Jump to content

The Heights Historic Districts


Tiko

Recommended Posts

I love this quote of yours! - I'm in line right behind you regarding appropriate retribution and am anxious for it to escalate to more that just talk on this website and begin to raise this sunken ship.

Me too! Red is dead-on although I like to think of it as retribution justice. I am equally anxious for it to escalate. Their wild claims of "Mission Accomplished" will be embarrassing for the City and the Mayor. They had a chance to do it right and be fair and they opted for winning at all costs with any illegitimate process they could dream up. Even though their dirty political maneuvering appears to have gotten the upper hand on the surface, it is just what is on the surface. We just have to be patient, and bide our time. Just a few weeks and the real fun begins because when politicians compromise their ethics for a personal agenda, it rarely turns out well for them.

And those who hitch their wagon to their colleagues in deals like this always end up collateral damage. Parker has said that Ed wasn't a leader and he needed hand-holding. She's got his number, knows he hasn't got a clue and is letting him be the fall guy in this deal. Lovell didn't have any consequences so she got to do most of the heavy lifting but Ed, well he'll have consequences no matter whether she redistricts him out of the Heights or not. In fact, it will be better for us to get him out of our district. He won't have his few minion hysterical preservationists to vote for him and instead will have a bunch of ticked off folks working on his opponents campaign telling his constituents how he was a rubber stamp for Annise Parker during his first term. Too bad for Ed. Everyone says he's a nice guy but being a nice guy won't save him from 1000+ pissed off Heights homeowners who have the motivation and deep enough pockets to impact a small council election. And because of their underhanded tactics, this will be going on long into the election season. We will remember who voted to take away property rights with this fraudulent process and we will vote and (donate) accordingly. They have no idea how committed people are, but they will soon.

But back to architecture - it would be great if someone put together a photo montage of all of the two story original historic homes with second story balconies in the Heights and submit it to Pace and Parker since they stood up at a public meeting and claimed they weren't built here. I suggest presenting it at Council so that they understand that these folks don't have a clue about the original architecture. Their comments about faux Victorians being inappropriate in the Heights along with the comments about Glenbrook Valley and the double front porches were so wrong, it was almost funny. Almost. What was funny was the woman who asked them to stop talking about the Heights and talk about their district - First Montrose Commons. The video shows Parker's facial expressions - hilarious! She was shocked that the residents of FMC could care less about the Heights! Annise needs a better poker face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too! Red is dead-on although I like to think of it as retribution justice. I am equally anxious for it to escalate. Their wild claims of "Mission Accomplished" will be embarrassing for the City and the Mayor. They had a chance to do it right and be fair and they opted for winning at all costs with any illegitimate process they could dream up. Even though their dirty political maneuvering appears to have gotten the upper hand on the surface, it is just what is on the surface. We just have to be patient, and bide our time. Just a few weeks and the real fun begins because when politicians compromise their ethics for a personal agenda, it rarely turns out well for them.

And those who hitch their wagon to their colleagues in deals like this always end up collateral damage. Parker has said that Ed wasn't a leader and he needed hand-holding. She's got his number, knows he hasn't got a clue and is letting him be the fall guy in this deal. Lovell didn't have any consequences so she got to do most of the heavy lifting but Ed, well he'll have consequences no matter whether she redistricts him out of the Heights or not. In fact, it will be better for us to get him out of our district. He won't have his few minion hysterical preservationists to vote for him and instead will have a bunch of ticked off folks working on his opponents campaign telling his constituents how he was a rubber stamp for Annise Parker during his first term. Too bad for Ed. Everyone says he's a nice guy but being a nice guy won't save him from 1000+ pissed off Heights homeowners who have the motivation and deep enough pockets to impact a small council election. And because of their underhanded tactics, this will be going on long into the election season. We will remember who voted to take away property rights with this fraudulent process and we will vote and (donate) accordingly. They have no idea how committed people are, but they will soon.

But back to architecture - it would be great if someone put together a photo montage of all of the two story original historic homes with second story balconies in the Heights and submit it to Pace and Parker since they stood up at a public meeting and claimed they weren't built here. I suggest presenting it at Council so that they understand that these folks don't have a clue about the original architecture. Their comments about faux Victorians being inappropriate in the Heights along with the comments about Glenbrook Valley and the double front porches were so wrong, it was almost funny. Almost. What was funny was the woman who asked them to stop talking about the Heights and talk about their district - First Montrose Commons. The video shows Parker's facial expressions - hilarious! She was shocked that the residents of FMC could care less about the Heights! Annise needs a better poker face.

