BBLLC

6 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

What do you mean by they're taking everything out?

The redevelopment is moving forward. Smoosh made an official announcement yesterday on Facebook     followed by a picture of Lowell Street Market:

 

 

The demo contractor told me a week ago that they were razing the entire site because it had been resold and the new owner had different plans.  Since that conversation it looks like that was BS because they have kept the red iron frames that are consistent with the original plans.   

My office is across the street.  The demo contractor told me the site was resold and they are taking EVERYTHING out.  Anybody have insight as to the validity of this?

Foreign Correspondents will not be located with Hunky Dory.   A seafood restaurant called Bernadine's will replace the Thai portion of the two restaurants in one building concept on 18th street.

No builder in his right mind would intentionally ignore setbacks. (I am a builder but don't know the people involved)  The animus directed at his mistake is telling of our current social fabric but could result in significant blow back and unintended consequences.  If the setback is part of the original plat, he may not have many options.  If the setback is part of the application of the Hysterical ordinance, the builder can afford to litigate.  When faced with a mult-million dollar loss, litigation makes business sense.  

A more cooperative approach to the intent of the Historic Ordinance would be much more productive for everyone.  The polarization of those for and against the ordinance and its application obscures the fact that there are a vast number of people in the middle.  Those who want to maintain and restore the historic fabric of these neighborhoods while allowing sensible re-development are ignored.

If you open 3 bags of M&Ms and each bag has one blue M&M, then one blue M&M is typical per bag of M&Ms. In a single bag of M&Ms, multiple blue M&Ms would in fact be atypical.

 

That analogy would only make sense if there were multiple "Heights Wests."

And this is where we disagree. The existing "districts" were gerrymandered. There ARE multiple "Heights Wests". That is one of the problems with the ordinance and the way the districts were formed.

The wording in the HD ordinance doesn't say anything about SF of the house:

 

 

Criteria 3 seems to be the most fitting that could limit SF. Otherwise the establishment of proportions is fairly vague. A literal person might calculate the average, mean, or other mathematical measurements of homes in the HD they are building to come up with some middle of the road number and build around those numbers, or go no bigger than the biggest example in the HD. As it is vague, it's left to interpretation, and well, argue your case if you can, see how far you get. Leaving it vague works in both directions, you know. Of course, it's a matter of how much time/money you have to invest in the property.

 

Certainly s3mh's interpretation of the vague rules, and neither the interpretation by the HAHC shouldn't be taken as the final word, if you really want to challenge it.

Thanks for your comments. I responded to this thread not to try to persuade anybody. I wanted to set straight some misinformation regarding our project and was truly interested in trying to understand the thinking of those opposed to new development of larger than average homes.

Criteria 3 is a major stumbling block. The staff and HAHC interpret "typical" as average. That means a uniformity that NEVER existed in the Heights. If a 4000 sqft contributing structure exists in the district, I personally think that is typical. If you open up 3 bags of M&M's and each bag has 1 or 2 blues and the majority brown and yellow, then blue is typical but not average.

I have been and will continue to work with the staff to work something out. But my patience and pocketbook are both limited. After exhausting appeals to the Planning Commission and an appeal to the City Council, I will sell the property to the developer who is willing to continue. And contrary to some opinions, that person is ready.

"Compatible" and "typical" are not defined because you cannot create a one-size fits all definition for a neighborhood that has different styles on different streets.  Allowing a subjective interpretation of "compatible" and "typical" gives the commission the flexibility to make determinations based on the peculiar aspects of each block in each district. 

 

Also, the issue isn't pure square footage as much as it is dimensions like eave height, set backs and front elevations. But on a street like the 1200 block of Rutland, no one has ever had any trouble picking out the two big new builds on the street.  They tower over the rest of the street.  The front elevations are massive in comparison to the single story bungalows and the handful of two story homes. 

 

Of course, the determination is left to the eyes of the beholder, but as demonstrated by the two new builds on 1200 block of Rutland, it is not a mere guess as to what is compatible and what is not.  The frustration has really been about the fine details of scale and compatibility rather than the commission drawing bright lines purely on the basis of square footage or not allowing a second floor.

