s3mh

I don't, but the municipal government does. In countless jurisdictions across the US, the municipal government enforces historic preservation ordinances. If it is taking you three months to get through HAHC, you really only have yourself to blame. If the staff refuses to recommend, go get a denial and appeal to the planning commission. It worked for the couple on Harvard. Only added two weeks for the appeal. A three month delay is not the norm. The norm is having plans approved by unanimous consent on the first try. That is why there has been no affect on market prices for homes in the HDs. It isn't that difficult to get through the process.

1339 Tulane and 1336 Cortlandt both sold new construction before even listing. Multiple bidders.

And you fail to see that the main argument against the ordinance has been decimated by the fact that the real estate boom is just as strong in the historic districts as everywhere else. If the ordinance really was as onerous and offensive as opponents say it is, you would see that reflected in the market. But, instead, people are falling over each other fighting to get a house in the historic districts. I have a lot of friends who are looking in the Heights and would love to get a discount as a result of the historic ordinance. Instead, they just keep getting out bid. And, as usual, you pull a RedScare by strawmanning an argument on me. I never said that the historic ordinance would cause a real estate boom. I have candidly admitted that the ordinance could have an adverse economic effect on owners of properties that are in serious disrepair that would have been torn down without any thought without the ordinance. At best, I have opined that the historic ordinance would help owners who have maintained historic homes avoid being sandwiched between lot line houses that are completely out of character architecturally with the neighborhood.

Very tired "joke" on the historic ordiance based on the false premise that preservation is arbitrary and without any real value. If that was really the case, we wouldn't see anyone taking on this property or the massive boom in the Heights real estate market. But arguing against what the ordinance really does has never been a successful tactic.

It happens all the time. HAHC has rarely pushed back on the basis of scale. 9 out of 15 residences on the 1300 block of Ashland are over 2000 sq ft, and 10 out of 15 will be over 2000 sq ft once a renovation and addition just underway is completed.

Democracy. We have a representative form of municipal government. The people elected to council and the Mayor supported the historic ordinance. And you may have been here for ten years, but there are plenty of people who have been here for twenty and thirty years who support the ordinance and were working on getting it to council long before you showed up.

Setting aside all the flyers I got in my mailbox from opponents warning that development in the Heights would come to a screeching halt with the ordinance, here is an argument made in the previous thread I started that got shut down after the usual juvenille name calling erupted. Basic argument is that the property would have to be sold at a major discount in order to be redeveloped under the ordinance. In essence, the same thing as saying that the ordinance makes redevelopment infeasible: 200+ feet of frontage with alley access, and from what I could find, this block has no MLS or MBL in place. Outside the historic district, this would be 6 to 8 detached homes or ~12 townhouses. Since new construction must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the HAHC, the buyer (assuming he demo's the warehouses) is subject to the following restrictions: - Residential: width, roofline and eave height compatible with typical contributing structures (read: ~1300-1500 s.f.) - Commercial: height not to exceed that typical of existing current structures. They're asking $1.35M for the land. Let's assume it goes for less than that, add in demo costs, and say $1.25 for the land, cleared. If HAHC only lets someone build 4 1400 sf houses, add in construction and finance costs, and the total cost could be, say, $2M (round numbers). So they'd have to sell each one for north of $600k to make a profit. Not much market for that size house in that price range. Only other option is to redevelop as commercial, which, depending on how rigid the HAHC is, could be the more likely outcome. This will be an interesting test of the impact of the ordinance on redevelopment. I for one would be surprised if they get the $47/sf asking price (seeing as how is 50% above the current going rate).

Step 6: avoid all the points you cannot argue (especially the main one) and pick out some minutiae and try to again divert attention from all the bad arguments. 3500 to 4000 sq ft do not mean economic viability. 3500-4000 sq ft is just the arbitrary sq footage that builders and realtors think will bring in the most money for new construction. The fact is that 3200 sq ft on a 6600 sq ft lot on Harvard sold for a nice bundle, as did 3000 sq ft on a corner lot on Cortlandt. And again, you go right back to the strawman and claim that I am against all townhomes. I do not want them displacing single family homes in my neighborhood or interfering with the historic character of the neighborhood. But, in Cottage Grove, West End, Rice Military and other similar areas, have at it.

