What Type Of Home Would You Have Purchased

[memebag]

Why wouldn't the bungalows last another 100 years? They have to be maintained, but they should last just fine. There are houses and barns on the east coast that have been in existence since the 1700's.

They can, just like my PC can last for another 100 years. Of course, I've replaced the motherboard, the case, the power supply, the drives, the video card, the monitor, the keyboard and the mouse several times. But I see no reason my PC can't last as long as someone keeps replacing the parts.

[jm1fd]

The old bungalows wont last another 100 years.

Thank you for that well reasoned, factually supported argument.

[Panhandle78]

I did show you facts. There may be a few of you redoing your bungalows, but what about the other 2,400 in the area. Sorry but it just wont happen.

[sheeats]

Are you crazy? For every one bungalow that is restored or kept up in the Heights there are 100 that are TERRIBLE. Dont make me drive down my block and take pictures. We are not talking about barns on the east coast. We are talking about crumbling bungalows/duplexes in the Heights. Dont sell me hamburgers and tell me its filet mignon.

Going back to what sunsets said, it's because they haven't been maintained. The new homes won't last 100 years either if they aren't properly maintained. It's deplorable attitudes like yours -- "everything is disposable, get over it" -- that are trashing our city and depleting our resources.

If people would sack up and maintain/take care of the properties and houses they own, then developers wouldn't have the excuse that something is old and therefore "run-down" or "unsalvageable" and should be replaced with yet another house that won't be taken care of, uses up valuable natural resources, is most likely poorly-built, and will itself have to be torn down in another 100 years. Circle of life, indeed. It's tragic and disgusting.

And that's how I really feel about it.

[woodheightsguy]

I understand that many think that the purchase is fine. I believe we all agree that truly salvagable homes should not be replaced. For those who find this purchase of the Victorian-themed home (which is 5 years old and is really looking like it is in perfect shape) was a bad one, the question remains. What type of home purchase would you have condoned for this couple? Please don't forget the time, skill and money limitations which they have. Also, please remember that they have a toddler, another child on the way and a budget which limits them from the price per sq foot costs of most of the renovated bungalows in Heights proper. One poster was quite clear - they are not welcome in the Heights if they can't afford a renovated bungalow (since they can't update one on their own time and $). I don't really see other suggestions from the "haters" as one put it. The one poster was definitely correct - they did want a/c, power for the microwave, at least 2 baths and very low maintenance inside or out. Having a yard is not important to them as they utilize the Heights' parks continuously. This isn't a question to start a war of words between those that like the neglected homes going away and those that want only neighbors with the time, skill and money to renovate them or the purchasing power to buy one that is already renovated. I just wanted to know, for those of you who still want this neighborly couple in your neighborhood, but don't like what they purchased - what would have been acceptable to you and still met their needs? This is about putting yourselves in their shoes and applying your vision for what would be acceptable within their time, skill and money parameters. Is the only solution that is acceptable to "look elsewhere and we'll wait for neighbors with more time and money?" Buying a renovated bungalow with 2 bathrooms and updated throughout within Heights proper was outside of their price range. I have watched a lot of bungalows get renovated near to my house. The new owners who are moving in have Land Rovers, etc. Those new neighbors are also very nice people with young families. I welcome them. However, that is not the income power of this couple. They are not poor but they are what may be considered the working class. They are not upper middle income. I just wanted to see if those that are against this can come up with a solution or if the only solution is that they would not be welcome in the Heights. I have to be honest, while I totally disagree with the poster who felt that they shouldn't move to the Heights in the first place, I did appreciate the honesty. It was shocking and reads very differently than the Heights' attitude which I know and practice but at least it offered a solution. If you can't afford it, despite your qualities, don't come. Yikes.

We've been in a new house in The Heights for over three years and we absolutely love it. We love our house, we enjoy our neighbors, and we plan on being here for a very long time. I used to get upset when people would diss all new construction, then I realized, I really don't care what other people think. Hell, if you want to see a McMansion, don't go to The Heights, drive out to Royal Oaks. We love our new home, I think it is well built and we have no regrets at all. My advice to your friends would be to just enjoy their house and neighborhood and don't worry about what others think. After all, you can't please everyone, especially long time Heights residents!

[sowanome]

I agree....

