Save The Bungalows

[TheNiche]

That's a simple one: choose not to live where you think people want to limit individual's property rights. Sheila never advocated that so your attempt at demonizing her has failed. She is about saving bungalows-not about restricting your right to build and live in some behomith you choose to plop down on a 6000 sq/ft lot in the Heights or elsewhere. For those that choose to do that; this thread is not for you.

Odd. It sure sounded to me like her organization is pressing the city council to implement an ordinance that would make it more difficult for neighborhoods to transition along with consumers' tastes.

[wendyps]

Odd. It sure sounded to me like her organization is pressing the city council to implement an ordinance that would make it more difficult for neighborhoods to transition along with consumers' tastes.

okay, lets say that consumer A is driving around woodland heights and says "hey, what a neat area, I want to live here" so, he buys a lot and decides that the 86 year old bungalow is too small for him. He decides to tear it down and build a home like he saw out in Fall Creek, (but he didn't want to live there because all the houses looked the same). So, he squishes up real close to his neighboors, but it doesn't matter because their two little bungalows have lots of lawn around them.

consumer B also drives around and says "hey, what a cute area" and she buys a lot. The 72 year old home is in quite a state of disrepair and really must go. That makes her think about putting 3 townhomes instead of a single home, because so much land is going to wast with lawn...who wants a lawn in the city??? So she builds 3 beautiful 3 story townhomes...some trees had to go, but it is the woodland heights, one lot wont matter much, besides, they were her trees, no one else should care.

consumer C drives through and says "interesting area, lots of old and new stuff all together". Buys a 92 year old bungalow that the prior owner renovated and lives happily.

consumer D, E, F buy lots, tear down, build new, need square feet! don't want lawn!

consumer G drives through and says "weird area, all these big new homes with a couple of little homes squatting in between...how strange, lets keep going, I'd like to find a home thats been around a while. something historical. something with a lawn and some trees. besides, these new homes are falling apart, and there are so many going up, you would never be able to resell"

consumers' tastes change Niche. Once you tear down the bungalow, you cannot rebuild it. Look at the area between Studemont and Shepherd, below washington and you will see what I mean. New builds and big builds are great, but you you have to bulldoze the existing neighborhood?

[sevfiv]

consumer G drives through and says "weird area, all these big new homes with a couple of little homes squatting in between...how strange, lets keep going, I'd like to find a home thats been around a while. something historical. something with a lawn and some trees. besides, these new homes are falling apart, and there are so many going up, you would never be able to resell"

New builds and big builds are great, but you you have to bulldoze the existing neighborhood?

exactly - and much like the plight of sixth ward...

there are plenty of other places to build new, obstrusive, cheap pieces of krap

[RedScare]

exactly - and much like the plight of sixth ward...

there are plenty of other places to build new, obstrusive, cheap pieces of krap

I agree. However, my gripe is that the "solution" put forth by the Heights Association and this group promotes exactly those big, obtrusive pieces of krap, by not allowing the subdivision of expensive lots.

When all is said and done, I don't think it is my right to tell a land owner what to do with his lot. But, these groups should be more honest about what their "solutions" are accomplishing.

[TheNiche]

okay, lets say that consumer A is driving around woodland heights and says "hey, what a neat area, I want to live here" so, he buys a lot and decides that the 86 year old bungalow is too small for him. He decides to tear it down and build a home like he saw out in Fall Creek, (but he didn't want to live there because all the houses looked the same). So, he squishes up real close to his neighboors, but it doesn't matter because their two little bungalows have lots of lawn around them.

consumer B also drives around and says "hey, what a cute area" and she buys a lot. The 72 year old home is in quite a state of disrepair and really must go. That makes her think about putting 3 townhomes instead of a single home, because so much land is going to wast with lawn...who wants a lawn in the city??? So she builds 3 beautiful 3 story townhomes...some trees had to go, but it is the woodland heights, one lot wont matter much, besides, they were her trees, no one else should care.

consumer C drives through and says "interesting area, lots of old and new stuff all together". Buys a 92 year old bungalow that the prior owner renovated and lives happily.

consumer D, E, F buy lots, tear down, build new, need square feet! don't want lawn!

consumer G drives through and says "weird area, all these big new homes with a couple of little homes squatting in between...how strange, lets keep going, I'd like to find a home thats been around a while. something historical. something with a lawn and some trees. besides, these new homes are falling apart, and there are so many going up, you would never be able to resell"

consumers' tastes change Niche. Once you tear down the bungalow, you cannot rebuild it. Look at the area between Studemont and Shepherd, below washington and you will see what I mean. New builds and big builds are great, but you you have to bulldoze the existing neighborhood?

