Home At 2200 Harvard St.

[J008]

http://search.har.com/engine/2200-Harvard-St-Houston-TX-77008_HAR48782556.htm

[heights]

A bargain at only $483/sqft!

[Jesse]

We call it White Castle

[SilverJK]

although not my style... this is clearly an interesting building obviously built beyond the normal scale for the hood, couple that with being on a 13k+ sq. ft corner lot and the price doesn't look that rediculous. I'd assume this house will not go for less than 1.5 mil, but what do I know.

[Angostura]

Houses in this size range in the Heights tend to go around $800k. Add in $30/sf for the extra 6600 s.f. of dirt, and you get to $1M.

Granted this is not a typical house, but it remains to be seen if that adds up to a $600k premium.

[s3mh]

The first time I saw that house, I thought it had to be an art gallery or the residence of an artist who used part of the house as a gallery. I am sure all the cathedral references in the architecture lead others to think that it is a church of some sort. I wonder whether people walk up to the property to see whether it is something other than a private residence.

It looks like the land was purchased over ten years ago. I would doubt they spent more than 300k on the land back then, maybe less. While there are plenty of fancy custom elements and architecture, I doubt it took more than 700k to build the house and do the garndens. It is not like they had stone masons working for a year on ornate trim and gargoyles. I suspect that they have a fair amount of room to knock the price down if they need to.

As dynamic and compelling as the exterior is, the interior is pretty disappointing. I know they are trying to have a consistency throughout the house as to the wood built in elements, the floors and the walls. But, the interior just feels like some outrageously expensive hotel suite in Vegas or Dubai where celebrities or Saudi princes stay. But, the mobile is brilliant. I wish other elements of the interior had some more color and variation.

It is hard to say what will happen with a property like this. I have seen some contemporary homes get snatched up and others sit on the market for ages. The biggest problem is that anyone with the cash to put 1.6 mil up for a 3 bedroom house will also have the cash to build their own testament to all things modern.

[SilverJK]

How does this house not have a garage though?

s3mh, you mention that this looks like something in vegas or dubai where celebrities or saudi princes would stay... perhaps that is the type of person they are targeting.

[s3mh]

How does this house not have a garage though?

s3mh, you mention that this looks like something in vegas or dubai where celebrities or saudi princes would stay... perhaps that is the type of person they are targeting.

Just the interior design. It is certainly full of lots of luxury, but does not match the ambition and creativity of the exterior.

I think it is safe to assume that the owner had this custom built and was not something that was done by a developer/builder to sell on the open market. Why be so daring with the exterior and be so minimal with the interior?

Or, to put it another way without the hotel reference, I have never seen a house like this one as far as the exterior goes. Church steeple, set of four glass doors to the living room, cathedral-esque roof against very square and linear front porch and garden. But, I have seen the interior design elements a dozen times. Not that the interior is cliche. I just would think that if you are willing to go that far with design for the exterior of the home, you would do something equally as compelling with the interior.

[TGM]

So does purchase include transferable membership into the pagan religion complete with rooftop virgin sacrifice privileges?

If not, I'm walking...no sacrifices to Zuul, no deal.

[RedScare]

I looked at buying that lot before this guy bought it. I've had a few cocktails since then, but I seem to remember it being $175,000 or so at the time. No way it was $300,000 back then.

[Ross]

Someone had those three lots replatted. Interesting.

[SilverJK]

s3mh has only been here a few years, they don't realize what the neighborhood was like 8-10 years ago, nor historically.

[s3mh]

s3mh has only been here a few years, they don't realize what the neighborhood was like 8-10 years ago, nor historically.

I looked at property in the Heights in early 2000. Builders and renovators were becoming very active back then and lot values were quickly rising. I remember looking at bungalows on full size lots for $200-250k back then. This property is a double lot. It is not an unreasonable guess that a full size lot would have been worth $150k and a double lot $300k back in early 2000. The Heights had come a long way by early 2000. And I did say "or less". Maybe the property was priced below market because the park next door was full of gangs. But, if the park was that bad, why would someone build a million dollar ultra modern mansion on that lot?

[kylejack]

Because they wanted to and because there was no pesky Historic District to stop them.

