Krol

I'm curious as well about pricing. I've read a lot about repairing windows and there are so man things you can do to improve upon them (they typically have no insulation at all).

If the price is reasonable, i might just pay someone to do it vs. DIY.

Waiting on the estimate for the entire job, but preliminaries are $45 an hour with $20 to replace the ropes...said it should be about $65-80 per window, providing they are in good shape and just need weatherization, ropes, etc. He does cut a piece out to gain access to the weights and to redo ropes. It gets put back with screws so that you'll always have access to the weights for the future. He adds thin metal strip and wool for insulation. One window had rotted. He took that back to the shop for repairs on an emergency basis. The cost for that is $288. It involved construction of a replacement window for the interim while the other is being repaired, custom construction of a piece to replace the rotten portion and then all the other stuff above. He is backed up so rest of job will be couple of months down the road. He says once he's done the windows will be insulated and last another 200-300 years.

I used George (AKA sashguy) for my windows/screens and would recommend.

http://www.sashguy.com/

Thank you. He's coming by the house tonight.

Would like windows in old bungalow restored, including the addition of screens.

Also looking for someone to repair drywall cracks and baseboards following house leveling. Any suggestions of reliable contractors for either job?

I disagree with your conclusion that PCs are now all considered Cs. That is true only for a district created before October 13, 2010. For any district formed after that, they are considered NCs. And therefore, by definition (under the ordinance) they do not "maintain the historic integrity of the district." Once again, if the percentages from Heights East were applied to a post-October 13, 2010 district, almost 75% of the lots would be occupied by non-contributing structures. (I am ignoring for right the now the handful of vacant lots).

Is anyone aware of any other municipality that attempts to impose these types of requirements on all property in an area where only a relatively small number of structures are "contributing"? All of the other historic districts that I have seen are more narrowly focused to cover a high percentage of "contributing" structures.

If the City wants PCs to be Cs going forward, they need to revise the ordinance. But the cynic in me knows that will not happen, because once the door is open for that amendment, it would also be open for amendments that would give us a real vote.

No. That is not correct. PC simply doesn't exist anymore. That does not mean they become NC in any new districts. A property that has undergone some changes can still contribute to the district. The HAHC is monthly approving changes that do not endanger the integrity of structures or their classifications. Check out a;; that is getting approved.

Does anyone know the thinking behind use of the term "potentially contributing structure" in the ordinance? Unless I am missing something, the only place I see it used is in the definition of "contributing structure," which is defined to include any structure deemed potentially contributing in an historic district designated as such before October 13, 2010. Using Heights East as a sample, a quick count shows 769 total lots, with 196 (25.5%) contributing, 484 (62.9%) potentially contributing, and 89 (11.6%) non-contributing or vacant. Under the terms of the ordinance, one could claim that 88.4% of the structures in Heights East "contribute to the historic significance of the district" since Heights East was designated an historic district before October 13, 2010. But if those same percentages were applied to the proposed Heights South District, only 25.5% would contribute to the historic significance of the district.

This ordinance, and the city's "attempt" to comply with ordinance, is flawed in so many ways. Hard to argue with that regardless of the color of your yard sign, IMHO. This is another example. You could have the same structure in two different districts, and in one it could be contributing and in the other it could be non-contributing.

Under the old ordinance there were two classifications: contributing and potentially contributing. Contributing structures were pretty much as they were built. Potentially contributing structures may have undergone some changes. They may have dormers, a different porch railing, an enclosed porch or different windows. These are just some examples of the changes that might have resulted in a PC classification. There are many others.

Having two different classifications was confusing and not consistent with federal criteria used by the NRHP. To achieve consistency and eliminate the confusion, the new ordinance contains just the one classification of contributing. No matter whether PC or C under the old ordinance, they are all now considered Cs and are important to the inventory and maintaining the historic integrity of the district.

It seems that the approach here is to bully and call names like school kids. I really do understand your position. I just don't agree with it. Therefore we will have to agree to disagree. This can be done without resorting to lobbing of insults along the lines of "ignorant slobs", references to other neighborhoods as ghettos and accusations of propaganda. There are actually very few people who have been posting on this topic. It's a discussion of about five with entries here and there from others like me who usually monitor posts, but don't chime in. I now know why. It's not really a discussion as much as it is a bully forum where the approach is to quash an opposiing viewpoint with personal insults.

I believe Houston has matured to the point of understanding the need for preserving its history through Houston style restrictions. Houston Heights is the one neighborhood in this city that is known for its history. The OSW and other neighborhoods have beautiful historical architecture worth preserving, but HH has the reputation of being Houston's "historic neighborhood." Many volunteers have put in countless hours over the last 30 years to make this neighborhood what it is.

Restrictions and ordinances affecting our property change all the time and they may change again this time.

My house has had no protection for 90 f'in years! Guess what? It's still standing and being taken care of by someone who can't stand the thought of people taking away his right to decide what is best for his property. I'll be blunt. I have talked to very few people who know as much about what is historically and architecturally correct about my house that support this ordinance, and I doubt that you or s3mh do, either. These people think that adding 2 story additions to the back of a bungalow is architecturally appropriate. It's not. It looks like sheet! These are the people that want control of my house. This is not about architectural integrity and historic preservation. This is something altogether different. The people most devoted to their homes are all against this ordinance, including me.

Let me make something VERY clear. I have not calmed down. Be careful bringing your propaganda to my door, because I really am that angry.

"These people" include me and I also don't like the camel backs. Those are what builders think are easy ways to increase square footage. They are the ones who want to bulldoze your house and mine.

Don't indicate that "all" people devoted to their homes are against this ordinance. I am like you in that I love our house and we take care of it. It is that love of our house that casues me to want to ensure that it is worth more than the land on which it sits. That will not happen unless the demolitions and incompatible construction by speculative builders cease.

We are not focusing on the angry that don't want to discuss anything at all. The attention is on the more reasonable who are willing to work together to hash out disagreements and develop a better ordinance. Not everyone, including me, will be entirely happy with the final product. It is expected that there will also be people, like you, who won't be happy at all about it.

Without stronger protections your 90+ year old house will be worth nothing but the land on which it sits. I have a right to not have that happen to my house. I also have a right to not have huge Mcmansions blocking the sun in the backyard and invading my privacy. Don't tell me your rights are more important than mine. That's not the Houston Heights I know.

The supporters were definately better organized last night. The majority of them were also more rational. The opponents suffer from an angry disposition that doesn't play well in that type of situation. The property rights argument appears to be losing steam because the supporters have a point that they have the right to maintain their investments and what they bought into. My version of property rights may not be your version. It can be argued both ways.

There's also growing realization among the Mcmansion types that no protection could mean that the little bungalow next door gets replaced in favor of density. The Heights has been lucky so far. However, take a little drive down west 15th street between the Blvd. and Shepherd...consider the townhomes being built over at the ole Ashland Tea House site or the condos currently planned for Studewood behind Someburger. Density is knocking on our door. That is the reality and it is probably a much greater threat than having your house burn down.

The count last night was roughly 40/30 in favor of stronger protections. Among the 30 who stated their opposition, four were from one property on Kipling, one was from the Houston Property Rights Association (who said he is actually a renter), one was from the Houston Association of Realtors, two were part of the trio of realtors who have formed the anti-preservation website, one worked for one member of that realtor trio and at least one was a Heights builder.

It seems as if the more the facts get out there, the more people are calming down. CM Lovell indicated at city council this week that a new draft is being compiled. I'll bet it will incorporate a lot of the suggestions that have been made. This is the sausage-making process that always occurs with the crafting of new legislation.

Think about what might happen with no protection and instead of misinformation about paint color, air conditioners and front porch lights, grab a sausage link and take part in the messy process to create a better proposal?

The lack of ability to do additions to a home is really starting to worry me after continued conversations with the HAHC.

For example, you would not be able to do something like the attached picture. You can add to the back of your bungalow, but not the middle as the attached photo.

Before I get slammed...I am making no comment on the looks of this house, I am just pointing out that you cant add to the middle of a bungalow.

Maybe this will help. It's from the Houston Heights Historic District Guidelines that are available on the city's website. There are all kinds of ways to add on appropriately.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/Design_Guide_Heights_District/Historic_Districts_Design_Guide_5NewAdd.pdf

Mayor Parker lives in the Westmoreland Historic District and owns property in the OSW. She has designated her house in Westmoreland as a protected landmark. Sue Lovell stated Tuesday night that she owns property in one of the historic districts. Randy Pace resides in Houston Heights East district.

Of course money is an issue. Isn't it for you if you own a house? Increasing and preserving the value of the houses in these neighborhoods is in the best interest of EVERYONE. I don't know one homeowner that would say "I would be happy if my houses value stays the same or falls" A house is the biggest investment most people ever make and they rely on the value increasing. Who has driven the value of homes in the Heights? The builders, that's who. Who have been marketing the neighborhood and working to change it's image into a place people want to live? The realtors, that's who. Who is going to know the impact of things like this more than the people whos job it is to know? Who invest their time and money in knowing and improving these areas?

In all honesty this Historic Distric probably won't be a horrible thing for me personally, but I'm still against it. I'm one of the few designers that have real experience with doing plans for the HAHC and designing plans that will have a high likelihood of being accepted without significant redesign. I'm also one of the few builders who have real experience with restoring old homes in a way the will make the HAHC, and homeowner, happy. I'm against it because it isn't fair to homeowners to impose these regulations when they agreed to something totally different. If they put this change to a vote and it passes than I will support it because it really is what people want. They don't want to do that because it's not what they want, and the games they are playing to put their agenda through without the consent of the people most affected is what I am against.

Just a questions: Does anyone know if Sue Lovell, Anise Parker, Marlene Gafrick, Randy Pace or any of the other Counil Members or City Employees pushing this so hard live in Historic Districts? I believe Sue Lovell may own property in one of them but I don't believe she lives in one. Does anyone know?

James,

Indeed. Information is the key. We've heard of people who went to the Tuesday night meeting who went home and quickly removed the signs they had from that realtor group that is trying to derail the Heights South application. It seems someone has obtained the list of the members of that group. It's all realtors from the big realty firms (yep, all the names you would think of) and builders, including Tricon. Wonder if that list will go public...

For those worried about expanding their houses in a historic district, have a look at the design guide for the Historic Heights:

http://www.houstontx...sign_guide.html

Before I read that I was definitely worried, but it clears up a LOT of misinformation that's been posted here. For example, you CAN add on to the side of your house, not just the back.

Cheers

James

Right off the top of my head, there's a bungalow in the 1400 block of Arlington which is currently being expanded (width and total square footage). The plans were approved by the historic commission. There's another bungalow in the 1800 block of Arlington that is currently for sale that was also expanded. These plans were also approved by the commission. Go take a look. 80% of applications to the commission get approved.

Krol,

I did not buy into an historic district. It is being imposed upon me. It is my right to disagree.

Your facts are extremely vague. Since you seem to be in the know...can you please explain exactly how I would be allowed to add on to the size of my bungalow? I would assume I need plans, which cost money. Am I allowed to increase the width of a bungalow? If so, by how much?

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

Who are the two foundation guys that always get good recommendations on this Web site? Pfister might be one of them. I thought there was an earlier discussion about this, but I've looked back to September and do not find it.

Anyone able to offer info on the cost involved in getting leaning piers repaired and the house leveled?

