The Heights Historic Districts

[OutfieldDan]

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?

[samagon]

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.

[RedScare]

"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.

[barracuda]

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 January 7, 2011 by barracuda

[samagon]

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.

[MaggieMay]

More information here on Sears Roebuck houses: http://www.arts-craf.../archive/sears/ They have many fans.

And most of them look much better than the McVics spilling off their lots. Or the large, nondescript piles with Craftsman-style details added at the last minute.....

[SilverJK]

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?

[s3mh]

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.

[Marksmu]

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 January 7, 2011 by Marksmu

[samagon]

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.

[SilverJK]

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.

[s3mh]

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.

[20thStDad]

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.

[Heights Homeowner]

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.

[heights]

Chron.com has an article on the votes:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7371547.html

Pay particular attention to Bart Truxillo's comments.

[Marksmu]

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.

[RedScare]

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.

[samagon]

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.

[WAZ]

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 January 8, 2011 by WAZ

[Heights Homeowner]

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.

[OutfieldDan]

Chron.com has an article on the votes:

http://www.chron.com...an/7371547.html

Pay particular attention to Bart Truxillo's comments.

Why is it that Bart Truxillo seems to know the vote distribution? What makes him so special? Does anyone here have the numbers?

I suspect that the actual vote count is in favor of rescinding the districts - probably in most, maybe in all of them.

If the cards returned are from 60% of all properties, and if 35% of all properties voted to be free of the HD, then the vote of returned cards would be 58.3% to 41.7% against Historic District status - a landslide by any measure. This is probalby why Kathleen Powell is admiting that some historic districts might be recommended for change. I believe that someone in city hall is waking up to political realities.

I don't think that it's over. City Council wil receive a recommendation, and if we show up to stress the real count; insisting that it be revealed, we may ultimately triumph.

[RedScare]

That's the problem, Dan. They intentionally set up the "survey" (they refused to call it a vote prior to the results being released), so that there was no way for supporters of the ordinance to register their approval. The only vote was AGAINST. So, the official tally would be 25% AGAINST the ordinance, and 75% UNKNOWN. Not only is there no way to gauge the number of supporters officially, it is also impossible to know even anecdotally, because everything required opponents to do the work. Anecdotally, those of us who gathered petition signatures found in excess of 90% opposition by the people we surveyed. There was no survey by supporters. It should be noted that we did not have time to petition every resident, because they only allowed us 30 days.

The last time a petition by supporters occurred was 3-5 years ago. They gathered 51% signatures over a period of 3-4 years. Importantly, this 51% was for the OLD ordinance. Once the new ordinance was adopted, many of us (including me) rescinded our signatures, dropping support under 40%. However, Council had already voted in the districts, and therefore ignored our withdrawing of support. This 60-40 split against the ordinance is consistent with the informal votes taken at the meetings, and is probably close to the overall slant of those living in the 3 Heights districts. There has never been an attempt by the City or the preservationists to accurately guage support for the ordinance since every informal poll has run along these 60-40 lines. Any claim by s3mh to speak for the majority is...as is his custom on this forum...a lie.

[OutfieldDan]

That's the problem, Dan. They intentionally set up the "survey" (they refused to call it a vote prior to the results being released), so that there was no way for supporters of the ordinance to register their approval. The only vote was AGAINST. So, the official tally would be 25% AGAINST the ordinance, and 75% UNKNOWN. Not only is there no way to gauge the number of supporters officially, it is also impossible to know even anecdotally, because everything required opponents to do the work. Anecdotally, those of us who gathered petition signatures found in excess of 90% opposition by the people we surveyed. There was no survey by supporters. It should be noted that we did not have time to petition every resident, because they only allowed us 30 days.

Is there a freedom of information act or similar ordinance that requires the city to reveal the results, including the individual votes? After all, it's our city, we the citizens are entitled to information that the city gathers, aren't we?

[ISMDAVID]

Too bad that they didn't send out the "survey's",(ahem - BALLOTS) with the annual tax bills and asked that the survey be returned with my tax payment. Since they limited me to one vote, but still collected taxes on the multiple properties in my ownership, I wasn't able to vote with the weight of my ownership dollars(and tax dollars). They have gladly accepted all of my tax money, but they didn't offer me an equal say in this debacle representative to my ownership level. This tactic certainly benefited their vote totals and was another planned method by the politically saavy to sneak this ordinance by. Keep up the fight. Expose the lies. Speak at a minimum with your vote. Vote em out.

[OutfieldDan]

Too bad that they didn't send out the "survey's",(ahem - BALLOTS) with the annual tax bills and asked that the survey be returned with my tax payment. Since they limited me to one vote, but still collected taxes on the multiple properties in my ownership, I wasn't able to vote with the weight of my ownership dollars(and tax dollars). They have gladly accepted all of my tax money, but they didn't offer me an equal say in this debacle representative to my ownership level. This tactic certainly benefited their vote totals and was another planned method by the politically saavy to sneak this ordinance by. Keep up the fight. Expose the lies. Speak at a minimum with your vote. Vote em out.

Knowing how unethical the city's actions have been, I wonder if the threshold needed to for repeal is 51% of the properties. I wouldn't be suprised to discover that ISMDAVID's single vote was overcome by ISMDAVID's multiple properties.

This is why we need a full disclosure of the votes returned and a full disclosure of the process including the threshold needed for repeal.

