Homes At 1303-1309 Ashland St.

[RedScare]

No massage parlor? Put in one of those and I'd rent the penthouse and never have to leave the building!

Actually, the massage parlor is up on the Loop 610 feeder road...right across the street from the extremely valuable property at 2721 Ashland.

[Marksmu]

2721 Ashland is not what anyone who thinks about the heights proper considers the Heights. It may technically be in the Heights, but the area up there is significantly more undeveloped and surrounded by many undesirable elements...

It is quite possibly the worst choice for a comparison property...

A MUCH better comparison would be the properties located on the 1000 block of Tulane....Lets see what happens there...the seller REQUIRED one person purchase all of the lots.

Your intellectually honesty is called to question with EVERY post as you deliberately pick an example that is not even remotely close to accurate.

Decided to renew this thread today. The 1000 block of Tulane has variance requests up now....I have not looked up what they are requesting, but I am confident, probably lets say 99.9% confident that they are requesting the variance to tear down the old crap shacks in the historic district to be replaced by nice new construction with modern amenities that are actually desired overwhelmingly by the families who are moving into the area every day.

I sincerely hope they are all torn down....when posted for sale the buyer had to buy them all...I can't see any buyer rehabbing all 4 properties...However 4 or 5 new builds there would be great! A welcome addition to the neighborhood while simultaneously getting rid of 4 blighted structures....Lets see what the HAHC does...here we have 4 old houses in terrible shape in need of a tear down in the middle of the historic district...Lets hope the HAHC approves whatever plans they have to destroy the old shacks!

In related news, I have watched as the area just outside of the district has sold literally every unrestricted property that had an old house on it in far less time than these lots took to sell....The ordinance has definitely had a negative impact on the development of these lots...in the end I suspect all the ordinance has done to the value of these lots is decrease it as the new owners would/have had to jump through hoops and the extra expenses of getting variances and approvals. So to sum it up...what did the ordinance accomplish here...Nothing, except it has added cost to an already expensive process of building a new home that is not a tiny shack in the middle of a great area.

[s3mh]

Decided to renew this thread today. The 1000 block of Tulane has variance requests up now....I have not looked up what they are requesting, but I am confident, probably lets say 99.9% confident that they are requesting the variance to tear down the old crap shacks in the historic district to be replaced by nice new construction with modern amenities that are actually desired overwhelmingly by the families who are moving into the area every day.

I sincerely hope they are all torn down....when posted for sale the buyer had to buy them all...I can't see any buyer rehabbing all 4 properties...However 4 or 5 new builds there would be great! A welcome addition to the neighborhood while simultaneously getting rid of 4 blighted structures....Lets see what the HAHC does...here we have 4 old houses in terrible shape in need of a tear down in the middle of the historic district...Lets hope the HAHC approves whatever plans they have to destroy the old shacks!

In related news, I have watched as the area just outside of the district has sold literally every unrestricted property that had an old house on it in far less time than these lots took to sell....The ordinance has definitely had a negative impact on the development of these lots...in the end I suspect all the ordinance has done to the value of these lots is decrease it as the new owners would/have had to jump through hoops and the extra expenses of getting variances and approvals. So to sum it up...what did the ordinance accomplish here...Nothing, except it has added cost to an already expensive process of building a new home that is not a tiny shack in the middle of a great area.

1000 Tulane is not in an HD. So much for your observation that the districts had a negative affect on these lots. The demo permits have been granted. The variance is for a replat so they can chop up the lots into 3300 sq ft lots and cram lot line boxes together, wall to wall. This property has moved very, very slowly considering that there is nothing in the way to develop it (easy demo, no HD). It has been over a year since these lots came on the market. In that time, a few dozen other lots got built out in that SW quadrant of the Heights. I do not know anything about the seller. Could just be that they were happy to sit and wait as long as they did to get the right price. Could be that no one was interested paying a lot to build so close to 11th st. But, so far there have been no pre-construction buys of any of the lots even though they have been marketing them for a few months now.