First of all, you certainly can rebuild bungalows. In fact, there are a few small suburban communities of bungalow-style single-family homes...and they're all locked into street patterns shaped like dead worms so that land use will never change and you won't get as many passers-through that remark on how cute and redevelopable a neighborhood is...and if they try something, there's a HOA in place to put a stop to it. Its the perfect environment for those who prefer a static environment with relatively little risk. I'd personally consider it boring, but that doesn't mean that the subdivision hasn't got a reason to be.

As I read it, your point seems to be that you can't allow consumers to choose for themselves because that'd just result in a boring neighborhood of homes valued at higher prices than those that were replaced. Value was created, as clearly supported by demand from the market, but those values are irrelevant...because Consumer G, who isn't even a stakeholder in the community at the moment, has a difference of opinion.

But we can't have a difference of opinion, now can we? Conflict is bad. For that reason, we should enforce regulations that inhibit a property owner's rights in order to protect people's aesthetic preferences. Sacrifice the individual for the collective.

I think not.

[wendyps]

First of all, you certainly can rebuild bungalows.

In fact, there are a few small suburban communities of bungalow-style single-family homes...and they're all locked into street patterns shaped like dead worms so that land use will never change and you won't get as many passers-through that remark on how cute and redevelopable a neighborhood is...and if they try something, there's a HOA in place to put a stop to it. Its the perfect environment for those who prefer a static environment with relatively little risk. I'd personally consider it boring, but that doesn't mean that the subdivision hasn't got a reason to be.

As I read it, your point seems to be that you can't allow consumers to choose for themselves because that'd just result in a boring neighborhood of homes valued at higher prices than those that were replaced. Value was created, as clearly supported by demand from the market, but those values are irrelevant...because Consumer G, who isn't even a stakeholder in the community at the moment, has a difference of opinion.

But we can't have a difference of opinion, now can we? Conflict is bad. For that reason, we should enforce regulations that inhibit a property owner's rights in order to protect people's aesthetic preferences. Sacrifice the individual for the collective.

I think not.

sacrifice the individual for the collective???? yeah, you are right. that is a BAD idea. how horrible of an entire neighborhood to want to keep an almost 100 year old neighborhood and its architectural history. Forbid them from wanting to stop a single inidividual (are we calling massive real estate development companies individuals now?) from coming into our streets and changing the feel of our neighborhood.

and no, that wasn't my point...I actually think this kind of activity will DEcrease the value of homes in an area over time. These bungaloes have already stood the test of time and trends. All these new builds we are seeing are already falling apart and no one is willing to buy a "used" home. NEW NEW NEW. and yes, you are correct, you can build a new bungalow...but it wont be 80 years old with a history behind it.

face it, These areas are desired because of the feel garnered from the quaint bungalows and "large" (for a city) lot sizes. Am I in favor of property owners rights? YES!!! but for the life of me, I don't understand why people wanting a certain thing don't buy in an area that has that certain thing. be it an empty lot, or modern townhomes, or huge mcmansions.

I not only bought my house, but I bought into my neighborhood too.

[nmainguy]

sacrifice the individual for the collective???? yeah, you are right. that is a BAD idea. how horrible of an entire neighborhood to want to keep an almost 100 year old neighborhood and its architectural history. Forbid them from wanting to stop a single inidividual (are we calling massive real estate development companies individuals now?) from coming into our streets and changing the feel of our neighborhood.

and no, that wasn't my point...I actually think this kind of activity will DEcrease the value of homes in an area over time. These bungaloes have already stood the test of time and trends. All these new builds we are seeing are already falling apart and no one is willing to buy a "used" home. NEW NEW NEW. and yes, you are correct, you can build a new bungalow...but it wont be 80 years old with a history behind it.

face it, These areas are desired because of the feel garnered from the quaint bungalows and "large" (for a city) lot sizes. Am I in favor of property owners rights? YES!!! but for the life of me, I don't understand why people wanting a certain thing don't buy in an area that has that certain thing. be it an empty lot, or modern townhomes, or huge mcmansions.

