geauxtigers

RedScare, I laughed when I read that as well - if it looks like it "may as well have been a new build" I don't understand the point of a "renovation." That's been our primary issue finding a previously built home in the districts - I pretty much refuse to take on the burdens involved with living in a contributing structure, and I think the camelback thing is just not my style. You certainly haven't run me off - I think we are pretty set on the Heights - and while we will use a builder if we don't end up finding a house we love in the next year (we've been interviewing a few) my initial inclination that the historic district wasn't worth the hassle has pretty much been confirmed, so I appreciate the advice! The subjectivity involved in the process would make me crazy - I don't so much mind the rules, as I would be choosing to live within them, but I do mind that I have no way of knowing for sure what I can and can't do before spending quite a bit of cash on an architect. Fwki - that's really sad about that homeowner. I feel like the burden should be the opposite - the HAHC should have to definitively show that something did NOT exist (such as the columns in your example)to force something to be ripped out rather than the homeowner having to prove that it did exist, particularly in a situation like that where the essence of the structure wasn't changed. The city is in a much better position to access archives and such than your average homeowner - that's an incredible burden to put on someone. And if they can't find evidence either way, ties should fall to the homeowner. If these "renovations" are ok, and something like that is not, I'll have to agree that this is not for me - I admit that I don't tend to do well in situations where I feel like someone is exerting unreasonable authority.

Thanks so much for all the information! We'll have to just sit down and talk with some realtors - we've just started looking so I hadn't wanted to waste anyone's time until we were more serious. This was really helpful - I appreciate it!

Hi everyone, I'm new to Houston and came across this forum while looking for information on the historic district - I hope you don't mind the invasion of your board! My husband and I are recent transplants from Louisiana, and we really like the Heights. Can anyone tell me what the deal is with non-contributing structures? I'd like a non-real-estate industry perspective. We don't have any interest in a restoration project (we have no experience with historical preservation) but we would like to build a 2800-3000 sq. foot "new old house." We want to build something that fits in with the neighborhood, but the guidelines linked from HAHC's website are really confusing (for example, lists "greek revival" style houses as "traditional" for the area, when I was under the impression from my digging around that wouldn't be an option). Can anyone who has been through the process recently tell me what the deal is? Could we tear down a non-contributing property in poor condition without too many hoops? If you are non-contributing, do you have the same materials issues (no hardie, for example)? I've had people tell me conflicting things on both. We'd also consider buying if we fell in love with something, but in our experience lately the new or updated homes have been enormous (3500+) or plain weird (the camelback thing). I realize that's largely a function of economics since the land value is so high, but we think we can make it work since I just want to be in line with comps - I don't need to make a profit. And yes, I realize that it could take a small miracle to find a place to build - we're just going to give it a shot and change the game plan if it's not looking feasible!