There are at least 3 examples on Pecore alone, and that isn't a very long street. Although one no longer has a balcony (you can see where the balcony door used to be framed out from the inside of the house though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if I took a book of pictures of the original houses in the Heights, there are a couple of really good ones, we could use them as examples of Historic architecture that we want to replicate. I mean, the whole thing is about Historic preservation, and saving the neighborhood, what could be better than rebuilding houses like some of the ones that originally made the Heights great. I could do 2 story Victorians, 2 story Revivals, 2 story Craftsmen. Pretty much everything that I've been building. I think that would be a pretty valid argument too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a house with an original balcony. Looks almost exactly like it does in the picture of my Grandfather standing in front of it in 1915 or so, when he lived there.

231 W 17th

There really are quite a number of them still standing. Corner of 13th and Harvard, 1500 block of Tulane has two, one on 20th occupied by TBW, 1300 block of Cortlandt, 900 block of Cortlandt (on the National Register), 1800 block of Harvard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if I took a book of pictures of the original houses in the Heights, there are a couple of really good ones, we could use them as examples of Historic architecture that we want to replicate. I mean, the whole thing is about Historic preservation, and saving the neighborhood, what could be better than rebuilding houses like some of the ones that originally made the Heights great. I could do 2 story Victorians, 2 story Revivals, 2 story Craftsmen. Pretty much everything that I've been building. I think that would be a pretty valid argument too.

Great idea! And now, thanks to all of our efforts, there is an appeal at City Council (and thanks to Wanda Adams who insisted on the appeal process). If the builders show up with photos of original homes and plans to build something virtually identical, I suspect Council would over-rule the hysterical preservation commission. The David and Sharie Show will undoubtedly be up there arguing against you but they have no credibility with Council anymore. And it will make any of them look ridiculous to argue against homes that are identical in style to the original architecture in the Heights. The number one thing they will fight over is size but my take on Council is that they understand that homes have to be built that are of a size that homebuyers want and lenders will finance. They will be reasonable where the hysterical group is not.

It would be good to submit some plans and see what they will approve (or not) and then see what the Council does with it. The appeal process could also help with the stuff that needs to be torn down. They will fight like heck to prevent any tear-downs but if it isn't economically feasible to do anything with it, supposedly they will approve it. The issue will be the length of time you have to deal with the process but you already were waiting for 90 days for demo and another 90 for incompatible so hopefully the appeals process wouldn't take that long. (hopefully).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Get Ready Folks! I got an email saying that the Planning Director is going to present her info to Council next week on Wednesday. Now the fun begins.

Swamp lot is reporting no changes to the boundaries will be recommended...SURPRISE!....seriously though its just more bad news....Have they rescheduled the council meeting on this yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swamp lot is reporting no changes to the boundaries will be recommended...SURPRISE!....seriously though its just more bad news....Have they rescheduled the council meeting on this yet?

Looking at the repeal maps....from City of Houston...its interesting that they did not post Heights South....I believe that is where the most opposition was...I wonder what is holding up that process?

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/hist_pres_amend.html

I like that they have shown which properties opted out. Gives you an easy way to judge the intelligence or apathy of your neighbors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended the HAHC meeting last week, and I have to admit, the approval process is not as bad as I had feared. The bulk of the certificate of appropriate items on the agenda were approved as part of a consent agenda, and the HAHC board was sympathetic towards the remaining projects that were flagged for various reasons. Even projects that had questionable design elements were approved when the owner or architect explained the reasoning and the board discussed the ramifications and benefits to the value and appearance of the property. And looking back through previous meeting minutes, it appears that nearly all submitted COAs are approved. It seems that unless a project is particularly egregious in violating the ordinance, they are willing to consider approval. To be honest, I wish someone had proposed something overtly in violation of the ordinance just to see what would happen.