I not only bought my house, but I bought into my neighborhood too.

wendy,

My take on this is pretty much in line with yours. If people like niche are so concerned with having their rights stomped on, there is no lack of mediocre, white-bread communities that can serve him or her. I choose to retain my right to lobby for restrictions to retain the character of my neighborhood. I have no problem with prevailing lot sizes-that is reverting to 3000 sq/ft lot sizes from the prevailing 6000 sq/ft lot sizes. I do support prevailing lot lines. I don't want to see homes built out to within 10-25 ft of the curb.

I like open streets with sidewalks, trees and open air.

[TheNiche]

sacrifice the individual for the collective???? yeah, you are right. that is a BAD idea. how horrible of an entire neighborhood to want to keep an almost 100 year old neighborhood and its architectural history.

You speak of the entire neighborhood...so who lives in the new three story townhome? Are they not your living breathing neighbor, a resident of the neighborhood? Do they not have an opinion? Might it be as valid as your own...or do you consider yourself to be their superior, worthy of dictating what your new neighbor can and cannot do?

Forbid them from wanting to stop a single inidividual (are we calling massive real estate development companies individuals now?) from coming into our streets and changing the feel of our neighborhood.

Companies are more than faceless machines. They are led by individuals who buy a property and retain the right to use it as they see fit. The goal of a development company is to increase the value of the property so as to meet the demands of the consumer; that is how they make money. If you prevent the development company from doing the consumer's bidding, then you have indirectly deprived the consumer of their choice to live in the structure that they like in the location that they like.

I actually think this kind of activity will DEcrease the value of homes in an area over time. These bungaloes have already stood the test of time and trends. All these new builds we are seeing are already falling apart and no one is willing to buy a "used" home. NEW NEW NEW. and yes, you are correct, you can build a new bungalow...but it wont be 80 years old with a history behind it.

The bungalow was new at one time. Many of them fell into disrepair over the course of their lifetimes...some did not stand the test of time. Whole neighborhoods of bungalows have been blighted for decades at a time. The new construction of today will do the same, going out of style and then coming back in once enough are demolished to make them a rare and unique item.

X number of years of history is entirely intangible. Can you experience it again? Especially if you weren't there while the 'history' was taking place? What is it to you that these have been around for 80 years or 80 days?

I don't understand why people wanting a certain thing don't buy in an area that has that certain thing. be it an empty lot, or modern townhomes, or huge mcmansions.

Then why don't you ask your new neighbors? Might it have been that they wanted the qualities of new construction but were priced out of West U, Bellaire, Montrose, Midtown, etc.? Might it be that they still desire to be inner loopies rather than live in some far-flung locale? If you don't understand, then ask questions.

I not only bought my house, but I bought into my neighborhood too.

Then you bought into the wrong neighborhood. It sounds like you really should have done your research and concluded that the area did not have the proper safeguards to prevent these things that you dislike. Perhaps you'd be happier in a subdivision with deed restrictions and a powerful HOA.

wendy,

My take on this is pretty much in line with yours. If people like niche are so concerned with having their rights stomped on, there is no lack of mediocre, white-bread communities that can serve him or her. I choose to retain my right to lobby for restrictions to retain the character of my neighborhood. I have no problem with prevailing lot sizes-that is reverting to 3000 sq/ft lot sizes from the prevailing 6000 sq/ft lot sizes. I do support prevailing lot lines. I don't want to see homes built out to within 10-25 ft of the curb.

I like open streets with sidewalks, trees and open air.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Benjamin Franklin

[bachanon]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

somebody copied my signature.

[nmainguy]

somebody copied my signature.

...and mine as well. Too bad they have denigrated the spirit of Franklin's wisdom.

[RedScare]

I agree and disagree with Niche at the same time. Corporations are not people, no matter who may own them. That being said, in spite of my superior appreciation of architecture and history, bestowed upon me by having been fortunate enough to buy a 1920 bungalow, I am not entitled to tell my neighbor what to do with his property, nor may he tell me what to do with mine.