It's just like the many posters that swear they want an "Urban" inner loop and more density, but at the same time they want all "single family" homes and curse the existence of The newly built "Townhomes"...

I'm not picking a side here, but:

Somethings never add up.....JMO

LETS just Blame it on ZONING!!!!

[sunsets]

they want an "Urban" inner loop and more density, but at the same time they want all "single family" homes

Well, you CAN have that. In the Heights. But tell someone that comes with 1000 sq ft of living space and 1 bathroom and they run screaming to the new townhouses.

[sowanome]

Well, you CAN have that. In the Heights. But tell someone that comes with 1000 sq ft of living space and 1 bathroom and they run screaming to the new townhouses.

Unfortunately, Americans have a problem with excessive consumption based on the "Bigger is Better" Theme.. Maybe, if the average home size hadn't increased from 1200 sq.ft. in 1970 to 2100 sq. ft. in 2002, we wouldn't have this issue.

Just look at how many homes are larger than 3,000 sq. ft.... In the 1980's, homes of that size were reserved for top professional's, Now it's common place... 20 years from now, 2,000 sq. ft. will not be enough..(i.e. like the many families of 3 that grow out of 1300 sq.ft. and the kid is an infant )

Oh, those are the couples who are moving into the TH's....

[tmariar]

We've been in a new house in The Heights for over three years and we absolutely love it. We love our house, we enjoy our neighbors, and we plan on being here for a very long time. I used to get upset when people would diss all new construction, then I realized, I really don't care what other people think. Hell, if you want to see a McMansion, don't go to The Heights, drive out to Royal Oaks. We love our new home, I think it is well built and we have no regrets at all. My advice to your friends would be to just enjoy their house and neighborhood and don't worry about what others think. After all, you can't please everyone, especially long time Heights residents!

Man... and here I'd always fought against making the assumption that the attitude of someone buying a new construction in an historic neighborhood had to come down to "I don't care what you think." Not much more to say after that.

Llegalien - Thanks for wanting to know more about your neighbors' opinions, even though I know you didn't like some of them. I may dislike your friends' decision in purchasing a new house but, if they really love the Heights as much as you say, I'm sure they'll find lots of ways to make a positive contribution - and I hope they'll be happy here.

Sunsets - Thanks for posting that article - it was a great read.

[MidtownCoog]

I understand that many think that the purchase is fine. I believe we all agree that truly salvagable homes should not be replaced. For those who find this purchase of the Victorian-themed home (which is 5 years old and is really looking like it is in perfect shape) was a bad one, the question remains. What type of home purchase would you have condoned for this couple? Please don't forget the time, skill and money limitations which they have. Also, please remember that they have a toddler, another child on the way and a budget which limits them from the price per sq foot costs of most of the renovated bungalows in Heights proper. One poster was quite clear - they are not welcome in the Heights if they can't afford a renovated bungalow (since they can't update one on their own time and $). I don't really see other suggestions from the "haters" as one put it. The one poster was definitely correct - they did want a/c, power for the microwave, at least 2 baths and very low maintenance inside or out. Having a yard is not important to them as they utilize the Heights' parks continuously. This isn't a question to start a war of words between those that like the neglected homes going away and those that want only neighbors with the time, skill and money to renovate them or the purchasing power to buy one that is already renovated. I just wanted to know, for those of you who still want this neighborly couple in your neighborhood, but don't like what they purchased - what would have been acceptable to you and still met their needs? This is about putting yourselves in their shoes and applying your vision for what would be acceptable within their time, skill and money parameters. Is the only solution that is acceptable to "look elsewhere and we'll wait for neighbors with more time and money?" Buying a renovated bungalow with 2 bathrooms and updated throughout within Heights proper was outside of their price range. I have watched a lot of bungalows get renovated near to my house. The new owners who are moving in have Land Rovers, etc. Those new neighbors are also very nice people with young families. I welcome them. However, that is not the income power of this couple. They are not poor but they are what may be considered the working class. They are not upper middle income. I just wanted to see if those that are against this can come up with a solution or if the only solution is that they would not be welcome in the Heights. I have to be honest, while I totally disagree with the poster who felt that they shouldn't move to the Heights in the first place, I did appreciate the honesty. It was shocking and reads very differently than the Heights' attitude which I know and practice but at least it offered a solution. If you can't afford it, despite your qualities, don't come. Yikes.