1309 Ashland got pulled from HAR a while ago. But, that doesn't mean anything either way.

The 1000 Tulane houses are actually in fairly good condition, far better than a number of houses up the street that I have seen rehabbed successfully. The claims of real estate armaggedon as a result of the HD have now been completely put to rest. Development and property values in the HDs have now pushed well past where they were during the 2008 bubble and are moving up to Bellaire-esque levels.

[Marksmu]

Development and property values in the HDs have now pushed well past where they were during the 2008 bubble and are moving up to Bellaire-esque levels.

Touche...The first time on this forum you have been correct when referring to the Historic Districts. I had thought these lots were in the HD, but they are not....to be clear though you are correct only about the fact that these lots were not in a historic district. I do not want there to be any confusion as to the rest of your content.

As to the quoted portion above - just because you say so, does not make it so. The property values are climbing in spite of the Historic Districts, not because of them. If not for the Historic Districts, the Heights would likely have out appreciated even Memorial - but it did not b/c the development potential was curtailed. Look to the top appreciating areas of town and you will notice that a common denominator for all of them is that they are not restricted.

These properties likely took forever to sell b/c the original owner of them required one person to buy all of them...a builder has bought them now and is going to make good use of them. Ill be glad to see these shacks go!

[s3mh]

Touche...The first time on this forum you have been correct when referring to the Historic Districts. I had thought these lots were in the HD, but they are not....to be clear though you are correct only about the fact that these lots were not in a historic district. I do not want there to be any confusion as to the rest of your content.

As to the quoted portion above - just because you say so, does not make it so. The property values are climbing in spite of the Historic Districts, not because of them. If not for the Historic Districts, the Heights would likely have out appreciated even Memorial - but it did not b/c the development potential was curtailed. Look to the top appreciating areas of town and you will notice that a common denominator for all of them is that they are not restricted.

These properties likely took forever to sell b/c the original owner of them required one person to buy all of them...a builder has bought them now and is going to make good use of them. Ill be glad to see these shacks go!

When you even things out, the appreciation in Memorial compared to the HDs is fairly comparable. Memorial has a huge advantage in that it has K-12 public schools. Lots are generally much bigger, neighborhoods are deed restricted and all the streets are curbed and guttered. Outside of the few small neighborhoods of MCM houses that have recently been the target of builders and factor out the advantages, appreciation in the Memorial area has not been that much better than the Heights HDs. The fact of the matter is that people are buying, builders are building and renovating, and inventory is dwindling in the HDs. And there is absolutely no sign of things slowing down or of a bubble forming. There is solid demand and limited supply. People are buying and staying in the HDs.

[Ross]

The Heights has public schools from K-12.

[SilverJK]

but aren't the areas outside of the HD are outperforming inside the HD...

[s3mh]

The Heights has public schools from K-12.

Only two elementary schools in the Heights are comparable to Memorial elementary schools. The middle and high schools in the Heights are not comparable to Memorial. Magnets and vangaurd are increasingly becoming a risky bet as demand is surging. I know a lot of people who have left the Heights for Memorial and Spring Branch because of schools.

[s3mh]

but aren't the areas outside of the HD are outperforming inside the HD...

In general, no. It is a difficult comparison because the HDs have way less inventory of homes and lots that are ready for renovation or new construction than areas like Sunset Heights or the SW quadrant of the Heights (11th, Yale, shep, hike bike trail). Being outside the HDs does not mean housing boom. The huge lots on 24th and 25th in Sunset Heights have sat vacant for over a year. The demo-ed elementary school on 28th left a huge lot that has sat for months. Old run down rentals in the HDs take longer to sell than outside the HDs. But they do sell and get prices that are more than competitive with those outside the HDs. By and large, the benefits of the HDs have far outweighed the slight burdens.

[Marksmu]

but aren't the areas outside of the HD are outperforming inside the HD...

Yes, indeed they are. You only need look down Nicholson to see the proof of that....Nicholson south of 11th was previously a junk yard of decaying shacks...in the last 2 years nearly every single decaying shack has been demolished and new construction has replaced it. The farther south you go as you approach the industrial areas near I-10 townhomes are popping up like tallow trees. Even the townhomes are drastic improvements on the previous shacks that were nothing more than boxes with bars on their windows and rottweilers in their yards. Hopefully soon we can oust the churches and complete the improvement along Nicholson in that corridor.