I bought in this neighborhood because I like the old homes, but ALSO because there are no suburban jerks trying to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property. Part of freedom and liberty is accepting the freedom and liberty of your neighbor. I am forced to live with the fact that too many of my neighbors willingly give up the liberties that were handed down to them by our forebears. I will not vote, advocate, or otherwise give away what few liberties I have left in this brainwashed country, even if that means a McMansion is built across the street...which it already has.

I apologize if this post sounds political. But, I have to say, trying to save old houses by giving away our property rights sounds little different than giving away our Constitutional rights because the government said it will make me safer. Both sound suspiciously like someone telling me how to live my life...and I don't trust the HOAs any more than I do the government.

[bachanon]

redscare, the free market guy.

i think that if a community (say, a few blocks of homes) wants to establish restrictions on lot sizes, set backs, square footage, architectural style, then more power to them. you don't have to buy in that community. however, unless the work is done to establish such restrictions, it's kinda silly to complain if you've bought into a community with no limitations on redevelopment. if you are a bungalow home owner inside the loop and you haven't figured out that gentrification has been occurring for the last 6 years or so, you need to get organized in your specific neighborhood, or buy somewhere with stricter restrictions. i do not think that city wide ordinances are necessary, nor do i think poo-pooing people who like and develop the big ugly townhomes is productive.

neighborhood specific HOAs or historic districts with strict standards are the way to go. leave the rest to the free market.

[dbigtex56]

NEW NEW NEW. and yes, you are correct, you can build a new bungalow...but it wont be 80 years old with a history behind it.

----------------

I not only bought my house, but I bought into my neighborhood too.

Exactly. Not only the history of the bungalow is irreplaceable, but the materials and workmanship often are, too. We can no longer go to a lumberyard and expect to find the sort of first-growth timber which resists insects and rot, and has an unmatched beauty - to those able to appreciate it.

Also, that which makes older neighborhoods desirable isn't confined only to the facade of a structure. It includes signage (such as the blue & white ceramic tiles which spell out street names in older Houston neighborhoods, or the concrete posts with street names spelled out vertically), drainage ditches instead of storm sewers, hundred year old trees as opposed to spindly saplings, and a zillion other things to which some people seem to remain completely blind.

X number of years of history is entirely intangible. Can you experience it again? Especially if you weren't there while the 'history' was taking place? What is it to you that these have been around for 80 years or 80 days?

And here's where I cheerfully go on record as a complete nut case. Yes, I can experience it again. I've been there, even though those times existed prior to my current birth. There. Happy?

Surprisingly, other people feel exactly as I do. While I don't literally believe I've engaged in time travel, for all intents and purposes I experience something very similar. That's why reading dusty magazines or spending hours over microfiche records fascinate me; they eventually combine into a whole which enhances this experience of life on Earth. For a long time I was unaware that some people are completely temporally unaware, if that's the right way of putting it. To them, woodgrain vinyl siding is no different from hand-planed clapboards. Amusingly, they believe that everything in a neighborhood such as the French Quarter really is as old as it looks (it's not). Unscruptulous antique dealers love to see this type walk in the door. My surprise that other people do not (or cannot) understand that time is as much a factor as length, breadth and height in architecture caused me, at first, to feel contempt. This has been replaced

by a wary sort of pity. Sure, I feel sorry that some people don't 'get it', but they're still capable of inadvertantly causing great harm. At least colorblind people usually have enough sense to consult others before they repaint their houses. Unfortunately, the same usually isn't true of the temporally retarded.

[RedScare]

I agree with bigtex (again), as well as wendyps, that there is a feel to an old neighborhood that cannot be replicated. It should not be assumed that since I agreed with Niche, that further property restrictions are not the way to save the Heights, that I therefore agree with him that I can replace my bungalow with current building materials, or build the same thing, only bigger, and everything will be alright.

There IS a feel to these old homes. Where, if I moved back to the Woodlands, and did not have a dishwasher or central air, I'd be furious, I am completely at ease in THIS house, moving to a different chair to get the full effect of a window unit on a hot day.

What we are fighting here, is the entire modern American mindset. It is not an easy or simple task. It cannot be won with a simple ill-thought out ordinance. It takes education of prospective buyers, as well as current homeowners. It takes attracting those who want to live in a neighborhood such as this, over forcing newcomers to conform. But, making the house more important than the occupant will not work.

