Marksmu

I feel for them as it would really suck if you bought a house in your 20's, raised a family in it with all the memories and such and then be forced out by circumstances beyond their control.  It's a losing battle, though.

I have some sympathy for their plight, but this scenario plays out in every major city in the US...it is a cost of living in a city...yes they will have to move somewhere else, moving sucks, but as one heck of a going away present the people that they hate are giving them about 70% more for their property than they could have gotten 5 years ago.

Doesn't the over-65 homestead exemption mitigate that?

 

Partially yes - but from my casual observations of the neighborhood the majority of folks who are against growth and prosperity are in their late 50's and they are seeing that their savings accounts coupled with social security are not going to pay the taxes for their retirement if they cant keep their values from skyrocketing further in the next 3-9 years until they hit 65.

By definition, the people building additions are the ones changing the neighborhood. Unless you believe the Heights is already ruined, and the addition-builders are un-ruining it.

Wrong - the ultra majority of people who are doing additions owned the property 100% unrestricted prior to the ordinance being enacted....there are some who did not but they are very much the minority.  The Heights is not some glorious window into the past like many other real Historic Districts.  Nearly every single block, if not every single block, already has new construction on it.  The sole purpose of the ordinance was to stop the expansion of the homes so that the rapidly skyrocketing values could be kept in check and the people who can't afford the taxes on a $800K home can stay.  It has never been about architecture or preservation, that has always been a lie.

The people moving in are great for the area - they have huge sums of disposable income, which is reflected in the growth of restaurants and shopping, they are mostly dual income young families with no children, or young children who are rejuvenating the schools and the parks and bringing back the strong sense of neighborhood....being friendly and getting together to really form a cohesive neighborhood.  Meanwhile we have the old people, with no kids attempting to stop the positive changes b/c they are pissed they cant afford their house anymore.  I have no sympathy for them.  The neighborhood is not historic and it never was, its time to give up the sham, and let people add on and rebuild homes that are actually suitable for a modern day lifestyle with children.

If the preservationist got their way none of the positive growth of the area would have occurred.

^ Well - I really have no sheep in this fight - but of course the older families who have lived there for many years are wanting to keep their property taxes valued lower.  Who wants to have their taxes increased?  And any neighborhood like this is going to have that generational divide.

 

As for commissions rightly or wrongly rejecting proposed additions - that's why you hire an architect.  The added expense is worth it as a competant architect will be able to fight for you in town council meetings, or historic preservation societies/commissions what-have-you.  They will also be able to better explain the additions (or subtractions) and if need be work on making slight alterations to gain acceptance.

 

We do this all the time in Galveston (which has a very strong preservation group - very strong) and it is very common to get rejections and have to go back and tweak things to get accepted.

Bungalow Revival received two rejections yesterday and they are architects/builders who many perceive to be one of the best operating in the Heights.  I do not know how Galveston's restrictions are written, but the Heights restrictions are so broad, arbitrary, and open to abuse of discretion as to be nothing more than a guide...the Commission is rejecting houses that comply with all restrictions for whatever reason they feel like...if you watch the meetings you can see the members say things something to the effect of:  Well ya, it meets all the requirements, but it just feels wrong, or it feels to big...its very saddening to see this happening.

The vibe of the Heights has been all positive, except for the people shoving the historic regulations down everyones throats...these people are literally trying to ruin the neighborhood.

http://houstontx.swagit.com/play/10312013-616

Click on Roman numeral v on right.

2 were overturned and 2 were upheld (both of Bungalow Revival's projects were denied coa's - Houston's best and most famous historic preservationist)

A - bicycle bungalow - overturned Hahc

B - bungalow revival - upheld Hahc (my new next door neighbors who are only adding 835 SF by removing a bad 90's addition

C - creole new construction - overturned Hahc

D - Bungalow Revival - upheld Hahc and denied a dormer

A lot of emotion and exhaustion right now, and I sincerely hope that this doesn't result in my new neighbors moving.

