Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Actually it is a blatant effort at intimidation and harassment.  I have seen you do it to others.  There is no substance to your childish nitpicking other that to discourage people who do not share yo

The street view matters in the case of bungalows with front porches facing the street. However, 515 Ridge street is walled off from Ridge street like a fortress. As such, I doubt the view at ground le

If by crappiness of the location you mean great location with a few drawbacks... ok.   White Oak on the east side of Watson most definitely has a premium (the west side does as well... but the east

Posted Images

although not my style... this is clearly an interesting building obviously built beyond the normal scale for the hood, couple that with being on a 13k+ sq. ft corner lot and the price doesn't look that rediculous. I'd assume this house will not go for less than 1.5 mil, but what do I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first time I saw that house, I thought it had to be an art gallery or the residence of an artist who used part of the house as a gallery. I am sure all the cathedral references in the architecture lead others to think that it is a church of some sort. I wonder whether people walk up to the property to see whether it is something other than a private residence.

It looks like the land was purchased over ten years ago. I would doubt they spent more than 300k on the land back then, maybe less. While there are plenty of fancy custom elements and architecture, I doubt it took more than 700k to build the house and do the garndens. It is not like they had stone masons working for a year on ornate trim and gargoyles. I suspect that they have a fair amount of room to knock the price down if they need to.

As dynamic and compelling as the exterior is, the interior is pretty disappointing. I know they are trying to have a consistency throughout the house as to the wood built in elements, the floors and the walls. But, the interior just feels like some outrageously expensive hotel suite in Vegas or Dubai where celebrities or Saudi princes stay. But, the mobile is brilliant. I wish other elements of the interior had some more color and variation.

It is hard to say what will happen with a property like this. I have seen some contemporary homes get snatched up and others sit on the market for ages. The biggest problem is that anyone with the cash to put 1.6 mil up for a 3 bedroom house will also have the cash to build their own testament to all things modern.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this house not have a garage though?

s3mh, you mention that this looks like something in vegas or dubai where celebrities or saudi princes would stay... perhaps that is the type of person they are targeting.

Just the interior design. It is certainly full of lots of luxury, but does not match the ambition and creativity of the exterior.

I think it is safe to assume that the owner had this custom built and was not something that was done by a developer/builder to sell on the open market. Why be so daring with the exterior and be so minimal with the interior?

Or, to put it another way without the hotel reference, I have never seen a house like this one as far as the exterior goes. Church steeple, set of four glass doors to the living room, cathedral-esque roof against very square and linear front porch and garden. But, I have seen the interior design elements a dozen times. Not that the interior is cliche. I just would think that if you are willing to go that far with design for the exterior of the home, you would do something equally as compelling with the interior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hr3055385-22.jpg

So does purchase include transferable membership into the pagan religion complete with rooftop virgin sacrifice privileges?

If not, I'm walking...no sacrifices to Zuul, no deal.

Edited by TGM
Link to post
Share on other sites

s3mh has only been here a few years, they don't realize what the neighborhood was like 8-10 years ago, nor historically.

I looked at property in the Heights in early 2000. Builders and renovators were becoming very active back then and lot values were quickly rising. I remember looking at bungalows on full size lots for $200-250k back then. This property is a double lot. It is not an unreasonable guess that a full size lot would have been worth $150k and a double lot $300k back in early 2000. The Heights had come a long way by early 2000. And I did say "or less". Maybe the property was priced below market because the park next door was full of gangs. But, if the park was that bad, why would someone build a million dollar ultra modern mansion on that lot?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at property in the Heights in early 2000. Builders and renovators were becoming very active back then and lot values were quickly rising. I remember looking at bungalows on full size lots for $200-250k back then. This property is a double lot. It is not an unreasonable guess that a full size lot would have been worth $150k and a double lot $300k back in early 2000. The Heights had come a long way by early 2000. And I did say "or less". Maybe the property was priced below market because the park next door was full of gangs. But, if the park was that bad, why would someone build a million dollar ultra modern mansion on that lot?

As far as you looking at houses in the heights in 2000, I simply don't believe you.