Nicholson North of 11th is also nearing completely built out. The few shacks that remain are long time residents who have no intention of moving...Ive spoken to several while out walking the kids/dogs and they are approached frequently with offers well above their HCAD appraised values. They wont move until they have too they tell me.

Waverly North of 11th is exploding (Ashland is the cut-off for the HD) and Waverly South of 11th is almost completely built out....The closer you get to Shepherd the less built out it is b/c those streets dont all go through and several of them have commercial business and parking taking up portions of them and that won't ever go away...

Pretty much all of the desirable lots on Nicholson & Waverly have already been bought and built, or are owned by folks not interested in selling....80% of those were bought by builders within weeks of the ordinance passing. I have personally talked to 2 different builders very active in the area who are avoiding the HD areas unless a homeowner specifically asks for his help in those areas...they are not pursuing any business there as spec homes at all.

[fwki]

....I have personally talked to 2 different builders very active in the area who are avoiding the HD areas unless a homeowner specifically asks for his help in those areas...they are not pursuing any business there as spec homes at all.

I believe that was a primary goal of the HAHC, to eliminate these buyers from the HD. Unfortunately when you take away a large part of well-financed market demand, the market suffers under the law of supply and demand. And those guys can pay top dollar. Theoretically a niche market will develop of empty nesters who enjoy small, high maintenance homes, but in no way can that replace the deep pockets of developers or the masses of urban singles looking for starter homes but will be put-off by the capped upside and ever-present downside. Over time the price point gap inside and out will be significant and apparent, if it lasts long enough. But as I stated elsewhere, I cannot believe that will happen in Houston, Texas. Capital gains and property rights will rule once again, and if you time it right, buy low and sell high. That's how I see it playing out.

[SilverJK]

From what I've seen in Woodland Heights... run down bungalows in the district aren't selling as well as outside of the district. Nice livable bungalows (not completely redone but still nice) are selling faster outside of the district, and also are selling for more than they were a few years ago, in the district seems to be about the same or less than before. Completely remodeled/renovated are seemingly selling faster in the HD. This is all based off of my own observations, talking to realtors, looking at HAR, and shopping around for a bungalow in the 300-500k range. (if the right property comes about, i'm looking to upgrade to a 3/2).

[s3mh]

From what I've seen in Woodland Heights... run down bungalows in the district aren't selling as well as outside of the district. Nice livable bungalows (not completely redone but still nice) are selling faster outside of the district, and also are selling for more than they were a few years ago, in the district seems to be about the same or less than before. Completely remodeled/renovated are seemingly selling faster in the HD. This is all based off of my own observations, talking to realtors, looking at HAR, and shopping around for a bungalow in the 300-500k range. (if the right property comes about, i'm looking to upgrade to a 3/2).

http://search.har.com/engine/423-Omar-Houston-77009-6638_HAR33345804.htm

This one sold very soon after it was listed. I would have to assume that it sold for very close to the asking price given the timing. It will have to be completely redone and expanded for the buyer to make money on it, unless the buyer is not an investor. It is on an oversized lot, which accounts for the price. But, it sold fast and for a lot of money, even with the HD. I have seen similar sales in the Heights EHD in the sweet spot around Cortlandt/Harvard 14th-16th streets. In a way, outside of the districts, the old bungalows are bought up fast, but replaced with lower quality boxes with faux historic trim. Quick buck for the investor, but not much long term value for the block. The bungalows in the HDs can take longer to get bought, but are then turned into 800-900k houses that keep the character of the Heights. Outside the HDs, the quick flip houses are basically turning the area into a Rice Military-esque collection of odd styles of townhome-ish boxes. Long term, these houses will not have much potential for appreciation whereas the houses inside the HDs that retain the characteristics of the heights will.

