laiall

In general, I do like the character of most older homes and am in favor of preserving or renovating the salvageable ones rather than demolishing them. And on paper, the ordinance does not look all that bad, although I'm not a fan of some of the criteria, such as the setback requirements that results in unbecoming camelback additions. 

 

What I do have a problem with is the implementation of the restrictions, namely, the fact that some commission members will adjust the criteria when they don't like a particular project. The ordinance was written in a way that gives the commission members quite a bit of leeway in some areas, but some rules, like the setback requirement, are very clearly stated. This ordinance scope creep is evident, considering several denials have had to be overturned by the city.  

 

The only way for the historic district ordinance to be successful (or more tolerable) is if HAHC interprets the ordinance honestly and follows it as it is written. In my opinion, the homeowner should always be given the benefit of the doubt if there is a difficult project or a split decision. They are the ones whose lives are on hold while waiting for a CoA, and they are improving a house and investing in the neighborhood, while also facing increased property taxes.

 

If there is a real need to change the criteria, that should be put to a vote within the affected areas. Of course, I also don't think the original vote-in process was truly sincere, as per one of the previous posts, so I don't know how much good that would do. 

 

I agree with you about the 50% setback rule; it results in camelback shaped homes which don't flow with the original shape of the house.

 

I wonder how one would go about creating a referendum to revise the existing ordinance?

laiall, in an effort to steer this discussion back from a tangential discussion with little hope of providing any actual benefit to this thread, I will ask you some questions:

 

have you completely read the ordinance?

 

I have read through Chapter 33, Article VII, Divisions 4 & 5. Do I have them  memorized? No. Do I know where to go to reference it for information? Yes.

 

I am curious, Division 5 (Design Guidelines), Section 33-268 states:

"After approval, the HAHC shall use the criteria within the design guidelines for granting or denying applications for certificates of appropriateness for applicable activities within the boundaries of the historic district."

 

BUT, Division 4 (COA), Section 33-241 seems to have all the guidelines laid out? If we were to give our own very specific Design Guidelines would they supercede criteria laid out in Division 4?

 

have you reviewed how the HAHC has ruled?

So far, fwki has showed me the youtube video for Brie's hearing for the Harvard home. Working on watching some more based on links provided earlier in this thread.

 

 

have you considered how this would not just impact you, but your neighbors (positive and negative)?

If >67% of the neighborhood was for a historic district, deed restrictions were unable to be adequately enforced AND we could institute some of the changes that have been mentioned thus far (provision to allow owners prior to the HD creation would be exempt from COA, etc) then I would be all for an HD.

 

I understand the property owners' rights angle, but what about those which already live in a community and bought into it for a certain atmosphere/lifestyle? It goes both ways. I would be happy with an enforcable deed restriction which requires the local community's approval (in this case the WHCA) prior to demolition.  

 

Our current deed restrictions state: "The Community Affairs Committee of the existing local civic association shall monitor exterior remodeling, additions, or improvements, and shall use all legal means, whether public or private, to enforce the deed restrictions herin set out." However, from what I have read on Nextdoor the city refuses to enforce any of our deed restrictions. Hopefully, fwki can chime in here since he is actually on the deed restrictions committee.

 

have you found people who have gone through the process and spoken with them?

Like you, I have not done this nor am I sure how I could go about doing this. I have contemplated on posting to Nextdoor to see if I'd get any feedback, but haven't done so yet.

 

have you found people who are in a HD, but not gone through the process and asked them why they haven't?

Same as above.

 

 

We're supposed to have the judicial branch and the constitution to protect us from people voting in laws that take away rights from the minority. It seems that people always forget about that when there's a law they support though.

 

Isn't that speaking at the federal level though?

 

Initiatives are used at the state and local level to bring issues to a popular vote.

 

Contrarily, couldn't a referendum be used likewise to repeal a Historic District if the popular vote was adequate? 

Why stop the demolitions? Why would you ever care that your neighbor wants a different house? That's a real question, by the way.  As long as the house meets the deed restrictions that were mutually agreed, it shouldn't matter that your neighbor builds a house identical to what you might find in a suburb, or a "Charlestonian".

 

To be clear about my stance, I'm not opposed to any demolitions ever. I understand that there are some homes that are dilapidated to the point that it doesn't make sense to renovate. 

