Jump to content

The Heights Historic Districts


Tiko

Recommended Posts

Neighborhoods like mine, which is more than 70% contributing with only 3 homes built in the last decade, can really benefit from "no means no."

By your very own statements, at best, this new ordinance would have prevented 3 homes being built during the most prolific decade of home building in Houston's history. The new ordinance would have virtually no effect on your district whatsoever. This is what I find so offensive, that a minuscule problem of 3 new homes per decade must be combated by restricting the rights of everyone else. And the secretive and heavy handed manner in which the supporters attempted to ram this new ordinance through, and the outright refusal to let the affected parties ratify the new ordinance does not bode well for even-handed application of the new rules. Safe to say, anyone who wants the ability to remodel their own home without being told what they may do by heavy handed neighbors should steer clear of the historic districts. Nothing we've seen suggest anything less than a nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work with the HCAC regularly and I can tell you that they are not in favor of letting dangerous buildings sit and rot. They will not deny demo permits when the building does, indeed, need to be demoed but a lot of good houses have been lost. Neighborhoods like mine, which is more than 70% contributing with only 3 homes built in the last decade, can really benefit from "no means no."

But they will deny a CoA if non-conforming repairs and renovations are the only economically feasible repairs or renovations...meaning that the structure in question sits and rots up to and including the point where demolition becomes inevitable.

And again, I don't think that this would be all that problematic in the Heights. Fortunes will be made and lost in short order, no doubt, but then the hardcore preservationists don't really care about that, so I'm not going to bother arguing it to them. The fact is, there's plenty of demand and money for whatever kind of housing happens to be in the Heights, old or new. What would be problematic is if these rules ended up getting applied to cash-poor neighborhoods like mine (and such as the Heights used to be). Buildings such as mine would be lost, not saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they will deny a CoA if non-conforming repairs and renovations are the only economically feasible repairs or renovations...meaning that the structure in question sits and rots up to and including the point where demolition becomes inevitable.

And again, I don't think that this would be all that problematic in the Heights. Fortunes will be made and lost in short order, no doubt, but then the hardcore preservationists don't really care about that, so I'm not going to bother arguing it to them. The fact is, there's plenty of demand and money for whatever kind of housing happens to be in the Heights, old or new. What would be problematic is if these rules ended up getting applied to cash-poor neighborhoods like mine (and such as the Heights used to be). Buildings such as mine would be lost, not saved.

In our neighborhood, where $million homes do not exist, our neighborhood association has a very good relationship with the city. In the end, the Board has greater say even than the HCAC. What we consistently see is people working together to make it happen. No, it's not the cheapest but it has worked even when this was a poorer neighborhood. After all, due to the closeness to 45 and the deed restrictions, this area has gentrified more slowly than other parts of the Heights- which is why a nice house is affordable, relatively, over here. It's also why we still have more of the eclectic nature of the "old Heights", the loss of which people are lamenting in another thread on this board.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your very own statements, at best, this new ordinance would have prevented 3 homes being built during the most prolific decade of home building in Houston's history. The new ordinance would have virtually no effect on your district whatsoever. This is what I find so offensive, that a minuscule problem of 3 new homes per decade must be combated by restricting the rights of everyone else. And the secretive and heavy handed manner in which the supporters attempted to ram this new ordinance through, and the outright refusal to let the affected parties ratify the new ordinance does not bode well for even-handed application of the new rules. Safe to say, anyone who wants the ability to remodel their own home without being told what they may do by heavy handed neighbors should steer clear of the historic districts. Nothing we've seen suggest anything less than a nightmare.

But you see, this neighborhood is already heavily deed restricted on top of the Historic designation. People can't just do whatever they want here regardless of what the HCAC does with this ordinance. The only way to get around the restrictions for remodel are demo. If you demo in this neighborhood, the deed restrictions provide for even greater control by the board on the plans for your new home. This is what was established over 20 years ago and every person in the last 20 years who has bought a house over here knows that. Yet, houses often sell faster and for more per sq ft in this part of the Heights than the flashier areas (and b/c our houses are smaller, even at more per sq ft they are affordable relative to other parts of the neighborhood). People *want* to live within the restrictions because they don't want a giant house looming over their yard or 4 townhouses causing flooding/drainage issues on the lot next to them.