[RedScare]

We are trying to get the results now. I am confident that they will be turned over to us, but given the obstructionism exhibited so far by the city, I don't know when we'll get them.

[heights_yankee]

Too bad that they didn't send out the "survey's",(ahem - BALLOTS) with the annual tax bills and asked that the survey be returned with my tax payment. Since they limited me to one vote, but still collected taxes on the multiple properties in my ownership, I wasn't able to vote with the weight of my ownership dollars(and tax dollars). They have gladly accepted all of my tax money, but they didn't offer me an equal say in this debacle representative to my ownership level. This tactic certainly benefited their vote totals and was another planned method by the politically saavy to sneak this ordinance by. Keep up the fight. Expose the lies. Speak at a minimum with your vote. Vote em out.

I actually asked about this at the meeting for Norhill on Saturday. I was told that if you own a tract of land, i.e. consecutive properties, you only get one vote. However, if you own multiple properties around the district, you get multiple votes. I'm pro-preservation, so I probably should keep this tidbit to myself. On the other hand, I am pretty discouraged with MAP and the City in general right now so I do desire to see truth and overall transparency that is brutally lacking right now. Anyway, double check the number of votes you may cast (unless you own consecutive lots, in which case your current evaluation is correct).

[RedScare]

Yank, did they state how many properties those consecutive properties counted as toward the total? We've known since early December that those consecutive properties only got one vote, but the total number of properties in a district seem to count them individually. The transparency problem you speak of has prevented us from getting an answer to this simple but critical question.

[Heights Homeowner]

I actually asked about this at the meeting for Norhill on Saturday. I was told that if you own a tract of land, i.e. consecutive properties, you only get one vote. However, if you own multiple properties around the district, you get multiple votes. I'm pro-preservation, so I probably should keep this tidbit to myself. On the other hand, I am pretty discouraged with MAP and the City in general right now so I do desire to see truth and overall transparency that is brutally lacking right now. Anyway, double check the number of votes you may cast (unless you own consecutive lots, in which case your current evaluation is correct).

Yank, we are pro-preservation as well. We just are not pro-ordinance. Big difference! We know about the tract issue. It isn't a secret. We are for preservation and historic districts in an open and transparent process that includes clear understanding and overwhelming support. We haven't had anything that resembles that.

The vote turn-out was exactly what was expected because of the way it was conducted. If we take the random sampling of numbers of opposition, 75 to 80 percent of our neighbors are NOT in favor of this ordinance. The reason there was not a YES or NO vote is because they all knew their numbers would be terrible so they devised a plan to not demonstrate the support so there could be no argument that the NO's outweighed the YES's. That's wrong and it isn't going to acheive preservation. All it is going to do is result in the 4 phase plan to get justice for the majority who have had their rights usurped by a few. When you do it wrong, it never holds up. One of more of the 4 phases will force the City do it right and may unravel the whole thing. Then MAP and the City itself will have a big black eye for doing it so wrong, so undemocratically. It's a shame it has to happen that way but there is NO WAY WE ARE BACKING DOWN. Our group is determined to see the right thing done.

I'll say it again, we want clear understanding and overwhelming support and we will pursue it as long as necessary. People outside of Houston are looking at this process and waiting. Others are ready to come to our aid with the resources we need. As soon as the votes are cast to make these districts remain under the new ordinance without support of the community, it's a whole new ballgame. The Bart Truxillo's can claim they had support but that was for the OLD ordinance (which the Chronicle didn't bother to point out). The support of the new ordinance has never been measured and one way or the other, it will be. And when that happens, and the other things gear up, there won't be quite so much "we won, we won, we won." I suspect the threats and retribution will continue however.

If Parker were smart (I think overall she is but she gets bad advice and has let her emotions color her decisions) she would go back to the drawing board on the process before the Council votes on any of this. She will never get another historic district under the provisions for new districts (not what we wanted). She may lose many districts because she conducted the transition so poorly (again, not what we wanted). She may lose all districts if any of the other efforts after the votes prevail (definitely not what we wanted). Everything she fought for over 10 years time is now at risk. She would do better to take this effort from Lovell, who has thoroughly screwed it up, get together with all parties (separately) and try to work out a reasonable, fair process for historic designation district. She has options but, whether it is arrogance or ego or bad advice, she won't. She will continue down this path to what will certainly be a hicky on her time as Mayor, make her look bad (like her comment that she prefers back room deals) and if we are successful, all the districts will go away and have to come back again. Not what we want but it will be the outcome unless some comprimise is reached. Everything they have done, and continue to do undermines them and they just don't get it. Too bad! If it wasn't so serious, it would be comical...like the Keystone Cops of Preservation, right?

BTW, I read that the ONE TERM MAYOR, ANYONE BUT ANNISE and ANYONE BUT ED movement has started. If someone knows how to get in touch with those folks, can you post it here? A lot of the people on this forum seem to be anti-Parker.

[RedScare]

I suspect the threats and retribution will continue however.

Given that they've taken to red-tagging my ongoing renovation (I neglected to take the blue sign out of my yard prior to the inspector's arrival), I have nothing to lose by continuing to fight. I'm stuck with a half finished renovation and a commission that will not approve other renovations. Not that I care. An inspector who red-tags work that he himself passed a year ago can't be too surprised if I simply never invite them back out to finish the inspection. I don't know what the penalty is for never getting a final inspection, but since I paid cash to do it, they can't hold up a loan.

But, yes, they will stoop to this level. I now know.