 

The Arts and Crafts era of architecture is a celebrated period in American architecture. The Norhill Addition also has some Houston specific history being developed by a historical Houston figure in William Hogg who was a champion of the city (donated Camp Logan to the city, etc). The general Houston philosophy of the past is to knock down and rebuild. This makes it all the more impressive how the neighborhood has been able to remain intact despite this (probably due to the fact that up until recently there was not so much pressure from people moving inside the loop). Residents have fought tooth and nail in the past to preserve what we believe is something worth saving.

 

Ross, are you of the opinion that there is nothing redeemable in preserving history ever? 

 

Btw, the deed restrictions do prevent anyone from building a"Charlestonian" in the neighborhood. The problem is two-fold as well; most of the new construction in the neighborhood are homes that are >3000 sq ft being built on 5000 sq ft lots. I've personally witnessed builders coming in, building these behemoths, and effectively permanently blocking any sunlight from ever entering the neighboring houses again. Its either irresponsible development by a builder or a lack of regard by the new homeowner, both of which damage the quality of life of the neighbors. I understand that this specific problem can be solved w/ minimum setback provisions in the deed restrictions.

 

I think this is one of the few examples of a builder doing an excellent job of both honoring that which it replaced while at the same time being appropriately sized (i.e. - not so big as to hinder the neighbors quality of life): http://www.har.com/HomeValue/1136-Peddie-St-Houston-77009-M40838644.htm

Sure you could have Deed Restrictions that prevent demolitions because DR's are covenants among willing parties. The original DR's had clauses about "Coloreds" living in the front house and all kinds of stuff that is now illegal. I just looked at your new Petition soliciting input, we may have to draft you onto the Norhill Deed Restrictions Renewal team since we need all the help we can muster and you have made the same mistake: publically expressing interest. I'm serious, check out the Norhill Addition subsection of NextDoor.

Greg just added me to it yesterday. I had NO idea there was another revision for the deed restrictions in process until I was added to the group. Let me know what I can do to help. I am genuinely interested.

Please point out the insults in my last post because I missed 'em totally and I promised Subdude no personal attacks. But my question stands: How can one have a strong enough opinion to post and solicit signatories for a very clear Petition to encumber our properties with seemingly so little information?

I am not aware of a way that deed restrictions can prevent demolitions. I am not convinced that even if there was a provision in a deed restriction for approval by the civic association prior to demolition it would be enforceable. I've seen the sections of our neighborhood within the Greater Heights contained within the Historic Districts and they are noticeably more intact with original Craftsmans (i.e. - woodland heights, norhill HDs, etc)

Can we stop the demolitions with just deed restrictions?

As i mentioned earlier, your points have been duly noted and i updated my petition for clarity: http://www.change.org/petitions/petition-to-gauge-interest-in-a-south-norhill-historic-district

Sheesh laiall, I've been posting about the Hysterical Preservation Faction elitists moving on Norhill Addition for over a year. I even posted the link to a study funded by Preservation Houston and posted on the UH Hobby Center for Public Policy stating exactly that fact. Just because you posted a very clear Petition and solicited neighbors to take Step One doesn't change any of that. You seem not know much at all about the Ordinance, it's cost, history, how it's being manipulated and enforced or all the trickery used to slap it on the Heights folks in 2010. You missed the bait-n-switch and all the love it fostered. How can one even have an opinion on the Ordinance with so little information? Most engineers I know wouldn't make that Petition move without a little homework first. Yet you are all for it on Change.org. Very interesting, indeed.

Here's the City video link, go to Committees and Commissions and do a search for "historic": http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/ I have about two years' worth ripped for YouTube fodder.

You can keep on with the insults. I will not combat them with insults back to you because it is not constructive whatsoever. Due to your perceived interpretation of my petition, i have updated in an attempt to listen to what you have to say.

Is there improvement among the ordinance, HAHC, etc at all? Has the city shown an awareness that there is a problem? Surely, there is hypothetically a way for a historic district to be beneficial.

Being an actual resident of Norhill Addition, what are your personal feelings about all the demolitions occurring in our neighborhood? Are you of the opinion that the neighborhood would be better off with no deed restrictions, no HD, etc., and that property owner rights rule supreme?

It should not require multiple trips to City Commissions to get what you want when your plans comply with the law. The HAHC is an abomination, populated with self serving, self righteous know it alls trying to impose their aesthetic views on others.