[SilverJK]

I looked at property in the Heights in early 2000. Builders and renovators were becoming very active back then and lot values were quickly rising. I remember looking at bungalows on full size lots for $200-250k back then. This property is a double lot. It is not an unreasonable guess that a full size lot would have been worth $150k and a double lot $300k back in early 2000. The Heights had come a long way by early 2000. And I did say "or less". Maybe the property was priced below market because the park next door was full of gangs. But, if the park was that bad, why would someone build a million dollar ultra modern mansion on that lot?

As far as you looking at houses in the heights in 2000, I simply don't believe you.

There were still lots of updated nice bungalows on full size lots for 200-250k up until about 3-4 years ago (I bought one). In 2004 they were selling for 150-200. (those are the people that are really making out like bandits when they sell)

[RedScare]

I don't believe him either. I bought in the Heights in 2004, and I paid well under $200k for a lot with a house. In 2000, houses were often below $150k. To say 200-250 for a lot...or even a house...was common in 2000 is simply a lie.

[s3mh]

I don't believe him either. I bought in the Heights in 2004, and I paid well under $200k for a lot with a house. In 2000, houses were often below $150k. To say 200-250 for a lot...or even a house...was common in 2000 is simply a lie.

I said $150k for a full sized lot, 200-250 for a lot with a house. 2x150=300. My first post stated that $300k would have been the max that the land would have sold for back in early 2000.

I was in the market for a house in 2002-03 and was watching the Heights for two years before that. i looked in Sugar Land and Katy at McMansions too. I recall vividly seeing McMansions for @$150-200k while bungalows in the Heights were selling for $200-250. I remember sitting with the Chron on Sunday mornings playing "guess the price" for a bungalow with my wife. It always ended with shock that the little tiny houses had asking prices of $200k plus when the McMansions in the burbs were so much less. Were there homes that sold for under $200k? Of course. But they tended to be pretty junky, in need of a lot of work or on a creepy street.. If there were houses that were move in ready for $150k and below in early 2000, I would have bought one. But, everything bungalow I saw was in the $200-250 range, which was too much for me to spend at the time.

[RedScare]

Well, I "vividly" recall move-in ready bungalows in the Heights for $150,000 to $200,000 TWO FULL YEARS after you claim to have seen them for 200-250. And, these were not junky houses on creepy. I "vividly" recall BUYING a house in 2004 that is bigger than your house on a better street, on a bigger lot. Of course, knowing what you paid for the house you are in, it is entirely possible that you just aren't very good at this home buying thing. There were plenty of 2/1 bungalows in the Heights for $130,000 to $175,00 in 2000. I almost bought a 1300 sf house for $135,000 in 2000. My good friend did buy one around the same time for $130,000. They were all over the place. In fact, the reason we did not buy the lot at 2200 Harvard for $175,000 back then is that we thought they were asking too much.

The more you talk, the more obvious it becomes that you are making things up. I know. I was actually here and buying, while you were reading the Sunday paper.

[Ross]

The property for this house is 3 lots that were 44x100, not two lots.

[SilverJK]

Yep, even in 2006 there were a lot of bungalows in good shape selling for 200k. I know this because that was just slightly out of my budget at the time. (Just started my first job out of college). As my budget increased, the prices of the house did as well. I lived in the "eek" new construction apartments on Oxford (are they Camden now?) for a little over a year while I searched for houses in the neighborhood. I'll also say this... traveling the neighborhood on a longboard is one of the best ways to get to know the area. I grab a lot of flyers for houses for sale, obviously follow them on HAR, and have a very good measure of the pulse of the neighborhood's real estate through skating around. I have only been doing this since 2008 though, all research I did prior was miniscule in comparison. I would imagine someone like Red would have a similar knowledge of neighborhood during 2004 since he was actually here. I'm guessing that if you did look at any houses in 2000 (which I still don't think you did), it was merely a cursory "Hey look at this quaint bungalow" in the paper vs. actually looking for houses. I did the same thing in the early 2000s, but I was still in school so I obviously didn't go into the depth of what I did later.

The house in this topic however, I have skated by countless times, and I have never seen/heard anyone enjoying the pool or outdoor space. I also have rarely even seen cars in the carport area. I've always been intrigued and hoped to catch it on a home tour or something. Maybe the new owners will take the interior to that next level.

[RedScare]

I'm not positive, but I believe the owner of this house lived or lives in California. As such, I don't think he was here full time.

