The Heights Historic Districts

[mcook2002]

for the win....

I don't see where anything democratic is being proposed. I'm not getting a vote, and someone else will make decisions for me once this is imposed.

[Marksmu]

IF you own one of the new builds. Existing bungalows get reduced to teardown value, example: Rice Military.

Existing bungalows get renovated all the time now, right next door to new builds. Its been going on for 10 years, I have a feeling it will continue. Some people want new, some want to save old. Its not 100% in either direction....there are areas of the heights (woodland heights) that are all old. If you want an expensive small home, thats your place.

Not the person paying the taxes!

The person paying taxes gets benefits from their tax dollars....if you dont want to pay high taxes dont live in an expensive home. That may require you to move, b/c lots are now at least $200,000 for a 66x132

No chance? Not even a little bit? The neighborhood is depending on nothing more than developer's sense of good will to build something asthetically suitable. Counting on developer's goodwill is... umm... well... a brave exercise in trust. How can we trust the developer's any more than HAHC.

What (other than builders good will and sense of style) prevents that from happening? Everyone seems to think HAHC is trying to prevent The Heights from becoming another Bellaire. I think the risk is becoming another Rice Military.

Builders want to make a profit. They are not building for fun or to make neighbors angry. They generally know what sells Victorian, or as the bungalow snobs like to call them McvVics. The Bellaire style home is not being built in the heights, b/c it most likely wont sell. If you want a house like those in Bellaire, go live in Bellaire. The drive to make a profit and sell a house has been working pretty well so far. I can think of only 1 house in the greater heights area that resembles a Bellaire home and while I think it sticks out like a sore thumb....the guy who built it, built it for himself, not as a spec home by a builder.

While this ordinance gives the HAHC way too much arbritrary power; the current situtation puts too much power into developers hands. Largely the ordinance is backlash to some of the egregious things we've all observed in the neighborhood. There's got to be some middle ground.

What egregious things are we talking about?? I really do want to know what egregious things you object to. Is it Tricon building the 2 story homes with the front facing garages? Tricon has several other nice contributions to the area. The homes that they built before those over the garage homes are on average very nice. I can think of several stand alone homes that are quite nice. I would rather trust someone whose financial well being is dependent upon there being a good strong market for their product, than a group of close minded, politically appointed hacks, who are drunk with their new found powers. People who are invested heavily usually make much better decisions than those who are not invested. Profit is a strong driver for people to build something that will sell.

Yes and no. Expecting to live in the core of the 4th largest city in the US, while it's undergoing a drastic population expansion with its attendent densification, while expecting absolutely zero land-use regulation is a bit naive. While encouraging those that own historic properties to accept change in the form of new intrusive structures... you are conviently leaving out yourself. Change is indeed hard in whatever form it takes.

Im not asking for no land use regulation. It makes sense that the area prevent industrial business from expanding...though we dont have zoning, the requirement for drainage for new structures is very effective at preventing industry from expanding here. The lot value also is very effective, and I support the prevention of subdiving lots to cram more homes on them. I am not advocating no control at all...but I am firmly against a vocal minority of people who want to keep things exactly as they are against dictating to everyone else how its going to be. Most people just want to know what they are buying, and then find something they are happy with, and be left alone. They dont expect the rules to change half way through the game. The people supporting the ordinance whole heartedly are a very vocal minority. If you asked people now to sign the petition with all of the information you would not even come close to get 50% of the vote.

This was a bait and switch. Plain and simple.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Marksmu

[poyea]

Marksmu, I hope you and others like you show up next Tuesday night. I agree with your thoughts exactly. I want there to be some control, but concrete objective guidelines. Not things open to interpretation by a weighted panel. Lot size, set backs, etc. Not to mention, there would be no need for this panel of 13 if the rules were clearly defined. And one more thing: we need to REMOVE their ability to change the ordinance in the future without some sort of vote or they'll bait and switch us again.

One other thing from last week's meeting that chapped me was if your house wereto burn down, you wouldn't be able to rebuild it as it was without it meeting the new guidelines. Talk about over reaching.