 

I have to ask, though, why you think it's OK to impose your views on property owners who bought their property without the restrictions implied by a historic district. In fact, why do you think that it's reasonable for you to be able to prevent your neighbor from tearing down their house and building a structure more suited to their needs? Would you tell a neighbor that the fact they need more space to accommodate their unexpected twins means they ought to move to the suburbs? How does your neighbor building a modern structure harm you?

 

Is there no course of action to improve the HAHC?

 

Is there no course of action to have a clause in the ordinance to exclude those who bought into the neighborhood prior to the creation of a historic district?

 

I am in agreement with you that it is not fair to the people who bought in prior to an HD creation. But I am also in agreement that if there is a supermajority vote to ratify a historic district then it is justified.

 

Based on what fwki has said in the other forum, is there not a current plan between the planning committee and the HAHC due to the fact that the HAHC has not been consistent with their rulings? This would seem to me like a recognition by the city that there is a problem and they are taking action to try and improve it. 

 

Would you support a historic district if it had provisions for existing owners to be exempt from the HAHC and the neighborhood had a supermajority vote in support of it? 

 

I want to stress yet again because every reply I am getting is hostile, I'm not here to pick a fight. There has got to be a way to compromise here. There is no need to demonize the opposition.

The Historic Districts are like using a full body cast when you only need a bandaid.

 

Yeah, I had a paper cut and needed something to stop the bleeding but now I can't move...

 

 

I do beleive if you modified your petition to get everyone in the "norhill addition" to support Minimum Lot size/Minimum set back you would get more support.  (does Norhill Addition already have these?).  Norhill was the perfect example of how things should have worked... the Historic Districts didn't really change anything for Norhill residents (they had good deed restrictions already), other than add extra steps to the process.

 

BTW, there are a few new to the neighborhood people already pushing to expand the Woodland Heights lines outward as well.

 

Would a minimum lot size/minimum set back prevent demolitions though? I don't think so, it would just ensure that the new homes being built would be set back, right?

 

Also, Norhill's historic district came into existence June of 2000 as evidenced here: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/maps_of_districts/Norhill.pdf

 

Now i've only been in the neighborhood for about 2 years, but from what I have been able to gather much of the Heights was an undesirable place to live as late as the 90s. The increasing frequency of demolitions has been mostly a post 2000 phenomenon and seems to have really accelerated in this hot housing market in the last 1-2 years. How can you make the distinction between if it was the deed restrictions or the historic district designation that helped Norhill to stay intact? It seems like it is a combination of both, no?

Laiall,

Before you start thowing around accusations, take a look at my posts on this subject and you will see that you are late to the party by about two years and during those two years my posts on this subject have been very consistent.  Don't think I am talking about you when you just showed up here.  The whole process to HD designation starts with a petition, you started a petition not to see "who is in and who isn't"....read your own words: "Residents of South Norhill section of the Woodland Heights: Establish the South Norhill Historic District".  That to me is step one in the process and I will fight from step one forward.

 

On the otherhand, your posts on NextDoor are for up for discussion and I accepted that challenge and will continue there in an appropriate manner as long as people are interested.

 

In this forum I have used (within forum rules and Subdude's pleadings) and will use tools of debate, biting political satire, AND propaganda to battle propaganda such as your characterization of the petition as just trying to see what people think.   These are two different worlds and your posts will not be treated with deference first here as they would on Next Door.  Sorry to be blunt, but there are some smart people on this board both pro and con HD, you will learn a lot here assuming you have the sufficient skin thinckness.

 

That said, I didn't know you from Adam but your petition speaks for itself and it is not at all inquisitory, ergo my first post stands unedited.  This preservation ordinance is really, really bad.  Don't take Step One in bringing me under that monster without doing your homeowork and then claim innocence or worse, ignorance.  Welcome to HAIF.

 

Regardless of what I do or do not know about historic districts at this point. Your original post characterized my petition as if there was some machine behind an iron curtain that has a hidden agenda that created it when I know for a fact based on our conversation on Nextdoor that you were fully aware that the petition was created by me, your neighbor who has no hidden agenda. 

 

Judging by what I saw on your Nextdoor profile you are an engineer as am I. We pride ourselves on being detail oriented and using reason and logic to solve problems. Your admitted use of propaganda does nothing but to manipulate those who don't know me into thinking I am some sort of demon preservationist with bad intentions. Propaganda does noone favors and causes people to make decisions based on emotions rather than reason. I'm not trying to troll anyone here and I'd hope, unlike the other thread, things can be kept civil. 