I completely agree that if you do not want any restrictions on what you can do with your home, do not live in a Historic District. That is true for Houston and every other major city in the country. It is also true for most of the subdivisions in most of the suburbs of Houston. THe PPNA Board has a lawyer who specializes in deed restrictions who has said that our deed restrictions in Norhill/Proctor Plaza are nothing compared to the 'burbs.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our neighborhood, where $million homes do not exist, our neighborhood association has a very good relationship with the city. In the end, the Board has greater say even than the HCAC. What we consistently see is people working together to make it happen. No, it's not the cheapest but it has worked even when this was a poorer neighborhood. After all, due to the closeness to 45 and the deed restrictions, this area has gentrified more slowly than other parts of the Heights- which is why a nice house is affordable, relatively, over here. It's also why we still have more of the eclectic nature of the "old Heights", the loss of which people are lamenting in another thread on this board.

I know. And now you're trying to change the rules that have worked so well for you up to this point. I'm not going to debate the merits of preservation with you because I already know that it won't get me anywhere. That's why I'm debating the means of preservation.

You're apparently oblivious to the fate of my neighborhood, my historical building, or my investment. Stop advancing a policy that has potentially far-reaching consequences for neighborhoods beyond your own. No means no!

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are now told we need to get our speakers out next Tuesday. There will be no backing down this time. We need to make our Big Event and next Tuesday seems to be the time to do it. I suggest the following:

1. Everyone that can possibly come to the Public Session next Tuesday, June 7 at 2 p.m. to speak or support our cause, please do so! You can telephone the City Secretary at 832-393-1100 from now until Monday, June 6 to schedule 1, 2, or 3 minutes to speak in favor of the Temporary preservation ordinance. Also mention that we are in favor of a permanent "no means no" ordinance without repetitioning.

4. Send a representative to attend the next Mayor's Task Force meeting which will again consider what will go into the permanent ordinance. It meets Monday, June 6 from Noon until 1:30 at 611 Walker, Sixth Floor. It is an open meeting and you may (or not) be allowed to have input. CM Sue Lovell, Chair and CM Ed Gonzalez, vice chair"

Sorry, the dates above for next week's meetings were incorrect. The Mayor's Task Force meets Monday, June 7 at noon and then City Council is on Tuesday, June 8 at 2 p.m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, houses often sell faster and for more per sq ft in this part of the Heights than the flashier areas (and b/c our houses are smaller, even at more per sq ft they are affordable relative to other parts of the neighborhood). People *want* to live within the restrictions because they don't want a giant house looming over their yard or 4 townhouses causing flooding/drainage issues on the lot next to them.

I really wish you would provide some proof of this. My admittedly small investigation found the opposite to be true. I am not ready to declare that historic district designations depress home values based on my limited research, but I definitely would disagree with Sue Lovell, the HHA, and now your characterization that the designation makes your home values rise faster than mine. I have seen this claim made VERY often, and have specifically looked for the source, but have never found one. I can only conclude that someone made the claim once and others took it at face value. I doubt there is even a Houston specific study of the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're apparently oblivious to the fate of my neighborhood, my historical building, or my investment. Stop advancing a policy that has potentially far-reaching consequences for neighborhoods beyond your own. No means no!