Again, I appreciate your comments. We have some common ground but we probably won't ever agree on everything. For instance I don't agree why "compatible" and "typical" can't be defined. The districts were not formed because of a unifying architectural theme, they were formed in a gerrymandered form to get enough votes to be passed. Why is it necessary to define things block by block when districts are formed. What is the goal?

I completely agree with your comments on set backs. But would those houses have been so offensive to you if they were pushed back to the same setbacks as the rest of the street?

NONE of the bungalows on the 1200 block of Rutland could be permitted today. They are all too close to the ground they ALL need to be raised by 8" to 16". How do you factor this into eave and ridge height requirements? There are 5 or 6 of the 31 two story houses in the West District that have eave heights of 24' plus. Why wouldn't that work on Rutland?

Much (though admittedly not all) of the support for a stronger preservation ordinance was a desire to slow densification and, to a lesser extent, increases in square footage.

 

Inevitably, as land value increases, the economic incentive is to increase the amount of square footage of house per square foot of land, either by subdividing lots, or by replacing 1500 s.f. bungalows with 4000 s.f. houses.  Although I tend to support the rights of property owners, I even kind of understand this concern.  As more and more densification happens on a given block or neighborhood, the value of the existing structure on the last un-subdivided lot can fall to zero even as the average value of homes increases.

 

In other words, when the market in a given neighborhood is entirely large homes on small lots, the market for the 1500 s.f. bungalow on 6600 s.f. of lot ceases to exist, and the house that WAS worth $400k is now pretty much just worth the $250k for the land that it sits on.  Ironically, though , the surest way to make sure the market for smaller bungalows dries up is to make it very risky for people to buy them with the intent of renovating and expanding them.

Thanks for the thoughtful and cordial response. In the particular case of replacing a non-historic commercial development with new construction based on the original designs of the neigborhood, this is not an either or with removing bungalows. Also, in our particular case we are NOT making it more dense we proposed decreased density.

My question is, if a 4000 sqft home is set back like the surrounding homes and is not lot line to lot line, what makes that incompatible with a similarly situated 1500 sqft home. Compatible and typical have not been legally defined and therefore are in the eyes of the beholder.

1.  HAHC decides.  Block and district are both relevant for the determination.  

2.  Compatible is a subjective standard and is used to avoid inflexible one size fits all rules that will just send everyone to the planning commission to seek variances.  Every historic district in the United States (and there are hundreds of them) has a commission that is charged with applying a subjective standards.  Those who desire to build and renovate in those districts have to be able to have the ability to adjust their designs to gain approval of the commissions they deal with.  Predictability is a value, but can only go so far when dealing with historic preservation.  

3.  I am all for tighter standards.  I live near several homes that will inevitably renovated within the next decade.  They all have great potential to be stunning examples of craftsman architecture.  Without the ordinance or with a poorly enforced ordinance, they could be destroyed and replaced with more gratuitous square footage to make a quick buck for a builder and realtor, while destroying the character of the neighborhood.

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/HistoricPreservationManual/historic_districts/heights_features.html

 

And there are plenty of objective guidelines and there are guidelines for the Heights.  The above link has Heights specific guidelines.

 

But there will always be the need for subjective review because you cannot put a definition on "scale" and "compatible".

First, thanks for the pensive reply. I made a mistake purchasing the chicken ranch. I am now trying to make the best of a bad financial decision. In my opinion, when I sell this property to some commercial developer that has connections I don't and has the staying power to wait this out, the neighborhood will end up worse for it.

You are absolutely correct that the HAHC gets to decide. Yet the ordinance reads differently than it is being applied. I do however disagree that subjectivity is needed or that it is good.

The ordinance states that guidelines will be developed and voted on by the city council within 6 months of the ordinance's passage. That hasn't happened. The "manual" you have referenced contain the opinions of the staff of the Planning and Development committee. These have not been voted on by the City Council.