Very sad indeed.  It seems the very vocal minority with the most extreme views has officially taken hold in our neighborhood.  Really sad indeed.  I was out trick or treating last night, and one thing was abundantly clear to me - 90+% of the new construction which is family friendly was occupied by families with young children (average age looked to be 3), while the ultra majority of the original housing was occupied by older people with no kids at all.  On top of that, of the original houses on the 3 streets we went on, about 60% were not participating in Halloween at all.  Lights off, gates locked...

I say this as anecdotal evidence of what I already know to be true.  The older people, with no families who wish to keep the Heights "historic" are fighting the growth of the neighborhood to keep their property values lower not because they care even one iota about preservation...They may think their house is cute and that it is a good size for them, but their fight is about nothing more than not getting taxed out of the area.  When the neighborhood comes out at night, like it did last night, the segregation between the two groups is abundantly clear.

Brie asked for a recommendation, and you think she slung mud by stating "Unfortunately, The Sash Guy was unwilling to help us"  That does not seem like a lot of mud slinging at all.  That seems like a very restrained statement considering what he actually said to her in person (if what I have heard is accurate)

Second, I dont see anyone here, or on next door, saying that the Sash Guy isnt allowed to pick/choose who he works for.  Rather the animosity is for his attempt to publicly shame/intimidate Brie, or anyone else like her who would DARE to add on or remodel a shack in the Heights not to his liking.  His tone was clear.  He does not approve of the work, doesn't think she should be allowed to do it, so he wont help her in doing so.  That is his right, but he stepped out of bounds when he shamed her and he deserves some public reprimand.  It is not his right to tell her what she can/cant do to her house, and his actions were meant to intimidate others from doing as she has done.  He is indigante b/c she made the HAHC out to be fools they are, and his beloved ordinance got revealed for what it is.... namely bovine  excrement.  I support Brie's right to do whatever she wants to her house, and I support his right to refuse work on any job he deems unfit for his "skill"

Third - I had no idea HAHC was over-ruled on old windows, that is good news for once.

Fourth - the reason to post on Next Door was clear, and stated.  She WANTS to keep all of the old windows and wants someone who will work on them.  She does not want to replace them.  Im surprised you missed that part....contractors, almost all of them, will just want to replace something as old and worthless as 50+ year window....but people are qwerky, and she wants to keep them....good luck finding a contractor who does that...very few people make a living off of a skill that is no longer used.  Not many folks doing typewriter repair around anymore either.

If you think George gives a rats ass about what HAHC thinks you are sadly mistaken.  He is a craftsman who takes great pride in his work and in his neighborhood.  He doesn't need to take on a job that he feels is a waste of his efforts: he has too much to do as it is.

Of course he cares.  HAHC effectively passed a law that ensures he has a solid stream of business for life.  Its now illegal to replace old crappy windows with visibly identical non-crappy energy efficient ones.  He refused to work on Brie's house because he was afraid that if he did it would anger the other radical preservationists in the neighborhood.  Its his right to refuse any work he does not want to do, but he crossed the line when he went out of his way to disparage another persons project because he personally does not like the way it looks.

Its bad enough that owners have to deal with the historic ordinance and the HAHC....they should not also have to deal with the snobby attitudes of people like George who are upset that the neighborhood is evolving into a neighborhood that is conducive to families.  Families dont live in $450,000 shacks, beautiful or not, historic or not (and there is nothing historic about them).  Families who can afford the area want space and they don't give a rats ass about who or what was there before them.  The people fighting the improvements, and they are definitively improvements, are just upset that they are being priced of the neighborhood themselves.  Good riddance, I say.

On NextDoor today, George Clogston the historic window guy has now publicly refused to do any work to restore Brie's windows because he does not approve of the architecture that she has chosen.  Pasted from NextDoor today:

OK, I'll explain. When a home in the Heights has been hacked up so bad that, in my opinion, it is barely recognizable, I just do not care to be a part of the destruction.

Vigilante?  I thought it was self defense?