[MarthaG]

Exactly. Not only the history of the bungalow is irreplaceable, but the materials and workmanship often are, too. We can no longer go to a lumberyard and expect to find the sort of first-growth timber which resists insects and rot, and has an unmatched beauty - to those able to appreciate it.

Also, that which makes older neighborhoods desirable isn't confined only to the facade of a structure. It includes signage (such as the blue & white ceramic tiles which spell out street names in older Houston neighborhoods, or the concrete posts with street names spelled out vertically), drainage ditches instead of storm sewers, hundred year old trees as opposed to spindly saplings, and a zillion other things to which some people seem to remain completely blind.

And here's where I cheerfully go on record as a complete nut case. Yes, I can experience it again. I've been there, even though those times existed prior to my current birth. There. Happy?

Surprisingly, other people feel exactly as I do. While I don't literally believe I've engaged in time travel, for all intents and purposes I experience something very similar. That's why reading dusty magazines or spending hours over microfiche records fascinate me; they eventually combine into a whole which enhances this experience of life on Earth. For a long time I was unaware that some people are completely temporally unaware, if that's the right way of putting it. To them, woodgrain vinyl siding is no different from hand-planed clapboards. Amusingly, they believe that everything in a neighborhood such as the French Quarter really is as old as it looks (it's not). Unscruptulous antique dealers love to see this type walk in the door. My surprise that other people do not (or cannot) understand that time is as much a factor as length, breadth and height in architecture caused me, at first, to feel contempt. This has been replaced

by a wary sort of pity. Sure, I feel sorry that some people don't 'get it', but they're still capable of inadvertantly causing great harm. At least colorblind people usually have enough sense to consult others before they repaint their houses. Unfortunately, the same usually isn't true of the temporally retarded.

100% agree with dbigtex on his message. Very will stated.

I think more people than not are totally unaware. They do not appreicate the details, the quality, the history. For them, woodgrain vinyl siding was created.

[TheNiche]

If you're willing to pay enough money, you can buy any kind of wood siding you like. There are lumberyards that specialize in that kind of thing. But I probably went a little too far with the remark about the value of history, as in retrospect, I'm not sure that I even agree with myself. I sure as hell don't like vinyl anything.

Everything else, about property rights, is something that I'll stick to...but here's something for consideration: if you and everybody on your street were to unanimously agree never to demolish your homes and to require future buyers to adhere to the same rules, I'd be ok with that. There is a time and place for regulation, and willfull unanimity or 'dictatorship' (as in a master-planned community like The Woodlands) are those times and places.

[musicman]

At 6pm on Channel 11 news, they are having a story on a movement to save the bugalows in the Heights.

[RedScare]

At 6pm on Channel 11 news, they are having a story on a movement to save the bugalows in the Heights.

That house is right behind mine.

[musicman]

That house is right behind mine.

WAS might be more appropriate Too bad the story had no substance whatsoever.

[Parrothead]

I saw the segment last night. Maybe no substance, but perhaps it alerted people who didn't know as to the situation there in the Heights. Allegro builders....weren't they the first group to start tearing the bungalows down? That guy was sure smug, wasn't he?

[jgs1419]

Bungalows were getting torn day way before Allegro Builders. Paul Gomberg and Premier Victorian Homes was probably one of the first of the modern era along with Steve Waters, Renwick and others back in the mid to late 90s. I didn't see the news vignette so I can't comment on Lambert Arceneaux's smugness in the segment but he is a good guy and generally lauded for his company's workmanship.

[Sheila]

Haven't been here in a while but thrilled to see so may people taking an interest.

Please check out the forum annoucement in this section - Houston's Vanishing Neighborhoods, a public event 9/24

Save the Bungalows has continued to work over the summer through an awareness campaign (free media!) to sensitize people to the issue. Plus, all the publicity around the River Oaks Theater helped all of us who think the people who live in a city ought to have a say in its future.

And progress is being made. The Neighborhood Preservation Subcommitte of the Houston Planning Commission, which was disbanded last year, has been reformed with some new members and a whole new energy to make changes, a reliable source tells me. And I believe it was the Mayor who requested they reconvene.

I think we have reached the point where planned growth may finally be accpeted as a necessity. Dallas, San Antonio and Austin all have taken steps to protect urban neighborhoods from "whoever has the most money build what they damn well please."

Impossible in Houston? I don't think so.

[TheNiche]

Haven't been here in a while but thrilled to see so may people taking an interest.