You don't need HAIF, you need Dr. Phil.

You seem obsessed with what others think, have and do.

That's really creepy.

[woodheightsguy]

Man... and here I'd always fought against making the assumption that the attitude of someone buying a new construction in an historic neighborhood had to come down to "I don't care what you think." Not much more to say after that.

Sunsets - Thanks for posting that article - it was a great read.

That's a ridiculous way to interpret my statements.

I did care for a while, I've done what I can to be a good neighbor and have developed several good friendships with folks in my neighborhood. I can't change the way people feel about new construction and have given up apologizing for my home. It's over, the old bungalow that was in it's place is gone. I don't go around criticizing folks in my neighborhood that live in bungalows that have obviously let them fall into disrepair, don't keep up their yard, park cars in their lawn, and just plain don't seem to care a rats ass about anything.

BTW, what would be an acceptable reason to you for buying a new construction in a historic neighborhood?

[RedScare]

The old bungalows wont last another 100 years. The new construction will. 100 years from now the large "Mcmansions" (you people are sooo lame for those terms) will be torn down, and replaced with townhomes or whatever, and my kids will be complaining like you all are now. Its the circle of life. Get over it.

I am quite sure that you have never looked at the guts of an old home versus a new one. Anyone who has any experience in home construction would likely take your bet, as would I. I won't waste my time explaining why.

[tmariar]

That's a ridiculous way to interpret my statements.

I did care for a while, I've done what I can to be a good neighbor and have developed several good friendships with folks in my neighborhood. I can't change the way people feel about new construction and have given up apologizing for my home. It's over, the old bungalow that was in it's place is gone. I don't go around criticizing folks in my neighborhood that live in bungalows that have obviously let them fall into disrepair, don't keep up their yard, park cars in their lawn, and just plain don't seem to care a rats ass about anything.

BTW, what would be an acceptable reason to you for buying a new construction in a historic neighborhood?

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I didn't have much to go on in your first post!

I've never really thought of people's reasons in buying new constructions in an historic neighborhood in terms of what would be acceptable to me... I fight against the assumption that they just want the house they want wherever they want it and don't care what impact it has on their neighbors or the neighborhood or the city, but try at least to remember that not everyone places the importance I do on the preservation of the historic neighborhoods in Houston. I do suspect that there are some people who buy new constructions in historic neighborhoods without having really thought through the connection between doing so and the further destruction of the neighborhood's historic character - who just approach it with the attitude of "well, someone's going to buy it, might as well be me." And that some people know other people who've bought new constructions and have found their neighbors to be friendly, and so figure it's not really that big of a deal. Or think that it's not that big of a deal because a block already has some new constructions on it. Maybe some combination of all of those - I don't know the thought process, but I hope it's more complicated than just "I don't care."

I do know that I - like others who have posted - don't want my neighbors feeling unwelcome just because they bought a new house. But I also want to try to discourage more people from buying new houses here - and those two things can conflict.

I really am glad you've had an overall good experience here, and I hope it will continue to be good - I think a lot of the negative comments you may hear may be made by people in the same position I'm in. Wanting to welcome new neighbors, but not wanting to encourage more new house purchasers (which encourages the builders, and so on and so forth). So it's good that you've found a way not to take them personally, as I don't think they are usually meant that way.

And now I have to run to dinner at my friend's new construction in an historic neighborhood...

[Dan the Man]

I am quite sure that you have never looked at the guts of an old home versus a new one. Anyone who has any experience in home construction would likely take your bet, as would I. I won't waste my time explaining why.

So true...

[LLLegalien]

Isn't the biggest problem with the sellers? If the sellers want to prevent builders from redeveloping their properties, why don't they sell to renovators only? I suspect that the reason is because the developers are offering them more money. But if this is such a passion of the bungalow owners (I own an historic home), why don't they resist selling to the highest and fastest bidder and rather hold out for the dream buyer who will renovate their home even if that person is going to offer less money and take a longer time to close the transaction?