[OutfieldDan]

He's there most of the time. I see him lots of times taking out his trash for pickup and he occasionally has parties. I believe he is a surgeon. The pool is pretty much just decoration. He hosted a fundraiser for Ellen Cohen last fall. [bTW, she's essentially useless as far as I can tell. She must spend all her time in West U.]

His home is a signature feature of my block. It's controversial with some of us really liking it, and others despising it. I'm in the first category.

[Scott08]

I'm thinking the interior look and finishes completely match the exterior. Contemporary-modern/contemporary modern.

[s3mh]

I'm thinking the interior look and finishes completely match the exterior. Contemporary-modern/contemporary modern.

I am not saying that the style doesn't match. It obviously does. I am saying that within contemporary-modern, the exterior is very innovative and daring and the interior is, by comparison, far, far less so. Again, setting aside the issue of doing a design like this in the Heights, I think the exterior design is pretty amazing. I have never seen someone do a deconstructed cathedral/victorian design like that. Most of the contemporary residential stuff I have seen built the past decade has gone out of its way not to be derrivative. But, I have seen the same sort of contemporary interior design many times over.

[Marksmu]

Yep, even in 2006 there were a lot of bungalows in good shape selling for 200k. I know this because that was just slightly out of my budget at the time. (Just started my first job out of college). As my budget increased, the prices of the house did as well. I lived in the "eek" new construction apartments on Oxford (are they Camden now?) for a little over a year while I searched for houses in the neighborhood. I'll also say this... traveling the neighborhood on a longboard is one of the best ways to get to know the area. I grab a lot of flyers for houses for sale, obviously follow them on HAR, and have a very good measure of the pulse of the neighborhood's real estate through skating around. I have only been doing this since 2008 though, all research I did prior was miniscule in comparison. I would imagine someone like Red would have a similar knowledge of neighborhood during 2004 since he was actually here. I'm guessing that if you did look at any houses in 2000 (which I still don't think you did), it was merely a cursory "Hey look at this quaint bungalow" in the paper vs. actually looking for houses. I did the same thing in the early 2000s, but I was still in school so I obviously didn't go into the depth of what I did later.

The house in this topic however, I have skated by countless times, and I have never seen/heard anyone enjoying the pool or outdoor space. I also have rarely even seen cars in the carport area. I've always been intrigued and hoped to catch it on a home tour or something. Maybe the new owners will take the interior to that next level.

I bought a house in 2007 for $189,000 on a 6600sqft lot that though it was not what I consider move in ready, was not in terrible shape..It was inhabited when I bought it..Neighbors all thought I was a developer....$23,000 later it has been a fantastic rental....till the historic ordinance...its still a good rental, but my real investment (the land) was irreparably harmed.

[kylejack]

Next time try a stock with good fundamentals that pays a dividend. As an investment, real estate is a very fickle thing.

[toadfroggy]

That's definitely not a house for everyone, nor even everyone with a spare $1.6M. I think it's beautiful and it's certainly unique, but that's a pretty public corner with the park right there and the back of the school about a block away and the house kinda screams "look at me". I couldn't live there because I'd be feeling like strangers were gawping, trying to see in my windows all the time.

[J008]

I bought a house in 2007 for $189,000 on a 6600sqft lot that though it was not what I consider move in ready, was not in terrible shape..It was inhabited when I bought it..Neighbors all thought I was a developer....$23,000 later it has been a fantastic rental....till the historic ordinance...its still a good rental, but my real investment (the land) was irreparably harmed.

Do you charge less rent now?

Everywhere I look rents are up. Garage apartments are over $1000/mo almost everywhere in the heights is over $1/sqft/mo (which is high to me).

Hard to believe the value of your property goes down and rents stay high \ same?

If so, please let me know where these places are.

[west20th]

Do you charge less rent now?

Everywhere I look rents are up. Garage apartments are over $1000/mo almost everywhere in the heights is over $1/sqft/mo (which is high to me).

Hard to believe the value of your property goes down and rents stay high \ same?

If so, please let me know where these places are.

Not that unusual, at least in Houston. Here is my example based on my rental near Hwy6 and Westhiemer.

2008 HCAD appraisal ~99K, Rent 950.00

2012 HCAD appraisal ~59K. Rent 1,100.00

[Heights20plusyears]

There was a previous thread about this property back in 2007, which is probably prior to those that have moved to The Heights and deemed themselves the saviours of history and preservation: