Dan the Man Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 A flat roof is not a nuisance under any circumstances, nor is a town home.Insenstive townhome development can be a huge nuisance for adjacent property owners, and Houston has plenty of examples:-Multi-level townhomes (and McMansions) in bungalow neighborhoods are often out of scale with the surrounding structures. The increased height blocks sunlight and views from the yards of their neighbors.-Subdivision of lots for townhome development usually results in a very small buildable area. To maximize the use of this space (and maximize profit), townhome developers will build right up to the property line. This can cut off sunlight light from the nieghboring property. (Not to mention, it makes the backyard of the nieghboring property very unpleasant.) -Townhome development often leaves very little greenspace on the lot. This increases the amount of stormwater run-off, and can create drainage problems for adjacent property owners as storm drains are over-taxed. Drainage problems can also be created if the townhome development is graded higher than the adjacent properties. Water will drain onto adjacent properties, and will have nowhere to go.-Increased denisty brought about by townhome development creates an increased demand for utilities. When townhomes are built in older areas of town with infrastructure that was not designed to handle such large capacity, residents can experience power outages and backed-up drains.-The increased number of driveways brought about by townhome developments dramatically increase the number of curb-cuts on residential streets. This, in turn, eliminates the amount of street parking available. Nieghborhoods that were developed before the advent of the automobile (6th Ward, for example) do not have a large amount of space available for off-street parking. When street parking is elimated due to townhome development, area residents have fewer places to park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 (edited) I was actually thinking of Chapter 201: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/...0.000201.00.pdfSome activists in the Heights tried to follow this procedure, but found that they could not get enough support to create new deed restrictions.yeah i'm kinda familiar with 201 and 204 both which are deed restriction related. since this was done as a historical designation, it would be interesting to see what the actual process is. Edited August 6, 2007 by musicman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixthwardguy Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 For those who have been questioning the percentage of homeowners/property owners in the Sixth Ward who supported the protections, you can rest assured that there was a supermajority. There have been several petitions/surveys run by three groups, with the last one issued by the city. The city-issued survey confirmed an earlier in-house petition that 76% majority of property owners within the district supported the proposed protections and only 24% were against it. The city posted the survey responses on a website and it was shown that most of the opposition were business owners and developers who bought land with the intention to build townhouses or mid-rises.Insenstive townhome development can be a huge nuisance for adjacent property owners, and Houston has plenty of examples:-Multi-level townhomes (and McMansions) in bungalow neighborhoods are often out of scale with the surrounding structures. The increased height blocks sunlight and views from the yards of their neighbors.-Subdivision of lots for townhome development usually results in a very small buildable area. To maximize the use of this space (and maximize profit), townhome developers will build right up to the property line. This can cut off sunlight light from the nieghboring property. (Not to mention, it makes the backyard of the nieghboring property very unpleasant.) -Townhome development often leaves very little greenspace on the lot. This increases the amount of stormwater run-off, and can create drainage problems for adjacent property owners as storm drains are over-taxed. Drainage problems can also be created if the townhome development is graded higher than the adjacent properties. Water will drain onto adjacent properties, and will have nowhere to go.-Increased denisty brought about by townhome development creates an increased demand for utilities. When townhomes are built in older areas of town with infrastructure that was not designed to handle such large capacity, residents can experience power outages and backed-up drains.-The increased number of driveways brought about by townhome developments dramatically increase the number of curb-cuts on residential streets. This, in turn, eliminates the amount of street parking available. Nieghborhoods that were developed before the advent of the automobile (6th Ward, for example) do not have a large amount of space available for off-street parking. When street parking is elimated due to townhome development, area residents have fewer places to park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 (edited) For those who have been questioning the percentage of homeowners/property owners in the Sixth Ward who supported the protections, you can rest assured that there was a supermajority. There have been several petitions/surveys run by three groups, with the last one issued by the city. The city-issued survey confirmed an earlier in-house petition that 76% majority of property owners within the district supported the proposed protections and only 24% were against it. The city posted the survey responses on a website and it was shown that most of the opposition were business owners and developers who bought land with the intention to build townhouses or mid-rises.for deed restricitons all the signatures are notarized and filed at the county. i don't believe anything like this was done in the 6th ward. i'm just trying to figure out the process. if you can point out the details it would provide more awareness on the subj and help other hoods do the same thing. Edited August 6, 2007 by musicman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixthwardguy Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 The problem with deed restrictions is that they must be implemented with 100% consent of the property owners within a neighborhood. God knows how long and hard we've tried to get deed restrictions in place for the Old Sixth Ward and the only feasible solution was to ask the city for help.The Old Sixth Ward protection was done as an amendment to the historic preservation section of the city ordinance. for deed restricitons all the signatures are notarized and filed at the county. i don't believe anything like this was done in the 6th ward. i'm just trying to figure out the process. if you can point out the details it would provide more awareness on the subj and help other hoods do the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 The problem with deed restrictions is that they must be implemented with 100% consent of the property owners within a neighborhood. God knows how long and hard we've tried to get deed restrictions in place for the Old Sixth Ward and the only feasible solution was to ask the city for help.that's not true. texas property code sure doesn't say 100% consent. it varies depending on the chapter the area/hood is using.The Old Sixth Ward protection was done as an amendment to the historic preservation section of the city ordinance.i looked but couldn't find anything specific. the proposal i saw had words used IMO that left loopholes. i was just wondering what the passed ordinance looks like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 (edited) Insenstive townhome development can be a huge nuisance for adjacent property owners, and Houston has plenty of examples:-Multi-level townhomes (and McMansions) in bungalow neighborhoods are often out of scale with the surrounding structures. The increased height blocks sunlight and views from the yards of their neighbors.-Subdivision of lots for townhome development usually results in a very small buildable area. To maximize the use of this space (and maximize profit), townhome developers will build right up to the property line. This can cut off sunlight light from the nieghboring property. (Not to mention, it makes the backyard of the nieghboring property very unpleasant.) -Townhome development often leaves very little greenspace on the lot. This increases the amount of stormwater run-off, and can create drainage problems for adjacent property owners as storm drains are over-taxed. Drainage problems can also be created if the townhome development is graded higher than the adjacent properties. Water will drain onto adjacent properties, and will have nowhere to go.-Increased denisty brought about by townhome development creates an increased demand for utilities. When townhomes are built in older areas of town with infrastructure that was not designed to handle such large capacity, residents can experience power outages and backed-up drains.-The increased number of driveways brought about by townhome developments dramatically increase the number of curb-cuts on residential streets. This, in turn, eliminates the amount of street parking available. Nieghborhoods that were developed before the advent of the automobile (6th Ward, for example) do not have a large amount of space available for off-street parking. When street parking is elimated due to townhome development, area residents have fewer places to park.There is a difference between something that is an annoyance and a legal nuisance.A development that causes flooding on your property could be a nuisance, but you can sue for damages if that happens. That should never happen as new plats and building permits are not issued unless there will be adequate drainage.For those who have been questioning the percentage of homeowners/property owners in the Sixth Ward who supported the protections, you can rest assured that there was a supermajority. There have been several petitions/surveys run by three groups, with the last one issued by the city. The city-issued survey confirmed an earlier in-house petition that 76% majority of property owners within the district supported the proposed protections and only 24% were against it. The city posted the survey responses on a website and it was shown that most of the opposition were business owners and developers who bought land with the intention to build townhouses or mid-rises.Then why didn't the preservationists use the provisions of the Texas property code which create new restrictive covenants with 75% approval?You sound dismissive of the rights of business owners and developers. Do they not have property rights that are just as strong as those of a homeowner? Edited August 6, 2007 by nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 6, 2007 Author Share Posted August 6, 2007 this article is from another thread focusing on urban enclaves (West University is highlighted), but i thought this quote from the article was appropriate for this thread:"The one way that neighborhood character is maintained is if areas have been designated landmarks or if the type of architecture in a particular neighborhood is protected in some way," says Deborah Fischer, a broker at Koenig & Strey in Chicago. Here, strict zoning laws in the outlying suburbs force citywide expansion, which can make it difficult for Chicago's urban neighborhoods to maintain their character. "That way, new construction builds on the neighborhood character, rather than trying to change it."http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2007/08/02...realestate.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 You sound dismissive of the rights of business owners and developers. Do they not have property rights that are just as strong as those of a homeowner?I certainly hope not. Priority must be given to those who live in a neighborhood, not to those who exploit it solely for their own enrichment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I certainly hope not. Priority must be given to those who live in a neighborhood, not to those who exploit it solely for their own enrichment.i think that is what he's saying too. the people who live there didn't make this decision, city council did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 i think that is what he's saying too. the people who live there didn't make this decision, city council did.That's how our government works. Elected bodies make decisions such as this, usually not people banding together as individuals. Property use restrictions are typically in the remit of city councils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 That's how our government works. Elected bodies make decisions such as this, usually not people banding together as individuals. Property use restrictions are typically in the remit of city councils.take a look at texas property code chapters 201 and 204. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 I certainly hope not. Priority must be given to those who live in a neighborhood, not to those who exploit it solely for their own enrichment.So, do you believe that the owners of rental properties should not be given "priority" (whatever that is) because they "exploit" their property "solely for their own enrichment"?The reality is that the people that live in or own property in the Old Sixth are not of uniform opinion on this matter. There are many people that feel differently and their rights and opinions have been overruled by the city council. It isn't the residents who have "taken back" the neighborhood from "greedy developers", but a city that is increasingly taking control of individual liberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 11, 2007 Author Share Posted August 11, 2007 these type of restrictions have been in the works for decades...no surprise, it was a matter of time (a long time, albeit).if this were any other large city, i believe they would have been put in place a hell of a long time ago.so again, why would someone that is historically insensitive buy into a historic neighborhood? (and one that has been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1978 and has a high concentration of individual landmarks). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 so again, why would someone that is historically insensitive buy into a historic neighborhood? (and one that has been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1978 and has a high concentration of individual landmarks).IMO location is more important to most and it's a good location. for most a house is just a place to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 LOL.Funny thing is, I guarantee you that home values in the Old Sixth Ward will really begin to take off now that people who have moved to the area or are drawn to the area will know they have some protections that will prohibit people from tearing down houses to park their Winnies or set up a used-tire lot!This is incredible news.If you hate that the 6th Ward now has protections, you have EVERY RIGHT to not buy there. If you live there now and hate the new protections, wait about 6 months and then sell your house. Prices are gonna soar.They've already soared before the council took action. We invested in rental property 5 years ago on Lubbock knowing this was inevitable. Now we're up for sale knowing the properties won't be sold to a nate or musicman that would just level it for another bail bonds outlet Eeep! A pig flew by! I can't figure out why some people consider this kind of thing such a big infringement on their freedom and property rights, when probably every single master planned community has design and development guidelines, down to the color of your paint. Everyone just wants to protect their property value and the quality of their neighborhoods. Now I just wish they could extend the same protection to the Heights.No kidding. I know alot of people like nate who don't get that there are alot of people that see the value in properties like this-culturally, monetarily and historicly that trump any fake argument that the "gubmint" is taking over. I just don't get why nate would want to invest and/or live in an area where he clearly wasn't wanted. What's the advantage in that?There is a huge difference when restrictions are voluntary compared to this instance when they were imposed on owners without their consent.Then don't move into or invest in an area that has those restrictions. It's a huge city with opportunities to build any tacky shack you choose. This is just one tiny area where the majority choose not to have that done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porchman Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Today's HBJ reports that as part of the celebration surrounding its convention at the GRB 1/23 through 1/30, Mary Kay cosmetics is making a $20,000 donation to The Old Sixth Ward Neighborhood Association in honor of its founder, Mary Kay Ash, who grew up in the neighborhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSWisHome Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 (edited) Today's HBJ reports that as part of the celebration surrounding its convention at the GRB 1/23 through 1/30, Mary Kay cosmetics is making a $20,000 donation to The Old Sixth Ward Neighborhood Association in honor of its founder, Mary Kay Ash, who grew up in the neighborhood. Yes, we are very excited about the very generous gift from Mary Kay. Here is a copy and paste from a post to the OSW neighborhood yahoogroup (old6wardhouston@yahoogroups.com ), from earlier today, written by the immediate past president of the OSWNA:The 2100 block of Kane was a sea of pink Cadillac's this morning as the Mary Kay Foundation, of Mary Kay Cosmetics fame presented the Old Sixth Ward Neighborhood Association a $20,000 check! They handed over the check to new OSWNA President Phil Neisel on the porch of Mary Kay's childhood home on Kane. A slew of dignitaries, Mary Kay executives and OSW friends and neighbors were on hand to cheer them on. Mary Kay Cosmetics is holding their Annual Leadership Conference in Houston this week, and filmed a video about the presentation and the neighborhood to be shown at their meetings this week. Expect alot of drive throughs of the neighborhood over the next week as attendees want to see the streets where she walked to Dow Elementary, and played with her friends. Watch for media coverage as well. Today was designated Mary Kay day in Houston, and in Harris County. The foundation was also given a key to the city. The donation is designated for signage for the OSW, marking her house, and the boundaries of the Protected Historic District. The Mary Kay execs and family members present were all very proud of everyone's work to preserve the house (thanks Emily and Vlad), and the neighborhood. Larissa Edited January 24, 2008 by OSWisHome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted June 24, 2008 Author Share Posted June 24, 2008 Larissa posted this on the sixth ward email list, but i thought it might be of interest to the folks here, too (thanks for digitizing!)It's an interesting video from MECA about Old Sixth Ward (c. 1989): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo58 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Larissa posted this on the sixth ward email list, but i thought it might be of interest to the folks here, too (thanks for digitizing!)It's an interesting video from MECA about Old Sixth Ward (c. 1989): That was fascinating! Thank you SEVFIV! Take a good look at the houses in the background, most still have original gingerbread ornamentation, bargeboards, turned posts, etc. Sort of frustrating that some of us here on Haif know people that live there and have painstakingly restored many of these relics to their former glory since this filming. Only "they" do not know of Haif? Need their stories to be told to the world! I could just plotz I tell ya! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfre81 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 The developers have lots of space to work with outside the Old Sixth. Don't worry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo58 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 The developers have lots of space to work with outside the Old Sixth. Don't worry. Thats what I'm talking about y'all! Note gable ornamentation & finial, stained glass window, shingled siding and bracketed porch detail. See what some time, paint & TLC can produce! We worship! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The GBLT Center is now located at 1900 Kane St. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.