over. You lost. You lost because you did not respect the intelligence of the homeowners in the Heights. All the mailings about how the historic ordinance would destroy property values, dictate HVAC systems, and lead to decay in the Heights made it clear that the blue sign crowd really wanted "no" to both historic districts and historic preservation and "yes" to higher realtor commissions, builder and architect profits.

I live in a 1925 bungalow, along a street which is 90+% original bungalows, not in a historic district. I am in woodland heights, but outside of what would be the historic district if they turn woodland heights into a historic district. I've been heavily involved with the neighborhood for 4 years (the same length of time I've lived in Texas) , lived here for close to 3, and been a homeowner for a year and a half ish. I bought my house because I'm obsessed with architecture and I love the style/quality of the craftsmen bungalows. I don't want to see bungalows destroyed, and I'd gladly support strengthening of historic districts if they were reasonable. The city should be working with us to help keep these houses standing, not against us (if you fail to see how this is working against us you are more rediculous than I previously thought). I believe having clear cut rules such as minimum lot size, minimum setback would prevent a majority of what is generally feared (mcmansions on small lots). The city should be making it EASIER to renovate your historic home by providing legitimate tax breaks for renovations. Imagine if the city provided incentives for builders to renovate bungalows, I would have no problem requiring the plans to be approved by the HAHC for legitmate tax breaks/incentives. Maybe waive some permit fees? I'm quite certain that a majority of people could support something along these lines. But this isn't want the preservationist wanted, they wanted it their way, they wanted it now, they didn't care who they pissed off to get it done. Congratulations on your victory. You got what you wanted, but you also caused a major turmoil in our neighborhood. Is saving a few more bungalows worth pissing off a lot of your neighbors? One of the greatest parts of the neighborhood is how ecclectic it is, and I believe that the passing of the Historic Ordinance has done a great blow to that part of the neighborhood. Is physical history more valuable to you than cultural? From reading your post before, i'm guessing so.

As far saying "you only had to get a simple majority"... I refuse to believe you really feel that way. The 2008 presidential election was a record setting vote, ~56% of voters voted. If non voting would have cast a vote for spaghetti monster, guess who'd be president. And this wasn't even a vote, you had to send in filled out forms and etc. within 15 days during the holidays. If your such a majority (as you claim) why not just put it to a straight vote?

Your internet tough guy threats are hilarious.

How can you support Mayor Parker???.... she is pro-Walmart!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a 1925 bungalow, along a street which is 90+% original bungalows, not in a historic district. I am in woodland heights, but outside of what would be the historic district if they turn woodland heights into a historic district. I've been heavily involved with the neighborhood for 4 years (the same length of time I've lived in Texas) , lived here for close to 3, and been a homeowner for a year and a half ish. I bought my house because I'm obsessed with architecture and I love the style/quality of the craftsmen bungalows. I don't want to see bungalows destroyed, and I'd gladly support strengthening of historic districts if they were reasonable. The city should be working with us to help keep these houses standing, not against us (if you fail to see how this is working against us you are more rediculous than I previously thought). I believe having clear cut rules such as minimum lot size, minimum setback would prevent a majority of what is generally feared (mcmansions on small lots). The city should be making it EASIER to renovate your historic home by providing legitimate tax breaks for renovations. Imagine if the city provided incentives for builders to renovate bungalows, I would have no problem requiring the plans to be approved by the HAHC for legitmate tax breaks/incentives. Maybe waive some permit fees? I'm quite certain that a majority of people could support something along these lines. But this isn't want the preservationist wanted, they wanted it their way, they wanted it now, they didn't care who they pissed off to get it done. Congratulations on your victory. You got what you wanted, but you also caused a major turmoil in our neighborhood. Is saving a few more bungalows worth pissing off a lot of your neighbors? One of the greatest parts of the neighborhood is how ecclectic it is, and I believe that the passing of the Historic Ordinance has done a great blow to that part of the neighborhood. Is physical history more valuable to you than cultural? From reading your post before, i'm guessing so.

As far saying "you only had to get a simple majority"... I refuse to believe you really feel that way. The 2008 presidential election was a record setting vote, ~56% of voters voted. If non voting would have cast a vote for spaghetti monster, guess who'd be president. And this wasn't even a vote, you had to send in filled out forms and etc. within 15 days during the holidays. If your such a majority (as you claim) why not just put it to a straight vote?

Your internet tough guy threats are hilarious.

How can you support Mayor Parker???.... she is pro-Walmart!

It wasn't an election. It was a re-survey. The rules were clear. In fact, the resurvey process was modified a number of times by council to make it better for the anti-preservationists. It wasn't put up to an election because that would have made it easier to repeal a district than to create one. If you want to overrule what my elected official has done, you need to get organized and get a majority to do it. The anti-preservationists failed because residents in the Heights actually do support the revised ordinance and are tired of all the problems the anti-preservationists (many of whom do not live in the Heights) have caused in this process.

And you are right that there could have been a better ordinance with better tax breaks and a complete waiver of permit fees instead of just discounts on permit fees. But the debate was never about getting to the best possible ordinance. It was about killing it off so the realtors could maximize their commissions. Without this interfernce, we would have probably been able to get a much better ordinance. The fact of the matter is that Heights residents are so tired of the McMansion abuse that they would rather deal with a flawed ordinance and government bureacracy than see the Heights turned into Bellaire, substituting McVics for McMansions.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thoroughly enjoying reading about how all you anit-preservationists are going to do this that and the other thing. It is over. You had your remedy. You failed. Failed. All you had to do was get a simple majority to reject the new ordinance. That should have been like shooting fish in a barrel if this ordinance was such a radical violation of people's property rights. File all the lawsuits you want. It is well settled law that historic districts are not takings. And talk all you want about how you are going to get rid of Mayor Parker. According to off the cuff, it looks like she will run for reelection virtually unopposed. No one with any shot at beating her has taken any steps to run and time is running out. Good luck trying to get a candidate to run on an issue that affects a few hundred people in a City of three million (and don't even give me the argument that the Mayor intends on making every inch of the City a historic district, that is about as bad as the paint color argument).

It is over. You lost. You lost because you did not respect the intelligence of the homeowners in the Heights. All the mailings about how the historic ordinance would destroy property values, dictate HVAC systems, and lead to decay in the Heights made it clear that the blue sign crowd really wanted "no" to both historic districts and historic preservation and "yes" to higher realtor commissions, builder and architect profits.

Your clan couldn't have gotten even 5% support in 30 days and thanks to the Mayor's actions in ignoring the ordinance provisions, you got a free pass. That won't hold up however. She had to follow the law and she didn't. Good luck with that. As far as shoot fish in a barrel, it took you YEARS AND YEAR to cheat and lie and harrass your neighbors to get to 51% for a completely different ordinance that didn't have any consequences. The ordinance opposition wasn't willing to stoop to your tactics. They sent 1/4 of the number of flyers your group sent and still managed to get 35 + percent in 30 days. No way you could have acheived those kinds of numbers and everyone knows it so your claims give us all a good chuckle.

As far as no opposition for Parker, you keep right on thinking that way. We love that you think those interested in her job don't smell blood in the water. Opposition to Parker is not just here and not just about this issue. Every article in the newspaper has people blogging and posting about how much they regret voting for her. She didn't win by much and her image is suffering because of her arrogance and the bad advice she gets. So, keep up the arrogance about that too. We need a good laugh every day.

The realtors have said over and over that they aren't affected by whether a property is not in a historic district although those nice restrictions you want affect the sellers of old homes that need work. No one cares but you so keep on thinking they do. They've expressed concern that the areas surrounding the districts will continue to see improvements while the properties in the district will see much slower growth, which is of course, what you want because you don't have two sticks to rub together so you fear rising property values - essentially what is at issue here for your group, not preservation. So your claims just prove your total lack of understanding of anything related to this ordinance. Again, a good laugh though.

Yes yes, we know you think you won, we lost, blah, blah, blah. It will continue to amuse everyone while we move on to the next efforts to get real due process from people who can't be bullied or bought by promises of political favors by Parker or scared off by your little band of hysterical preservationists. We LOVE LOVE LOVE it. Remember, he who laughs last, laughs best.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't an election. It was a re-survey. The rules were clear. In fact, the resurvey process was modified a number of times by council to make it better for the anti-preservationists. It wasn't put up to an election because that would have made it easier to repeal a district than to create one. If you want to overrule what my elected official has done, you need to get organized and get a majority to do it. The anti-preservationists failed because residents in the Heights actually do support the revised ordinance and are tired of all the problems the anti-preservationists (many of whom do not live in the Heights) have caused in this process.

And you are right that there could have been a better ordinance with better tax breaks and a complete waiver of permit fees instead of just discounts on permit fees. But the debate was never about getting to the best possible ordinance. It was about killing it off so the realtors could maximize their commissions. Without this interfernce, we would have probably been able to get a much better ordinance. The fact of the matter is that Heights residents are so tired of the McMansion abuse that they would rather deal with a flawed ordinance and government bureacracy than see the Heights turned into Bellaire, substituting McVics for McMansions.