We had two bungalows in total disrepair within a block of us. They were on the market for quite a while. After what appeared to be about 4 or 5 months one was purchased by a developer who is going to level it. I think that the sellers are far more to blame for this "problem" (if indeed it is a problem) than the builders and buyers. However, I doubt there are many bungalow owners out there who are willing to sell for less money over a longer period of time to ensure the historic character of the neighborhood is upheld.

[RedScare]

Isn't the biggest problem with the sellers? If the sellers want to prevent builders from redeveloping their properties, why don't they sell to renovators only? I suspect that the reason is because the developers are offering them more money. But if this is such a passion of the bungalow owners (I own an historic home), why don't they resist selling to the highest and fastest bidder and rather hold out for the dream buyer who will renovate their home even if that person is going to offer less money and take a longer time to close the transaction?

We had two bungalows in total disrepair within a block of us. They were on the market for quite a while. After what appeared to be about 4 or 5 months one was purchased by a developer who is going to level it. I think that the sellers are far more to blame for this "problem" (if indeed it is a problem) than the builders and buyers. However, I doubt there are many bungalow owners out there who are willing to sell for less money over a longer period of time to ensure the historic character of the neighborhood is upheld.

And, it probably goes without saying that a seller will have decidedly less interest in preserving the neighborhood that he is leaving.

[20thStDad]

I haven't thought long and hard about this, but I think if there were some limitations on renovating versus tear down and build, the Heights would be in a much worse spot than it is. That's basically an anti-progress type of stance. Properties would just sit and rot, because obviously there aren't that many people who want to restore a bungalow. Otherwise more would be doing it. I know that on my block, before new builds came, there was a lot of drug activity. In particular in a couple of houses behind ours, the last couple months before they got torn down the people lived without electricity and would regularly start pretty big fires out back, all while harassing the neighbors. I'm sorry, but it's a good thing when that gets wiped out and replaced by just about anything, even an empty lot.

But I do agree that it is wrong to tear down a livable, decent house for no good reason to build a new one. I would think if the house is livable the price would be high enough to deter that, for the most part, and push the buyers wanting to do that to the real hell-holes or already empty lots.

[Panhandle78]

The Heights posters here do have a wide variety of opinions, and I don't claim to speak for anyone else. But if you're asking about a seeming consensus of opinion with regard to neo-Vics in particular, my guess is that it's less an objection to the style itself (which many people find treacly) and more to do with the fact that neo-Vics are being built on non-Victorian streets, in the middle of a row of arts-and-crafts bungalows. It seems odd to want further emphasize the incongruity of a house that probably already sticks out like a sore thumb.

Beyond that, if you really do want to understand why some might not welcome your friends to the Heights, I'll take a stab at explaining. Many Heights residents, like many non-Heights residents, believe that Houston and Houstonians should be working toward preserving, not destroying, our few remaining historic neighborhoods. Which generally means preserving, not destroying, old houses. Your friends may not have torn down an original Heights home with their own hands, but may as well have in many people's eyes. They and others creating a market for new constructions in the Heights are the reason that builders are doing what they're doing to this neighborhood - they won't stop until/unless people stop buying their product. Your friends may not personally believe that individual desires should sometimes be sacrificed for the communal good, or (more likely) don't believe that the historic characteristic of the Heights is something worth preserving, but they have many neighbors who do. You describe your friends as "conscientious neighbors", but that's a subjective concept. Surely they knew before they bought how strongly many in the Heights feel about the destruction of original homes in the neighborhood?

All that said, have your friends been made to feel unwelcome? I'm guessing not. Not because there aren't many people in the Heights who feel as I've described, but because people here - like people most places - generally believe being a good neighbor involves being considerate of those around them.

I wrote the above before your more recent post... I was attempting above to summarize a common view, and not my own views, but mine are generally along those lines. If someone can't afford to buy in the Heights without buying a new construction, yes, I'd generally prefer they not buy in the Heights. Because I think buying a new construction in the Heights supports and encourages the further destruction of original Heights homes.

There is nothing historic about some of these homes getting leveled. So what if they were originals. In 100 years the new constuction will be considered historic, and the small vocal minority will be complainging on the message boards about the demolitions....

And yes I have walked through many old homes that were eventually demolished where people said "oh it should have been saved and restored, oh my"....well then you risk your rear end and fix it up. Good Luck!