[Gooch]

That may require you to move, b/c lots are now at least $200,000 for a 66x132

True enough. And if one doesn't want to live in a newly created historic district they are free to move to have the benefit of unrestricted property use. See how that works? 

  

What egregious things are we talking about??  I really do want to know what egregious things you object to

I'm not about to start criticising specific homes. If you can't think of a single home in the Heights that doesn't fit the scale, heightline, and setback of it's neighbors... I can't help you understand why some form of restriction is needed. Sorrry.

Most people just want to know what they are buying, and then find something they are happy with, and be left alone. They dont expect the rules to change half way through the game

what about those that bought a house  because it as in a neighborhood of bungalows. Thier rules are getting changed, too. 

[AtticaFlinch]

what about those that bought a house because it as in a neighborhood of bungalows. Thier rules are getting changed, too.

Gooch, this is where I disagree with you. The owners who bought bungalows bought knowing full well they owned in an area without the rules. Why can't the city grandfather an exemption for current owners? That seems to me the only fair compromise.

[Gooch]

Gooch, this is where I disagree with you. The owners who bought bungalows bought knowing full well they owned in an area without the rules. Why can't the city grandfather an exemption for current owners? That seems to me the only fair compromise.

I agree that ALL owners should factor in the risk of buying into a wild-west-no-hold-barred area. Owners that like it as it is have the risk of the character changing. AND Owners have the risk that some type of rule will be imposed in the future. Both are possible, and likely. One simply cannot anticipate the regulatory climate to be static. It's as poor of an assuption as assuming the character of a neighborhood is static. Given that there almost zero rules, that land use regulation is the norm rather than the exception, and governments ever forward regulatory creep, it should have been obvious that rules would be added at some point.

Some in the Heights, the first residential suburb in the city, with a large stock of original houses, and an active historical preservation group, are acting surprised that the area is being made into a historic district. They shouldn't should be.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Gooch

[SilverJK]

Oh please. I live in a bungalow that cost less than 300k and I have a say yes sign in my yard. The real elitism is coming from the builders/realtors/architects that want to destroy what is left of Houston's historic homes just for a quick buck. They think that if you have enough money, you should not have to be subject to any democratic process. That is elitism.

Let me say this again... what are you saying yes to? You are just putting in in everyones face that you support the strong-arming of people's property rights. What if they decide you can't put politically motivated posters in your yard... you couldn't put your sign up support non-voting issues in the future!

Edited August 5, 2010 by SilverJK

[Marksmu]

True enough. And if one doesn't want to live in a newly created historic district they are free to move to have the benefit of unrestricted property use. See how that works?

Newly created - means I lost rights, I lost value. The restrictions will reduce the value of the property as people like me (the silent majority) no longer want to move there. Builders will be much less interested in building there because of the probable delays, increased costs, and increased construction time to get materials and approvals. Its a negative for every single person except that small vocal minority of people who want everything to be the way it was in 1920. Unfortunately the small minority is just louder. I am free to move, but I am not leaving till I get paid for the lost value in my home because of the restrictions.

I'm not about to start criticising specific homes. If you can't think of a single home in the Heights that doesn't fit the scale, heightline, and setback of it's neighbors... I can't help you understand why some form of restriction is needed. Sorrry.

I know of some homes that I would not build b/c I dont like them. But I would not call many of them egregious...there are maybe a handful egregious ones...All in all 90+% of the new homes are very attractive, and add to the neighborhood, not detract. Of those 90% its likely that only 35-40% of them would get approval based on the HAHC guidelines I have seen.

what about those that bought a house because it as in a neighborhood of bungalows. Thier rules are getting changed, too.

Wrong - there were no rules and they knew it when they closed. There is a disclosure form in your closing package....the title company checks off the box as to whether or not there are deed restrictions, set backs, etc. It was clearly checked unrestricted.

If you bought with bungalows and they are unrestricted you knew full well the risk that anything, even a high rise condominium complex could be built. It is a risk that you take by purchasing unrestricted property. 9 times out of 10 the unrestricted property gamble pays off.

Unrestricted property is worth more money, that is why it is sought out.