Parker wouldn't allow a straight vote or any expression of support because she knew there wasn't enough support to fill a bucket. That was the ONLY reason it wasn't put up for a real vote. Parker should have followed the laws of this state and her own ordinance and the fact that she didn't makes the whole thing vulnerable. But no one cares what you think or how much you strut around the Internet claiming this false victory. In the end, when the fat lady sings, you will have to shut up and listen to the sound of real democracy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a 1925 bungalow, along a street which is 90+% original bungalows, not in a historic district. I am in woodland heights, but outside of what would be the historic district if they turn woodland heights into a historic district. I've been heavily involved with the neighborhood for 4 years (the same length of time I've lived in Texas) , lived here for close to 3, and been a homeowner for a year and a half ish. I bought my house because I'm obsessed with architecture and I love the style/quality of the craftsmen bungalows. I don't want to see bungalows destroyed, and I'd gladly support strengthening of historic districts if they were reasonable. The city should be working with us to help keep these houses standing, not against us (if you fail to see how this is working against us you are more rediculous than I previously thought). I believe having clear cut rules such as minimum lot size, minimum setback would prevent a majority of what is generally feared (mcmansions on small lots). The city should be making it EASIER to renovate your historic home by providing legitimate tax breaks for renovations. Imagine if the city provided incentives for builders to renovate bungalows, I would have no problem requiring the plans to be approved by the HAHC for legitmate tax breaks/incentives. Maybe waive some permit fees? I'm quite certain that a majority of people could support something along these lines. But this isn't want the preservationist wanted, they wanted it their way, they wanted it now, they didn't care who they pissed off to get it done. Congratulations on your victory. You got what you wanted, but you also caused a major turmoil in our neighborhood. Is saving a few more bungalows worth pissing off a lot of your neighbors? One of the greatest parts of the neighborhood is how ecclectic it is, and I believe that the passing of the Historic Ordinance has done a great blow to that part of the neighborhood. Is physical history more valuable to you than cultural? From reading your post before, i'm guessing so.

As far saying "you only had to get a simple majority"... I refuse to believe you really feel that way. The 2008 presidential election was a record setting vote, ~56% of voters voted. If non voting would have cast a vote for spaghetti monster, guess who'd be president. And this wasn't even a vote, you had to send in filled out forms and etc. within 15 days during the holidays. If your such a majority (as you claim) why not just put it to a straight vote?

Your internet tough guy threats are hilarious.

How can you support Mayor Parker???.... she is pro-Walmart!

These folks only care about the structure, not the people living in them. You should have read the blogs following the fire and death of a beloved neighbor. All they could talk about is her "inappropriate" home. It was sick, sick, sick!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your clan couldn't have gotten even 5% support in 30 days and thanks to the Mayor's actions in ignoring the ordinance provisions, you got a free pass. That won't hold up however. She had to follow the law and she didn't. Good luck with that. As far as shoot fish in a barrel, it took you YEARS AND YEAR to cheat and lie and harrass your neighbors to get to 51% for a completely different ordinance that didn't have any consequences. The ordinance opposition wasn't willing to stoop to your tactics. They sent 1/4 of the number of flyers your group sent and still managed to get 35 + percent in 30 days. No way you could have acheived those kinds of numbers and everyone knows it so your claims give us all a good chuckle.

As far as no opposition for Parker, you keep right on thinking that way. We love that you think those interested in her job don't smell blood in the water. Opposition to Parker is not just here and not just about this issue. Every article in the newspaper has people blogging and posting about how much they regret voting for her. She didn't win by much and her image is suffering because of her arrogance and the bad advice she gets. So, keep up the arrogance about that too. We need a good laugh every day.

The realtors have said over and over that they aren't affected by whether a property is not in a historic district although those nice restrictions you want affect the sellers of old homes that need work. No one cares but you so keep on thinking they do. They've expressed concern that the areas surrounding the districts will continue to see improvements while the properties in the district will see much slower growth, which is of course, what you want because you don't have two sticks to rub together so you fear rising property values - essentially what is at issue here for your group, not preservation. So your claims just prove your total lack of understanding of anything related to this ordinance. Again, a good laugh though.

Yes yes, we know you think you won, we lost, blah, blah, blah. It will continue to amuse everyone while we move on to the next efforts to get real due process from people who can't be bullied or bought by promises of political favors by Parker or scared off by your little band of hysterical preservationists. We LOVE LOVE LOVE it. Remember, he who laughs last, laughs best.

Yes, and here is the last laugh: HA!

It is over. You lost. Your scare tactics did not work. Your lies about paint color and HVAC systems did not fool anyone.

Realtors aren't affected by whether a property is in a district or not? Haaaa haa haa haa ha ha ha ha!!!!!! Right. And it is just a freak accident that the one realtor that told me personally that all bungalows are only worth what a builder would pay for them just happens to be the leader of the anti-preservation movement. If you think realtors would rather sell bungalows for 300-500k than 3500 sq ft Mc Vics for 800-1mil, you are completely bonkers.

And you actually buy the argument that the Heights is going to see slower growth? Have you stepped outside your door recently? Do you actually live in the Heights? The neighborhood is absolutely booming. Restaurants are coming in, new retail is going up all around (some good, some really bad) and plenty of people are putting money into rehabbing historic properties. One on Ashland is on the market for 695k. Outside of a historic district, it would have been a tear down. If single family renovations on the market for 695k are examples of slow growth, then bring it on! The fact of the matter is that well restored historic homes in the Heights absolutely fly off the shelf. My friends have recently purchased bungalows admist all the historic ordinance fight and had to bid up by 10% to land a sale.

And I don't fear rising property values. I am counting on them to help finance an addition. But, I bet you have never challenged your HCAD assessment and voted for Prop 1. As for the dig on my income (even though you don't even know me), it is exactly what I would expect from the anti-preservationists.

The fact is that to this date no one has had the balls to take the necessary steps to start a campaign to challenge Parker. I don't think she is god's gift to Mayors. But, she does get stuff done. Sometimes the Margaret Thatcher approach works. She got the drainage initiative passed and is doing some serious heavy lifting to get the budget balanced. She won't lose reelection if the challenger's platform is that Mayor Parker doesn't play nice with other council members and supports historic preservation. People can blog all they want. But someone will have to get the guts to run against her. So far, that person is no one.

Good luck with the legal challenge. Check out Penn Central v. NY. It is well settled law. And go back to grade school and learn what an ordinance is. It is a law of a municipality that can be changed by a vote of the governing body of the municipality, even if the reatlors and property rights nuts scream and yell about it. You all wanted a resurvey, got one that was on much better terms than originally proposed, failed to get the votes and now are blaiming everyone else but yourselves for your failed campaign. You lost. You only have yourselves to blame. The Heights is now fully protected.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't an election. It was a re-survey. The rules were clear. In fact, the resurvey process was modified a number of times by council to make it better for the anti-preservationists. It wasn't put up to an election because that would have made it easier to repeal a district than to create one. If you want to overrule what my elected official has done, you need to get organized and get a majority to do it. The anti-preservationists failed because residents in the Heights actually do support the revised ordinance and are tired of all the problems the anti-preservationists (many of whom do not live in the Heights) have caused in this process.

And you are right that there could have been a better ordinance with better tax breaks and a complete waiver of permit fees instead of just discounts on permit fees. But the debate was never about getting to the best possible ordinance. It was about killing it off so the realtors could maximize their commissions. Without this interfernce, we would have probably been able to get a much better ordinance. The fact of the matter is that Heights residents are so tired of the McMansion abuse that they would rather deal with a flawed ordinance and government bureacracy than see the Heights turned into Bellaire, substituting McVics for McMansions.

The rules were very clear. And that's why we were all pissed off about it. They were clearly rigged. We aren't anti-preservationists... we are anti-ordinance. The debate WAS about getting a better ordinance. If you remember, there were several revisions to the ordinance before it was approved. I think the biggest thing that pisses everyone off is the HAHC deciding if something is "appropriate". That is NOT what anyone signed up for (to originally get the historic district designation).

The FACT of the matter is the historic districts only make up part of the Heights, so what you are going to cause is a greater concentration of McMansion's outside of the historic districts but still within the greater heights area. In my eyes, the neighborhood isn't limited to the 4 or so streets within my house, its the entire area (including shady acres, brookesmith, timbergrove, etc.) Good luck ever getting any other neighborhoods to become Historic Districts. If you would have done this process with integrity/honesty/reason it would have been much easier to protect the entire Greater Heights area from having more mcVics on small lots. Not just 4 clusters of a few streets. You did not win, you just made the entire neighborhood lose.