[sheeats]

There is nothing historic about some of these homes getting leveled. So what if they were originals. In 100 years the new constuction will be considered historic, and the small vocal minority will be complainging on the message boards about the demolitions....

And yes I have walked through many old homes that were eventually demolished where people said "oh it should have been saved and restored, oh my"....well then you risk your rear end and fix it up. Good Luck!

[sunsets]

Nice. I love that.

I did want to address this:

Isn't the biggest problem with the sellers? If the sellers want to prevent builders from redeveloping their properties, why don't they sell to renovators only?

There was a pretty well-known case in Woodland Heights where the older owners of the property thought they sold to a nice young couple who were going to live in the house. Turned out to be a front for a builder who yanked the house off the lot and put up a giant new thing. Which still sits, empty and unsold. I believe there was another seller who did a little research into his buyer and discovered the same trick. He did refuse to sell.

I think in the more established areas of the Heights, like Woodland Heights, it's a little easier for the sellers to hold out. If you own a rundown place on the edge of Sunset Heights, for instance, it's going to be tougher. That said, there is currently an old duplex down the street that is for sale as property value only. The thing has a rather haphazard second story added to one side of it. In this case, it might be better to raze it.

[tanith27]

Troll spray.....thats classic.

But what defines a historic home anyways? I went on a Heights historic home tour a couple of years ago and there was a gorgeous older home on the tour, but in hearing the docent talking, the original home had a tiny footprint and the home that most were viewing and enjoying had been added on through the years to a point where what was 'original' had long since been assimilated into the larger structure. But walking inside, it had the modern conveniences while still feeling very historic. Parts of it were historic, but maybe only a quarter of the overall sq footage was original. So are these people praised or chastised? If I interpret some of the posters correct, its historical to rip an old home down to the frame and rebuild it to todays standards, but its not historical if you build a frame from scratch and apply the same standards. Did I miss something? Sounds like to me like the true issue is the size of the homes going up, and these concerns are somehow validated by lumping them into socially argumentative topics like 'destroying the historic feel of a neighborhood'.

[sevfiv]

It's not only builders pushing the limits of home size on the lots, but also the waste of a home previously built.

[tmariar]

Isn't the biggest problem with the sellers? If the sellers want to prevent builders from redeveloping their properties, why don't they sell to renovators only? I suspect that the reason is because the developers are offering them more money. But if this is such a passion of the bungalow owners (I own an historic home), why don't they resist selling to the highest and fastest bidder and rather hold out for the dream buyer who will renovate their home even if that person is going to offer less money and take a longer time to close the transaction?

We had two bungalows in total disrepair within a block of us. They were on the market for quite a while. After what appeared to be about 4 or 5 months one was purchased by a developer who is going to level it. I think that the sellers are far more to blame for this "problem" (if indeed it is a problem) than the builders and buyers. However, I doubt there are many bungalow owners out there who are willing to sell for less money over a longer period of time to ensure the historic character of the neighborhood is upheld.

If sellers would sell only to those who would preserve the bungalow, then there wouldn't be as many bungalows lost, sure - sellers have control over the supply. And if buyers didn't buy new constructions, there wouldn't be as many bungalows lost - buyers have control over the demand.

I guess I'd need to hear more to understand the argument that sellers factor more into the equation than buyers.

Sellers do factor in, sure - my neighbor recently sold to a couple who are remodeling. As you might imagine, I'm pretty thrilled about that, as are others on the block. I didn't ask my former neighbor if he had higher offers from developers, much less if his good relationship with his neighbors was a factor in the sale. In the end, I think it just wasn't a tear-down. His price was high - probably too high for builders, though others of you likely know more about that than I do - and he waited a few months for a buyer. But what if he didn't have a few months to wait? A lot of sellers don't. Nor can they always be sure about the true intentions of a buyer. And, as Red mentioned, sellers may not have much investment in the neighborhood because they're leaving. That's not to say that I believe sellers of old homes don't have a responsibility to their neighbors, to the Heights, and to Houston to do what they can within reason to help preserve the neighborhood's historic integrity - I believe they do.