Please check out the forum annoucement in this section - Houston's Vanishing Neighborhoods, a public event 9/24

Save the Bungalows has continued to work over the summer through an awareness campaign (free media!) to sensitize people to the issue. Plus, all the publicity around the River Oaks Theater helped all of us who think the people who live in a city ought to have a say in its future.

And progress is being made. The Neighborhood Preservation Subcommitte of the Houston Planning Commission, which was disbanded last year, has been reformed with some new members and a whole new energy to make changes, a reliable source tells me. And I believe it was the Mayor who requested they reconvene.

I think we have reached the point where planned growth may finally be accpeted as a necessity. Dallas, San Antonio and Austin all have taken steps to protect urban neighborhoods from "whoever has the most money build what they damn well please."

Impossible in Houston? I don't think so.

Houston's Vanishing Neighborhoods? Well that's misleading. They're just being changed around a bit. You know...change. It's what happens in dynamic cities. In fact, we're even creating whole new neighborhoods in this city where none existed before.

Btw, just because we're the largest city in the nation without zoning (and Beaumont is the next largest after us) doesn't mean that we're the lesser for it. Anything is possible here, and at relatively low cost. It is freedom, both economically and politically.

[Sheila]

To be more specific (but far too long for a title) I could have said

"Houston's Vanishing Neighborhoods for People Who Are Not Rich But Don't Want to Live in the Far Suburbs. "

[VicMan]

Why not assess the bungalows and see which ones are best to keep? I would enact deed restrictions so that the bungalow units themselves are kept in at least a large amount of the neighborhood.

"Houston's Vanishing Neighborhoods for People Who Are Not Rich But Don't Want to Live in the Far Suburbs. " - IMO, this is near to impossible to solve - The area is in high demand. As demand increases, the property values, and prices, increase. If I were you, I would assist people into living in communities in as close of a proximity as possible.

In fact, the Houston Housing Authority has a public housing initiative in the area. It is called the "Historic Rental Initiative" - http://www.hach.org/community/index.cfm?fu...;communityID=13

Why not turn the area into a partly mixed income neighborhood? Some units will be public housing and some will be residential lots. Deed restrictions can be in place to limit housing styles.

I am completely for the construction of Gregory Lincoln and HSPVA in the area, though

[TheNiche]

To be more specific (but far too long for a title) I could have said

"Houston's Vanishing Neighborhoods for People Who Are Not Rich But Don't Want to Live in the Far Suburbs. "

Oh, so this is a matter of class warfare and not neighborhood preservation? Well then why not just have an event called "Hey Everybody, Let's Subsidize the Middle Class".

Go read an introductory microeconomics book. You'll find that in cases where more people want to live in an area than there are homes/land, prices rise to efficiently ration finite resources.

Then take a look at listings in inner loop neighborhoods east of 288 and I-45. If that's not close and inexpensive enough for you, there's a tax credit apartment complex being built within walking distance of downtown on Canal Street.

[musicman]

To be more specific (but far too long for a title) I could have said

"Houston's Vanishing Neighborhoods for People Who Are Not Rich But Don't Want to Live in the Far Suburbs. "

VERY misleading then.

[wendyps]

For the record...a LARGE number of support your work Sheila. I will probably be there.

But, we do have posters who are advocates of "its my right to do whatever i wanna and you don't matter" here.

[TheNiche]

But, we do have posters who are advocates of "its my right to do whatever i wanna and you don't matter" here.

More accurately stated, I think that our position is that every individual matters. I matter. You matter. Not all of us are or should be the same, however...certainly not made the same by government force.

If you're the type that needs to be around people like yourself, look for a neighborhood with deed restrictions or at least solicit the neighborhood that you're interested in for voluntary covenants. If it'll help my property values, I may very well support you.

But...if you want to impose your personal values uniformly upon two million people and a land area of about 700 square miles all at once, hell no. Your willingness to try and use governmental powers to get everybody to behave the way that you want indicates that you believe that "its my right to do whatever i wanna and you don't matter". Sound familiar? It should.

[sevfiv]

we're not talking about an enormous percentage of homes here.

sheila, most of the people showing contention toward your statements are of the "maria isabel" mindset (she is discussed on this forum) - that's what good taste and money will get ya... (well, actually, her dream home is still a vacant lot).