The funniest part of this is if it hadn't been for the McVics/Townhomes that you were trying to stop you wouldn't have ever moved here in the first place. You would not have moved here in the 80s-90s. Because of the gentrification of the neighborhood, it made it more desirable which is why so many more middle/upper class people started to move into the neighborhood. Now that the 'hood is doing well, safer/better schools/cleaner, you cut the hand off the one that fed it. I'm pretty new to the neighborhood (like yourself) but at least I recognize how the neighborhood got to where it is now. I can see this as a liberal, young, DINK yuppie (hope that doesn't throw off your perception of me too much)

Edited by SilverJK
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules were very clear. And that's why we were all pissed off about it. They were clearly rigged. We aren't anti-preservationists... we are anti-ordinance. The debate WAS about getting a better ordinance. If you remember, there were several revisions to the ordinance before it was approved. I think the biggest thing that pisses everyone off is the HAHC deciding if something is "appropriate". That is NOT what anyone signed up for (to originally get the historic district designation).

The FACT of the matter is the historic districts only make up part of the Heights, so what you are going to cause is a greater concentration of McMansion's outside of the historic districts but still within the greater heights area. In my eyes, the neighborhood isn't limited to the 4 or so streets within my house, its the entire area (including shady acres, brookesmith, timbergrove, etc.) Good luck ever getting any other neighborhoods to become Historic Districts. If you would have done this process with integrity/honesty/reason it would have been much easier to protect the entire Greater Heights area from having more mcVics on small lots. Not just 4 clusters of a few streets. You did not win, you just made the entire neighborhood lose.

The funniest part of this is if it hadn't been for the McVics/Townhomes that you were trying to stop you wouldn't have ever moved here in the first place. You would not have moved here in the 80s-90s. Because of the gentrification of the neighborhood, it made it more desirable which is why so many more middle/upper class people started to move into the neighborhood. Now that the 'hood is doing well, safer/better schools/cleaner, you cut the hand off the one that fed it. I'm pretty new to the neighborhood (like yourself) but at least I recognize how the neighborhood got to where it is now. I can see this as a liberal, young, DINK yuppie (hope that doesn't throw off your perception of me too much)

I agree with this. It may be time to buy some more property that is not protected! The builders don't want to abandon the Heights - they want to stay, its the place to be. The properties outside of the Ordinance are going to go up in value disproportionately to the ones inside the districts.

The 11th - 14th streets from say Nicholson to Ashland, with a cut through Ashland for the awful ordinance covered area are going to be prime real estate soon....Good chance Heights Annex, and the west side of Shepard start improving quickly as well...the only thing that has been holding that area back is the flood plain, IMO.

The only thing preventing the area south of 11th from being just as hot is the outpatient mental facility on Waverly at 10th.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As kind of an aside, while driving through the Heights (on the way back to my bungalow where I've lived for 15 years with the blue sign still out in front), I noticed that most of the homes with the yellow signs out front are hideously over-landscaped. I'm not talking about lots of manicured landscaping, I'm talking about overgrown rat harborages -- maybe time to get neighborhood protection out to let them know what $500/day fines are all about!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As kind of an aside, while driving through the Heights (on the way back to my bungalow where I've lived for 15 years with the blue sign still out in front), I noticed that most of the homes with the yellow signs out front are hideously over-landscaped. I'm not talking about lots of manicured landscaping, I'm talking about overgrown rat harborages -- maybe time to get neighborhood protection out to let them know what $500/day fines are all about!

Wow! This guy/girl is a (edit *a very derogitory word starting with a d*) regardless of which side you are on.

I wouldn't be so sure that the areas around the Heights are going to experience a rapid growth now. I'm predicting an overall slowdown of growth in the area and north through Garden Oaks and Oak Forest. Why? Because with this ordinance it only takes 10% of the residents to submit an application and start the process toward becoming an HD; and once the application is submitted, regardless of the validity of the applicaiton, the area is treated as an HD. I don't think any new HD's will be created,\ but I think that the strategy from now on will be to get that 10% to submit applications, delay the survey process for as long as possible, and once the survey fails to create the HD to have the shortest possible time between then and the next time the application can be submitted. I can't see investing my money in an area that has the potential to be paralized for 8+ months out of the year by 10% of the property owners.

I don't think it's all doom and gloom either, at least in the Historic Districts. At least I know the situation there, unlike the other areas that are going to be in chaos from now on. This could even be a good thing over the short term. I think a lot of the fence sitters are going to move now and do remodels to get their houses on the market soon. That may spur some new buyers to come in with the idea of buying up unimproved properties and fixing them up. It'll stop the huge property value increases, and will really slow down, if not stop, the speculation, but it could be okay if everything goes right. And I honestly hope it does work out that way because I love the Heights. I'm not betting on it though. I think the builders are going to pull out and the housing prices are going to fall like a stone.

Edited by SCDesign
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! This guy/girl is a (edit *a very derogitory word starting with a d*) regardless of which side you are on.

I wouldn't be so sure that the areas around the Heights are going to experience a rapid growth now. I'm predicting an overall slowdown of growth in the area and north through Garden Oaks and Oak Forest. Why? Because with this ordinance it only takes 10% of the residents to submit an application and start the process toward becoming an HD; and once the application is submitted, regardless of the validity of the applicaiton, the area is treated as an HD. I don't think any new HD's will be created,\ but I think that the strategy from now on will be to get that 10% to submit applications, delay the survey process for as long as possible, and once the survey fails to create the HD to have the shortest possible time between then and the next time the application can be submitted. I can't see investing my money in an area that has the potential to be paralized for 8+ months out of the year by 10% of the property owners.

I don't think it's all doom and gloom either, at least in the Historic Districts. At least I know the situation there, unlike the other areas that are going to be in chaos from now on. This could even be a good thing over the short term. I think a lot of the fence sitters are going to move now and do remodels to get their houses on the market soon. That may spur some new buyers to come in with the idea of buying up unimproved properties and fixing them up. It'll stop the huge property value increases, and will really slow down, if not stop, the speculation, but it could be okay if everything goes right. And I honestly hope it does work out that way because I love the Heights. I'm not betting on it though. I think the builders are going to pull out and the housing prices are going to fall like a stone.

I dont think builders will stop...they just will not buy a lot until they are ready to build upon it. The process between purchase and the start of construction needs to be very fast to ensure a new submittal of 10% would not catch them with their pants down. As soon as the lot closes a permit should be applied for....Its my understanding that once a permit has issued the rules can not change in the middle of the build, even if the actual construction has not begun.

Pre planned & designed homes rather than semi-custom would be more the norm simply because the floor plan can be easily dropped into the survey of a lot that meets its footprint.

I would think the new homes, which are selling great, would entertain a premium due to decreased supply because only a few builders could afford to have a floor plan ready to go within days of purchase of a lot....The smaller builders without floor plans of their own already ready would be forced to other areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think builders will stop...they just will not buy a lot until they are ready to build upon it. The process between purchase and the start of construction needs to be very fast to ensure a new submittal of 10% would not catch them with their pants down. As soon as the lot closes a permit should be applied for....Its my understanding that once a permit has issued the rules can not change in the middle of the build, even if the actual construction has not begun.

Pre planned & designed homes rather than semi-custom would be more the norm simply because the floor plan can be easily dropped into the survey of a lot that meets its footprint.

I would think the new homes, which are selling great, would entertain a premium due to decreased supply because only a few builders could afford to have a floor plan ready to go within days of purchase of a lot....The smaller builders without floor plans of their own already ready would be forced to other areas.

If you have cash that would work, but if you need to finance you will always have a 30 day window where you will be exposed. That 10% can submit anytime they want, not just on certain dates like when submitting a plan for CoA review. You can put a stipulation in the contract that gets you out even up to the date of closing, but if you exercise that too often you may start having trouble with your lender and title company. You are correct abut the pre-planned houses though. Expect to see a lot more tract like homes anywhere areound the HDs. Of course, most of them are pretty tract-like already. Sigh, I'm going to miss the fun we could have with architecture in the Heights. It was an original, exciting and fun place to be; now it's just going to be a boring throwback slowly devolving into a homogamous 1920's Sears & Roebuck catalogue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the builders are going to pull out and the housing prices are going to fall like a stone.

I don't think that will happen for the Heights as a whole. The historic designation doesn't change the fact that the city's population continues to grow, nor the fact that the the Heights is still perceived by many as a desirable neighborhood that is close and convenient to the CBD/Montrose/Uptown. I think some elements of the ordinance will make existing homes more desirable (i.e. - eliminating the risk of higher-density development in neighboring lots).

But I do think the ordinance presents added challenges, particularly for less-desireable properties. Small, unremarkable, or dilapidated that were previously and justifiably tear-down candidates are now expandable only through limited and disproportionate camelback/rear/side additions. I fear that some design guidelines may stifle creativity in an attempt to preserve some structures and features that aren't necessarily worth preserving.

I already live in a deed-restricted neighborhood, so I'm not crying over the ordinance. It adds a new layer of bureaucracy, but it doesn't fundamentally affect me since my home is already grandfathered in with a seamless front addition that was made decades ago. But if I had bought a small dilapidated cottage prior to this ordinance in a non-deed restricted area, with the plan to replace it once I had saved up the money, I would definitely be peeved by having my hands tied and the opportunity taken away from me and replaced with the option for only a rear addition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! This guy/girl is a (edit *a very derogitory word starting with a d*) regardless of which side you are on.