 

I have lightly read the other thread in this forum and have also been on the forum for years albeit a lurker. I will take the time to go back and read every single page of that other thread.

 

In the meantime, i'd appreciate a link to all the HAHC vids. The one you linked me to on Nextdoor about Brie was definitely frustrating, but she did ultimately get to do what she wanted to. 

Welcome to the board Laill.

 

Please sit down and watch the recordings of the commission meetings and the appeal meetings at planning.  I think you'll see why some people are not too happy with the ordinance.

Cheers

James

 

Thanks for the welcome James.

 

Fwki already linked me to one HAHC video involving Brie and her home on Harvard. Although it was a lot of heartache she was able to get approved: http://www.change.org/petitions/houston-archaeological-and-historical-commission-hahc-approve-application-to-restore-my-1920-home-that-has-been-neglected-for-yrs

 

I understand that the Historic Ordinance is not perfect, but what are the provisions to amend it to find a happy medium between preserving the architecture while not stepping on property owners' rights.

 

Also, is there a link you can provide for all the HAHC meetings? I tried youtube but was only able to dig up two videos (one of which is the aforementioned one).

Hysterical preservationists have named their next victim with a petition on Change.oorg to encumber Norhill Addition property owners with the perpetually morphing Historic Ordinance.  The petition pleads: "We must act to ensure that the last 1/3 of the Norhill neighborhood's history is preserved."

 

The petition leaves out the crippling impact on property rights, the irresponsible antics of the HAHC zoning board and the continual reinterpretation of the Historic Ordinance by City Planning to increase the level of government takings imposed by this law. I am asking fellow Norhill Addition property owners educate themselves on this regulatory movement's dirty tricks, watch the videos of the HAHC in action against owners and see the reinterpretation efforts at the Planning Commission appeals videos.  Also not mentioned is the fact that there is no upside to HD designation since we have ample protection with existing Deed Restrictions, now up for renewal.

 

Red's cryptic prediction about Norhill which scared me into action years ago has come true as this monster turns its head.  Take action now and we can stop it: Affirm our existing Deed Restrictions with a Yes vote this fall on the upcoming Deed Restriction petition for Norhill Addition to allow City legal department enforcement, educate yourself on the facts and track record of the HAHC, talk to your neighbors and write CM Gonzalez.  My opinion is well-documented here, form your own and act on it.

 

fwki,

 

Shame on you (I'm guessing this is you juding by the acronym of the screenname), I think it is very disingenuous of you to post on nextdoor.com with me about civil and mature conversation about the pro's and con's of a historic district and then to post on this forum and call me an "elitist" and a "hysterical preservationist". 

 

To be clear, I am a current resident of the Norhill Addition and also happen to be the person who created the aforementioned petition on change.org. I have no prior "preservationist" history and the picture he painted above is exaggerated propaganda to say the least. 

 

I have no hidden agenda whatsoever; I want a historic district because in my opinion what sets the Heights apart from other neighborhoods inside the loop is the intactness of the original Craftsman Bungalow homes. With the rising property values, I've seen increased demolitions to build giant homes to maximize price/sq ft profits. I don't want to see my neighborhood turn into one with faux-craftsman mansions that are 4 feet apart from each other lining the streets. Deed restrictions just aren't strict enough to prevent demolitions from happening.

 

We are all entitled to our own opinion and for all I know there are more people in our subdivision who would rather see the giant mansions lining the street. THAT was the whole reason I posted the petition. I am just trying to get a feel for who is in and who isn't to determine if a historic district is in the interest of the majority (67% to be exact according to the city).

 

What we really don't need, is someone running around spewing propaganda without listening to how the other side feels.

 

One thing is for sure, this is no way to treat one of your own neighbors.

Agreed.  FWIW even though I loved living in Montrose for the same price I'd go for a house in the Heights over a townhome in Montrose any day.  There are really only a handful of neighborhoods I'd consider living in Montrose with a family whereas in general the Heights seems to be more family friendly.  There is just a location factor to Montrose that is hard to beat

 

I agree with Brian that there are better values on the south side, at least for now.  I guess "value" is kind of the opposite of what we are discussing here, though

 

Finally, I agree w/ everything you said!

 

I love Montrose as well and would be just as happy if I had ended up there.