I do think the process could be sped up for simple COA requests. It requires being added to the schedule, and HAHC only meets once a month. This combined with the permitting process can easily add more than a month to getting a project started. It seems reasonable for larger projects like new home construction, but I think routine projects (like a COA for replacing a front door) could be done quicker. But I suppose it forces the property owner to think long and hard about their project, which is usually not a bad thing.

P.S. - I'm not suggesting that the design restrictions of the ordinance are preferable to everyone, just that the commission is easy to work with and the approval process is probably not worth getting worked up about - they seem willing to work with you and not fight you.

Edited by barracuda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the repeal maps....from City of Houston...its interesting that they did not post Heights South....I believe that is where the most opposition was...I wonder what is holding up that process?

http://www.houstontx...pres_amend.html

I like that they have shown which properties opted out. Gives you an easy way to judge the intelligence or apathy of your neighbors.

Or maybe not. I faxed in my "survey" to repeal the district and the little map does not reflect this. How many others had the same experience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended the HAHC meeting last week, and I have to admit, the approval process is not as bad as I had feared. The bulk of the certificate of appropriate items on the agenda were approved as part of a consent agenda, and the HAHC board was sympathetic towards the remaining projects that were flagged for various reasons. Even projects that had questionable design elements were approved when the owner or architect explained the reasoning and the board discussed the ramifications and benefits to the value and appearance of the property. And looking back through previous meeting minutes, it appears that nearly all submitted COAs are approved. It seems that unless a project is particularly egregious in violating the ordinance, they are willing to consider approval. To be honest, I wish someone had proposed something overtly in violation of the ordinance just to see what would happen.

I do think the process could be sped up for simple COA requests. It requires being added to the schedule, and HAHC only meets once a month. This combined with the permitting process can easily add more than a month to getting a project started. It seems reasonable for larger projects like new home construction, but I think routine projects (like a COA for replacing a front door) could be done quicker. But I suppose it forces the property owner to think long and hard about their project, which is usually not a bad thing.

P.S. - I'm not suggesting that the design restrictions of the ordinance are preferable to everyone, just that the commission is easy to work with and the approval process is probably not worth getting worked up about - they seem willing to work with you and not fight you.

They've been very agreeable lately. They weren't before the spotlight was on them. They were a major pain. Now that the Mayor fired Sharie Beale, maybe they will be better. I wouldn't be surprised of all of their willingness to work with people right now won't be short lived once they get a few months down the road...although this issue won't be going anywhere any time soon so they will be under lots of scrutiny for a long time. Get your remodel requests in now if you want a reasonable process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've been very agreeable lately. They weren't before the spotlight was on them. They were a major pain. Now that the Mayor fired Sharie Beale, maybe they will be better. I wouldn't be surprised of all of their willingness to work with people right now won't be short lived once they get a few months down the road...although this issue won't be going anywhere any time soon so they will be under lots of scrutiny for a long time. Get your remodel requests in now if you want a reasonable process.

I'm looking for a second home bungalow to buy. We will probably rent it out for a while and then after a year my wife's parent's will move in. We are reluctant to consider anything in a Historic district. I don't care that the HAHC is being nice now. The ordinance prevents a reasonable second story addition that looks nice, and the HAHC's track record is not good with for instance many denials being for use of hardiplank. Ask Allison on Courtland about her experience with "too many fenestrations" for her remodel.

We've been in the market for this home for about two months. It's very refreshing to see new construction in Sunset Heights, and NE of Main St. I had no idea that these neighborhoods were progressing so much. There are many instances of dilapidated bungalos being replaced with very nice new construction and the neighborhoods are improving significantly. FWIW, we are fascinated by the creativity of the new construction regarding materials, floor plans, etc. It's fun to go to open houses and the McMansions are the most interesting. Smaller well maintained, and updated bungalows near the new construction are attractive to us because the neighborhood is starting to look very nice. E of Main St and N of Cavalcade is where there seems to be the most recent improvement.