The shooting itself was self defense, the need for the neighborhood watch was due to lack of police response and a vigilante neighborhood watchman.  The same situation is present now. 

We have a need that is not being filled and a population that is getting frustrated to the point of taking matters into their own hands. 

We are really on one heck of a crime spree recently. At some point hpd is going to have to step it up or us residents are going to have to start doing it ourselves. I would think hpd would prefer we not go vigilante to prevent another Zimmerman style problem....but enough is enough, and we've had enough!

2001 Lincoln LS - I can pretty much sketch the offenders just by knowing what they drove.  Political correctness has run amok!

Another robbery at gunpoint....There is no doubt the criminals are getting bolder.  Will be interesting to find out if the woman was a small business owner who was just closing up (and likely carrying cash), or if she was just someone out late, making herself an easy target.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Robbers-follow-Heights-woman-home-from-work-223108041.html

Mark,

 

Do you really think these criminals give one crap about whether or not who they are robbing is liberal or conservative?  Do you think they pull up a map of politcal affiliation and decide where they are going to rob based on poll data?  Give me a break dude.  They break into your car because they are walking by and see something in your car and nobody around.  This ain't the damn wild west either... if someone jumps out of a car with a gun drawn and wants your cell phone... it doesn't really matter if you have a gun or not... all you are going to do is get yourself shot.  I'm all for gun rights, I own several, but your vision is highly dillusional.  Now if you hear someone trying to break into your house and you get your gun and wait on them... thats a bit of a different story.

No I dont think a thief cares about the political affiliation at all, but I do think they target areas where they are less likely to encounter resistance.  These people are not complete idiots - they make a living committing crimes and they are paying attention. 

Yes lots of this is smash/grab but lots of it is well planned.  They case neighborhoods, they have lookouts, they watch who is coming/going.  This is not pure opportunity crime any longer.  These criminals do pay attention to their surroundings.  More so than most people living in them. 

I don't live in a dream world.  If I were the kid, I would have given up my cell phone faster than you could blink an eye...Im not some wild west wanna be - Its just factual.  The heights is an easy target b/c of the reasons I posted.  Its time it gets cleaned up before it spirals out of control.

Did you notice that the victims were school children?  I am sure you are aware that you must be 21 to carry in Texas, so there is no point to fantasize about an old fashion shootout.

 

Since the victim can neither vote nor carry arms, what is the point you are trying to make?

Perhaps that armed children would make us safer?

My point had nothing to do with the kids at all...I am not advocating arming school kids....all school kids are indeed easy targets.  As are all patrons coming out of a bar, or any other place that legally prohibits firearms from being carried on their property. 

My point is pretty simple really.  The Heights as an entire demographic area is disproportionately liberal.  Liberals as a whole tend to be anti-gun, and therefore disarmed.  The Heights therefore is an easier target.  S3MH's concern about crime being more than just smash/grab escalating is legitimate.  Getting away with a crime emboldens you to commit another.  HPD does not even pretend that they are going to solve any of the crimes in the area thus the crime is escalating and it is just a matter of time before it becomes more than just petty smash grab, and we see more of these armed robberies.  The only  effort made by HPD to solve a crime is to rely upon a pawn shop to report serial numbers and drivers license numbers correctly.  That isnt happening consistently so pretty much everything is unsolved.

What makes the Heights an easier place to rob than perhaps anywhere else in Houston?

1.  Location - its close to I-10, 610, and 45. 

2.  Street Grid/alleys - lots of escape routes and literally hundreds of ways to access a freeway.

3.  Demographics

     a)  Liberals - tend to be disarmed, thus low risk of armed confrontation.

       Dual income households - most households have nobody home during the day

     c)  Poor police presence - HPD does not have the man power to patrol the area sufficently

     d)  Income - Higher income = nicer things

     e)  Rapid appreciation means that the Heights is still more economically diverse than other affluent areas, allowing people who are up to no good to blend in with those who   are still holding onto their homes.

The Heights is great, but pretending the crime is not a real problem is just putting your head in the sand.  Something has to be done to curb the crime before it truly gets out of control. 

