s3mh

The main reason for the ordinance was to stop demolitions. People were already aware of and very actively pursuing minimum lot size in the Heights at the time the HDs were forming. And no one in the Heights wanted to see their property values restricted. People wanted the ordinance because they were tired of seeing all of the original historic architecture getting demoed. At the height of the drive to get petitions signed, there were in excess of 200 original historic homes being demolished by builders in a year. The yard signs even said "No to demolitions". But of course, the anti-ordinance groups have to invent a different narrative to explain why they were unable to get anyone to join their agenda, even after there have been issues with HAHC. And the main reason the anti-ordinance people have failed to get any support is that they cannot resist insulting people who disagree with them. It is a constant on this board and has popped up every now and then on other neighborhood forums. Anyone who is on the fence sees these posts and is repulsed by the rhetoric. But that is fine with me. The benefit of anonymous message boards is that we can see people's true colors and not be fooled by a public façade.

Face it, a guy who speaks out FOR and against a tiny fraction of HAHC applications has not silly agenda to try to increase his property values by inhibiting the construction of large additions to existing homes. But you refuse to actually address what Mr. Marsh actually said and instead attack him personally. He could be the biggest hypocrite in the world and have a crazed agenda of trying to destroy the property market in the Heights. But that doesn't mean what he said is wrong. It is just a cheap attack on his credibility that is typical of the anti-ordinance movement. You all know that no one in the Heights wants to go back to the days when 200+ bungalows a year were being demolished and have to instead make it seem like everyone who supports the ordinance is a bad person with an improper motive. And you might want to look up the definition of the word "stagnant". The denial of less than 1% of applications to HAHC has hardly lead to stagnation. In fact, it would be a very difficult task to quantify any sort of very slight drag on the market as prices keep climbing and inventory remains historically low (although I think that the inventory on the high end of 800k+ homes is pretty healthy). It is just another fiction of the anti-ordinance argument that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Mr. Marsh is not showing up to oppose everything that is going up in the Heights. In fact he has spoken in support of several projects at commission hearings and has spoken against only a tiny fraction of the applications that go before the commission. And there is absolutely no stagnation in the number of large homes and additions going up in the Heights. If anything, the market is getting a bit too top heavy. There are currently 21 properties on the market for 800k plus just in Houston Heights proper with at least nine new single families approved for the Heights WD that are not even on the market yet. Face it, the idea of the HAHC causing stagnation in the Heights is an anti-ordinance argument that has long sailed away. Marksmu is trying to back pedal, but his posts are unambiguous. He believes that the supporters of the ordinance are all retirees that want to use the ordinance to keep their property values down (isn't working out so well). Of course, I have no interest in seeing you two argue it out. I am just pointing out the fact that both arguments have absolutely no basis in reality.

Let's recap some of the arguments made above: 1. You support free speech, but only if it comes with a heavy personal price to the person who takes a position that you oppose. 2. You can anonymously (well, sort of) attack someone by name and address on an internet message board, but do not actually have to have the facts to back it up. It is the burden of the victim of your attack to rebut your assumptions. 3. Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite because his house does not comply with an ordinance that did not come into existence until 15 years after his home was built. 4. A law that grants a municipality subjective discretion is void or should be repealed. So, I guess you will never seek a variance in any of your project and will begin a campaign to strip the City of Houston of the authority to grant variances? And for the record, Bungalow Revival is still a supporter of the ordinance. But they are grown ups and will work to improve the ordinance and the process before HAHC instead of letting the builders go back to knocking down 200+ bungalows a year and replacing them with an odd mess of faux architecture, pressed together like graham crackers in a box.

Looks like you and Marksmu need to duke it out on this one. He seems to think that the preservationist are all a bunch of retirees who are trying to suppress property values to keep theirs low to avoid rising property taxes. I suspect that it will be a draw between you two as neither of you is right.