I came from a neighborhood with deed restrictions...very harsh deed restrictions. I hated it. I intentionally moved where I did because there were no deed restrictions. I bought where I bought for a reason. Now your trying to change the rules. There was never any expectation by anyone of anything when I bought. It is all new and its wrong.

[sevfiv]

Reminder from the GHPA:

The City of Houston Planning & Development Department is hosting the fourth in its series of public meetings to discuss proposed changes to the historic preservation ordinance tonight (Thursday, August 5) from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Glenbrook United Methodist Church, 8635 Glen Valley Drive.

Although anyone may attend, tonight’s meeting will primarily address property owners in the proposed Glenbrook Valley historic district. The complete schedule of meetings and a summary of the proposed amendments are on the Planning & Development Department website.

There is a great deal of misinformation circulating about the proposed amendments. GHPA’s website addresses these misrepresentations. Click here to view the information in pdf format, which can be e-mailed or printed to share with your neighbors.

GHPA will continue to provide its members with updates on this issue.

[JJxvi]

And just another observation, I am amazed at how much the Heights has kept its character over the past 10 years despite all these evil, elitist builders/realtors/architects

That's because the defining "character" of the Heights is a hodge podge of building styles, and even types over about 100 years. The closest person to me who sticks anti-new construction, and "Say Yes" and whatever other new sign is out in their front yard lives in a grocery store (although I dont believe neither they, nor I, actually live in one of the affected historic districts. The neighborhood has changed a lot since I was a kid, mainly due to the influx of money into the neighborhood. Thats the only change I see, the neighborhood is richer, not better, nor worse. Its still a hodgepodge of commercial, even industrial, mixed with old houses, even apartment complexes in the middle of neighbiorhood blocks, only now theres new homes and townhomes added to the mix. I live across the street from a large commercial building that has been transformed into lofts, its been there since I was a kid. The family business is two houses don and has been there for 30 years. The house next door to me is a big new home (2 on what was once one lot), where previously there was a 950 SF shack that appeared ready to fall at any moment. There's an apartment complex 2 blocks away, theres the people that live in the grocery store. There's new buildings sure, but most of the places are 20-30-50-80 years old. Anybody that moved into the Heights in the past 80 years moved into a hodge podge that has been constantly evolving and been added onto with very little directed development or thought to an overarching character. The "historic district" types want to change the nature of my hood, IMO, not preserve it.

[Marksmu]

Reminder from the GHPA:

The City of Houston Planning & Development Department is hosting the fourth in its series of public meetings to discuss proposed changes to the historic preservation ordinance tonight (Thursday, August 5) from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Glenbrook United Methodist Church, 8635 Glen Valley Drive.

Although anyone may attend, tonight’s meeting will primarily address property owners in the proposed Glenbrook Valley historic district. The complete schedule of meetings and a summary of the proposed amendments are on the Planning & Development Department website.

There is a great deal of misinformation circulating about the proposed amendments. GHPA’s website addresses these misrepresentations. Click here to view the information in pdf format, which can be e-mailed or printed to share with your neighbors.

GHPA will continue to provide its members with updates on this issue.

That PDF from the GHPA - is propoganda. I am not faulting you or saying anything at all about your posting it, you are doing a service by posting it here for discussion....I'm just stating, and I am stating it as fact, that what is written on that PDF is 100% not supported by what is written in the ordinance. Does anyone else not think that it is very odd, and extremely untruthful, that the GHPA is taking the time to create a web site, and have meetings to dispel the myth of all these untruths, while 100% refusing to do the much faster, much better, more legitimate process of just modifying the ordinance to actually say what they want you to believe it says?

They wont modify the ordinance to actually conform to the propaganda they are putting out because the truth remains, that they do in fact want to control all exterior aspects of your home. If they did not, they would just modify the ordinance to state explicitly what it is that is covered and put to rest the items that are not.