It's broken out for Montrose because obviously there the ratio of townhouses to single family homes is much higher and thus gives a clearer basis for comparison.  You can lump them together if you want by taking a weighted average and it shows they are essentially the same (albeit Montrose still slightly higher).  But of course nearly half of the Montrose properties are townhouses

 

There are probably other sources to use for comparison out there, I dunno.  Either way it's a much more objective analysis with a larger sample (all sold houses) and more importantly, it's based on actual sales prices rather than picking a very small subset of house list prices from har

 

So, what you meant to say in your original posts were:

 

"Actually, I think I've seen several times that housing in Montrose is actually pricier than virtually the same as the Heights, but of course both areas are fairly large so things can vary quite a bit within each."

 

"I'd still argue agree Montrose is generally priced higher the same."

 

 

Unless what you meant by your original statements was the 0.4% difference between the two neighborhoods per your link. I think we can agree that they are both awesome neighborhoods and comparably priced.

OK, enough of this contest.  Yes, maybe they are within range of what you quoted but that doesn't make your examples any less valid.  Your method of comparing home prices between parts of town is flawed - but if doing it that way helps you sleep at night, then so be it.  Those earlier examples were driven by land value, not $/sq ft.  I'm not sure how else this can be explained  

 

I can nit pick your examples (that last listing is insanely high) and try to find higher $/sq ft offerings in Montrose but what's the point, a $400/sq ft example probably doesn't exist.  My comment was that Montrose pricing is generally higher.  That's not to say you aren't going to find some very high priced homes in certain areas of each.  There are a total of 10 single family homes/multi-family in Montrose under $400K, so in terms of what we are comparing here I would say that yes, the examples you gave are the bottom of the market.  I don't even live there anymore so I don't really don't care either way.  But I'd say this document posted the other day may offer some guidance and is probably a little more conclusive than this random house picking

 

http://www.greenwoodking.com/images/pdf/marketreport7.pdf

 

It's not perfect, but I think it substantiates my views.  Or at least proves I'm not 100% wrong

 

Eric, give me a break man. Your link differentiates single family homes from townhomes for Montrose but lumps them all together for the Heights. Unlike your link, I've made a direct apples to apples comparison between the two areas today; I have made sure there are similar sizes of land and similar sizes of home. 

 

It's not a contest. The facts have been presented and you have nothing solid to substantiate your claims while I have provided ample examples to refute them. I even used the links you yourself posted to demonstrate to you.

 

There is nothing left to debate here.

Yes, your 3 house sample of the bottom of the market in Montrose completely refutes what I said

 

1623 Marshall is touted as a tear down (build later!) and 1108 Bomar is 1300 sq ft with no garage.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a goner, too, at least at some point in the near future.  $/sq ft doesn't mean anything on these

 

There are townhouses going in Montrose in $600K range, I recently sold my 80's remodeled 2 bed/2.5 bath townhouse for not much less than the price ranges you are showing.  Of course, it always depends on the area you are looking at.  Here's some of the pricier new construction (with your favorite $/sq ft metric included):

 

$323/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cfm?mlnum=98123400&v=s

$322/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cfm?mlnum=20440247&v=s

$300/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cfm?mlnum=70446739&v=s

 

Fair enough, even though I disagree with you that those homes are the "bottom" of the market and I hope you realize the price/sq ft of your examples are maybe a $20/sq ft on avg difference from the ones I cited, I'll drive my point home by using your own examples coupled with some similarly sized (building and lot) homes in the Heights to show you that you are 100% wrong. 

 

$300/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/726-E-7th-1/2-St-Houston-77007-1708_HAR19889954.htm

 

$388/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/515-Ridge-St-Houston-77009-7517_HAR31762194.htm

 

$418/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/601-E-16th-Houston-77008-4401_HAR63199432.htm

But you are choosing properties in West U that are very rare and are just a broken AC unit away from being a teardown and comparing them to properties in the Heights that are abundant.  Thus, even if you are right that there is better value in West U, the fact is that those properties are so scarce that it is practically a moot point. 

 

Not going to argue with you about West U being a better value at a similar price/sq ft. Heights middle and high schools need to vastly improve before I would change my mind.

 

"...broken AC unit away from being a teardown.." is completely inaccurate btw, 2 of those 3 properties are fully renovated and the $322/sq ft one is half way there.

 

I'm glad you read my post in more detail and came to the same conclusion that the Heights prices are getting a little too close to West U prices and thus are overpriced for what you are getting.