[Marksmu]

http://search.har.co...HAR33345804.htm

This one sold very soon after it was listed. I would have to assume that it sold for very close to the asking price given the timing. It will have to be completely redone and expanded for the buyer to make money on it, unless the buyer is not an investor. It is on an oversized lot, which accounts for the price. But, it sold fast and for a lot of money, even with the HD. I have seen similar sales in the Heights EHD in the sweet spot around Cortlandt/Harvard 14th-16th streets. In a way, outside of the districts, the old bungalows are bought up fast, but replaced with lower quality boxes with faux historic trim. Quick buck for the investor, but not much long term value for the block. The bungalows in the HDs can take longer to get bought, but are then turned into 800-900k houses that keep the character of the Heights. Outside the HDs, the quick flip houses are basically turning the area into a Rice Military-esque collection of odd styles of townhome-ish boxes. Long term, these houses will not have much potential for appreciation whereas the houses inside the HDs that retain the characteristics of the heights will.

13 days is how long it took to pend...I can look up the sales price once it closes...It sure looks to me like someone WAY overpaid...I dont care that its an over sized lot, that property is not worth $400,000...its max value is $300,000....Someone with way more money than brains bought that....That same person obviously does not need a loan to do what they are planning either b/c there is no bank that is going to lend on a property that costs that much more than its worth....it will NEVER appraise for $400,000...It would be a stretch to get the lot to appraise for $260,000, and a bank is going to value that house below $40,000.

As to your opinion on the value of the new construction you are way off....nothing like a hideous Camel Back to keep the historic nature of the area(sarcasm just i case you missed that)....everything (except for a couple rows of townhomes) is high quality construction...I watched some of the Ansari homes being built, and the foundation framers on those properties were the absolute best I have seen yet...I even got their information b/c I was impressed with their attention to detail....There have been quite a few Sullivan homes built in that area as well and they use some of the absolute best construction techniques.

Im not a fan of the front facing garage homes or the townhomes, but even they are a vast improvement over a 800 sqft shack....however, those homes are the minority of the new construction...most new construction - exceeding 75% of the new construction (in area, not quantity) are nice custom builds - Whitestone, Ansari, Sullivan, etc....your characterization of these homes as being shoddy quick buck investor properties is ridiculous. Those homes will be there adding significant value to the area for 50+ years until the next new wave of construction/trends dictate they be replaced so we can all finally have the landing pads on our roof for the flying cars.

The historic districts may over 30+ years end up being worth more (I doubt it, but its possible) but if they do, it wont be b/c the investors were kept out, or the homes are nicer, or the construction is of higher quality...it will be b/c there will always be some idiot with more money than sense wants to brag that their house is better than your house because its old and in a historic district (which is exclusive!) and therefore special...The only reason anyone would pay more for less is ego and they want to feel superior to others. You exude this trait and I bet a night out with you would likely entail the mentioning of your "historic home" to everyone you encounter...

[TGM]

The historic districts may over 30+ years end up being worth more (I doubt it, but its possible) but if they do, it wont be b/c the investors were kept out, or the homes are nicer, or the construction is of higher quality...it will be b/c there will always be some idiot with more money than sense wants to brag that their house is better than your house because its old and in a historic district (which is exclusive!) and therefore special...The only reason anyone would pay more for less is ego and they want to feel superior to others. You exude this trait and I bet a night out with you would likely entail the mentioning of your "historic home" to everyone you encounter...

Historic Districts are how the self-labeled elite legaly discriminate.

So what is the demographic breakdown of the HD areas based on income and race?

I'm curious why the city does not require a land set-aside for low-income housing from those that seek Historic District designation? I'm sure we could find some nice row houses that would be historically accurate for those RUDE members with shall we say, "discriminating tastes".

[Angostura]

From what I've seen in Woodland Heights... run down bungalows in the district aren't selling as well as outside of the district. Nice livable bungalows (not completely redone but still nice) are selling faster outside of the district, and also are selling for more than they were a few years ago, in the district seems to be about the same or less than before. Completely remodeled/renovated are seemingly selling faster in the HD. This is all based off of my own observations, talking to realtors, looking at HAR, and shopping around for a bungalow in the 300-500k range. (if the right property comes about, i'm looking to upgrade to a 3/2).

This makes some intuitive sense.