I actually agree with S3MH the lack of response from hpd coupled with the fact that more liberal neighborhoods tend to be disproportionately unarmed makes the heights a perfect place for an easy crime or 10. The grid street pattern certainly doesn't deter either.

You said you doubt you'll ever go because of the policy.

 

 

 

The policy has no effect on you because it only prohibits children during a time you wouldn't take them anyway.

Poor writing on my part...I meant to say but not b/c of the policy...the policy does not bother me in the least.  I prefer to dine out without the presence of my kids, but that is not always an option, so if I have the kids in tow, we goto cheaper places where I can let them move about and its acceptable....We goto Berry Hill at 5:30 on the patio, or even more often we will goto Misson Burrito b/c they have a very small playground.

Well then, I don't see why you wouldn't go to the restaurant as the policy only applies after 7 PM.

I just choose not to go out for Mexican food when its a night out.  I can get good Mexican anywhere...I don't need to goto "upscale" Mexican food.  Its like "upscale" BBQ...its not better, it just costs more.

How late do you take 7 year olds to dinner?

I've never even tried to eat out with my kids after 6pm.  My kids wake up at 5:30am, and goto sleep at 8.  Starting a dinner out after 6 with my kids would be a disaster and I would never do that to myself, or other diners.

Well Ive never been to it and b/c of the policy I doubt I ever will....its not that the policy offends me, b/c it does not...its just that if I want a nice dinner out, I am sure as heck am not going out for mexican food....When I dine out without the kids I much prefer to goto places that serve food that I can't get at most other places I go regularly with kids...also while Im not a chef, or even a good cook, I am pretty capable of making good mexican food - so mexican food is pretty much my absolute last choice when out and about.

I heard on the radio this morning that there was a "popular" restaurant in the Heights that is now banning families with children after 7pm from dining with them.  They did not name the restaurant or really explain the policy, but I am curious what place it is, and what the policy really is?  When the clock strikes 7 are they handing families their checks, are they just not sitting new parties with families after 7?  

I am really curious as it seems to me that nearly every new resident in the Heights is a family with children or two a couple who is likely to soon have children, so unless its a very nice upscale restaurant, or a bar more than a restaurant, it seems to me to be a move that is likely to isolate quite a bit of its customer base. 

With that said I am 100% for allowing a restaurant to serve the demographic they want.  I have zero problem with it and I am not going to attempt to question their reasoning, its their business they can and should do whatever they want...I just was curious as to the place and the policy.

I would never knowingly buy into a historic district.  EVER.  That said, I own a rental house in the district...it was not historic when I bought it, all my closing papers showed it as unrestricted property, but magically by the wave of a magic wand, it now has lots of restrictions...what you seem to miss Brie (and I mean this respectfully) is that this is not actually about architecture, history, or consistency.  Its about property taxes.  Its about a bunch of folks trying like hell to prevent others from driving up the value of their house so that they can afford it in perpetuity.   These people like where they live, they like the influx of business & restaurants, but they dont like the price tag.  The ordinance was their way to not pay the true value of the property and try to freeze appreciation, or at least drastically slow it.

Is this specific to historic areas or are they just going around tresspassing in a variety of neighborhoods.

I hate the districts as much or more than the next person, but if its done from the street or sidewalk its pretty clearly not tresspassing.

Those are both beautiful homes.  I would be lucky to live in either one of them and would enjoy seeing them in my neighborhood.  Marksmu - can you please explain the relevance of the "sales price range" that appears in HAR listings of sold homes?  Based on the "What is Sales Price Range" blurb on the website, it's a pretty meaningless number.  Why do they bother listing it?

Im not sure why they do it, best as I can guess is that its done to give you a rough idea of the price, but that you still need to contact a realtor to actually find out for sure.  I think its just another way to generate leads - Data that gives you an idea, but really just drives your curiosity into making a phone call to find out the exact price.  That phone call is the foot in the door and the agents are happy. 

That is however, just my guess.  Its not something an agent inputs, at least I don't and I don't know where it would be input...