As 2008 draws to a close, I am wondering if anyone has heard anything about Heights area builders laying off staff or switching back to renovation and remodeling. Although work in the Washington Avenue area appears to still be going strong, there's been a noticeable decline in permitting activity for the Heights. The most noticeable change is a decline in demolition permits within the Heights historic districts. However, it appears as if the total number of demolitions in the districts for 2008 will be about the same as 2007. Perhaps the good news is that there might have been more demolitions had the economic slump not had an impact.

Did anyone go to Monday's meeting and know the results of the vote, by chance?

The pro-builder/chamber of commerce types who appointed themselves the decision-makers for the neighborhood last year and who skirted the HHA policies to engineer an unethical taking of this year's election were successful. The announcement at the meeting indicated there was no specific pattern in the voting, but the results sure seem to indicate otherwise. Just one of the seven candidates supported by the group that believes HHA can focus on both parties and neighborhood preservation was elected. The other six board members-elect are from the pro-developer group.

Here's who won regular three year terms: Simon Eyles

Margarete Sanchez-Ripps (sp?)

Anne Culotta

Martin Pike'

Mary Ellis

BartTruxillo, the one candidate from the neighborhood slate, and Christine Spin received the fewest number of votes and will each fill one-year terms.

In addition to claiming there was no pattern in the voting, the election committee also went to great lengths to attest to the honesty of the process. The bottom line is that a board member violated long-standing board policy by misusing an HHA membership list to achieve an advantage and skew the results. It is clear from the outcome that his effort had the desired impact.

There was a lot of discussion with the developer about trying to find an alternative that did not involve another strip center on the boulevard. He turned a deaf ear to the warnings that his project may not do any better than the others on the boulevard that are currently not fully leased. There are examples all around including the building housing McCain's, the orphanage-like office structure next door and the beautifully restored building at 11th and Yale.

The developer was sensitive enough to understand that demolishing another Heights National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) structure would cause neighborhood outrage along the lines of what we saw when the Doyle Mansion came down. Although this is not the best alternative, it does save the house and keep it on its original site. As for the strip center, only time will tell if this developer can somehow buck the trend that has left other commercial properties on the boulevard in constant search for tenants.

On a somewhat related note, the old Ashland Tea House site is on the block again. If your recall, that NRHP house was demolished two or three years ago to make room for a condo project. Those developers have been hurt by the current credit crunch. They can't obtain financing.

Porchman,

I don't post very often, but I believe I might be able to provide a little more background. I will tell you here at the beginning that I support the candidates on the pro-preservation slate. This is because I believe they will bring a more reasonable and respectful approach back to the board.

This is the first time in many years there are more candidates than there are openings on the board. You are correct. It is because of last February's vote to allow builders who demolish historic houses to once again purchase sponsorships and have their logos displayed in HHA printed materials and on the Web site. Many in the neighborhood believe the board turned a deaf ear to their concerns about this.

I do not believe you are correct in assuming that both slates would support the purchase of 1414 Ashland to save the Herons. In fact, the author of the letter you received in the red envelope believes it was the worst thing the HHA has ever done. His lingering anger about it is one reason he is working against the pro-preservation slate of candidates. BTW, one of those pro-preservation candidates is, Paula Priestley, who lives in the 1400 block of Ashland. She organized her neighbors and got the attention of HHA.

There is a pro-builder push from the board members elected last year without opposition. In fact, many of them have very strong professional or personal ties to builders. Can you imagine arguing over whether the board should adopt a resolution in opposition to the proposed high-rise on White Oak? Well, there was argument about whether such a resolution was going too far.

Bike rallies, campouts, home tours, boulevard and park maintenance are very important, but they are not all there is. Take a look at any civic association and you'll also find a strong land use component. Were it not for the lot size and setback protections, the deed restrictions and the historic districts, Houston Heights would look like Rice Military. HHA played a role in all of it. A large segment of this neighborhood believes HHA should continue to play an integral role in helping to shape the future of the neighborhood. It cannot, and should not, be handed over to the developers.

518 W 18th was actually moved to lower Garden Oaks. I saw it being moved in late July, and met the guy who planned on rehabbing it. He said he was re-doing a number of older homes that he had transplanted to somewhere around Judiway, I think. I've been wanting to go check out what he's doing.