But buyers will typically have far more control over their situations. Even if they need to buy quickly, they don't need to buy in the Heights. And if they're looking to become part of the neighborhood, they presumably have its best interests in mind. So why not try to get the word out to buyers that they have the power to make a tremendous contribution to the Heights in their buying decision - even if it means looking elsewhere if they aren't able or willing to buy a bungalow? That if people stop buying new constructions, the builders will stop tearing down bungalows? The only down side I see is what's already come out above - that this can be a less than welcoming message to those who have already bought new constructions here. And I'm not going to say I don't care about that because I do - who wants to feel anything other than welcome in their home and neighborhood? Who wants their neighbors to feel anything other than that? But saving an historic neighborhood requires activism, and I hope that these neighbors understand that I and others who think as I do are fighting for something that we feel is important.

[toadfroggy]

I have a new place going up next to me. It's not a complete monster. They are being somewhat respectful of the lot lines and they are going with a McCraftsman instead of a McVictorian, but it's significantly larger than anything else around it and my house in particular looks really dinky next to it, so I'm not thrilled. It's also being built on spec, and that doesn't thrill me either. Still, it's better than the empty lot, and since the old house that was there got moved elsewhere before I even bought my house, I don't feel like I'm in much of a position to whine about it.

I'm not sure I understand the market, though. You know, there's that old adage about the worst house on a good street instead of the best house. It will definitely be the latter. I would think they'd find it easier to sell if they had planned a smaller house, but I guess it's an issue of margins.

And while we're on the subject of renovation vs tear down and rebuild, I gotta say I think a lot of flips are not much better for a neighborhood than a lot of teardowns.

[WaverlyFan]

This endless argument about new vs old, remodel vs tear down always ends up getting me upset. Here is what I think, and as we are all free to express our opinions, I offer you mine. I grew up in Houston. And, when I was in middle/high school, I had plenty of friends in the Heights and I will tell you that we were always out of the neighborhood before 9pm. It was dark, unsafe and worn down and quite frankly, a dump of a place down some of the streets. It reminded me of North Philly, some streets were well kept and you would go down two blocks and those looked like a warzone complete with shacks and crackhouses. I went away in the late 90s and came back to see the Heights in 2001. What a difference!

I for one, love the fact that the Heights has new life. I dont like everyone of the new homes but i think I like the majority of them. Some new homes are amazing, inside and out. SOme of the bungalows that have been brought back to their glory are amazing! And the neighborhhod is like no other in Houston. BUT, some of the homes still look like crap. Whatever the reason-bad maintance, bad owners, bad quality home, etc, whatever it is, --some still look like crap. And those homes, I dont mind seeing tore down or rebuilt or replaced. I just don't, no matter what anyone of the posters say about "preserving the history". PLease! Not every home in the Heights is worth saving. And keep in mind, I don't like the two townhomes stuck on one small lot but I will take them over the shack being held up by one pillar. Do you know why? Because everything in this life changes. The new replaces the old. This isn't Rome here, my friends, the new homes aren't being built on top of historic ruins.

I am presently trying to buy land in the Heights. And no, the homes on the lots I am looking at don't deserve to be "redone" or "saved". And I will respect my neighbors and not place a huge McMansion on the lot. But I am going to demolish the home if it's a piece a crap. No, I'm not rich nor elitist. Like the family on the initial thread post, I have a toddler and another hopefully coming. And as much as I would love to stay home ALL DAY renovating a charming bungalow, reality tells me that I and my wife must go out and work. And like the rest of you, I want a safe, clean, ecletic neighborhood. And sometimes, that requires tearing out the old.

[heights_yankee]

it depends how picky you are. no you don't need central air, your wood floors redone, a plug in the restroom, a water valve to feed your refrigerator, a large enough circuit to power a microwave, etc however they sure make life a little easier/nicer for some of us.

i can't even be bothered to go back and address every untrue argument and nonsensical point i've read in this thread. i should have been checking the board daily.

anyway, as far as what i quoted above, my house is a 3/2 with central heat and air. in addition to 3 bedrooms, i have a small home office and side entrance that is a lovely area to store recycling, a mini mud room if you will. i have a countertop gass range, built in microwave/convection oven, ample storage in both bathrooms, nice closet space and a firdge with filtered water and ice in the door. all this was here when i bought my house. i am not saying that houses in the heights don't need to be updated. i am saying this crappy argument of "i won't buy a bungalow b/c i don't want to do renovations" is BS b/c the heights has been experiencing its "gentrification" for 10 years and many of these houses are on 2nd and 3rd owners post major renovations. not to mention all the flips. i'm not saying it's wrong to want a new construction, but if that is what people really want, have the balls to just say it. don't throw me some bullshit excuse about not having the time or money to renovate. i think using this "excuse" shows that they know they are doing the area a disservice when they buy those homes. they want to live in the heights for its status, not its history, even though its history is what makes it "the heights."

as far as the houses not being here in another 100 years, do you ever leave texas? go to boston. see houses that were built before america was its own country and tell me you think a stucco box that is already molding around the windows is going to outlast my bungalow.