Unfortunately, there is nothing going on in most of Houston Heights. It's already stagnating. There's a bungalow in rough shape (particularly inside) on Courtland near 18th that is listed for $279,000. No central AC, only one bathroom, 1970's kitchen, etc. I doubt they will get more than $200,000 for it. It's been on the market for a while - not sure how long. Before the ordinance, it would probably have sold easlily at $279K for lot value alone. We looked at a few camelbacks in the Heights, but they're all cramped in the camelback second story adddition. Upstairs ceilings are low, floor space is limited and the bedroom closets are very small. The camelback additiion is a design failure, in my opinion. Most camelbacks look stupid from the street too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why we opposed the ordinance. Adding ugly additions in order to "protect" the original simply ruins the entire house. Unfortunately, we will have to watch our neighborhood decline under the weight of this ordinance, with our only recourse being that we can say, "I told you so." Not the way I wanted to see all of my hard work rewarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why we opposed the ordinance. Adding ugly additions in order to "protect" the original simply ruins the entire house. Unfortunately, we will have to watch our neighborhood decline under the weight of this ordinance, with our only recourse being that we can say, "I told you so." Not the way I wanted to see all of my hard work rewarded.

I can't add on to mine in a way that makes sense to fix the objections a homebuyer would have. The ordinance prohibits it. So it will remain historic and I'll quit improving it, live with it the way it is and NOT make it better. It had an ugly remodel in the 80's. I have been working to make it look more period. That stops. I need dormers for my attic master. I need more closets. I need more storage. I need a half bath and a larger kitchen. All were in the plans and now won't happen because the most important things that need to be done won't be permitted.

BTW, this is being circulated today. It would be funny if it were not so tragic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope at least this aspect of the ordinance can be changed. There are plenty of two-story houses and second-story additions sprinkled throughout the historic districts from before the ordinance, and I personally think additions that are flush at the front are much more natural and functional. Not only that, but less yard space is consumed in a vertical buildup, allowing a back yard and more drainage area. The camelback additions are awkward both in appearance and in terms of the floor plan, and they are particularly unbecoming on a corner lot where the profile contrast is most visible. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, as I there are a number of camelbacks under construction right now by folks who are just following the rules in order to add square footage. But I would love to see this rule scrapped before more and more houses are given a humpback.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something barracuda said earlier has been bugging me all day. Would I really have to apply for permission just to replace my front door? Really?? I have to replace my own 100 year old door that's been warped, shimmed and planed to death. As it is, I'll need to have a new one custom milled to fit. It's just unconscionable to me I'd have to ask permission from a committee.

Whole parts of the Heights still have open ditches for drainage, and you have to permit a door? Sorry, but Onion Creek, a mac n cheese place and a couple of antiques stores ain't all that. Boy am I glad I chose the east end instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something barracuda said earlier has been bugging me all day. Would I really have to apply for permission just to replace my front door? Really?? I have to replace my own 100 year old door that's been warped, shimmed and planed to death. As it is, I'll need to have a new one custom milled to fit. It's just unconscionable to me I'd have to ask permission from a committee.

Whole parts of the Heights still have open ditches for drainage, and you have to permit a door? Sorry, but Onion Creek, a mac n cheese place and a couple of antiques stores ain't all that. Boy am I glad I chose the east end instead.

Sad to say but you would have to get permission fromt the HAHC to change EVERY architectural feature except light fixtures and paint. Front doors, windows, trim work, railings, siding, facia board, soffits, all have to have a permit and a Certificate of Appropriateness. Now you see why we fought so hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something barracuda said earlier has been bugging me all day. Would I really have to apply for permission just to replace my front door? Really?? I have to replace my own 100 year old door that's been warped, shimmed and planed to death. As it is, I'll need to have a new one custom milled to fit. It's just unconscionable to me I'd have to ask permission from a committee.

Whole parts of the Heights still have open ditches for drainage, and you have to permit a door? Sorry, but Onion Creek, a mac n cheese place and a couple of antiques stores ain't all that. Boy am I glad I chose the east end instead.

mac n cheese is all that, luckily I can make it in my kitchen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(emphasis added)

It wasn't especially funny the first time. Repetition doesn't help.

It wasn't meant to be funny the first time. And it isn't funny that city council is being lied to about whether they have to vote on this crap or not. The mayor and planning director out and out LIED to council on Wednesday on numerous issues. Some of them called them on it. They couldn't "win" fair and square so they had to cheat and lie and deceive everyone, including city council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something barracuda said earlier has been bugging me all day. Would I really have to apply for permission just to replace my front door? Really?? I have to replace my own 100 year old door that's been warped, shimmed and planed to death. As it is, I'll need to have a new one custom milled to fit. It's just unconscionable to me I'd have to ask permission from a committee.