You can call Mr. Marsh all kinds of names (that is the Modus Operandi for the anti-ordinance people when dealing with people who they do not agree with--"snobs", "hypocrite", "lives are pathetic" etc., disparaging historic architecture, "shacks"). You can make substantive counter arguments to what Mr. Marsh said at the hearing (a tactic that is in scarce supply in the rhetoric of the anti-ordinance people). But, do not question Mr. Marsh's right to stand up in a public forum and express his views. That right is just as fundamental and sacrosanct as any property right granted by the Constitution. And your attack on Mr. Marsh, to the extent it is slightly substantive, is woefully lacking. It is a complete strawman argument. People who support the ordinance are not against new construction. In fact, we strongly support new construction when it is consistent with the historic architecture and is not at the expense of the existing historic architecture. And new construction is great when it replaces non-conforming structures, like ranch style houses or warehouses. Calling someone a hypocrite just because they live in new construction assumes that supporters of the ordinance are against all new construction. They are not. Thus, the argument is completely invalid. According to the link to the portrait studio you found on the internet: "[Mr. Marsh] bought a lot two blocks away on Arlington and had a new house built. In order to help preserve the ambience of the neighborhood they love so much, they chose a builder who specializes in new builds that match the style of much older houses." What we do not know is whether Mr. Marsh tore down an existing structure that was contributing or whether it was a vacant lot or had a structure that could not be saved. Before publicly calling someone a hypocrite, especially someone you do not know and who had more guts than you to stand up and speak for what he believes in a public forum, you bear the burden of proof to support your claim. You simply assume that he must have demo-ed a contributing building and is a hypocrite as a result. That assumption is wrong. You also fail to understand the issue with size. There is no per se square footage that is acceptable. The issue is scale, not square footage. Square footage is one element of scale, but there is much more to be considered. And you wrongly assume that Mr. Marsh does not want the homeowner to do anything. He raises issues with the application and a majority of both the Planning Commission and HAHC agrees with him. They have not banned any work on the property. They have just rejected one application. It is just a fact of life that when you have a subjective approval process that some people will have to go back to the drawing board to make it work. Builders have pushed the issue of scale by making every new project a near lot filler. Concerned residents have pushed back. HAHC has generally responded to resident's concerns and is pushing back on the issue of scale. It will take some work to try to make the process more predictable, but it can be done. And that issue will never convince the community to through the baby out with the bath water and go back to the days where there were 200+ demolitions in the Heights every year of historic buildings that could have easily been saved.

I also went trick or treating. Only one of the new builds on my street were answering the door for trick or treaters. They are empty nesters who are about 5-10 years from retirement. The other new builds are young couples who weren't home and one other empty nester who kept the porch light off. The six families with kids all live in original homes with varying degrees of additions. The one ardent anti-ordinance resident is old and retired. From what I gather, she was opposed because she wanted to be able to get lot value in the event she had to sell and move into a retirement/assisted living home and did not want to have her property values restricted by the ordinance. The number of retired residents in the Heights who have so little retirement income that rising property taxes are an issue for them are so small that they are insignificant as a political force. Most of the residents from the old days have sold and moved on. The retired residents who remain tend to be very well off and are not concerned about their property taxes. The reality is that the pro-historic preservation people are a broad mix of young and old. Conservative and liberal. Rich and poor. It is funny how whenever an argument comes up over something about the ordinance that the discussion quickly turns to a personal attack on pro-ordinance people instead of an objective discussion about how to solve problems and make things better for all.

And until the law changes from what it is to what you want it to be, Mr. Marsh and others very much have the right to participate and speak out for what they believe is right.

Who are you to tell this guy that he should not participate in the democratic process? It is an open forum and a public process. He has every bit as much of a right to participate as do the applicants. If you disagree with him, fine. State your argument. But calling him out just for standing up for what he believes in and participating in an open forum is just flat out wrong.

Buyer undisclosed. Asking price $1.5 mil. Pretty much fully leased. Buyer should take the property subject to the existing leases. Doubt we would see any changes short term. But have to wonder what things will look like long term as the two Braun developments will begin to bring in more foot traffic to the area.

Partial credit for what looks like a façade that is mostly brick and stone. But, yeah. Enough with the "pavilion" style thing already. It actually looks like an architect was trying to borrow elements of a typical Chicago/Commercial style roof, but had to bow to the overlords and keep it within the usual "pavilion" style for these complexes. Given what is going up around town, this could have definitely been much worse.

Not correct. Queen Anne architecture pre-dates the craftsman bungalows. Most Queen Anne houses in the Heights are from right around the turn of the century and were built with transomed windows (the Victorian era method for getting air circulation--good example of Queen Anne elevation here: http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/photos/0,,20713808,00.html). Ones that do not or that have some more craftsman looking elements (tapered columns, etc) are probably craftsman bungalows that borrow on some Queen Anne elements. But there was no process of building a little bungalow and then adding on a Queen Anne elevation on the front of the building.