Why would you call me a douchebag or a dickhead or whatever d-word you were referring to? #1, if you notice, we seem to be on the same side of the preservation debate. #2, I could post a number of examples of overgrown landscaping at yellow-sign houses, including one of the hahc board members. While some of it is a matter of taste, there are legitimate reasons that the city code prohibits out-of-control vegetation. I thought it was relevant since these are the people that will be imposing their architectural judgement on the rest of us.

And the remark I made about the $500/day fine for overgrown vegetation was a comparison to the fine for violating the rules of the architecture-police.

Edited by heights
Link to post
Share on other sites

And you actually buy the argument that the Heights is going to see slower growth? Have you stepped outside your door recently? Do you actually live in the Heights? The neighborhood is absolutely booming. Restaurants are coming in, new retail is going up all around (some good, some really bad) and plenty of people are putting money into rehabbing historic properties. One on Ashland is on the market for 695k. Outside of a historic district, it would have been a tear down. If single family renovations on the market for 695k are examples of slow growth, then bring it on! The fact of the matter is that well restored historic homes in the Heights absolutely fly off the shelf. My friends have recently purchased bungalows admist all the historic ordinance fight and had to bid up by 10% to land a sale.

And I don't fear rising property values. I am counting on them to help finance an addition. But, I bet you have never challenged your HCAD assessment and voted for Prop 1. As for the dig on my income (even though you don't even know me), it is exactly what I would expect from the anti-preservationists.

The fact is that to this date no one has had the balls to take the necessary steps to start a campaign to challenge Parker. I don't think she is god's gift to Mayors. But, she does get stuff done. Sometimes the Margaret Thatcher approach works. She got the drainage initiative passed and is doing some serious heavy lifting to get the budget balanced. She won't lose reelection if the challenger's platform is that Mayor Parker doesn't play nice with other council members and supports historic preservation. People can blog all they want. But someone will have to get the guts to run against her. So far, that person is no one.

Good luck with the legal challenge. Check out Penn Central v. NY. It is well settled law. And go back to grade school and learn what an ordinance is. It is a law of a municipality that can be changed by a vote of the governing body of the municipality, even if the reatlors and property rights nuts scream and yell about it. You all wanted a resurvey, got one that was on much better terms than originally proposed, failed to get the votes and now are blaiming everyone else but yourselves for your failed campaign. You lost. You only have yourselves to blame. The Heights is now fully protected.

All this wild speculation is hilarious. I do live in the Heights and in a bungalow and have a blue sign in my yard. My home has been renovated and expanded, and not with a ridiculous, ugly, poor design concept "camelback." And I protest my value every year and voted against Prop 1, as if that has anything to do with anything.

No one has stepped up to run because they had to wait UNTIL JANUARY but your clear lack of knowledge about the politcal process hasn't stopped you from making any other uninformed, absurd statements so feel free to make a few more. My dad always says it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Your dad should have taught you the same practice.

Know all about Penn Central and a whole lot more cases. I'm not going to explain anything here for obvious reasons. It will be much more fun to watch you explode into a pile of dust when the time comes for the last laugh. But you are giong to have to do better than just the Penn Central case if you think that is all there is to it.

So, time will tell. The rest of the folks here just need know there are a number of remedies in the works. S3mh, you should simply keep repeating to yourself - they lost, we won, they lost, we won, they lost, we won. I've heard you can actually change brain chemistry if you tell yourself something long enough and often enough. You might actually convince yourself. While you all are telling yourself you won, they lost, we will be continuing our efforts. And enjoying your arrogant boasting for a good giggle. I had a very good one today as we found another "ooops" and it's a doozie! But you are right about one thing, the law of a municipality can be changed by that municipality. We are so glad you understand that part, at least.

As much as I've enjoyed this little banter with you, I must return to more productive activities related to the ordinance and the rigged process we were dealt. The rest of the readers/posters can be comforted in the old adage that good things come to those who wait. More to come kiddies, more to come so enjoy the ride!

Link to post
Share on other sites

so for any potential lawyer types, does the state exert the same control over cities, as the national government does over the states?

in the US constitution there is a provision that says (basically) that a state can't make a law that goes against the US constitution, does our state constitution have those same provisions against city ordinances?

if it does there is a GLARING problem with the changes made to the historic district, at least from what I've seen from the little I dug around in the states constitution and codes.

anyway, I work with computers all day, not law books, so I don't know quite as much as people who get paid to do it, so in the mean time, I'll just sit back and hope my neighborhood isn't sucked in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. A city is bound by its city charter, the state constitution and the US Constitution. There are some pretty big problems with this ordinance. Fighting it can get expensive, which is why we tried to simply beat it through the vote, even with the deck stacked against us. Most of city council agrees with us. The question is whether a majority would actually vote their convictions. There is a lot of pressure put on some members to give the mayor what she wants.

Most lawyers (including myself) feel the outcome of a lawsuit would be favorable. The vote did not even follow the ordinance dictating how the vote would take place. That's not even getting into the constitutionality of the ordinance. As for Supreme Court cases, our little petulent friend s3mh seems to have forgotten that the ordinance must also comply with the Texas Constitution, which is much more protective of property rights than the US Constitution. This case will not turn on US law, but Texas law. We just wish we did not have to go that route. But we will.

I should also point out that cities only get their powers from Texas law.

Edited by RedScare
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when this started we were told that if the architectural plans were in process those plans would be grandfathered with the 90 day waiver. I'm waiting to hear back to see if that still stands or if it will expire within a certain time.

I'm worried that, with the court battle, the City will delay as much as possible. Question to any attornies here: what do you think the odds are of getting an injunction on the enforcement of the ordinance until the trial is settled?

heights: my problem is with anyone siccing the City on someone. That's what this whole thing is about: one group of people going to the City to force others to do what they want rather than having the stones to confront each other and handle it like "men". Regardless of who is running to tattle to the principle, they are a "d" in my book. I'll give you the benefit and say that is a "d" idea adn you probably wouldn't do it. If you think your neighbors yard is a problem go talk to them and figure out why it wis what it is, and if they just can't do any better offer to help fix it. THAT is what neighbors and neighborhoods are about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think your neighbors yard is a problem go talk to them and figure out why it wis what it is, and if they just can't do any better offer to help fix it. THAT is what neighbors and neighborhoods are about.

or at least have a yard sign made that says something to the effect of:

Stop Heights Overgrown Landscaping!

...

(Yes, this means you owner of the 1927 bungalow on the corner of heights and 11th!!!)

...

(you could have rats living in that clump of weeds!)

Edited by samagon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can i coin the term McCamelback?

The earlier mentioned house on Ashland went from 800 to 2800 sq ft. Just the addition is around twice the size of most bungalows. Yeah, thats REALLY historic.

So you would support a more restrictive ordinance, right?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the ordinance is a gross violation of private property rights and then criticize it for not going far enough. You are just proving the point that the ordinance is a reasonable middle ground that allows people to update bungalows to suit their needs while preserving the original structure. And a you can feel all proud of your McCamelback term, but the Heights will take the camelback over the giant McVics any day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you would support a more restrictive ordinance, right?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the ordinance is a gross violation of private property rights and then criticize it for not going far enough. You are just proving the point that the ordinance is a reasonable middle ground that allows people to update bungalows to suit their needs while preserving the original structure. And a you can feel all proud of your McCamelback term, but the Heights will take the camelback over the giant McVics any day.

You will take the camelback....I think most would prefer not to. Camelbacks are hideous.

I believe the greater population of Houston, or for that matter the US, or possibly even the world would prefer to own a nice new large Victorian style home. Your use of the term McVic is derogatory in nature, similar to the way that I claim you have a well maintained shack because you live in a small old house. You like to call it a bungalow but I think that is just a trendy word for a well maintained shack.

I dont really believe that, but it makes my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will take the camelback....I think most would prefer not to. Camelbacks are hideous.

I believe the greater population of Houston, or for that matter the US, or possibly even the world would prefer to own a nice new large Victorian style home. Your use of the term McVic is derogatory in nature, similar to the way that I claim you have a well maintained shack because you live in a small old house. You like to call it a bungalow but I think that is just a trendy word for a well maintained shack.

I dont really believe that, but it makes my point.

And the greater population of Houston can own a McVic. They will just need to build it on one of the millions of acres of land in the City that are not protected by a historic ordinance. Or on one of the hundreds and hundreds of lots in the Heights that are not protected by the ordinance (yeah, I know, save your typing with the "entire city will be historic district because only 10% can trigger . . . ").