He was particularly excited to be working on this house.

On the 1400 block of Herkimer, actually. (Not just to be picky, but so if anybody wishes to go look at it). Bungalow Revival is doing two other rehabs on that block, as well. These are just east of some of their earlier projects.

Thanks for the correction on the Herkimer location. I drove by on Saturday...thought I was on Nicholson. It does look very nice...just wish it could have stayed where it was contributing to the historic district inventory.

Below are photos of the 12 houses targeted for demolition or relocation in the new Houston Heights Historic District East since the district came under the city's ordinance last November. All of these have had people living in them. A few were rental propeties. Relocation is becoming the preferred method of bungalow cleansing. The impact on the neighborhood is the same as demolition because the neighborhood loses the structure.

I have never thought about posting photos of the houses that are in danger. Knowing which houses are targeted is one benefit of the city's very weak ordinance. Perhaps someone will see one that they want to try to buy.

1816 Arlington. Was moved out of city.

1228 Arlington Up on rails to be moved.

1333 Heights Blvd. Harry James plans to demo.

1415 Arlington In 90-day wait for demolition. Owned by Allegro Builders.

1418 Columbia Expected to be bulldozed. Partners in Building is the owner.

1420 Harvard Was moved by 5th Ward CDC. Allegro Builders is the owner.

1424 Harvard Bulldozed by Whitestone Builders.

1511 Arlington Application was for demolition

1419 Arlington Bulldozer is on site waiting.

1635 Arlington Moved by Bungalow Revival to lot on Nicholson. Whitestone Builders owns the now empty lot.

1840 Arlington Owner lives in large house next door...plans to bulldoze to have a bigger yard. All the floors have been redone as has the kitchen which boasts stainless steel appliances, custom cabinets. There's a deck in back. The owner says she couldn't sell it. A for lease sign was up as a couple of weeks ago. The house is in the 90-day waiting period required before demolition in a historic district.

301 E 16th St. To be moved, who knows where, by Historic Houston. The owner has ignored neighborhood requests to leave it where it is.

Houston Heights now has two City of Houston historic districts and petitioning is underway for a third. Within the districts 68% of the housing inventory is still considered historic. Actually, when it comes to price, Norhill and Woodland Heights have outpaced Houston Heights five years running. We'll soon see if it continues for a sixth year. I think the Chronicle does its annual pricing story each spring.

There's a cute bungalow up for sale in the 1400 block of Columbia. The resident has been there for 40 years and is moving to the Woodlands to be close to her son. I believe it's in good shape structurally. However, in terms of updating, it needs everything. The realtor's sign out front says it has just been reduced. Dont' know the price. Neighborhood folks thought it had been snapped up by a builder but the "reduced" sign would seem to indicate otherwise. Now that that section of Houston Heights is part of a historic district there are tax incentives available to help offset the cost of improvements. I don't know what the new asking price is. I think she started somewhere in the mid-200s. I don't know if it is on HAR. It might be worth a drive by.

Does anyone know who purchased the David Adickes Studio on Summer street near the Target off I-10? Swamplot has a posting about it being sold and the artists told to move on within six months. There's nothing about whether the Deborah Colton Gallery will also be moving. There had been some rumors that Colton was interested in buying the building but I tend to think it probably went to developers who want condos or townhomes. Anyone have any more details?

Yep, more townhomes. The property was replatted last fall for eight townhomes facing 13th with a shared driveway running behind.

The comments about what my family refers to as "little Kroger" are somewhat surprising because Kroger is planning to expand the 11th street store to make it more like the Kroger on West Gray. The work is supposed to take place in 2008. It's been rumored that "little Kroger" would be closed once the 11th street store is finished. The Allied reps mentioned something about having to compete with 24 Hour Fitness for the Kaplan's site. Perhaps the gym will go where "little Kroger" is.