The only truthful statement is that the ordinance does not currently control any interior modifications.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Marksmu

[ISMDAVID]

That's because the defining "character" of the Heights is a hodge podge of building styles, and even types over about 100 years. The closest person to me who sticks anti-new construction, and "Say Yes" and whatever other new sign is out in their front yard lives in a grocery store (although I dont believe neither they, nor I, actually live in one of the affected historic districts. The neighborhood has changed a lot since I was a kid, mainly due to the influx of money into the neighborhood. Thats the only change I see, the neighborhood is richer, not better, nor worse. Its still a hodgepodge of commercial, even industrial, mixed with old houses, even apartment complexes in the middle of neighbiorhood blocks, only now theres new homes and townhomes added to the mix. I live across the street from a large commercial building that has been transformed into lofts, its been there since I was a kid. The family business is two houses don and has been there for 30 years. The house next door to me is a big new home (2 on what was once one lot), where previously there was a 950 SF shack that appeared ready to fall at any moment. There's an apartment complex 2 blocks away, theres the people that live in the grocery store. There's new buildings sure, but most of the places are 20-30-50-80 years old. Anybody that moved into the Heights in the past 80 years moved into a hodge podge that has been constantly evolving and been added onto with very little directed development or thought to an overarching character. The "historic district" types want to change the nature of my hood, IMO, not preserve it.

Your points are well thought out and presented very articulately. Well Done.

[TheNiche]

Hey, Marksmu, I just wanted to compliment you on your performance in this thread. I just wish we saw this analytical and decisive side of you more often on other threads.

[dbigtex56]

That PDF from the GHPA - is propoganda. I am not faulting you or saying anything at all about your posting it, you are doing a service by posting it here for discussion....I'm just stating, and I am stating it as fact, that what is written on that PDF is 100% not supported by what is written in the ordinance. Does anyone else not think that it is very odd, and extremely untruthful, that the GHPA is taking the time to create a web site, and have meetings to dispel the myth of all these untruths, while 100% refusing to do the much faster, much better, more legitimate process of just modifying the ordinance to actually say what they want you to believe it says?

I'm 99% sure that you're not 100% correct.

[Marksmu]

I'm 99% sure that you're not 100% correct.

Welcome to the 1% of the time that you are wrong then.

I have not made even one comment that cannot be supported by the wording of the ordinance. While Sue Lovell, and the GHPA can attempt to dispel myths by talking about all the inaccuracies that are allegedly being spread around, the fact remains that the ordinance is what is controlling, not what they say in a meeting. When it is all said and done and the HAHC has all the control, it will not help your cause any that Sue Lovell said they would not do exactly what it is they are doing to you.

The fact remains that it is the black and white wording of the ordinance that will dictate what can and cannot be done. All the fluff you hear in these meetings is nothing more than a campaign promise, and everyone knows how worthless campaigns promises are.

[s3mh]

Welcome to the 1% of the time that you are wrong then.

I have not made even one comment that cannot be supported by the wording of the ordinance. While Sue Lovell, and the GHPA can attempt to dispel myths by talking about all the inaccuracies that are allegedly being spread around, the fact remains that the ordinance is what is controlling, not what they say in a meeting. When it is all said and done and the HAHC has all the control, it will not help your cause any that Sue Lovell said they would not do exactly what it is they are doing to you.

The fact remains that it is the black and white wording of the ordinance that will dictate what can and cannot be done. All the fluff you hear in these meetings is nothing more than a campaign promise, and everyone knows how worthless campaigns promises are.

It is not the plain language that supports your arguments. It is your own personal opinion that if the ordinance can be interpreted in an unreasonable manner, it will be interpreted in an unreasonable manner because you believe that government is by its very nature unreasonable. Here are a few examples of your arguments that are completely misleading and wrong:

The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic.

Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance.

Whats next? The ordinance has no limit whatsoever. They could potentially prohibit political yard signs that dont support their particular party! There is no perceivable end to the control.

You have claimed to be an attorney. But if you were an attorney, you would know that the last argument is a violation of the First Amendment. As for hardi plank, there is nothing in the ordinance that says hardi plank is forbidden. You just make that representation because the ordinance gives the HAHC the power to require homeowners to use siding materials that are consistent with the historic siding. So, someone with 117 siding would probably not be able to replace it with hardi plank. That is a far cry from claiming that hardi plank is expressly forbidden. And the first comment makes it sound like people will have to go combing through historic salvage yards in order to put siding on an addition. That is false. If your building has 117 siding, HAHC can require your addition to also have 117 siding. That means that you will have to go all the way to Grogan's on Yale to find this rare and exotic historic material. HAHC cannot require you to go to a historic salvage yard and find vintage 117 siding.