Did you really just now figure out that the term "McVic" is derogatory? Sorry about that. It was easier to type than having to hammer out "gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction" every time. You may think historic houses are just shacks. That is your problem. Those well maintained shacks sell like hotcakes and people pour tens of thousands into restoring them every day. And now their investment is protected because they won't find themselve sandwiched between gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

heights: my problem is with anyone siccing the City on someone. That's what this whole thing is about: one group of people going to the City to force others to do what they want rather than having the stones to confront each other and handle it like "men". Regardless of who is running to tattle to the principle, they are a "d" in my book. I'll give you the benefit and say that is a "d" idea adn you probably wouldn't do it. If you think your neighbors yard is a problem go talk to them and figure out why it wis what it is, and if they just can't do any better offer to help fix it. THAT is what neighbors and neighborhoods are about.

It's not my neighbor's yard that's the problem. It's some yards belonging to people who are advertising with their yellow yard signs that they support an ordinance which allows a chosen few to tell other property owners what is acceptable. And designating the use of hardiplank and front additions as a nuisance has no basis in science like the fact that overgrown vegetation does provide harbor for vermin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you would support a more restrictive ordinance, right?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the ordinance is a gross violation of private property rights and then criticize it for not going far enough. You are just proving the point that the ordinance is a reasonable middle ground that allows people to update bungalows to suit their needs while preserving the original structure. And a you can feel all proud of your McCamelback term, but the Heights will take the camelback over the giant McVics any day.

way to miss the entire point... you used that as an example of how great the ordinance is because you can still build something like that. I think it is just as damaging to the 'hood as a McVic. I'm also really not to sure about why people complain so much about the "crammed" look of the McVic... i live on a 6,350 sq. ft lot, and my original footprint bungalow is quite close to my neighbors... I guess it just doens't look as bad because we aren't all two stories.(both my neighbors are original 1925 two stories).

The McCamelback look is atrocious if you look at it from the neighbors backyard...

McCamelback = "gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction"

Quit speaking for the entire neighborhood, you OBVIOUSLY don't speak for all of us (or even a majority).

I can have it both ways... i claim it is a gross violation of property rights, and i make fun of how it forces all additions to be uglier than what a tasteful McVic would be. I don't want it to not allow these additions, I DON'T WANT THE ORDINANCE AT ALL.

Sidenote... Are you Kanye West? You keep trying to act like your "the voice of a generation (neighborhood)"

Link to post
Share on other sites

You like to call it a bungalow but I think that is just a trendy word for a well maintained shack.

Weren't most bungalows of that era houses you ordered from a catalog anyway?

The Sears and Roebuck 1920 bungalow, or the Montgomery Wards 1920 bungalow?

I mean, granted you could also order heroin from the same catalogs, but anyway, it's pretty silly to think people are trying to immortalize houses that was purchased from a freaking catalog.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, we love our McVic. And I believe there will be a time when people will refer to houses in the Heights as "pre-ordinance McVics" and "post-ordinance McVics."

I really like the posts that point out that what people are calling "historic structures" (or "contributing" to use the ordinance language, which begs the question "contributing to what?") are nothing more than "old structures." "Historic" can mean lots of things, including old, but let's stop dressing up "old" with a fancy name. Surely that's the meaning we are using if a Jim Walter home is "contributing." That's a joke, right? I don't even need to get to the catalog homes, because the Jim Walter example is too good. This is the "old ordinance" and I now live in an "old district."

As we work toward reversing this bad outcome, I plan to embrace the ordinance. Specifically, Section 33-254 (Demonlition by neglect) will become my new friend. Be on notice that if you own an "old structure" in my "old district" you should make sure it does not have any of the issues listed in 33-254(a). The hardware stores should stock up on supplies, especially paint and brushes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't most bungalows of that era houses you ordered from a catalog anyway?

The Sears and Roebuck 1920 bungalow, or the Montgomery Wards 1920 bungalow?

I mean, granted you could also order heroin from the same catalogs, but anyway, it's pretty silly to think people are trying to immortalize houses that was purchased from a freaking catalog.

And you are probably also the guy who goes to a Rothko exhibit and says "I could've done that."

You are a little late to the dance if you want to make the case that there is no merit to Crafstmen style architecture. You will just have to again say to yourself "I could've done that".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And you are probably also the guy who goes to a Rothko exhibit and says "I could've done that."

You are a little late to the dance if you want to make the case that there is no merit to Crafstmen style architecture. You will just have to again say to yourself "I could've done that".

Not making a case for anything, just stating facts.

You very likely live in a house that was ordered from a catalog. They weren't much different from a house that you can buy off of 45 south and after they deliver to your house someone takes off the wheels.

It's okay, I very likely live in one too, but it was built in 1930.

Aside from the artwork I saw on exhibit in the Rothko Chapel (I found it rather boring), I am generally a fan of Rothko artwork. It's not my favorite by any means. I don't expect others to appreciate it, understand it (I really don't, I appreciate art, not study it), or like it.

I'm not going to push for a city ordinance that makes everyone put a Rothko print in their living room whether or not something like that would make my house worth more.

As far as Craftsman (truthfully, if it was a style you thought was so worthy of historic relevance, you'd at least know how to spell it) Architecture of my house, I love the big fireplace, and built-in bookshelves that are designed into my living room, I love the huge baseboards and doorframing, and I like the nice front porch.

However, as much as I appreciate my house, it isn't my place to expect my neighbors to appreciate it as much as I do, so if they want to rip them out and put in a McWhatever I don't care, I'll be happy in my house and enjoy life.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As we work toward reversing this bad outcome....

Ok, we lost this battle. Let's get going on repealing this ordinance. We can attack it on two fronts - legal with lawsuits is good; vote out the mayor and replace city council members is also good.

I am not a lawyer, I'm sure Red Scare will lead us on the legal front. Red, let us know how we can help.

I propose we start the 2nd option by replacing Annise Parker. How about we convince C.O. Bradford to run for mayor? When I spoke before City Council against the ordinance before it passed, the most attentive City Council member was Bradford. He's sincere in his belief that the city has too many regulations and he has consistently stood up for freedom and property rights. He spoke out against the ordinance and he voted against it.

Bradford is a respected well known leader in Houston and he's a Democrat (probably necessary to be elected in Houston). Please read his website (http://www.cobradford.com/) to discover his views. He sounds good to me. In my opinion he would TROUNCE Annise Parker.

We also need to work on replacing the weasel Ed Gonzalez. Any ideas?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Craftsman (truthfully, if it was a style you thought was so worthy of historic relevance, you'd at least know how to spell it) Architecture of my house, I love the big fireplace, and built-in bookshelves that are designed into my living room, I love the huge baseboards and doorframing, and I like the nice front porch.

However, as much as I appreciate my house, it isn't my place to expect my neighbors to appreciate it as much as I do, so if they want to rip them out and put in a McWhatever I don't care, I'll be happy in my house and enjoy life.

If the picture from my phone attached correctly, you can see that I

also enjoyed my original front door enough to turn it into a coffee table for the front porch after someone decided to kick it in.

post-7251-0-02723100-1294369114_thumb.jp

Link to post
Share on other sites

"gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction" every time. You may think historic houses are just shacks. That is your problem. Those well maintained shacks sell like hotcakes and people pour tens of thousands into restoring them every day. And now their investment is protected because they won't find themselve sandwiched between gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction.

Congratulations. You just described that hideously renovated bungalow on Ashland that you are bragging about.

This is what so offends me. These so-called "preservationists" actually think they have an appreciation of good architecture, but present these bungalow equivalents of an elephants ass as examples of the architecture of which they approve. As if we cannot see that monstrosity lurking behind the original front elevation. The architectural acumen of these people make them the trailer trash of Craftsman bungalows. And they don't even see how comical they sound! The source of my anger is that these architectural retards have now gained control over the renovation of my precious bungalow. Instead of the tasteful architect designed renovation that I am halfway into, I now must submit to the ignorant whims of these architectural idiots. And they are celebrating the ruination of the bungalows!

These people remind me of the fat women at Walmart wearing spandex, oblivious to the fact that there skintight clothes make others gag. Need proof? Go back and re-read s3mh's post bragging how great that hunk-o-crap on Ashland looks.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not making a case for anything, just stating facts.

You very likely live in a house that was ordered from a catalog. They weren't much different from a house that you can buy off of 45 south and after they deliver to your house someone takes off the wheels.

It's okay, I very likely live in one too, but it was built in 1930.

The catalog houses from the Sears era were not pre-assembled. Sears provided a kit with blueprints and the materials, and the home buyer was responsible for building the house or hiring carpenters to build the house onsite. It's true that this isn't really all that different from how many builders today offer a limited number of home designs (particularly in new developments) and try to use standardized components they bought with a builder's quantity discount. I would think it was an advantage in that era to have materials cut and fitted at a factory instead of relying on hired help to cut from raw materials using inferior tools on-site. At least it was cheaper and quicker. But it does kill some nostalgia when you realize most of the bungalows were designed and commoditized at a corporation rather than being designed and made by a local craftsman/designer.