Adverse possession is not an obscure legal technique. It is a very common aspect of real estate law. Adverse possession is really supposed to be like a statute of limitations/repose requiring someone claiming an interest in real property who has notice of a rival claim to either take action to challenge the rival interest or to lose that interest if they do not take action within 10 years (some other interests in real property have different deadlines in Texas). It was never meant to be a way for people with absolutely no interest in land to be able to take advantage of the slow legal process of dealing with someone who died intestate with no relatives around to claim the property. Those properties can frequently sit idle for years before local officials begin the process of selling it to pay the taxes, which can also take years. Texas needs to either add a bad faith exception to adverse possession or to allow tolling of the time limit in the case of a property owner dying intestate.

This is just a renovation project for the old folks home on 19th, which is a facility for low income seniors. It was announced a while ago and is finally underway. There is no plan to make this into a housing project open to all ages.

Springhill has a Brookshire, a Piggly Wiggly, a Dollar Store, Walgreens, a Fred's Super Dollar, and a couple of convenience stores. You are showing your ignorance there for sure. Walmart didn't want people to go to their competitors and find out that they could actually get more for their dollar instead of being a sucker for a few loss leaders in the middle of the aisles.

You know nothing about Walmart. Corporate execs get a single pen and a pad of paper. They cannot get another from the supply room until the pen runs out of ink and the pad of paper is out of paper. There isn't another company in the world that is more revenue and cost conscious than Walmart. They even go so far as to cut labor costs so much that they couldn't get new product on the shelves. They knew that if they shut down the EBT system until it was fixed, they would lose sales. So, the just let it ride on the government. Walmart could care less about image. Just look at the image that got out with this story. It makes it look to every crook out there that Walmart is the place to be whenever there is a problem with the EBT system. With this news coverage, you can bet that twice the amount of goods will get ripped off if this happens again. Had they just blamed the government for the problem with the EBT system (which would have been the truth), no one would have faulted them for shutting it down for two hours. Everyone would have just gone across the street to another store and got what they needed or just waited for two hours. No news story there. Probably happens all the time. And who would care if some poor people had to wait two hours to get groceries. Poor people have to wait for stuff all the time.

All they have to do is say that their EBT system is down and ask people to come back later. They didn't want to do that because people would have just gone across the street to their competitor. And, with no max on the EBT cards, they could empty their inventory on the government's dime and boost their numbers for the month.

From news reports: Springhill Police Chief Will Lynd confirms they were called in to help the employees at Walmart because there were so many people clearing off the shelves. He says Walmart was so packed, "It was worse than any black Friday" that he's ever seen. Lynd explained the cards weren't showing limits and they called corporate Walmart, whose spokesman said to let the people use the cards anyway. From 7 to 9 p.m., people were loading up their carts, but when the cards began showing limits again around 9, one woman was detained because she rang up a bill of $700.00 and only had .49 on her card. She was held by police until corporate Walmart said they wouldn't press charges if she left the food. So, Walmart knew there was a problem with the debit card system, but let people buy as much as they could for two hours until the problem was fixed.

Chron reports that the chicken and doughnut place by the Liberty Kitchen folks will start building out/renovating this month and hope to be open next month. http://www.chron.com/entertainment/restaurants-bars/article/BRC-Gastropub-broadening-its-brand-4879335.php?cmpid=entertainmenthcat Heights General Store is shooting for early November opening. Fat Cat Creamery is mostly finished, but has some utility issues to resolve. Things are plugging away at the Coltivare location, but no promises made on opening. I could see them getting opened before the holidays. Good Dog is shooting for an October opening. Add in Torchy's and we will have a half dozen new places to eat open potentially by the end of the year. Not too shabby.

And how dare the Sash Guy state EXACTLY why he refused the work. If the Sash Guy said that he would not work on any house in a HD because he was against HDs, you all would be singing his praise. This has nothing to do with whether the guy is allowed to have an opinion and air it after being called out in public. This is simply about him having an opinion that you all do not like.

1. She also commented on how she had recommended him to others. Clearly the implication was that he had wronged her after she had done something nice for him. 2. George never said he thought Brie should or shouldn't be allowed to do it. He said that he did not like it and did not want to be a part of what he thought was the destruction of the original home. That tone was tame compared to the endless slams from anti-ordinance people calling historic ordinance supporters "snobs" and claim that they want to preserve every "shack, historic or not" (I wonder who said that?). Goose/Gander? 4. Broman, Lucas Craftsmanship, Bungalow Revival, a guy named Mario who fixed my window, and a ton of others can restore double hung windows. It is very straight forward carpentry. Most contractors won't do it because they can't have an $8 an hour framer do it.