How to make an argument like RedScare: Step 1: Take a very valid and coherent argument like not wanting to see historic bungalows demolished in order to build homes that are lot line/out of scale and that do not reflect the existing architectural style (faux Victorian or New Orleans Italianate on a block with all craftsman architecture). Step 2: Remove a significant premise from the argument (demolition of existing historic housing). Step 3: Add a premise that has never been argued: It is preferable to have an old warehouse than to have new construction/all new construction is bad if it is bigger than 1000 sq ft Step 4: Bend the facts as needed (All houses on 1300 block of Ashland are 1000 sq ft; only McVics are being built as new construction when many builders have done a very good job of replicating craftsman 4 square/two story homes; only 3500-4000 sq ft homes are economically viable--see Sears catalog inspired single story bungalows on the 1000 block of Rutland that sold in a heartbeat). The result is the above argument. No. I have never argued that there should be no new construction. I am against the demolition of perfectly good historic housing in favor of building form book Italianate/Creole things that are out of scale and out of character of the existing craftsman architecture. It is 100% consistent to want to see the preservation of existing housing and be glad that the definition of neighborhood non-conformity (a big ugly warehouse) is demolished and replaced with new construction. Wait, maybe this is all to throw us all off the scent of the invalid argument repeatedly made by historic opponents that this kind of property could never be redevoped because of the onerous historic ordinance. The Heights was supposed to turn to a slum with dilapidated rentals and houses left to the termites in hopes of a demolition permit.

I am hearing that the warehouses have been sold and that they will be demoed within a month. The house on 13th just to the southwest of the warehouses is supposed to get demoed too. I have heard that a developer is planning on constructing 4 houses on the land. Sounds like they will be on full sized lots. Great news for the block if this comes to fruition.

http://openthedoor-houston.com/ It is the work of the Texan French Alliance for the Arts and a Paris based arts collective with help from a pile of local organizations. There are a number of these installations around town. There are a couple by the tennis center at Memorial Park. Not sure how long they are going to stay up. I doubt it is a permanent installation. I like it. Houston is very short on public art outside of a few notable pieces downtown. I really like the temporary installations that Herman Park has been hosting (I Wei Wei and others). I think it would be nice for the Heights to do similar things along the esplanade.

I have heard that Trammel Crowe is going to resubmit the plat as a consent item by claiming that they amended the deed restrictions to allow multifamily (they will not try to redesign around the restricted lots). I guess they will argue that the replat no longer removes a single family restriction because they have amended the deed restriction to allow multifamily. I would have to assume that the City planning staff has approved of this work around move. Otherwise, Trammel Crowe would be making a pretty bold move that might get rejected by the planning commission. I think they are shooting for approval in May.

You have never seen what the Sash Guy and others can do with the old windows. Once repaired and properly fitting, they add insulation at all the points where you usually see energy leaking. The new windows are superior in energy efficiency, but they are also very expensive compared to refurbishing and adding insulation to the old windows. On a cost basis, there is very little advantage to replacing v. refurbishing/insulating the existing windows because the new windows are so expensive by comparison.

I never said you do not need a COA to replace a rotted window with a new one. I said that if the window is not rotted, you cannot just flip them out with a new wood window. That was never promised by anyone. But, some people now think that they are entitled to start taking apart their homes and replacing them with what they think is close enough to the original architecture. The HAHC exists to make sure that the original architecture is preserved. New windows can seriously destroy the architecture of the original housing. Just look at the ones with vinyl or aluminum replacement windows. The wood replacement windows aren't bad, but the original windows should be preserved if they are not rotted. If they are rotted and the homeowner does not want to rebuild them, the homeowner should have to get approval of the replacements to make sure people do not start sticking in replacements that are inappropriate.

Translation: Can't answer the question, avoid the issue with a snarky remark. But, I am serious. It is very much possible to reconstruct the old windows. The HAHC and the ordinance make a compromise and allows people to just put in a new wood window when the old window has rotted away. But if the only reason for replacing the old windows is that you want better performing new windows, then you will have to get a COA and show that there is no difference in the appearance of the new windows.

Where is the lie? The guy asks about replacing rotten windows. The response is that you can use new wood windows to replace rotten old windows and that would just be considered a repair. They did not say that you could just decide that you wanted new energy efficient windows and rip out all of your windows without needing a COA. They could require you to rebuild rotten windows to be identical to the originals. The Sash Guy does that and does beautiful work. He also can add insulation to the windows that make them comparable to the new energy efficient windows (superior in terms of cost recovery as the new windows are very expensive compared to what the Sash Guy charges to rebuild and insulate existing windows). Windows are an important architectural element of the historic housing. The replacement wood frame windows that people are using are very different from the original windows. The old windows can and should be preserved.