There were still lots of updated nice bungalows on full size lots for 200-250k up until about 3-4 years ago (I bought one). In 2004 they were selling for 150-200. (those are the people that are really making out like bandits when they sell)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe him either. I bought in the Heights in 2004, and I paid well under $200k for a lot with a house. In 2000, houses were often below $150k. To say 200-250 for a lot...or even a house...was common in 2000 is simply a lie.

I said $150k for a full sized lot, 200-250 for a lot with a house. 2x150=300. My first post stated that $300k would have been the max that the land would have sold for back in early 2000.

I was in the market for a house in 2002-03 and was watching the Heights for two years before that. i looked in Sugar Land and Katy at McMansions too. I recall vividly seeing McMansions for @$150-200k while bungalows in the Heights were selling for $200-250. I remember sitting with the Chron on Sunday mornings playing "guess the price" for a bungalow with my wife. It always ended with shock that the little tiny houses had asking prices of $200k plus when the McMansions in the burbs were so much less. Were there homes that sold for under $200k? Of course. But they tended to be pretty junky, in need of a lot of work or on a creepy street.. If there were houses that were move in ready for $150k and below in early 2000, I would have bought one. But, everything bungalow I saw was in the $200-250 range, which was too much for me to spend at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I "vividly" recall move-in ready bungalows in the Heights for $150,000 to $200,000 TWO FULL YEARS after you claim to have seen them for 200-250. And, these were not junky houses on creepy. I "vividly" recall BUYING a house in 2004 that is bigger than your house on a better street, on a bigger lot. Of course, knowing what you paid for the house you are in, it is entirely possible that you just aren't very good at this home buying thing. There were plenty of 2/1 bungalows in the Heights for $130,000 to $175,00 in 2000. I almost bought a 1300 sf house for $135,000 in 2000. My good friend did buy one around the same time for $130,000. They were all over the place. In fact, the reason we did not buy the lot at 2200 Harvard for $175,000 back then is that we thought they were asking too much.

The more you talk, the more obvious it becomes that you are making things up. I know. I was actually here and buying, while you were reading the Sunday paper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, even in 2006 there were a lot of bungalows in good shape selling for 200k. I know this because that was just slightly out of my budget at the time. (Just started my first job out of college). As my budget increased, the prices of the house did as well. I lived in the "eek" new construction apartments on Oxford (are they Camden now?) for a little over a year while I searched for houses in the neighborhood. I'll also say this... traveling the neighborhood on a longboard is one of the best ways to get to know the area. I grab a lot of flyers for houses for sale, obviously follow them on HAR, and have a very good measure of the pulse of the neighborhood's real estate through skating around. I have only been doing this since 2008 though, all research I did prior was miniscule in comparison. I would imagine someone like Red would have a similar knowledge of neighborhood during 2004 since he was actually here. I'm guessing that if you did look at any houses in 2000 (which I still don't think you did), it was merely a cursory "Hey look at this quaint bungalow" in the paper vs. actually looking for houses. I did the same thing in the early 2000s, but I was still in school so I obviously didn't go into the depth of what I did later.

The house in this topic however, I have skated by countless times, and I have never seen/heard anyone enjoying the pool or outdoor space. I also have rarely even seen cars in the carport area. I've always been intrigued and hoped to catch it on a home tour or something. Maybe the new owners will take the interior to that next level.

Edited by SilverJK
Link to post
Share on other sites

He's there most of the time. I see him lots of times taking out his trash for pickup and he occasionally has parties. I believe he is a surgeon. The pool is pretty much just decoration. He hosted a fundraiser for Ellen Cohen last fall. [bTW, she's essentially useless as far as I can tell. She must spend all her time in West U.]

His home is a signature feature of my block. It's controversial with some of us really liking it, and others despising it. I'm in the first category.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the interior look and finishes completely match the exterior. Contemporary-modern/contemporary modern.