20th street dad- a lot of people don't get the chance to buy a bungalow to save b/c developers (jerk off james for one) have deep pockets and swoop in before the average buyer has a chance to work out if they can afford it. again i have to point to my own neighborhood where there is no new contruction. houses here are selling in weeks, even in this market, and not for cheap b/c people do want bungalows and the developers can't touch us here.

Additionally, I do have several friends who live in new contructions. They are not ostracized and even know my stance on new vs old, but we all still get along. My point here: these people ALL bought already built homes. You can ask most of them and they will tell you "we really didn't need that covered walk from the garage to the house" or "we could have done without the 600 sq foot master bath to have had more of a yard." Builders are building what they want and then people are buying b/c they are what is available. If you follow what's selling fastest in the Heights, you'll notice that the slightly smaller new construction with a small yard is probably the fastest seller. You'll also notice that some of the homes that were clearly comissioned and built custom also have left significant yards and/or have pools. So, the builders are defining what the area looks like, not the home owners. I guaranty that id Allegro, James and Whitestone (:::shutter:: waited and built for people instead for for profit (and they would still make a handsome profit) a lot of the homes would look different than they do now.

[sevfiv]

I don't think anyone here is against the removal of unsafe and truly unsalvageable homes (although a home's deserving to be redone or saved is subjective) - it is sad that there are so many homes that get to that point, though (whatever the person demolishing feels that point is).

Also, there are great folks out there (people mention them on the forum now and again) that do good work in the restoration/remodeling field if one has the money to hire and doesn't want to "stay home all day renovating."

This endless argument about new vs old, remodel vs tear down always ends up getting me upset. Here is what I think, and as we are all free to express our opinions, I offer you mine. I grew up in Houston. And, when I was in middle/high school, I had plenty of friends in the Heights and I will tell you that we were always out of the neighborhood before 9pm. It was dark, unsafe and worn down and quite frankly, a dump of a place down some of the streets. It reminded me of North Philly, some streets were well kept and you would go down two blocks and those looked like a warzone complete with shacks and crackhouses. I went away in the late 90s and came back to see the Heights in 2001. What a difference!

I for one, love the fact that the Heights has new life. I dont like everyone of the new homes but i think I like the majority of them. Some new homes are amazing, inside and out. SOme of the bungalows that have been brought back to their glory are amazing! And the neighborhhod is like no other in Houston. BUT, some of the homes still look like crap. Whatever the reason-bad maintance, bad owners, bad quality home, etc, whatever it is, --some still look like crap. And those homes, I dont mind seeing tore down or rebuilt or replaced. I just don't, no matter what anyone of the posters say about "preserving the history". PLease! Not every home in the Heights is worth saving. And keep in mind, I don't like the two townhomes stuck on one small lot but I will take them over the shack being held up by one pillar. Do you know why? Because everything in this life changes. The new replaces the old. This isn't Rome here, my friends, the new homes aren't being built on top of historic ruins.

I am presently trying to buy land in the Heights. And no, the homes on the lots I am looking at don't deserve to be "redone" or "saved". And I will respect my neighbors and not place a huge McMansion on the lot. But I am going to demolish the home if it's a piece a crap. No, I'm not rich nor elitist. Like the family on the initial thread post, I have a toddler and another hopefully coming. And as much as I would love to stay home ALL DAY renovating a charming bungalow, reality tells me that I and my wife must go out and work. And like the rest of you, I want a safe, clean, ecletic neighborhood. And sometimes, that requires tearing out the old.