First, Brie started this by calling out George in a neighborhood forum. Brie's original post: Does anyone have a recommendation for someone who is good at repairing old windows? Unfortunately, The Sash Guy was unwilling to help us (despite the fact that I recommended The Sash Guy to a big group of people at the Historic Preservation Fair when the man leading the old window repair session said that he did not repair old windows for others professionally himself b/c it is too tedious/time consuming/expensive). Therefore, since I'm saving every single window in my 1920 house, I am looking for someone else to repair them (rotten wood, broken cords, painted shut, etc.). I don't necessarily need them to open up/down, other than 1/room as City code requires, but I think they will be beautiful when cleaned up properly by a professional. I'm too scared to try to do it myself b/c if the man leading the presentation on old window repair at the Historic Preservation Fair (who I assume is an expert) said that he himself breaks them from time to time, then I have no chance of doing it properly myself. Thanks in advance for your help! So, she shot first. She made her disagreement with the Sash Guy public. The Sash Guy merely responded candidly as a number of people were asking why he wouldn't do the work. All she had to do was just say that she was unable to get the Sash Guy to do the work and needed someone else. Then the Sash Guy would have never have been compelled to respond. But she decided to through mud, and the Sash Guy defended. Fair game. Second, how interesting it is that the anti-preservationists are so indignant about this. The central argument of the anti-preservationists is that everyone should be able to do what they want with their life and not have to owe anything to anyone. The right of self determination is the cornerstone of the anti-ordinance argument. But, when a guy comes along and wants to limit his work to only those homes that he finds to be consistent with his ideals, he gets called out for merely wanting to chose who he does business with. So, under the anti-ordinance theory of life, your right to do what you want with your property is absolute, but you will get called out for doing what you want with your business if your decision is based on ideals that the anti-preservationist do not agree with. Third, HAHC got overruled on replacement windows. You can do them now. The Sash Guy works for a fraction of the cost of most carpenters and basically does it as a public service and as a paid hobby. He is not a regular subcontractor for the builders who are doing all the renovations in the Heights. He mostly gets hired directly by homeowners. Thus, the tinfoil hat theory of a grand conspiracy with HAHC and the Sash Guy is just silly as he does not work on the majority of the projects that go through the commission. Fourth, this all begs the question of why was it even necessary to post on nextdoor looking for recommendations when there should be a general contractor on the job. You would think that anyone responsible for renovating a house in the Heights would either know how to restore the original windows or be able to hire out the work.

Additions are being removed, not to go back to the original sq ft, but to do much more tasteful and architecturally harmonious additions which often result in a loss of sq ft. The addition on Allston is crap today, but was probably one of the nicer additions in the neighborhood back in the day. But had the prior owners just demoed the house, there would be nothing left to properly renovate and restore. I can definitely see a time in the future when the large additions start to age and get removed in favor of more tasteful work. The important point isn't whether the addition is removed to go back to the original sq ft, but preserving the original sq ft so a future owner has the option of getting rid of a lousy addition and doing something better. The intent of preserving the original structure was never about making sure that people would be able to return to the original footprint. That is another anti-preservation strawman argument. And it is funny that you are asking why large chunks of Woodland Heights that are outside the HD are not getting developed. I thought that the HDs were sending people running and screaming into non-HD areas where the rate of development was "outperforming" the HDs. I guess the HDs must not be so horrible after all.

I bid against investors on a couple of properties that were in various states of disrepair when I bought my house. I made it through multiple rounds of bids on some properties and made what should have been a winning outright bid on others. Every time I was out bid by just a few thousand and would have gladly beat the final offer given the chance (I told my realtor to offer over the final bid, but the seller's agent always got a contract signed when bids closed to make sure they got their commission). There is absolutely no guaranty that even a well funded group would be able to buy up a property that is being eyed for demolition or for a really bad redo. The only way to be sure that properties were saved is to put up such a huge premium that no one would be able to match. But, then you are asking people to basically throw away money in order to save historic properties. Thus, it is far easier to do what every other major metropolitan area has done--enact a historic ordinance to protect historic properties.

Most of the builders see architecture as an expense that they want to minimize. They also see architecture as being inimical to square footage. They want to build boxes that are as big as possible and as easy and cheap to construct as possible. This is happening with additions too and is the subject of an ongoing controversy in the HAHC/Planning Commission. But at least the new builds and renovations are now appropriate and demos have been significantly reduced. Entire blocks of houses would have been lost in the recent boom but for the HAHC. As for your claim that an addition would never be removed, I have seen it happen several times. The Bungalow Revival house on Allston took out a 2 story addition and restored the house to a single story.