No, this is where we agree. I think that there needs to be further discussion on the issue and the City and the HCAC need to figure out something that is going to work for the whole city. BUT we all only have our own perspectives and you want what you believe is right for where you live and I want what I believe is right for where I live. It just seems that the discussion is so "all or nothing" here. Changing some areas to protected districts will be good for them. Possibly not for others but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, this is where we agree. I think that there needs to be further discussion on the issue and the City and the HCAC need to figure out something that is going to work for the whole city. BUT we all only have our own perspectives and you want what you believe is right for where you live and I want what I believe is right for where I live. It just seems that the discussion is so "all or nothing" here. Changing some areas to protected districts will be good for them. Possibly not for others but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

If you acknowledge that the proposal in its current form is inadequate then you oppose it, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wish you would provide some proof of this. My admittedly small investigation found the opposite to be true. I am not ready to declare that historic district designations depress home values based on my limited research, but I definitely would disagree with Sue Lovell, the HHA, and now your characterization that the designation makes your home values rise faster than mine. I have seen this claim made VERY often, and have specifically looked for the source, but have never found one. I can only conclude that someone made the claim once and others took it at face value. I doubt there is even a Houston specific study of the issue.

I spent a lot of time trying to research it, actually, and what I found was that in some cities preservation has been a great success and it did increase values, etc etc... In other cities, not so much. The studies I read (granted, on the internet but several were published by Universities so I gave them merit) pretty much concluded it just depends and results varied by city. One study (Kansas, maybe) showed that historic protection tended to veer - but was not absolute- in cities where other development opportunities still existed. That is definitely Houston and definitely the Heights. Hell, there is acreage of empty land on the west side.

As far as the proof, you're totally right. A realtor did a presentation on it to our neighborhood association a couple years ago. She claimed to have crunched the numbers and I believed her. I do continue to believe her only b/c I have seen how fast homes have been selling by me while others languish on the market in other parts of the Heights. I am not saying that my house is worth more than yours but it seems that people are paying more per sq ft for smaller homes in my area than for larger homes in the Historic Heights. You have a smaller home and that might be able to be said of yours as well- that someone will want your home at more per sq ft than a huge, new house. The new house would cost more overall but less per sq ft. I actually interviewed a realtor/renovator/builder who works almost exclusively in the Heights this week. She said,over all, her current client base want smaller homes and will even pay the same as a larger one (this is for renos and new) if the smaller one has higher quality fixtures, more attention to detail, etc... I think this is a trend you will see more of as more empty nesters leave the 'burbs and move back in to town after their kids are grown.

Listen, we all have our opinions here and I'm not saying no one should fight for what they think is best for their property. I am just trying to express why some people are for preservation and why people may be supporting this move by the City. I am feeling pretty personally attacked here and that no one finds any merit in how I feel about this issue so I am going to bow out. In the end, it's all feelings and I think I have tried to respect how you all feel about it and how you *think* it may effect you, but remember that we don't really know what will happen so we can't say anyone is wrong or right. People also claimed the smoking ban was going to be the end of bars and restaurants all over Houston but I have yet to see that happen. And now I digress...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you acknowledge that the proposal in its current form is inadequate then you oppose it, correct?

If it was absolutely going to be an all or nothing, I would support it as it is currently written. I believe that this is the lesser of two evils when compared to the current "no means just wait a while" system. However, I think there is still room for debate on how it's implemented. I would start where it is and see where people can find a middle ground. To me, it seems as though the conversation is scrap it, don't consider it at all, just walk away and stick with the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was absolutely going to be an all or nothing, I would support it as it is currently written.

It doesn't appear to be all-or-nothing. The City Council can still debate and modify the policy before adopting it. They modify ordinances before passing them all the time.

Yes or no, do you oppose the current proposal?

Edited by TheNiche
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niche, can you give us any perspective on how it's worked in Galveston? My sense is, and I could be wrong, that

it's very restrictive in what you can to to a 100-year-old house.

there are still plenty of old houses in bad shape awaiting restoration.

People do restore houses in Galveston that would be teardowns elsewhere

People almost always build significant additions to the rear of Victorian "townhouses"

Property values have gone up significantly in historic districts but are still relatively affordable

One of the reasons for that is that Galveston is still not particularly safe and has pockets of seriously bad neighborhoods.