There are many other examples. And there are less egregious examples in the literature being sent around by the realtor/builder funded opposition. The funny thing is that I would strongly support an effort to draft a better historic preservation ordinance, as would many of my neighbors. But, it is clear from the arguments from opponents that this isn't about perfecting the historic district ordinances. It is about undoing what many fought for years to do. Thus, it is "no means no" v. "big government is gonna tell you what TV channel you can watch", and a good opportunity to come together and create historic preservation that works well for every is lost.

[s3mh]

That's because the defining "character" of the Heights is a hodge podge of building styles, and even types over about 100 years. The closest person to me who sticks anti-new construction, and "Say Yes" and whatever other new sign is out in their front yard lives in a grocery store (although I dont believe neither they, nor I, actually live in one of the affected historic districts. The neighborhood has changed a lot since I was a kid, mainly due to the influx of money into the neighborhood. Thats the only change I see, the neighborhood is richer, not better, nor worse. Its still a hodgepodge of commercial, even industrial, mixed with old houses, even apartment complexes in the middle of neighbiorhood blocks, only now theres new homes and townhomes added to the mix. I live across the street from a large commercial building that has been transformed into lofts, its been there since I was a kid. The family business is two houses don and has been there for 30 years. The house next door to me is a big new home (2 on what was once one lot), where previously there was a 950 SF shack that appeared ready to fall at any moment. There's an apartment complex 2 blocks away, theres the people that live in the grocery store. There's new buildings sure, but most of the places are 20-30-50-80 years old. Anybody that moved into the Heights in the past 80 years moved into a hodge podge that has been constantly evolving and been added onto with very little directed development or thought to an overarching character. The "historic district" types want to change the nature of my hood, IMO, not preserve it.

My block in the west historic district is all 1920s bungalows except for one 1970 shack and one new construction. All of the bungalows with additions have added on in the back and have preserved the front 1/2 of the building. I am next to a small bungalow that has been left to decay. Without historic preservation ordinances, a builder could buy the lot and put in a 2 story monster that goes from the sidewalk to the alley (everyone else has retained the original setback). If that happened, my bungalow would then be next on the chopping block (even more so as I have a full sized lot). There would be no point in making improvements to my house as I would only see lot value in a sale.

The real threat to the Height's hodge podge is not the historic preservation ordinance; it is the builders and real estate agents that want to make a quick buck off of the high demand for decent inner loop housing. They want to wipe the Height clean of single story bungalows and fill in every block with two story houses that have as many sq ft as can be crammed into a 6600 lot. Just look at the new construction on the south end of Nicholson and the planned high density condos where the Ashland Tea House and old Assembly of God church on Ashland. The historic homes in the Heights deserve protection. If that means that builders won't make as much money as they want to, then fine. If that means that someone has to compromise on the design for their addition, then fine. This city has no shortage of land. But, without real protection, this city will lose its scant few historic neighborhoods.

[little frau]

I would ask why that small bungalow next to you was left to decay. Was it because the owners could not afford to make repairs that would satisfy the HAHC?

[s3mh]

I would ask why that small bungalow next to you was left to decay. Was it because the owners could not afford to make repairs that would satisfy the HAHC?

No. The owner abadonned the house for personal reasons (it is not a pleasant story and not a story to be shared on a public message board), but apparently still pays the taxes and has someone mow the grass from time to time. As far as I know, there has never been an attempt to rehabilitate the house.

Looking at the condition it is in, the difference between HAHC compliant rehabilitation and non-HAHC compliant rehabilitation would hardly be a factor, assuming that there would even be such an additional cost. If the HAHC imposed conditions that raised the cost of rehabilitation, the cost would more than be offset by the tax abatement that could be earned restoring the building.

[Marksmu]

It is not the plain language that supports your arguments. It is your own personal opinion that if the ordinance can be interpreted in an unreasonable manner, it will be interpreted in an unreasonable manner because you believe that government is by its very nature unreasonable. Here are a few examples of your arguments that are completely misleading and wrong:

The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic.

Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance.

Whats next? The ordinance has no limit whatsoever. They could potentially prohibit political yard signs that dont support their particular party! There is no perceivable end to the control.

It is my opinion that when you give power to a few and take it away from the many - the few will abuse it. History shows us that power corrupts. But my logic in determining what materials can/cant be used is not such an opinion. I will address the reasons why 2/3 of the above statements are not misleading or wrong.

The ordinance does require that you use certain materials. This is found in the following paragraphs of the ordinance that when read together paint a fairly clear and limited picture. I will even underline the pertinent portions for you.

Section 33-241 - Alteration, rehabilitation, restoration, and construction

1) The proposed activity must retain and preserve the historical character of the property.

3) The proposed activity must recognize the building, structure, object or site as a product of its own time and avoid alterations that seek to create an earlier or later appearance.

6) New materials to be used for any exterior feature must be compatible with the materials being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities.

9) Proposed design for alterations or construction must not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and must be compatible with the size, scale, material and character of the property...

If the material must preserve the historic nature, not appear newer, be compatible in composition, design, and texture, while all at the same time being of the same size, scale, and material - I am pretty sure that means it needs to be either a salvaged old materials, or a new piece of material that is an exact replica of the old.

As to the hardi plank - It was not around in 1920, it appears newer, it is not the same composition, design, texture, or material. The ordinance does not say " No Hardy Plank" but you don't have to spell out the letters " H A R D Y P L A N K" to write something that expressly forbids its use.

You have claimed to be an attorney. But if you were an attorney, you would know that the last argument is a violation of the First Amendment.

I know its a violation of the 1st Amendment - but that does not stop them from using this ordinance to write you a misdemeanor citation and then force you to appear and defend yourself. I will admit that I was stretching the argument to go with the political speech, but the ordinance is so broad, I was merely trying to make a point, that it controls everything, even the yard by defining site so broadly.

The ordinance controls the site - and the site is defined so broadly as to include everything all the way down to landscaping if they want to apply it that way.

Site is defined as : "property upon which a significant event occurred, including, but not limited to, any land, building, or natural resource....whether ruined, demolished or relocated"

This is so broad, it essentially allows them to control everything. Land allows them to control the dirt itself, building is well covered, and it appears even the minerals are contemplated......If one wants to apply an equally broad reading of this very broad statute, and compile it with the rest of what is written they can require a person to rebuild a structure that was destroyed or removed before they ever owned the property. The ordinance is THAT broad. They can even write you a citation for every day that you dont do what they tell you to do. Its awful!

There are many other examples. And there are less egregious examples in the literature being sent around by the realtor/builder funded opposition.

There you again - trying to make the argument that only realtors/builders are against this. Its not true. I am neither and I am firmly against it. I have been given no money by either a Realtor or a builder either. Its a scare tactic you keep trying to use. The big guys against the little guys. Everyone hates builders and realtors - we better make them the face of this. Why not just say George Bush is the one who is secretly supporting the opposition??? Its just as honest and you can probably get alot more people to sign the anti-George Bush Historic Preservation Ordinance petition.

[Marksmu]

My block in the west historic district is all 1920s bungalows except for one 1970 shack and one new construction. All of the bungalows with additions have added on in the back and have preserved the front 1/2 of the building. I am next to a small bungalow that has been left to decay. Without historic preservation ordinances, a builder could buy the lot and put in a 2 story monster that goes from the sidewalk to the alley (everyone else has retained the original setback). If that happened, my bungalow would then be next on the chopping block (even more so as I have a full sized lot). There would be no point in making improvements to my house as I would only see lot value in a sale.

You made my argument for me. Thanks! - I have argued that the restrictions are a regulatory taking, inverse condemnation - that by imposing them you reduce the value of the lot. You have confirmed it, by imposing the ordinance you reduce the value of the lot to everyone except yourself...the ordinance is hurting one person at the expense of another, and the person who is benefited does not believe they need to pay for that benefit, even though they have in fact harmed their neighbor.

The new house would not devalue your house at all. If historical is as desirable as you say, it should be easier NOT harder to sell your home after you have rehabbed it.