I am not saying that the style doesn't match. It obviously does. I am saying that within contemporary-modern, the exterior is very innovative and daring and the interior is, by comparison, far, far less so. Again, setting aside the issue of doing a design like this in the Heights, I think the exterior design is pretty amazing. I have never seen someone do a deconstructed cathedral/victorian design like that. Most of the contemporary residential stuff I have seen built the past decade has gone out of its way not to be derrivative. But, I have seen the same sort of contemporary interior design many times over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, even in 2006 there were a lot of bungalows in good shape selling for 200k. I know this because that was just slightly out of my budget at the time. (Just started my first job out of college). As my budget increased, the prices of the house did as well. I lived in the "eek" new construction apartments on Oxford (are they Camden now?) for a little over a year while I searched for houses in the neighborhood. I'll also say this... traveling the neighborhood on a longboard is one of the best ways to get to know the area. I grab a lot of flyers for houses for sale, obviously follow them on HAR, and have a very good measure of the pulse of the neighborhood's real estate through skating around. I have only been doing this since 2008 though, all research I did prior was miniscule in comparison. I would imagine someone like Red would have a similar knowledge of neighborhood during 2004 since he was actually here. I'm guessing that if you did look at any houses in 2000 (which I still don't think you did), it was merely a cursory "Hey look at this quaint bungalow" in the paper vs. actually looking for houses. I did the same thing in the early 2000s, but I was still in school so I obviously didn't go into the depth of what I did later.

The house in this topic however, I have skated by countless times, and I have never seen/heard anyone enjoying the pool or outdoor space. I also have rarely even seen cars in the carport area. I've always been intrigued and hoped to catch it on a home tour or something. Maybe the new owners will take the interior to that next level.

I bought a house in 2007 for $189,000 on a 6600sqft lot that though it was not what I consider move in ready, was not in terrible shape..It was inhabited when I bought it..Neighbors all thought I was a developer....$23,000 later it has been a fantastic rental....till the historic ordinance...its still a good rental, but my real investment (the land) was irreparably harmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's definitely not a house for everyone, nor even everyone with a spare $1.6M. I think it's beautiful and it's certainly unique, but that's a pretty public corner with the park right there and the back of the school about a block away and the house kinda screams "look at me". I couldn't live there because I'd be feeling like strangers were gawping, trying to see in my windows all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a house in 2007 for $189,000 on a 6600sqft lot that though it was not what I consider move in ready, was not in terrible shape..It was inhabited when I bought it..Neighbors all thought I was a developer....$23,000 later it has been a fantastic rental....till the historic ordinance...its still a good rental, but my real investment (the land) was irreparably harmed.

Do you charge less rent now?

Everywhere I look rents are up. Garage apartments are over $1000/mo almost everywhere in the heights is over $1/sqft/mo (which is high to me).

Hard to believe the value of your property goes down and rents stay high \ same?

If so, please let me know where these places are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you charge less rent now?

Everywhere I look rents are up. Garage apartments are over $1000/mo almost everywhere in the heights is over $1/sqft/mo (which is high to me).

Hard to believe the value of your property goes down and rents stay high \ same?

If so, please let me know where these places are.

Not that unusual, at least in Houston. Here is my example based on my rental near Hwy6 and Westhiemer.

2008 HCAD appraisal ~99K, Rent 950.00

2012 HCAD appraisal ~59K. Rent 1,100.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that unusual, at least in Houston. Here is my example based on my rental near Hwy6 and Westhiemer.

2008 HCAD appraisal ~99K, Rent 950.00

2012 HCAD appraisal ~59K. Rent 1,100.00

Looks like a steal then. A ~9 yr pay out to 4.

I have only looked in the heights and specifically in historic districts, hard to find anything that has gone down the 40% you mentioned above.

A quick look on Har shows there are quite a few houses in your area with those metrics. Sounds like a good deal, I am just not familiar with that area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 6 months later...
  • 2 months later...

I guess some one-of-a-kind architecture sells faster than others.  The converted grocery store at 9th and Rutland sold on the first weekend for about the same price per s.f.

 

The buyer of this property will need to fit into all of the following categories:

 

- people who want this kind of architecture

 

- people who want to live in (this part of) the Heights (as opposed to Montrose, Museum District, etc.)

 

- people who have $1.3M to spend on a house

 

 

Two out of three seems plausible; all three is apparently pretty rare.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess some one-of-a-kind architecture sells faster than others.  The converted grocery store at 9th and Rutland sold on the first weekend for about the same price per s.f.