It would seem that the answers might be pertinent to this discussion, particularly to The Heights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niche, can you give us any perspective on how it's worked in Galveston? My sense is, and I could be wrong, that

it's very restrictive in what you can to to a 100-year-old house.

there are still plenty of old houses in bad shape awaiting restoration.

People do restore houses in Galveston that would be teardowns elsewhere

People almost always build significant additions to the rear of Victorian "townhouses"

Property values have gone up significantly in historic districts but are still relatively affordable

One of the reasons for that is that Galveston is still not particularly safe and has pockets of seriously bad neighborhoods.

It would seem that the answers might be pertinent to this discussion, particularly to The Heights.

Preservationism in Galveston has been a long-standing movement with its own unique, rich, and complex history. Also, Galveston's economy is structured in a fundamentally different way and has been stagnant over the last several decades, whereas Houston's has boomed. Galveston's housing market is influenced by fundamentally different forces than Houston's inner loop. Galveston's population is about 2.5% that of Houston's...and is shrinking. Galveston has higher combined property tax rates and much high insurance rates.

Galveston is not a good comparison, but I do think that one point bears mention. The Galveston Historical Society is extraordinarily well-organized and well-funded. Galvestonians do much more than just say what can't be done or what should be done (and don't get me wrong, they do); tey're proactive and put their backs (and pocketbooks) into it. For Houston's size, it has failed to generate the same scale of commitment.

You might try researching the history of preservationism in Dallas's, Fort Worth's, or Austin's historical neighborhoods. I think that big post-war cities in Texas will be a better guidebook for what is realistic in Houston.

EDIT: I can't help but notice that Heights Yankee went silent, probably dodging the simple yes/no question.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: I can't help but notice that Heights Yankee went silent, probably dodging the simple yes/no question.

With all due respect Niche, she already gave your question a thoughtful answer, and surely has other important things to attend to today besides endlessly debating this topic that has captured all of our attention - ease up on snark already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect Niche, she already gave your question a thoughtful answer, and surely has other important things to attend to today besides endlessly debating this topic that has captured all of our attention - ease up on snark already.

She's too busy even for a word? ...one word.

Yes or no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attached is the Request for Council Action submitted by Marlene Gafrick, the Director of the Planning Department, on May 28, 2010. That was the Friday before Memorial Day. The agenda date was set for June 2, 2010, the Wednesday after Memorial Day. Draw your own conclusions about the timing and the motivation behind it.

Well, I did the attachment and don't see it but I'll try to find some way to make it a link.

http://www.scdesignllc.com/RfCA.pdf

Edited by SCDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once this ordinance passes, I intend to make sure that the Heights loses a "contributing structure" by selling my 90 year old bungalow to a builder(I'm in the non-historic section). I've maxed out my profits here anyway. I'll take my profits and put them into a neighborhood that doesn't think they can tell me what to do with my property.

Many HAIF regulars are dismayed to hear this. We have built up a great deal of respect and admiration for your house and your dog.

Speaking of which, I expect you to throw a hissy-fit over the leash law in Houston (even though it has had no effect on you, being a good pet owner.) To show your displeasure over others trying to control your property, perhaps you should threaten to sell your dog to a Korean restaurant.

"I'm gonna kill my dog! And it's all...Your...FAULT!"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem biggest problem with the Historic Guidelines is that the HAHC gave themselves a way out of not following them by the simple addition of the language that all designs must take into consideration the blockface character. That means that regardless of the Guidlines, if the houses on the block are all singel story Craftsman Bungalows than you will not be approved if you submit a Victorian, even if that Victorian follows the guidlines. If you are not going to build something that is the same as the rest of the structures on the block you will not get a CoA. Can you take the subjectivity out ot the Guidlines without giving up the whole "blockface character" thing? Blockface preservation is THE MAIN FOCUS of the whole thing so I do not believe it is possible.

If the majority of houses on a block are Craftsman Bungalows, a pseudo-Victorian will look as appropriate as a wristwatch on a Greek statue. Anachronisms are unintentionally funny at best, and the humor is at the expense of the ignorance of others. With few exceptions, attempts to re-introduce Victorian (or worse, New Orleans) elements into the Heights have resulted in Mattel-like structures.