194. I said it was a bit aggressive. It is ahead of what builders are asking for in Shady Acres and First Ward by a decent amount. Most everything in those neighborhoods is generally150-175 per sq ft. Travis certainly adds value. But I don't see many people with little kids looking to go with a townhome. http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cfm?mlnum=32552584&v=s These must be the units in front. Larger and pretty pricey, though a bit less per sq ft. Given that there are plenty of new townhomes coming on the market, I just think they are asking for a bit too much of a premium for the neighborhood. But, then again, sometimes builders will price high to get people to think they are getting a deal when they get the property for 5-10% below list.

That logic no longer applies in the Greater Heights. The market is so strong that if one builder/investor can't get the job done with a certain regulation or restriction, there are a line of a dozen others who can get it done.

Not sure why they have so much lick 'n stick stone on them, but you have to give Weekley credit for trying to reflect the prevalent craftsman architecture of the neighborhood instead of doing another stucco and stone Rice Military townhome or fake New Orleans Italianate thing like so many other builders are determined to do in the Heights. Pricing is a bit agressive, but it is zoned to Travis. I wonder if the townhomes on the butt end of the development will be priced less than those facing the street.

Better get used to it. Weekley is making a pretty big play for inside the loop. They are doing 60 homes on the lot that is currently storage for the Ford dealership at Shep and 6th, 68 townhomes at TC Jester in Cottage Grove where the elementary school used to be, 19 townhomes on Patterson in the west end, all in addition to the few dozen already built at the MKT trail and Nicholson. Of course the standards for townhome architecture in Houston are so low that it takes some effort to put out something that stands out as ugly in comparison to what is already out there.

On the legal front, the lawsuit was amended and dropped all claims seeking to invalidate the historic ordinance. This was in response to the City's plea to the jurisdiction. They did not even try to respond to the plea to the jurisdiction. All claims are just for money damages for the named plaintiff only (they added a takings claim and kept the equal protection/due process claim). The claim is that they were damaged by not being able to get more money for their property had they been able to tear it down. Of course they do not claim that they applied for and were denied a permit to tear it down. And the property was renovated and sold for over $800k.

I just do not know why you get all flustered when your posts get taken down by the admins. I am fine if you want to throw insults in every post in response to anything I say. Just don't whine and pretend that you are not dong what you are doing.

Here are the official minutes on the Coltivare variance. All garden: 114 2120 White Oak Drive DPV Approve Staff recommendation: Grant the requested variance with 5 Off-Street parking spaces and 32 bike parking spaces. Commission action: Granted the requested variance with staff’s recommended conditions as listed below but without the five parking spaces. In addition to staff’s recommendation, Commission requires the filing of a restrictive covenant to be recorded at the County by the property owner to restrict the garden to green space/landscaping for as long as the facility is operated as a restaurant. The City of Houston is the beneficiary of the restrictive covenant and will have the right to enforce it. If the restrictive covenant is not approved and filed, the variance is granted with the staff’s recommended conditions including the 5 on-site parking spaces. Motion: Subinsky Second: Clark Vote: Unanimous Abstaining: None Also on the restaurant front, Austin wing/sports bar Pluckers is going in the Harold's development. Torchy's is also a go. I suspect that the Heights General Store may have given back some lease space as the original reports made it sound like it was completely leased out with just the Heights General Store and Torchy's. I can make a very long list of restaurants that I would rather see go in than Pluckers, but it is a kid friendly place and will serve the growning number of families with little kids in the Greater Heights area. Lee's Fried Chicken and Donuts (next to liberty kitchen) is looking for a July opening. Probably too optomistic given how little work has been done to date on the building, but you never know until you try.

Ok. That is on par with the rest of the Heights and reflects the premium that Woodland Heights gets over the rest of the Heights for Travis Elementary and constant highway noise.

I suspect that the best way to get HCAD to dig in its heels is to get a large organized group of those affected to join together in their protest. As high as taxes are, the County, the schools and the City run very tight budgets. HCAD is not going to be willing to make a big correction to the tax assessments and give back a big pile of revenue, especially with all the legislation over the years from Austin tying their hands. But, HCAD has always been willing to give a few well prepared protestors a break. So, being a lone wolf might be better than organizing a big group if your goal is to get your appraisal reduced. But, in all honesty, unless your lot is in a very undesireable enclave in Woodland Heights, 227,000 is a tax appraisal value that most in the Heights would love to have. I am just above 280k for a full size lot in the Heights and doubt that I can cobble up enough comps to offset the crazy bid up sales that have been happening the past few months. Not saying you shouldn't protest. Just keep your tax bill in perspective.