Being in a Historic District repels certain buyers (spec builders, people who want to remodel w/o interference) and attracts others (preservationists and those concerned that what their neighbors build will adversely affect them). Whether there are more of the latter than the former is not knowable empirically, so it's difficult to say a priori whether overall property values will go up or down over time.

That said, given that being in the HD increases the costs of remodeling (costs in the broad sense, not just money costs), one would expect that the value added from remodeling would be higher inside the HD than outside of it.

[Marksmu]

That said, given that being in the HD increases the costs of remodeling (costs in the broad sense, not just money costs), one would expect that the value added from remodeling would be higher inside the HD than outside of it.

The only possible reason that there is more value to a remodel in the district than outside of it is because there are fewer people who want to deal with the annoyance of a panel of learned beings telling them what they can/cant do to their home....when fewer people are willing to do something - the fact that its already done inherently makes it more valuable as the the pain in the butt is no longer present....However the house itself is not more actually more valuable...its worth the same as the one on the other side of the alley that does not have to deal with the headaches.

Other than feeling good about oneself and touting to their friends that they live in a historic bungalow (its never a house) there is no real benefit to the historic areas. Half of them have already been 40% rebuilt with new homes...its really one of the dumbest ordinances I've seen.

[SilverJK]

Your going to have a situation where in the HD, houses are worth either 800k, or 200k., as where outside of the HD they will be from 300k to 1.5 mil. Some of these run down but still livable bungalows within the HDs are getting very low price point. I've been thinking about buying one just to use as a rental, with no intention of ever really doing anything to it, or at least until the HDs are disolved.

[Angostura]

The only possible reason that there is more value to a remodel in the district than outside of it is because there are fewer people who want to deal with the annoyance of a panel of learned beings telling them what they can/cant do to their home....when fewer people are willing to do something - the fact that its already done inherently makes it more valuable as the the pain in the butt is no longer present....However the house itself is not more actually more valuable...its worth the same as the one on the other side of the alley that does not have to deal with the headaches.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. You're paying for someone else to deal with the hassle/risk/delay/etc. Only quibble is that the house MAY indeed be more valuable in that is has a certain caché from being in the HD, the reno can be marketed as being HAHC-approved, and/or there may be a property tax benefit.

[s3mh]

The only reason anyone would pay more for less is ego and they want to feel superior to others. You exude this trait and I bet a night out with you would likely entail the mentioning of your "historic home" to everyone you encounter...

You do know that there is something called "aesthetics". Just because your aesthetics, or lack thereof, does not match with other people's does not mean that the other people's aesthetics are invalid and just a pretext for ego. People really do like old homes because of how they look and feel. Just look at all the people who line up twice a year for the Heights home tours (and Woodland Heights, when they do theirs). Just because you look at a Rothko and think "I could do that" or hear Steven Reich and think "it is just the same stuff over and over" doesn't mean that the people who appreciate that stuff are just doing so because it will give them social cache'.

[Umbrella]

Have you seen the list of homes on this year's Houston Heights Home Holiday Tour? They include a "traditional Louisiana cottage" and a "contemporary design with stained concrete floors [and] exposed ductwork." How would those fair in front of the HAHC? Personally I think these are great examples of the variety of the housing stock in the Heights. It's kind of like the people, we are all a little different. But please don't imply that the Home Holiday Tour is a demonstration of the wonders of the Historic Districts.

[Subdude]

Please note that any posts devoted to flaming other posters will be deleted. Keep it civil, or go find another board to vent.

[RedScare]

Let me rephrase. I don't think "aesthetics" was in any way involved in the decision to allow camelbacks, but not allow an ill-placed window or door to be moved. In fact, the HAHC specifically calls for new additions not to seamlessly match the original, due to some delusional belief that someday homeowners will destroy the $250 per square foot additions in order to return to the original footprint. No, HAHC and "aesthetics" should never be allowed to be used in the same sentence...except in a derogatory or sarcastic way, of course. Anyone who thinks HAHC is in any way interested in aesthetics is simply ignorant of reality, or perhaps an HAHC board member.

As for the Home Tour, new construction is routinely highlighted.

[Marksmu]

You do know that there is something called "aesthetics". Just because your aesthetics, or lack thereof, does not match with other people's does not mean that the other people's aesthetics are invalid and just a pretext for ego. People really do like old homes because of how they look and feel. Just look at all the people who line up twice a year for the Heights home tours (and Woodland Heights, when they do theirs). Just because you look at a Rothko and think "I could do that" or hear Steven Reich and think "it is just the same stuff over and over" doesn't mean that the people who appreciate that stuff are just doing so because it will give them social cache'.

The vast majority of what you consider aesthetically pleasing "bungalows" are nothing more than a 19XX Sears catalog build on your lot track home....They are the Pulte/David Weekly/Meritage/Trend Maker,etc homes of the 19XX's....

I do like the look of many of them, but I abhor the look of a camel back. It is possibly the most visibly displeasing style of "architecture" and I do use the word architecture lightly here, as it is just a box built onto the back of an old track home.

Some of the new construction lacks creativity, but there are quite a few builders like Sullivan, who go out of their way to build a beautiful house that fits the neighborhood, that also actually fits a modern day life style with nice kitchens, baths, family rooms, etc....

The VAST majority of the people moving into the heights driving up the property values want bigger houses... because they also want/have families. That may necessarily displace those like you who want to live in a shack....Is there a market for shacks? Yes - there are a good number of folks looking to feel good about themselves as well who want to downsize their life, get an electric car, and be environmentally conscientious....those buyers, though they exist, generally wont be able to afford the area for long..unless they keep the HAHC from driving up their property values...I predict that many of these new residents will start to move b/c after a few years the novelty of being green will meet the realization that the small houses have no storage, and their bike looks stupid in their kitchen.

[JJxvi]

If I wanted to live in an auithentic old house and restore it, I sure wouldn't buy one in the historic district. I would just buy one outside the district and restore it.

[barracuda]

The vast majority of what you consider aesthetically pleasing "bungalows" are nothing more than a 19XX Sears catalog build on your lot track home....They are the Pulte/David Weekly/Meritage/Trend Maker,etc homes of the 19XX's....

I do like the look of many of them, but I abhor the look of a camel back. It is possibly the most visibly displeasing style of "architecture" and I do use the word architecture lightly here, as it is just a box built onto the back of an old track home.

Some of the new construction lacks creativity, but there are quite a few builders like Sullivan, who go out of their way to build a beautiful house that fits the neighborhood, that also actually fits a modern day life style with nice kitchens, baths, family rooms, etc....

The VAST majority of the people moving into the heights driving up the property values want bigger houses... because they also want/have families. That may necessarily displace those like you who want to live in a shack....Is there a market for shacks? Yes - there are a good number of folks looking to feel good about themselves as well who want to downsize their life, get an electric car, and be environmentally conscientious....those buyers, though they exist, generally wont be able to afford the area for long..unless they keep the HAHC from driving up their property values...I predict that many of these new residents will start to move b/c after a few years the novelty of being green will meet the realization that the small houses have no storage, and their bike looks stupid in their kitchen.

My understanding from another thread is that most of the Heights area bungalows are not Sears catalog homes. Not that I care either way. There are some tear-down candidates sprinkled throughout the Heights, for sure, but I wouldn't presume to tell someone their home is a "shack". Perhaps if I were a disconnected elitist living in a River Oaks mansion I might feel otherwise.

Regarding HAHC driving up property values, I thought you argued that they would have the opposite effect in another thread?

[RedScare]

That is correct. Few Heights homes are actual Sears homes. The overwhelming majority were built as tract homes.

[s3mh]

The vast majority of what you consider aesthetically pleasing "bungalows" are nothing more than a 19XX Sears catalog build on your lot track home....They are the Pulte/David Weekly/Meritage/Trend Maker,etc homes of the 19XX's....

I do like the look of many of them, but I abhor the look of a camel back. It is possibly the most visibly displeasing style of "architecture" and I do use the word architecture lightly here, as it is just a box built onto the back of an old track home.