The appeal of the Heights will not be enhanced by the odd, inappropriate infill of Victorians- nor log cabins, igloos, tepees or pagodas.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many HAIF regulars are dismayed to hear this. We have built up a great deal of respect and admiration for your house and your dog.

Speaking of which, I expect you to throw a hissy-fit over the leash law in Houston (even though it has had no effect on you, being a good pet owner.) To show your displeasure over others trying to control your property, perhaps you should threaten to sell your dog to a Korean restaurant.

"I'm gonna kill my dog! And it's all...Your...FAULT!"

Big Tex, surely you could have come up with a better analogy than that. The leash law dictates the terms under which I may take my two dogs onto public property. It is intended to protect other dogs and people from untrained or unpredictable dogs who may attack and bite. I not only have no problem with the leash law, I support it, just as I support laws that require others and myself to stop at stop signs and redlights, another ordinance that requires respect for others when in the public right of way.

My complaint is with telling property owners what they can do with their property AFTER they have purchased it. It is one thing for a neighborhood to vote restrictions upon itself through historic districts or deed restrictions. It is quite another to change the rules...drastically...after the vote, and without the property owners' permission. While my home is not in a historic district, it IS subject to deed restrictions, restrictions that were made known to me prior to purchasing the property. I have no gripe with the deed restrictions that I accepted upon purchase of the home.

The supporters of the historic district ordinance amendment, as evidenced by SCDesign's post, attempted to sneak the amendment by the homeowners by publishing the amendment on the Friday before a holiday weekend for a vote scheduled on the Tuesday after the holiday. Their emails to supporters claim that the vote was a "done deal" that got queered by a Missouri City resident and "politics", even though their tactics represent the worst of back room politics. They urged their supporters to demand that no re-ratification be required. Clearly, this groups is afraid that there are far fewer supporters in the districts than they claim in public. If this amendment is REALLY what the overwhelming majority wants, publicize it and vote on it!

My plan is simply to punish those who seek to control others by subterfuge and deceit by taking away that which they seek to control. Perhaps they can even use my threat to their benefit. They can argue that they must exert even more control with even more secrecy and fewer votes, because ne'erdowells like myself are threatening to ruin the Heights forever. Or maybe they will simply realize that, as heights yankee pointed out, that the current ordinance works well. I doubt it, but anything is possible. OR, they could send one of their like-minded friends over to offer to buy me out. I'm not stupid. If I get my price, I'll sell it to anyone. And mine hasn't been ruined by hideous 2 story additions on the back of it like you see in the historic districts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the majority of houses on a block are Craftsman Bungalows, a pseudo-Victorian will look as appropriate as a wristwatch on a Greek statue. Anachronisms are unintentionally funny at best, and the humor is at the expense of the ignorance of others. With few exceptions, attempts to re-introduce Victorian (or worse, New Orleans) elements into the Heights have resulted in Mattel-like structures.

The appeal of the Heights will not be enhanced by the odd, inappropriate infill of Victorians- nor log cabins, igloos, tepees or pagodas.

You are welcome to your opinion. Since I'm responsible for hundreds of those pseudo-Victorians you are so fond of you can probably guess what my opinion is. All are equally valid and since people actually purchased those psuedo-Victorians I would inagine that there are just as many who share my opinion as share yours. I was in this neighborhood when crack dealers hand delivered to car doors at the corner of Harvard and 11th and it was the psuedo-Victorian building, and the people who purchaed them, that made them go away. You can put it down all you like but the Heights would still be a slum if it weren't for those "inappropriate" buildings. There are nice neighborhoods to the east of I-45 that are still as prestine as the Heights was in the 80's. Those areas despirately needs citizens who charish "the way it used to be" and they haven't been invaded by the builders yet. You could buy 4 houses there for the price of a Heights bungalow and they could be made into Historic Districts early enough to preserve the character that you cherish.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the majority of houses on a block are Craftsman Bungalows, a pseudo-Victorian will look as appropriate as a wristwatch on a Greek statue. Anachronisms are unintentionally funny at best, and the humor is at the expense of the ignorance of others. With few exceptions, attempts to re-introduce Victorian (or worse, New Orleans) elements into the Heights have resulted in Mattel-like structures.