The real threat to the Height's hodge podge is not the historic preservation ordinance; it is the builders and real estate agents that want to make a quick buck off of the high demand for decent inner loop housing. They want to wipe the Height clean of single story bungalows and fill in every block with two story houses that have as many sq ft as can be crammed into a 6600 lot. Just look at the new construction on the south end of Nicholson and the planned high density condos where the Ashland Tea House and old Assembly of God church on Ashland. The historic homes in the Heights deserve protection. If that means that builders won't make as much money as they want to, then fine. If that means that someone has to compromise on the design for their addition, then fine. This city has no shortage of land. But, without real protection, this city will lose its scant few historic neighborhoods.

You dont need an ordinance to do everything you are proposing. You can simply enact the restrictions that SCDesign has repeatedly pointed out - that any single block can get together and set prevailing lot sizes, setbacks both front and side, and even single family/multi family requirements. The reason this is not done, is that 66% have to agree to do it. When you give people the opportunity to preserve value or destroy it, most choose preservation. So now we need the government telling us what is good for us. That is what this ordinance is!

[AtticaFlinch]

It is your own personal opinion that if the ordinance can be interpreted in an unreasonable manner, it will be interpreted in an unreasonable manner because you believe that government is by its very nature unreasonable.

I can count the number of times Marksmu and I have agreed on something on one hand, but I totally agree with him on this. Without clearer language, the ordinance is ready to be abused by those in power. Dismissing Marksmu's concerns as irrelevant and as little more than a conspiracy theory won't do anything to win you friends, especially with people who feel the same as him. Demanding a better, more secure product from lawmakers shouldn't be considered unreasonable or ridiculous, and imposing this on people who bought land prior to this ordinance taking effect just seems wrong as well.

Everyone hates builders and realtors - we better make them the face of this. Why not just say George Bush is the one who is secretly supporting the opposition??? Its just as honest and you can probably get alot more people to sign the anti-George Bush Historic Preservation Ordinance petition.

Maybe if the W in George W Bush stands for Walmart.

[Angostura]

My block in the west historic district is all 1920s bungalows except for one 1970 shack and one new construction. All of the bungalows with additions have added on in the back and have preserved the front 1/2 of the building. I am next to a small bungalow that has been left to decay. Without historic preservation ordinances, a builder could buy the lot and put in a 2 story monster that goes from the sidewalk to the alley (everyone else has retained the original setback). If that happened, my bungalow would then be next on the chopping block (even more so as I have a full sized lot). There would be no point in making improvements to my house as I would only see lot value in a sale.

You could address this situation by applying for minimum lot size and minimum building line restrictions for your block. This doesn't require a new ordinance, and doesn't require that your neighbors be subject to the caprice of the HAHC any time they want to alter their property.

[JJxvi]

The real threat to the Height's hodge podge is not the historic preservation ordinance; it is the builders and real estate agents that want to make a quick buck off of the high demand for decent inner loop housing. They want to wipe the Height clean of single story bungalows and fill in every block with two story houses that have as many sq ft as can be crammed into a 6600 lot. Just look at the new construction on the south end of Nicholson

The fact is that there are a very large numbers of structures dotting the heights that shouldn't and probably can't be saved, even in the historic districts, and I would consider your example of the south end of Nicholson to be one of the prime locations where an argument could be made that maybe somebody SHOULD have cleared off every block and built something new. In any case, I don't feel extremely strongly one way or another, especially not living in (but just outside) the West district. I just wanted to make my feelings clear that I personally don't think the character of the neighborhood is being affected by new development much at all except to say that its gotten much better. In fact I believe the quality of many, many of the older homes has gone way up since I was growing up with the influx of new development. To me the neighborhood is enhanced and vibrant with restored old structures mixed with new structures, but thats just my opinion, as I'm sure others have theirs and I don't oppose the oldest and most uniform blocks having some kind of protection just to keep some of the old flavor around.

The only time I really bristle (and this hasn't happened in a while) is when someone who bought and renovated a nice old bungalow within the last year or two tries to convince me that the neighborhood needs to be preserved and kept historic, and have uniform building codes instituted, and I'm thinking "I've lived and or worked right around here off and on for 25 years or so and this neighborhood has NEVER been uniform so what are you telling me is supposed to be preserved?"