Edited by barracuda
Link to post
Share on other sites

The catalog houses from the Sears era were not pre-assembled. Sears provided a kit with blueprints and the materials, and the home buyer was responsible for building the house or hiring carpenters to build the house onsite. It's true that this isn't really all that different from how many builders today offer a limited number of home designs (particularly in new developments) and try to use standardized components they bought with a builder's quantity discount. I would think it was an advantage in that era to have materials cut and fitted at a factory instead of relying on hired help to cut from raw materials using inferior tools on-site. At least it was cheaper and quicker. But it does kill some nostalgia when you realize most of the bungalows were designed and commoditized at a corporation rather than being designed and made by a local craftsman/designer.

very true, it did make sense, just as it makes sense the way they do it now. I'd even bet that a lot of the materials they used were of a better quality (while some others certainly were not). Just as some of the quality of the build was better (shiplap in the walls) whereas now it's just studs, and now they can be built with much more energy efficiency.

If I understand some of the catalog houses, there were some that were prefab, and all you had to do was supply the land with a foundation.

anyway, my point was more towards the last sentence you wrote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you know what would really make one of those Sears Catalog homes ugly... adding a hemroid addition to the back of it that is more than 2x the size of said Sears Catalog home...

Seriously, is nobody concerned about the aesthetics of the back of these houses? And don't give me this McVics spilling off of their lot BS. It would be very easy to get your block to commit to Min lot Size. (if it isn't easy, then the whole historic district relevence is moot). This would require the "Preservationist" to actually go talk to their neighbors and get them to sign the forms, i guess that is harder than strong arming.

A McVic on a ~5,000 sq. ft. lot looks better than a McCamelback on the same lot, and would probably take up less of the lot.

If more than 66% of your house is new, should it still be considered a "contributing" property?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

you know what would really make one of those Sears Catalog homes ugly... adding a hemroid addition to the back of it that is more than 2x the size of said Sears Catalog home...

Seriously, is nobody concerned about the aesthetics of the back of these houses? And don't give me this McVics spilling off of their lot BS. It would be very easy to get your block to commit to Min lot Size. (if it isn't easy, then the whole historic district relevence is moot). This would require the "Preservationist" to actually go talk to their neighbors and get them to sign the forms, i guess that is harder than strong arming.

A McVic on a ~5,000 sq. ft. lot looks better than a McCamelback on the same lot, and would probably take up less of the lot.

If more than 66% of your house is new, should it still be considered a "contributing" property?

My block is 100% original structures and we never got min lot size done, but the majority of the block signed the historic district petition. Life isn't as easy as you think it is.

Camelbacks are a compromise struck with the builders and realtors back when the ordinance first went into place. If you don't like them, you can only blame the same people who put up the McVics and are your friends in the anti-preservation movement. Of course, I would happily sign off on a more restrictive ordinance that would forbid 2 story additions to single story bungalows now that there is so much support for it from the anti-preservatin crowd.

And it is not about what a single house looks like on a single lot. It is about the continuity of a historic neighborhood. Stick a McVic in the middle of bungalows and you bust the block. Put in a camelback, you still have the continuity. Not perfect, but a far cry from dropping in a McVic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the greater population of Houston can own a McVic. They will just need to build it on one of the millions of acres of land in the City that are not protected by a historic ordinance. Or on one of the hundreds and hundreds of lots in the Heights that are not protected by the ordinance (yeah, I know, save your typing with the "entire city will be historic district because only 10% can trigger . . . ").

Did you really just now figure out that the term "McVic" is derogatory? Sorry about that. It was easier to type than having to hammer out "gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction" every time. You may think historic houses are just shacks. That is your problem. Those well maintained shacks sell like hotcakes and people pour tens of thousands into restoring them every day. And now their investment is protected because they won't find themselve sandwiched between gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction.

I dont mean to burst your bubble here, but the Heights was a "suburb" at the time it was created, and it was also new construction and cookie cutter homes at that time. All things you are apparently adamantly opposed to.

There are also plenty of nice new homes that are not lot line to lot line, but are set well within set backs on nice 50'x132' lots (6600sq ft). The width of many of these is actually smaller than the width of the older well maintained shacks, or dumps that they replaced. The only difference being the depth being much deeper, or height of the new homes towering over the single story well maintained shacks. However the owners of the single story well maintained shacks who support the ordinance, seem to want no two story homes. I see lots of complaints about the fact that the new homes tower over their back yards. But, I can drive through the Heights, historic and non-historic areas, and find plenty of OLD, "historic" two story homes. They are less common, but there are many many old two story homes in the Heights, and I see nobody complain about them.

I personally do not care to have one oft homes built lot line to lot line with no yard, but I do not think they are out of place. Half the old homes are crammed lot line to lot line, with less than 6-8 feet between walls. The original lots in the heights were platted 4400 sq ft. About the only thing I am adamantly opposed to that has been occurring is subdiving lots to cram more houses in. Otherwise, I find most of the new construction incredibly more attractive than the Camelbacks, if not infinitely more attractive, and most, are more attractive than the older well maintained shacks that you seem to wet yourself thinking about....though I do like many of the older well maintained shacks as well.

What makes the Heights great is the diversity of homes, and the friendly people....both things the ordinance effectively destroys. Now we are stuck with one type of home, and soon we will be stuck with one type of person....arrogant, selfish, needy people who think either they or the government know what is better for you, than you do.

Edit - those McVics as you call them also seem to be selling like hotcakes and people pour hundreds of thousands into them...what is your point?

Edited by Marksmu
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like many of the older well maintained shacks as well.

Edit - those McVics as you call them also seem to be selling like hotcakes and people pour hundreds of thousands into them...what is your point?

I'm really attached to my shack, although there are things I plan on doing to it that are outside of the historic ordinance, luckily, I currently live outside of a historic district.

the McRib sells pretty well too, and I heard the McCafe is a great seller too. maybe the prefix of Mc should be added to anything anyone wants to sell.

McOceanFrontPropertyInArizona incoming. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My block is 100% original structures and we never got min lot size done, but the majority of the block signed the historic district petition. Life isn't as easy as you think it is.

Camelbacks are a compromise struck with the builders and realtors back when the ordinance first went into place. If you don't like them, you can only blame the same people who put up the McVics and are your friends in the anti-preservation movement. Of course, I would happily sign off on a more restrictive ordinance that would forbid 2 story additions to single story bungalows now that there is so much support for it from the anti-preservatin crowd.

And it is not about what a single house looks like on a single lot. It is about the continuity of a historic neighborhood. Stick a McVic in the middle of bungalows and you bust the block. Put in a camelback, you still have the continuity. Not perfect, but a far cry from dropping in a McVic.

You didn't get min lot size done because it requires a majority... not a strong arm, vote rigged, bait and switch, blatant disregard for democracy. But you sure told them! What an awesome neighbor. The historic district was EASY because when the petition was signed it was something COMPLETELY different/reasonable.

The only continuity of the Heights is the lack of continuity, which is what makes it amazing. Restaurants, offices, houses, condos, apartments, gas stations, car washes (haha) all next to each other. If you want your 100% historic block preserved, that should be the choice of your block, decided for your block, and limited to your block.

"we'll take a McCamelback over McVic" further proving the "preservationist" have no taste, and only care about telling everyone else how to modify their property, and not what the actual property looks like.

Saying I can only blame the same people that put up the mcvics and etc. is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I blame YOU, the "preservationist" for the rediculous ordinance.

I don't mind someone building a McCamelback, I just don't think they look right/fitting. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I want to prevent them. Your allowing them is laughable, because it defeats the entire purpose of your rediculous ordinance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mean to burst your bubble here, but the Heights was a "suburb" at the time it was created, and it was also new construction and cookie cutter homes at that time. All things you are apparently adamantly opposed to.

There are also plenty of nice new homes that are not lot line to lot line, but are set well within set backs on nice 50'x132' lots (6600sq ft). The width of many of these is actually smaller than the width of the older well maintained shacks, or dumps that they replaced. The only difference being the depth being much deeper, or height of the new homes towering over the single story well maintained shacks. However the owners of the single story well maintained shacks who support the ordinance, seem to want no two story homes. I see lots of complaints about the fact that the new homes tower over their back yards. But, I can drive through the Heights, historic and non-historic areas, and find plenty of OLD, "historic" two story homes. They are less common, but there are many many old two story homes in the Heights, and I see nobody complain about them.

I personally do not care to have one oft homes built lot line to lot line with no yard, but I do not think they are out of place. Half the old homes are crammed lot line to lot line, with less than 6-8 feet between walls. The original lots in the heights were platted 4400 sq ft. About the only thing I am adamantly opposed to that has been occurring is subdiving lots to cram more houses in. Otherwise, I find most of the new construction incredibly more attractive than the Camelbacks, if not infinitely more attractive, and most, are more attractive than the older well maintained shacks that you seem to wet yourself thinking about....though I do like many of the older well maintained shacks as well.