Some of the new construction lacks creativity, but there are quite a few builders like Sullivan, who go out of their way to build a beautiful house that fits the neighborhood, that also actually fits a modern day life style with nice kitchens, baths, family rooms, etc....

The VAST majority of the people moving into the heights driving up the property values want bigger houses... because they also want/have families. That may necessarily displace those like you who want to live in a shack....Is there a market for shacks? Yes - there are a good number of folks looking to feel good about themselves as well who want to downsize their life, get an electric car, and be environmentally conscientious....those buyers, though they exist, generally wont be able to afford the area for long..unless they keep the HAHC from driving up their property values...I predict that many of these new residents will start to move b/c after a few years the novelty of being green will meet the realization that the small houses have no storage, and their bike looks stupid in their kitchen.

Most single family residences in the early 1900s were catalog ordered homes. That was just the way it was done back then. You bought a lot, picked out a home you liked from a catalog and then hired local tradesmen to build it or did it yourself. The catalogs were not an indication of a lack of quality in construction or design. The catalog designs came from very well known archtiects and were very innovative in their use of elements of the arts and crafts design movement. People in the Heights did not just come along and arbitrarily deem that these designs have merit. The arts and crafts bungalows have a huge following across the country and are admired and respected by architects. Just because you do not get it doesn't mean that there is nothing of merit there.

The rest of your post about the inferiority of bungalows just ignores reality. Bugnalows are upgraded and expanded to have all the bells and whistles of new construction. I do not like camel backs, but an expansion with a second story addition placed far enough back so that the original bungalow elevation is not disturbed at street level actually works quite well. But this is just a good argument for a more restrictive historic district, which you cannot make as you are against the districts completely.

I have met people who have moved out of a bungalow for more square footage. But that is not a bungalow problem as much as it is a lending issue. Most people I have met hate having to move out of the Heights and would stay if they could add on to their house. But, after the market crash, it is very difficult to get construction financing to do an addition without either having a ton of equity or a pretty good pile of cash to bring to the table. The result is that people move out only to have a builder buy the property and expand it to have enough square footage for a family. I did a 15 year mtg so that when I am ready to do an addition, I will be more than 50% equity to work with. unfortunately, most people go with a 30 year and are still paying piles of interest when the second child comes along and have no options.

[s3mh]

That is correct. Few Heights homes are actual Sears homes. The overwhelming majority were built as tract homes.

In the original Heights, there are a fair number of Sears homes. I have seen the numbers on the wood in some friends' attics. Other homes were not built as tract homes. People wrongly get this idea because most of the HCAD listings for people's homes in the Heights shows their property as being built in 1920. But, that is just an arbitrary designation made after annexation because the City did not want to have through all the records from the Heights to determine whether a house was built in 1918 or 1917 or 1916 and so on. But, the original Heights homes were definitely not tract homes. From block to block you can see very different designs both inside and out. It was typically the case that the developer would sell a lot to the homeowner who would then order the home from a catalog and hire locals to build it. There were no real "builders" back then who would build a few dozen homes and then try to find buyers. And the true "tract homes" (i.e. nearly identical homes built by the same tradesman for efficiency) did not come into existence until the post-war Levittwon type developments.

[heights]

In the original Heights, there are a fair number of Sears homes. I have seen the numbers on the wood in some friends' attics. Other homes were not built as tract homes. People wrongly get this idea because most of the HCAD listings for people's homes in the Heights shows their property as being built in 1920. But, that is just an arbitrary designation made after annexation because the City did not want to have through all the records from the Heights to determine whether a house was built in 1918 or 1917 or 1916 and so on. But, the original Heights homes were definitely not tract homes. From block to block you can see very different designs both inside and out. It was typically the case that the developer would sell a lot to the homeowner who would then order the home from a catalog and hire locals to build it. There were no real "builders" back then who would build a few dozen homes and then try to find buyers. And the true "tract homes" (i.e. nearly identical homes built by the same tradesman for efficiency) did not come into existence until the post-war Levittwon type developments.

Wow, you have an answer for everything. It's amazing how much knowledge one person can have. I'm glad to know that not only have you lived in the Heights longer than anyone else on this board, but you were actually here when the Heights was founded.