Price / sq ft is one metric that has some definite flaws to it, plus you are showing us a small sample of asking prices (and note that all 3 West U ones are pending).  One of the houses you listed for the Height was shown as < 1K sq ft.  Seriously?  Do you think if that house was twice as big they would get anywhere close to twice the price?  If someone is paying $500Kish for a house in West U it's a teardown, that's certainly not the case in the Heights.  Lot value alone in West U is probably $500K+ nowdays.  Seriously, go filter on West U and see what is available for < $600K.  Now try $700K, $800K

 

Edit:  It's not like I'm a real estate expert, but it's pretty logical that when your land value is a high % of value of the house (as is the case in all 6 of your examples except maybe the first) I think $/sq ft is extremely misleading

 

First of all, I never said Heights was the same price as West U. If you go back and read my post again you'll see I said the prices are "approaching" West U and used it as a justification for why I think the prices in the Heights are going to level off:

 

"The prices are approaching West U, but the Heights doesn't have the school system yet like West U does to deserve pricing on the same level."

 

 

Here are some larger homes in the Heights:

 

$304/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/520-Omar-St-Houston-77009-6641_HAR37201506.htm

 

$271/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/423-Bayland-Av-Houston-77009-6603_HAR25958364.htm

 

$270/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/1032-Highland-St-Houston-77009-6515_HAR81010554.htm

I'd still argue Montrose is generally priced higher.  The only thing you will find under $400K in Montrose anymore are teardowns or townhomes and maybe a couple of worn out duplexes

 

You don't get to make up your own facts.

 

Montrose:

 

$300/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/1223-Jackson-Bl-Houston-77006-1101_HAR84444417.htm

 

$296/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/1623-Marshall-St-Houston-77006-4121_HAR20477874.htm

 

$273/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/1108-Bomar-St-Houston-77006-1224_HAR5282944.htm

You have cherry picked the snot out of that list from West U.  Those properties are the exception in West U.  Currently on the market in West U, there are 9 houses over 2 mil, 25 over 1 mil, 9 over 900k, 3 over 800k and 8 from 0-799k.  Sure, it may be possible to pluck a tear down away from a builder in West U, but the vast majority of the housing in West U is 1 mil+. 

 

s3mh, reading comprehension, please read my post a little more carefully.

 

Houses over 2 mil, 1 mil, etc are on larger plots of land and/or are larger in sq ft. To get a good comparison I chose properties with comparable plots of land and building sq ft and made sure to choose properties within the best sections of each neighborhood.

Very instructive; thanks for doing this. Not that I can afford Heights or West U,  but as a resident of The Perpetual  Next Cool Neighborhood, it def provides some perspective.

 

Crunch, I see you are in Eastwood. That is a great neighborhood from an investment standpoint and gentrification is well under way. I suspect when the Metrorail line opens up, there will be an increased influx of working professionals into the area and that area will blow up. 

OkieEric, on 04 Sept 2013 - 7:11 PM, said:

 

I haven't seen anything suggesting the prices are anywhere close to approaching West U...

 

Heights:

 

$300/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/702-Omar-Houston-77009-6645_HAR47490461.htm

 

$353/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/910-Redan-St-Houston-77009-6040_HAR28988478.htm

 

$369/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/1015-Fugate-St-Houston-77009-5013_HAR33583074.htm

 

 

 

West U:

 

$265/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/3935-Marlowe-St-West-University-77005-2045_HAR28400842.htm

 

$322/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/3921-University-Blvd-Houston-77005-2803_HAR52279754.htm

 

$344/sq ft - http://search.har.com/engine/4015-Villanova-West-University-77005_HAR28457840.htm

 

 

Made sure to choose properties in both West U and Heights Proper. No cherry-picking, I also made sure lot sizes were relatively close.

 

I rest my case.

I agree, I think the market has peaked and will start to level off. The prices are approaching West U, but the Heights doesn't have the school system yet like West U does to deserve pricing on the same level.

...But each different house has a different soil & there are advantages & disadvantages to different foundation types.

Pier/Beam has the advantage of being up off the ground which is great for flooding, aesthetics, and allowing access to house mechanicals like plumbing & electrical. Also very easy to upgrade/change things later b/c of this. However, pipes are prone to freezing, wires are exposed to animals like mice/possums, etc your floors are exposed to the elements & humidity which can cause wood floors to cup if ventilation is inadequate, First floor can be very cold in the winter if uninsulated, the entirety of your home is exposed to both drywood & subterranean termites.