[20thStDad]

i can't even be bothered to go back and address every untrue argument and nonsensical point i've read in this thread. i should have been checking the board daily.

anyway, as far as what i quoted above, my house is a 3/2 with central heat and air. in addition to 3 bedrooms, i have a small home office and side entrance that is a lovely area to store recycling, a mini mud room if you will. i have a countertop gass range, built in microwave/convection oven, ample storage in both bathrooms, nice closet space and a firdge with filtered water and ice in the door. all this was here when i bought my house. i am not saying that houses in the heights don't need to be updated. i am saying this crappy argument of "i won't buy a bungalow b/c i don't want to do renovations" is BS b/c the heights has been experiencing its "gentrification" for 10 years and many of these houses are on 2nd and 3rd owners post major renovations. not to mention all the flips. i'm not saying it's wrong to want a new construction, but if that is what people really want, have the balls to just say it. don't throw me some bullshit excuse about not having the time or money to renovate. i think using this "excuse" shows that they know they are doing the area a disservice when they buy those homes. they want to live in the heights for its status, not its history, even though its history is what makes it "the heights."

as far as the houses not being here in another 100 years, do you ever leave texas? go to boston. see houses that were built before america was its own country and tell me you think a stucco box that is already molding around the windows is going to outlast my bungalow.

20th street dad- a lot of people don't get the chance to buy a bungalow to save b/c developers (jerk off james for one) have deep pockets and swoop in before the average buyer has a chance to work out if they can afford it. again i have to point to my own neighborhood where there is no new contruction. houses here are selling in weeks, even in this market, and not for cheap b/c people do want bungalows and the developers can't touch us here.

Additionally, I do have several friends who live in new contructions. They are not ostracized and even know my stance on new vs old, but we all still get along. My point here: these people ALL bought already built homes. You can ask most of them and they will tell you "we really didn't need that covered walk from the garage to the house" or "we could have done without the 600 sq foot master bath to have had more of a yard." Builders are building what they want and then people are buying b/c they are what is available. If you follow what's selling fastest in the Heights, you'll notice that the slightly smaller new construction with a small yard is probably the fastest seller. You'll also notice that some of the homes that were clearly comissioned and built custom also have left significant yards and/or have pools. So, the builders are defining what the area looks like, not the home owners. I guaranty that id Allegro, James and Whitestone (:::shutter:: waited and built for people instead for for profit (and they would still make a handsome profit) a lot of the homes would look different than they do now.

I think I'm with you. I'm guessing you're in Norhill or Woodland Heights. I live way on the west edge of the Heights, which is really a different make-up. Even moreso outside the old Heights boundary, where there are ghetto-type 600 sq ft shacks, around Lawrence Park and just east of Sheperd between there and Nicholson or so. Those are the ones I think of, and every time I run or ride the bike past, I'm thankful to see the new ones coming up, even if I hate the way they look. But I totally agree that the older bungalows are completely livable even before renovation in most cases. I'd gladly live in an old one in Woodland Heights. But we ended up buying newer (already built) because we could afford it, liked the house, and liked the location. Maybe for our next one we can upgrade to a good old bungalow further east

[Angostura]

I read this this thread with some interest. I've lived overseas for the last several years, and I'll be relocating back to Houston with my wife and son in a few months. We want to live ITL, and we're starting to zero in on the Heights as the neighborhood of choice, which means we're grappling with this very decision.

From what I've seen, there's new construction that appears to benefit the community, and new construction that seems detrimental. One of the reasons we're looking at the Heights is to avoid the townhouse farms of Montrose, Rice Military, etc., so it saddens me when I see that kind of construction in the Heights. That includes detached houses that might as well be townhouses, like these with their bizarre fa

[heights_yankee]

Are you crazy? For every one bungalow that is restored or kept up in the Heights there are 100 that are TERRIBLE. Dont make me drive down my block and take pictures. We are not talking about barns on the east coast. We are talking about crumbling bungalows/duplexes in the Heights. Dont sell me hamburgers and tell me its filet mignon.

just b/c the house doesn't look pretty doesn't mean the bones aren't sturdy. my aunt& uncle bought an almost 200 year old farm house that was condemned and all they ever did was modernize the utilities and make cosmetic changes. they haven't had to do any structural repair at all. these new houses of stucco and hardiplank are not as sound or sturdy as houses that were built 100 years ago. dry wall will never last as long as hard wood sheathing.