What makes the Heights great is the diversity of homes, and the friendly people....both things the ordinance effectively destroys. Now we are stuck with one type of home, and soon we will be stuck with one type of person....arrogant, selfish, needy people who think either they or the government know what is better for you, than you do.

Edit - those McVics as you call them also seem to be selling like hotcakes and people pour hundreds of thousands into them...what is your point?

The Heights were not suburbs in the same sense that Cinco Ranch and ____ Creek or ____wood are suburbs that I am not fond of (especially when certain people try to develop large parcels of land in the Heights like FM 1960). The Heights were originally a planned community that put housing, commerce and industry in the same area, connected by a trolley line. The Heights were walkable (corner stores, sidewalks and tree lined boulevards) and integrated work, play, education and shopping all within a few miles. The current suburbs are housing developments that are literally walled off from everything else and only connected by a single gateway street to strip malls and big box stores, with an odd smattering of offices and businesses and schools frequently stuck on busy streets so that kids that actually live close enough have no chance to actually walk home. So, you are absolutely wrong in saying that I should be against the Heights because it is a suburb. It was way ahead of its time in terms of a liveable community.

And your inability to understand what the Heights is about is why you do not understand historic preservation. You see each house standing alone as either being aesthetically pleasing and yeilding the maximum return on investment. You see historic preservation as a contest where we identify the most worthy examples of architecture and lay waste to everything else. Historic preservation is not just about the house, it is about the neighborhood. My block is all bungalows (with only two exceptions) with mature trees up and down the street. The trees are probably taller and there are a few camelbacks and goofy porches. But the street looks like 1920. It looks like Houston's original planned community. It is that way because the historic homes have largely been preserved. The next street up has a number of huge new homes, some drawing upon craftsman themes, most giant McVics, a "creative" renovation that kept the frame and not much else, a small apartment complex and a few beautifully preserved and renovated original bungalows. That street looks like a mess. Yeah, there is a new build that did a decent job of adopting craftsment themes. But it towers over the real thing next door.

Camelbacks aren't my idea. They are the work of your builder friends and realtors. I will happily amend the ordinance to kill them off. But camelbacks do preserve the original structure's architecture and the historic character of the block when placed into context. McVics do nothing to preserve the historic character of the block. They just set into motion the block busting that has been the main reason behind the historic ordinance in the first place. Again, you can build the most beautiful McVic in the world, but this is not about realizing the current fashion of home archectiture. It is about preserving the historic architecture. Camelbacks do that in an imperfect way. Demolishing a viable bungalow and replacing it with new construction does not preserve history no matter how nice the new construction is.

NO ONE, except you and your builder/realtor friends, thinks that the diversity of construction in the Heights is what makes it great. The well preserved historic homes are what makes the Heights great. People go to war to get 1000 sq ft bungalows on a 5000 sq ft lot in the Heights for what it costs to get 2500 sq ft townhome or a 2000+ sq ft house on 8-10,000 sq ft lot in Garden Oaks/Oak Forrest/Timbergrove (much less 3000 sq ft home with excellent K-12 public schools in the burbs). I paid list for mine in the midst of the housing slump. Friends have had to bid up by 10-15% to get theirs in the midst of the great historic ordinance revision debate (so much for killing property values). We love these buildings because they are historic and are in a historic neighborhood.

Unfortunately, there have been incredibly selfish people in the Heights who care only about their return on investment and what building style of the day they think would look good in their lot. These people don't care about the rich history in the Heights and have demolished historic buildings in order to build the McVic of the day. When faced with the will of the community, these same selfish people pretended to be for preservation in order to try to dupe people into believing that there should be absolutely no historic preservation in the Heights, unless an individual homeowner decided they wanted to do so. This selfish individualism is what has torn our community apart. Fortunately, the will of the community prevailed over the short-sighted self interest of the selfish few that do not value this historic community. But this is always how it goes with historic preservation. Some people just don't get it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is not about what a single house looks like on a single lot. It is about the continuity of a historic neighborhood. Stick a McVic in the middle of bungalows and you bust the block. Put in a camelback, you still have the continuity. Not perfect, but a far cry from dropping in a McVic.

I don't know what neighborhood you live in, but my Heights could never be described by continuity. It's as random as you could possibly make it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And your inability to understand what the Heights is about is why you do not understand historic preservation. You see each house standing alone as either being aesthetically pleasing and yeilding the maximum return on investment. You see historic preservation as a contest where we identify the most worthy examples of architecture and lay waste to everything else. Historic preservation is not just about the house, it is about the neighborhood. My block is all bungalows (with only two exceptions) with mature trees up and down the street. The trees are probably taller and there are a few camelbacks and goofy porches. But the street looks like 1920. It looks like Houston's original planned community. It is that way because the historic homes have largely been preserved. The next street up has a number of huge new homes, some drawing upon craftsman themes, most giant McVics, a "creative" renovation that kept the frame and not much else, a small apartment complex and a few beautifully preserved and renovated original bungalows. That street looks like a mess. Yeah, there is a new build that did a decent job of adopting craftsment themes. But it towers over the real thing next door.

Camelbacks aren't my idea. They are the work of your builder friends and realtors. I will happily amend the ordinance to kill them off. But camelbacks do preserve the original structure's architecture and the historic character of the block when placed into context. McVics do nothing to preserve the historic character of the block. They just set into motion the block busting that has been the main reason behind the historic ordinance in the first place. Again, you can build the most beautiful McVic in the world, but this is not about realizing the current fashion of home archectiture. It is about preserving the historic architecture. Camelbacks do that in an imperfect way. Demolishing a viable bungalow and replacing it with new construction does not preserve history no matter how nice the new construction is.

NO ONE, except you and your builder/realtor friends, thinks that the diversity of construction in the Heights is what makes it great. The well preserved historic homes are what makes the Heights great. People go to war to get 1000 sq ft bungalows on a 5000 sq ft lot in the Heights for what it costs to get 2500 sq ft townhome or a 2000+ sq ft house on 8-10,000 sq ft lot in Garden Oaks/Oak Forrest/Timbergrove (much less 3000 sq ft home with excellent K-12 public schools in the burbs). I paid list for mine in the midst of the housing slump. Friends have had to bid up by 10-15% to get theirs in the midst of the great historic ordinance revision debate (so much for killing property values). We love these buildings because they are historic and are in a historic neighborhood.

Unfortunately, there have been incredibly selfish people in the Heights who care only about their return on investment and what building style of the day they think would look good in their lot. These people don't care about the rich history in the Heights and have demolished historic buildings in order to build the McVic of the day. When faced with the will of the community, these same selfish people pretended to be for preservation in order to try to dupe people into believing that there should be absolutely no historic preservation in the Heights, unless an individual homeowner decided they wanted to do so. This selfish individualism is what has torn our community apart. Fortunately, the will of the community prevailed over the short-sighted self interest of the selfish few that do not value this historic community. But this is always how it goes with historic preservation. Some people just don't get it.

You can try to paint the people who oppose the ordinance as anti-preservation all you want, it doesn't make it true. It is the only answer any of your ilk have had to the problems pointed out to the community. You did NOTHING about any alternatives and offered no critique of the ordiance - which would have had no prohibitions on anything being regulated if the opposition didn't object to the vague and all encompassing language. You just make up a bunch of crap about builders and realtors and use a term (block-busting) that was never ever about what was built to scare your neighbors. (Block-busting was a term used in regards to racial integration) You promoted a false fear about townhouses, condos and high-rises because you couldn't talk about what the ordinance said because that really would scare people. You have no shame about any of the under-handed dirty tricks used by the proponents and the city. All the Coalition of Whatever cares about it saving every dilapadated, termite infested, blighted victim of urban flight 40 or 50 years ago so you can prevent the improvement of the neighborhood through reasonable modifications to homes still worthy of it or sensible redevelopment of those structures that are not. Don't talk to us about being selfish. Selfish is a tiny group of people thinking they can take away the rights of others through dirty tricks and a mayor who has had to use political strong-arming to get their way. Selfish is people who think they know better what is right for their neighbors than their neighbor knows. Selfish is thinking that historic preservation can be acheived by force. It can't. There isn't a street or block in our neighborhood that looks like 1920. That horse has left the barn and the need for revitalization occured when the Heights was abandoned for larger, more family friendly homes which resulted in a community that comprised too many rental properties and neglected homes and a neighborhood with a reputation for high crime rates. Please be sure to give up your 20th-21st century vehicle and buy a horse and buggy, your air conditioning, and most importantly, your computer so you live in the 1920's which will spare all the rest of us this garbage you espouse on this board. No one here thinks you have anything relevant to add and you continue to prove you have nothing going for you by your constant references to how this is all about builders and realtors.

I will repeat, IT IS BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND APPEAR IGNORANT THAN TO OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT!