Edited August 6, 2010 by JJxvi

[chester77008]

S3mh,

Your comment that the additions on your block are mostly bungalows where they saved the front half of the house is to the point.

The new ordinance does not allow this to happen anymore. This is why I personally oppose the changes. You will be required to add on to the rear of the bungalow only. I have applied and been denied on an addition like this. I asked how many feet of the original bungalow I would be required to keep before adding the new addition, the answer was all of it. The new ordinance requires one to keep the original structure intact, and all additions must be at the rear of the home so that they can be removed at a later date and return the bungalow to its original size and shape.

This is nuts in my opinion, there are plenty of ways to demolish 1/2 of a bungalow and have a great looking finished product.

[SilverJK]

I'm not a realtor/builder, i'm just a half of a young DINK family living in a 1925 bungalow because I love old houses. I am completely against the ordinance. Go to the suburbs if you want everyones house to look the same. The nonconformity and eclecticism of the heights is what makes the neighborhood so great.

How do these new rules impact small businesses that are within the historic district?

[sonic0boom]

How do these new rules impact small businesses that are within the historic district?

Hey, maybe they'll force half the bars and restaurants on White Oak to shut down and become gas stations and auto shops again.

[chester77008]

Hey, maybe they'll force half the bars and restaurants on White Oak to shut down and become gas stations and auto shops again.

I have seen signs opposed to the ordinance at Onion Creek, Dry Creek, Cedar Creek, and the soon to open desert place on White Oak, so I can only assume all of those folks have had past experiences with the HAHC. I can guarantee you that the Glass Wall and the place across the street from it are opposed to the new ordinance, they had to demo older homes to build those places. There is also a sign opposed to the issue at the local hardware store.

[Porchman]

Reminder from the GHPA:

The City of Houston Planning & Development Department is hosting the fourth in its series of public meetings to discuss proposed changes to the historic preservation ordinance tonight (Thursday, August 5) from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Glenbrook United Methodist Church, 8635 Glen Valley Drive.

Although anyone may attend, tonight’s meeting will primarily address property owners in the proposed Glenbrook Valley historic district. The complete schedule of meetings and a summary of the proposed amendments are on the Planning & Development Department website.

There is a great deal of misinformation circulating about the proposed amendments. GHPA’s website addresses these misrepresentations. Click here to view the information in pdf format, which can be e-mailed or printed to share with your neighbors.

GHPA will continue to provide its members with updates on this issue.

Sev, thank you for posting this. Annise Parker listed the same bullets in The Leader. (and they reprinted these bullets point-for-point). However, the ordinance, as written, is open to draconian interpretation. At the very minimum, there needs to be a press from the preservationists to make the City define "conforming". This one issue, I think, would address many fears. If this issue is not addressed, the objective, as I infer it, will fail.

Here we are...a City without zoning, This ordinance has all the good feel of a toddler attempting to walk in Daddy's Birkenstock's. I and others view that with its inherent awkwardness. The Mayor needs to get clear about what is enforced under this ordinance.

To simplify..

• 67% of a neighborhood can agree to be part of a district
• They will agree to certain restrictions

What are those restrictions....by ordinance, not by HAHC's discretion? Can anybody answer that, specifically? As an example of where this proposed law stands, why does this ordinance need digest in hearings in multiple neighborhoods? Is the neighborhood concept of Hawthorne the same as West Heights? Who gets to decide that?

[Marksmu]

I got home last night, and I had a flyer on my door talking about the ordinance. I read it over, and while it had some decent information, I personally did not think it was harsh enough towards the ordinance. It contained an old 2004 chronicle article that was written by someone Sullivan, I think, that talked about the ordinance....I doubt the chronicle would ever print something like this now.

It was a good start, and I am glad someone actually took the time to get out and put the word out. Hopefully those who actually care about the area enough can band together and put a stop to this awful ordinance before it passes and becomes law of the land. I'd like to know who is organizing and working to stop this so that I could get in touch with them and offer some assistance.