You have hit the nail right on the head with those 2 examples.

 

The way the ordinance is being enforced (not written), you cannot do anything to the front 2/3 - 3/4 of the house (yes, I am intentionally saying 2 numbers b/c that is what is said by a Historic Commissioner over and over again). The legal document says you can go up at 50% and out at 30%, and nowhere are 67% or 75% written. I did not want/need my house to end up being 3000 sqft; frankly it will make me house-poor with less green space, which I do not like. I originally planned our budget on ~2500 sqft, but was not allowed to do this. I want an upstairs' master bedroom with 2 small kids rooms connected with a jack-and-jill bathroom, so that we could be close to the kid(s) if things happen in the night (even though a realtor told me the market prefers a downstairs' master). The furthest forward I could start my 2nd story when I read the Ordinance (50%) made the house ~3,000 sqft. However, Staff recommended me for denial b/c I wouldn't push the 2nd story back 10 ft, making it 350 sqft bigger to 3,350. That is why I appealed - I wanted to keep it smaller and didn't think I should be forced to make it bigger when it is not written anywhere.

 

The attached photo is of a Brickmoon project at the corner of Highland and Studewood in the Woodland Heights - just outside of a Historic District. It is a modest, side addition (maybe ~10 ft out to the side? with no 2nd story) that comes to the front of the property. Because the addition comes to the front wall, it would not have been allowed in a HD. However, I think it looks seamless and definitely keeps in character with the original house....hard to remember how the original house looked any different?

Now you are using facts/logic to argue with preservationists....the preservationist loathe facts & logic.  They fight with emotion, emotion, no matter how illogical, can never be wrong. 

The ordinance is about control and property values...if you control the structures, you control the value.  Its not about preservation, history, or anything else.  Its a very vocal minority attempting to assert control over people who just want to go on about their lives.

S3MH says we "cant get the political support to repeal" the ordinance - but that is a half truth....the support is there, the political environment is not.  To repeal something is very different than enacting it, and everything is politics....this is a very insignificant issue in Houston, its just significant in our neighborhood.  The council, the HAHC, everyone is making sure that everyone who appeals wins - that is not coincidental.  To appeal costs money, if you have the money to appeal and to stage the fight, then you probably have the money to sue too - As it is right now, there is an argument that the ordinance has not actually caused anyone harm...without harm or damages there is no standing to sue...It will most likely take someone being denied at the appeal level to gain standing.  If the council just approves everyone, the ordinance can not be judically over-turned, which is why everything gets approved.  It takes money to win, and so far not enough of it has been ponied up.  The support for the districts, and the ordinance is nowhere near what the preservationist would have you believe it is...they used dirty methods and trickery to enact the ordinance, more & more people who later find out they are harmed by this will continue to drop their "support" for this ordinance.  I see it daily, as more and more families want more space without moving out of the area.

The ordinance IS anti-family, and while it IS possible to live in a small space, very very few people want to do so....especially those who have the money to live where they want and in the house of their choice, like so many Heights residents.

Some of the design guidelines actually encourage renovators to increase the total size of the house.  By requiring that additions start close to the back of the existing structure, and original materials be preserved to the extent possible, there is very little flexibility to how to lay out the house.

 

Here are two examples of more modest-sized homes that in my opinion look great:

 

http://www.har.com/homevalue/337-W-22nd-St-Houston-77008-M43760434.htm

http://www.har.com/homevalue/344-W-22nd-St-Houston-77008-M97582416.htm

 

 

Both sold in the high 600's if I'm not mistaken, despite being less than 3000 s.f.

 

However, neither would pass muster in the HD's, since both projects retained only a fraction of the original structures (about the front 1/3 or so). I suspect a high proportion of HD residents would be happy to live next door to these, as they retain the character of the original if not that much of the material. 

I logged into my realtor portal for you - This is direct from HAR:

337 w. 22nd sold for $655,000, after 2 days on the market.

344 W 22nd sold for $675,000 after 42 days on the market.