The appeal of the Heights will not be enhanced by the odd, inappropriate infill of Victorians- nor log cabins, igloos, tepees or pagodas.

Wrong. Heights appeal has improved with the construction you describe as inappropriate. What do you think about the modern Victorian on 22nd at Harvard? I and my neighbors appreciate this home very much and we think it has enhanced our neighborhood. As a matter of fact, the entire block of Harvard between 20th and 22nd represents a mix of the old and new, including New Orleans, modern, old bungalows, Victorian, new craftsman, old craftsman, and an apartment building. I think it's one of the nicest blocks in the Heights, including the variable home designs. It's the people that live in the Heights that make all the difference. Good people of all types live near me in all types of homes.

If some neighborhoods want to change their deed restrictions to impose construction guidelines that a board determines, fine. Any deed restrictions that exist now can be changed by a 66.6% signature effort where each property gets one vote by Texas law. Note that it takes 66.6%, not 50.1%. The reason the margin is high is to ensure that a consensus exists for the changes, and not just a weak majority.

Changing deed restrictions is a big deal, and it should be. Imposing deed restriction changes by using a back door method of 50.1% historic district approval and then changing the historic district law a year later is an attempt to circumvent the spirit and fairness of Texas deed restriction law. Regardless of where anyone is about liking or not liking home designs in the Heights, it should be obvious that the current effort to effectively impose new covenants as proposed in City Council is unethical, and cheating.

Edited by OutfieldDan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son and I went to the City Council meeting on Tuesday. Our interest was prompted primarily by his work on a Boy Scout merit badge, but living in one of the historic sections of the Heights made the effort meaningful and interesting. I certainly learned alot! I had heard about the historic ordinance being proposed here on the Heights forum, so never stopped to think about other neighborhoods that this will affect. There were speakers from various parts of town. The more I heard the less clear I became on what is really needed. I was struck, though, by how different each neighborhoods needs are/can be when considering such an ordinance. I doubt this will happen, but it seemed like a solution might be one that allowed the various neighborhoods to tailor the ordinance to their own issues. Glenbrook Valley is 180 degrees different from Houston Heights! Anyway, we will continue to see how things develop.

I agree, I saw the same result-- and had the same conclusion-doesn't it need to be considered block by block- more so than area by area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't appear to be all-or-nothing. The City Council can still debate and modify the policy before adopting it. They modify ordinances before passing them all the time.

Yes or no, do you oppose the current proposal?

Seriously? Dodging? I have 2 small kids at home, a husband and a busy life outside of HAIF. I went ahead and answered your question with a pretty clear answer even though I had already stated I was removing myself from the conversation. After that, I **gasp** got up and walked away from the computer. Imagine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously? Dodging? I have 2 small kids at home, a husband and a busy life outside of HAIF. I went ahead and answered your question with a pretty clear answer even though I had already stated I was removing myself from the conversation. After that, I **gasp** got up and walked away from the computer. Imagine!

You prefaced your earlier response with an unrealistic assumption, that the proposal could not be modified within a week's time. Now you've made a fifty-six-word excuse instead of providing a simple one-word response; clearly the availability of time is not an issue. So yes, I think you're dodging the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You prefaced your earlier response with an unrealistic assumption, that the proposal could not be modified within a week's time. Now you've made a fifty-six-word excuse instead of providing a simple one-word response; clearly the availability of time is not an issue. So yes, I think you're dodging the question.

What would be the purpose of dodging? I just don't get it... I said if it was all or nothing, meaning if I had to take what was on the table or have nothing at all, I would take what is currently proposed. I don't understand what is not clear about that?

Link to comment
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...