Not all bungalows are craftsman. There are plenty of queen anne style bungalows. I renovated one at 1029 Tulane a few years back that had been completely obfuscated.

What defines "gratuitous square footage"? As a renovator/builder in the Heights for the past 21 years, I have personally saved several dozen structures through renovation. I have removed 4 large commercial structures and built what I think are compatible structures to the overall look and feel of the entire Heights area, not an arbitrarily gerrymandered district. I am in business to make money but I am also passionate about what I do. I think you paint with two broad of a brush.

If this ordinance gets overturned, I fear that David Weekly, Perry, In-town, and Sandcastle will end up buying and doing exactly what neither of us wants. I also realize I am put into the same camp by some. I feel like the war might be lost over some relatively minor battles. Help make this more sensible.

...  Even though they are over 50 pages, they have requirements like "infill construction must be similar in size to existing homes . . ."; "additions in any location may not visually dominate the original house . . ."; and "New construction that is incompatible with the neighborhood is not allowed . . . ." 

 

But, if you want design guidelines, go for it.  I am all for it.  Just don't run to the Leader when the guidelines turn out to be more restrictive than what is currently being allowed.  And don't expect that there will no longer be any subjective element to the ordinance.  That is simply unavoidable.

1. "Infill construction must be similar in size to existing homes.." WHERE?? on the block or in the district. Who gets to decide?

2. "New construction must be compatible." Where is the definition of compatible outlined? If prevailing setbacks and minimum lot sizes are used why can't a 4000 sqft house be next to a 2000 sqft house? Who gets to decide?

3. Mayor Parker said the same thing. Be careful what you ask.

I however do not accept the premise that objective guidelines couldn't be developed.

... did not participate in the process can now cry injustice because they did not get design guidelines that they never asked for when the ordinance was amended.  ... There is definitely a credibility issue when you complain about the ordinance but refused to participate in the process to draft the ordinance.  But this is all more than likely just pretext to try again to get rid of the ordinance.

s3mh

There was a document on the Planning Department's preservation website at least through May 2013 titled "A Design Guide for the Houston Heights Historic District's". ANY logical person would assume these were the guidelines discussed in the ordinance.Design Guidelines cover page.pdf

The 90% approval of COA's is actually quoted by Margaret Brown as 85%. Without this being broken down it is meaningless if 90% of the applications are to repair a window or handrail. We have asked but not received a breakdown by category. Additions and new construction are NOT getting an 85% approval. I don't know what the numbers are but in the January meeting 7 of 16 applications were denied COA's. A far cry from 85%.

Define "compatible" and "typical" from the ordinance and then see how many yes votes turn to no.

Bastian Builders is trying to re-develop a quarter of a city block containing a 17,000 sqft poultry packing plant at 12th and Rutland in the Heights West Historic District. We have been active renovating and building over 130 homes in the Heights area since 1993. We did the first remodel in Norhill after it became a designated historic district.  Kelly Thomas-Frater was the architect and former member of the HAHC.  We supported what we thought was a historic ordinance to “save the bungalows”. It was sold as such, however it was sold under false pretenses. This ordinance is not about history. It is being applied to preserve the existing stock as is with little consideration given to improvements. Our original concept was to use plans from George Barber (the original architect for the Heights development) and DECREASE the density of lots forming larger homesites. We had a picture of a house 5 blocks away on the same street that was an original Barber home. We thought how cool would it be to model a grand home after one that had been torn down to build.....several bungalows. When we were told by the staff on the planning commission that “you can't recreate history AND it is too big for that street”, I knew our concept was doomed.

In the ordinance the words “compatible” and “typical” are interpreted as“average” by the Planning commission staff that make recommendations to the HAHC to either grant approval or not. These weren’t defined in the ordinance and are therefore applied with a great deal of subjectivity. Additionally, the data they collected using unpaid interns to determine what “average” is, contains unacceptable errors and bad assumptions.

In order for this ordinance to survive, guidelines and definitions need to be developed by ALL stakeholders, not just city appointees.