Most builders go with post tension slabs now (which I am not a fan of) to cut down on errors and to save time, not money. Post tension versus pier/beam are not drastically different in terms of price. The reason builders chose post tension is b/c the cables are made off site by tradesmen where there is VERY little error. When the cables are delivered the only thing the workers do is put the pre-labeled cables in order 1,2,3,4 etc and then criss-cross A,B,C,D...its difficult to make errors....its fast, strong, error-free and will usually, even under poor soil conditions, last 10 years without a problem. That is why builders use them. Pre-Engineered, nearly impossible to screw up, fast, almost always last past the warranty at which point they dont care. Tract homes builders design homes that are easy to build to minimize mistakes...

Modern construction makes the older homes construction seem obsolete...mostly because it is obsolete...That does not mean that there are not great things about the older homes, but to say they are built better than todays home is silly.

Im in the process of building my custom home right now. Its a 30 year home for me, so I am going above & beyond on everything. I guarantee that absolutely 100% of the things that I am putting into that home are superior to everything found in the older ones in every single way, both in terms of strength and energy efficiency. Where an old home may have strong "old growth" wood. I have steel. Its not your run of the mill production home, but if I am to believe all of the old historic natzi's neither were their homes back in the day.

Marksmu, excellent post. I definitely learned something when reading it.

With that said, I think its not a stretch to say over the last couple of pages on this thread the discussion has been about craftsman bungalows and 1950s ranch-style tract homes (what i meant by "newer"). Im not going to argue with you about your brand new fully custom steel-framed, nonstandard upgraded modern slab founation home being better or not than an early 1900's home. And frankly, it's another strawman argument.

So to be clear, in the context of early 1900s balloon framing & pier and beam foundation and post-WWII platform framing & post tension slab foundation homes: Pipes prone to freezing, while being a valid point rarely will happen in Houston and steps can be taken to insulate your plumbing and install lattice trim to reduce airflow. My electricals are in the attic so no exposure to wildlife. In regard to humidity effects on flooring, my home has a 3/4" thick subfloor and a vapor barrier b/w the subfloor and flooring. Uninsulated floors being cold in the winter is absolutely true, no rebuttal there. Slab foundation on its own does not necessarily protect you from termites either.

Post tension slab advantages are: plumbing less prone to freeze (minimal concern in Houston) and floors not being as cold in the winter. Seems from your description that most of the real advantages come in the form of saved time and reduced liability for the builder, not the homeowner.

Pier/beam advantages are: easy access to plumbing, cheaper leveling cost, flood protection, better aesthetics

The difference is the minimal advantages of the post tension slab can be remedied to some extent with proper insulation and ventilation control for pier and beam. The same cannot be said for post tension slab; no easy way to remedy plumbing access, foundation leveling is expensive, nothing can be done about flooding and the aesthetics less than ideal.

The engineer lied. As for all those great over engineered houses? Look at how many are gone. Those are the ones that didn't make it. But, again, people try to make these houses sound like something they ain't. One day, maybe you'll pull back a wall and see for yourself. I enjoy working on my house, but I will not lie about how they are built just to sound like an old house homer. My garage, built in 2009, is twice as strong, level, engineered, wind resistant, and everything else compared to my 107 year old house. And it ain't even close. When I added a porch onto the back of my house, the City would not even let me do the same foundation as the house.

 

RedScare, I find myself agreeing with a lot of the things you have been saying. 

 

Though I agree with you that Sm3h's "overengineered" comment is baseless. The older homes used balloon framing which incorporated longer/contiguous studs that run from the bottom plate / floor joist all the way to the top plate. The older homes also sit on a pier and beam foundation. Newer homes incorporate platform framing and concrete slab foundations.

 

Balloon framing, at least from what i have read, is more wind resistant especially in two-story homes because it eliminates a hinge point on exterior gable studs. Where it falls short is lack of insulation in interior walls (which can be added if one wants) and the fact that in a two-story homes the full length studs provide a path for fire to travel easily between floors. Also, the pier and beam foundation is superior to concrete slab in every way. Concrete slab arose as a cost savings to pier and beam. Pier and beam allows you easy access to plumbing as well as being substantially easier/cheaper to level. I have a coworker who spent upwards of $10k to level his slab foundation. I recently had mine leveled for about $2000.