 

The buyer of this property will need to fit into all of the following categories:

 

- people who want this kind of architecture

 

- people who want to live in (this part of) the Heights (as opposed to Montrose, Museum District, etc.)

 

- people who have $1.3M to spend on a house

 

 

Two out of three seems plausible; all three is apparently pretty rare.

 

There are way more people out their with @500k to spend than with over 1 mil.  That is primarily the reason the converted grocery store sold so fast (I have heard that it went on the market with an offer already pending).  Also, if you can spend 1.3 mil on a house, you can afford to build your own one of a kind modern thingy.  It will be interesting to compare the Harvard house with this one in Woodland Heights:  http://search.har.com/engine/515-Ridge-St-Houston-TX-77009_HAR31762194.htm.  The latter is more conforming to the current trend of modern design, while the former is truly unique. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are way more people out their with @500k to spend than with over 1 mil.  That is primarily the reason the converted grocery store sold so fast (I have heard that it went on the market with an offer already pending).  Also, if you can spend 1.3 mil on a house, you can afford to build your own one of a kind modern thingy.  It will be interesting to compare the Harvard house with this one in Woodland Heights:  http://search.har.com/engine/515-Ridge-St-Houston-TX-77009_HAR31762194.htm.  The latter is more conforming to the current trend of modern design, while the former is truly unique. 

 

 

More house, albeit less lot.  More (i.e. some) privacy, and more open-feeling spaces inside. An elevator, closer to downtown, zoned to Travis. Plus a skyline view.  If the Harvard house sells for within $300k of this one, they've done well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More house, albeit less lot.  More (i.e. some) privacy, and more open-feeling spaces inside. An elevator, closer to downtown, zoned to Travis. Plus a skyline view.  If the Harvard house sells for within $300k of this one, they've done well.

 

Schools don't matter when you are in the 1 mil+ range.  If you are buying a house for that much and need public schools for the kids, you shouldn't be spending that much on a house.

 

The view from Ridge is mostly the wall of the condo complex across the street.  The skyline view is offset by the constant din of I-10 traffic.  Closer to downtown, but further from the heart of the Heights and all the shops and restaurants.  Next door neighbor is an old multifamily complex that could end up being a midrise Morrison Heights-esque development.  And who knows if some big money developer would endeavor to buy up the townhomes across the street someday.  By contrast, the neighborhood around the Harvard house is solidly single family.  I think Ridge will sell for a bit more just because the design puts more of a priority on function and isn't so far out of the current fashion for moderns as Harvard.  But it will be fun to watch and see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, s3mh attempts to sound like he knows what he is talking about...and fails spectacularly.

 

I give you "the wall of the condo complex across the street"...

 

 

hr3215825-24.jpg

 

 

hr3215825-14.jpg

 

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.  I said: "The view from Ridge is mostly the wall of the condo complex across the street."  Most people understand that Ridge is a street, and not the third or fourth floor of a house.  The view from street level matters for most people as they want to see nice houses across the street from them when the go out for a walk or sit outside.  A city view is nice, but it is at the expense of looking in on a very dull and a bit shabby condo complex.  The view from Ridge, the street, is exactly what I said it is.  I never said there was no city view.  But, it is never what I actually say that is the subject of your posts.  It is what you need for me to say but did not say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.  I said: "The view from Ridge is mostly the wall of the condo complex across the street."  Most people understand that Ridge is a street, and not the third or fourth floor of a house.  The view from street level matters for most people as they want to see nice houses across the street from them when the go out for a walk or sit outside.  A city view is nice, but it is at the expense of looking in on a very dull and a bit shabby condo complex.  The view from Ridge, the street, is exactly what I said it is.  I never said there was no city view.  But, it is never what I actually say that is the subject of your posts.  It is what you need for me to say but did not say.

The street view matters in the case of bungalows with front porches facing the street. However, 515 Ridge street is walled off from Ridge street like a fortress. As such, I doubt the view at ground level makes much difference for those interested in this house. 

 

 

515Ridge_zpse7140aaf.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your attempt at redeeming yourself is a more spectacular fail than your initial statement. But, I like it! :)

I would not expect you to understand my comments as your goal on this message board is not to engage in an adult conversation but to have a childish battle with those who disagree with you. It is actually more and more a very sad thing to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...