The most hilarious comment by you today is that you brag that paid list for your property in the middle of a housing slump and your friends paid 10-15% over list to buy theirs. Guess you and your friends needed a BETTER REALTOR - hahahahahahahahahahaha! I always thought people paid LESS for property in a buyer's market but then again, it is more than evident that you and your friends are not rocket scientists. Like most people, when I buy a home, I negotiate to get the property for LESS than list. When I negotiate a car, I negotiate to pay less than sticker. When I buy something on Ebay, I never bid the maximum. I am smart enough to know that for things that are purchased through negotiations have an inflated price to accomodate the negotiation process. So, both you and your buddies paid more than market value. I am not sure it is something to brag about because of it proves what I say about remaining silent when you will embarrass yourself if you don't. You really must work on this skill.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Heights were walkable (corner stores, sidewalks and tree lined boulevards) and integrated work, play, education and shopping all within a few miles.

First the Heights was made this way THEN because at the time 1920 - only 1 in 13 families owned a vehicle or could even dream about buying one. The Heights is the way it is, because cars were considered a huge luxury at the time. It was not till the late 20's early 30's that Americans began to have cars in large numbers

And your inability to understand what the Heights is about is why you do not understand historic preservation.

I have to problem at all seeing what the Heights is about....To you its about History, that is your perception...It is not what the majority of people perceive it to be. The majority of people believe it to be a small, relatively safe, trendy, rapidly appreciating neighborhood, where until recently a person could pretty much design and build whatever they wanted. The mix of people, homes, and architecture was great! People flocked to strange homes, old homes, new homes....everything was perfectly fine until the vocal minority got involved.

My block is all bungalows (with only two exceptions) with mature trees up and down the street. The trees are probably taller and there are a few camelbacks and goofy porches. But the street looks like 1920. It looks like Houston's original planned community. It is that way because the historic homes have largely been preserved. The next street up has a number of huge new homes, some drawing upon craftsman themes, most giant McVics, a "creative" renovation that kept the frame and not much else, a small apartment complex and a few beautifully preserved and renovated original bungalows. That street looks like a mess. Yeah, there is a new build that did a decent job of adopting craftsment themes. But it towers over the real thing next door.

Most builders will goto extremes to save mature trees. A mature tree is worth a huge sum of money...Mature trees are beautiful, and enhance property values. Builders and lot owners only cut down mature trees when they leave the lot economically un-developable.

I also do not care that your block looks like it did in the 20's. That means NOTHING to me. If you could not go up and down your beautiful "historic" block and get the actual owners of those homes to agree to preserve them by signing your "reasonable" restrictions, it just proves that you did not, and still do not have the support that you pretend you have. People dont want what your selling, you forced it on them. It was backhanded, it was dishonest, and it was un-democratic, but you dont care because you got your way.

Furthermore, you think the street that is redevloped looks like a mess - again your perception. Many may find it beautiful and wonderful.

Camelbacks aren't my idea. They are the work of your builder friends and realtors. Demolishing a viable bungalow and replacing it with new construction does not preserve history no matter how nice the new construction is.

Camelbacks are your preservationist idea...not builders. A builder would only do that if thats what a HOMEOWNER wanted. They do them to still be "fauxhistoric" and have a home that is not a well maintained shack.

And again with your perception that the HISTORY of the Heights is what makes it great....its not. If people want an old home they can get it here...but the majority of people who OWN and want to own in the area really dont care about the fact that a house is old. You do....thats great, but you dont have the right to force your desire to preserve history onto the people who own the properties.

NO ONE, except you and your builder/realtor friends, thinks that the diversity of construction in the Heights is what makes it great. The well preserved historic homes are what makes the Heights great. People go to war to get 1000 sq ft bungalows on a 5000 sq ft lot in the Heights for what it costs to get 2500 sq ft townhome or a 2000+ sq ft house on 8-10,000 sq ft lot in Garden Oaks/Oak Forrest/Timbergrove (much less 3000 sq ft home with excellent K-12 public _schools in the burbs). We love these buildings because they are historic and are in a historic neighborhood.

Again your failure to perceive reality. Its your reality,but its not the reality of the majority.

Second, timbergrove did not explode like the heights for 2 reasons. 1) deed restrictions already in place 2) flood zone...it is all in a flood zone....you are in HOUSTON - flooding happens...people dont want to live in flood zones if they dont have too. TImerbergrove is great, but it floods badly. Oak Forest is not as convenient to the city as the Heights.

Location, diversity of people and homes, are what makes it great, not history...you like to brag your historic, but not everyone does. Your perception is not the perception of the majority...that is precisely why you could not get the support of your neighbors.

Unfortunately, there have been incredibly selfish people in the Heights

Yes - YOU - YOU are forcing your selfish desires on everyone else who does not agree with you. Which is the MAJORITY. That is why you could not do the process legitimately.

When faced with the will of the community, these same selfish people pretended to be for preservation in order to try to dupe people into believing that there should be absolutely no historic preservation in the Heights, unless an individual homeowner decided they wanted to do so. This selfish individualism is what has torn our community apart. Fortunately, the will of the community prevailed over the short-sighted self interest of the selfish few that do not value this historic community. But this is always how it goes with historic preservation. Some people just don't get it.

There was no will of the community. There was an ordinance crammed down everyones throats because no matter how hard you and your selfish friends tried they could not get the support of community. You are the selfish one here. Some people dont "get it" because they dont WANT IT. At some point you need to realize your desires are not the desires of everyone else, or even the majority.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I paid list for mine in the midst of the housing slump. Friends have had to bid up by 10-15% to get theirs in the midst of the great historic ordinance revision debate (so much for killing property values). We love these buildings because they are historic and are in a historic neighborhood.

Unfortunately, there have been incredibly selfish people in the Heights who care only about their return on investment

From your stated real estate abilities, I can easily see why you are not concerned about return on investment. In a previous post, you stated that you were counting on increased property values to fund an addition to your home. Based on your overpaying for your house, it looks like you'll be waiting a long time for that to happen. No wonder you want to restrict everyone else's renovation plans. You're jealous.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, there have been incredibly selfish people in the Heights who care only about their return on investment and what building style of the day they think would look good in their lot. These people don't care about the rich history in the Heights and have demolished historic buildings in order to build the McVic of the day. When faced with the will of the community, these same selfish people pretended to be for preservation in order to try to dupe people into believing that there should be absolutely no historic preservation in the Heights, unless an individual homeowner decided they wanted to do so. This selfish individualism is what has torn our community apart. Fortunately, the will of the community prevailed over the short-sighted self interest of the selfish few that do not value this historic community. But this is always how it goes with historic preservation. Some people just don't get it.

you have a warped sense of history, and you certainly have a warped sense of reality. you 100% have a warped sense of what selfish means.

it is absolutely not selfish for someone to buy a house with the expectation of doing what they want with it regardless of what their neighbors think.

it is absolutely selfish for someone to buy a house with the expectation that everyone else is going to conform to their ideas on what the neighborhood should be.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many things that bother me about this debate, aside from the acrimony. Primarily it's that there’s a lack of proactive education when it comes to historic preservation in Houston. If someone threatens to knock down a landmark - everyone screams; they write ordinances to help prevent the next one, and then move on. But preservationists should constantly study our City; not just when things come to a head. When a property goes on the market, preservationists should send the realtor a document outlining the history of that property. That document could be used to help find a buyer who is interested in preserving the property rather than replacing it or demolishing it. If the realtor doesn't use the document in this way, or if the buyers ignore it - so be it. But at least the preservationists did their job. They didn't just come in at the eleventh hour and start screaming.

Don't get me wrong. I am almost as offended by McMansions as I am by slum apartments. (Actually, if there’s a silver lining to slum apartments, it’s that they scare away the McMansion set and help preserve old houses – not that it makes up for all the bad – but I digress.)

I live in a 1956 'mod' south of Sharpstown. I 'rescued' it from life as a rent house. The neighborhood is historic in its own right. It was developed by Robert Puig in 1954 - and he used the profits from sales here to buy land for Memorial Bend. My neighborhood has block after block of original mid-century homes; smaller than what they did in Memorial Bend, but with all the 1950s low-roof minimalism. This is a veritable gold-mine for mod-lovers in the sub $130k market.

Despite its history I would never enroll the neighborhood as a historic district under the new Houston ordinance (or the old one for that matter). It’s not just because some neighbors would have my head on a platter if I tried. As a Civic Club officer, I would rather work with the City to enforce our deed restrictions - and concentrate on education.

Edited by WAZ
Link to post
Share on other sites

They just set into motion the block busting that has been the main reason behind the historic ordinance in the first place.

Since you are so fond of using the term "block busting" inappropriately, perhaps you deserve the term "revitalization racist" or "bungalow bigot" since you, as those who were victims of real "block busting" because they were afraid of minorities moving into the neighborhood, seem to be afraid that undesirables will move into the neighborhood. Many neighborhoods had deed restrictions preventing blacks from buying into the neighborhood, your group wants to prevent those who want new, 21st century homes, you want city deed restrictions to keep them out only instead of doing it at the community level, you want the city to do your dirty work. Its the same kind of person with a mentality they should regulate who comes into their neighborhood and it is shameful.

  • Like 3
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...



×
×
  • Create New...