Whole parts of the Heights still have open ditches for drainage, and you have to permit a door? Sorry, but Onion Creek, a mac n cheese place and a couple of antiques stores ain't all that. Boy am I glad I chose the east end instead.

You could probably replace it without anyone noticing, but yes, you are supposed to get a COA, per sec. 33-201. This is why I suggested such routine alterations be fast-tracked for approval instead of requiring the full COA process. Replacing a door shouldn't require going through the same review process as the construction of a new house.

Alteration means any change to the exterior of a building, structure, object or site. Alteration shall include, but is not limited to, changing to a different kind, type or size of roofing or siding materials; changing, eliminating, or adding exterior doors, door frames, windows, window frames, shutters, railings, columns, beams, walls, porches, steps, porte-cocheres, balconies, or ornamentation; or the dismantling, moving or removing of any exterior feature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't meant to be funny the first time. And it isn't funny that city council is being lied to about whether they have to vote on this crap or not. The mayor and planning director out and out LIED to council on Wednesday on numerous issues. Some of them called them on it. They couldn't "win" fair and square so they had to cheat and lie and deceive everyone, including city council.

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

Sadly, when you point out the specifics and the EXACT wording of the ordinance to the preservationist crowd they call you a liar.

Then you quote the language, show how ambiguous it actually is, and how the HAHC can easily abuse the ordinance and its language, and they call you a liar again.

You can not win with these people...the truth is not persuasive...they do not care how they get what they want, or who they trample to get it...

When the truth, even a very clear bad truth, is not persuasive people naturally start to exaggerate to make their point, and get some attention to their arguments. That is all that has happened here...you get a little crazy to draw attention to your cause....look at the Union protesters....they are only making news because they are acting crazy and not giving up....if it was calm and orderly the news organizations would not care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

My use of the term "hysterical" rather than historical comes from seeing flyer after flyer full of scare tactics about townhouses, condos and high rises. The ordinance even states that this was an emergency. They have grossly exaggerated the number of demolitions. So, when you see a group that repeatedly talks as if the sky is falling when it's not, sometimes a more descriptive term is required. If the term fits, wear it. It is anything but funny. This is an issue about individual rights and they are being usurped by the city in an illegitimate and undemocratic process. I use the term appropriately as a descriptor for the types of claims these groups are making and are unchallenged.

As far as the lies and misrepresentations go, the list is long. All you have to do is listen to last weeks council comments. And all of these lies and deceptions are going to hit the proverbial fan soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

What about the repeated subsitution of the word "preservationist" for "ordinance". If you are against the ordinance, you are called anti-preservationist, even if you have spent a lot of time/money/effort on saving/rehabbing/restoring historical buildings. Just because it is less blatant doesn't make it acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

My use of that term also stems from emails I have recieved from people I know and know I am opposed to this ordinance. They have made comments like they "nearly lost their mind" regarding a house was torn down in a neighborhood they don't even live in. Or have sent me hate mail telling me we are trying to destroy the neighborhood. I have pointed out the vague language of the first draft of the ordinance which allowed for city control of everything and for that I was called a liar, and continue to be called a liar. But I can read and the complaints made about that vague language were solved by some exclusions in the final ordinance. I've watched this group operate for years but wouldn't have called them hysterical until the last nine months when they have demonstrated they are completely irrational about this issue and appear to be quite hysterical.

Instead of picking at my words however, perhaps you might ask why someone would use those words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, when you point out the specifics and the EXACT wording of the ordinance to the preservationist crowd they call you a liar.

Then you quote the language, show how ambiguous it actually is, and how the HAHC can easily abuse the ordinance and its language, and they call you a liar again.

To be fair they say "that isn't the spirit of the law" and that you are intentionally "making it look worse than it will be"

But in reality, until the law is practiced, no one knows how the law will be enforced, however the wording is there for them to be extremely draconian in their enforcement.

What is very frustrating is to see people who are in vehement support of the ordinance having made it very clear through their misunderstanding that they have never read it, they are just for it. How can someone be for something without knowing what capability it has?

Anyway, the real question that needs to be asked, is: If that isn't within the spirit of the ordinance, why was it written that way?

  • Like 1
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...