Home At 801 Pizer St.

[heights_yankee]

along with other Proctor Plaza Neighborhood Assoc members and residents of the neighborhood, I will be attending a hearing regarding the applicationfor demolition of 801 Pizer in the North Norhill Historic District. It is my opinion (shared by many others) that the new owners of this property are applying to demo out of sour grapes because their initial rehab plans were rejected by the PPNA board for inappropriate materials and design.

Before anyone lectures me on property right (that means you, MarkSMU ) please know this is a historic district and heavily deed restricted. The PPNA will also have oversight in to what is built should their application for demo be approved. As an organization the PPNA board is tasked with protecting the historic nature of the neighborhood.

So, besides showing up at the hearing (whose location has been moved without notice on the sign, all bait-and-switch like) what else can/should I do for the greatest impact in protesting this?

Has anyone else been a part of the process and had success challenging an application?

Thanks!

[TheNiche]

It is my opinion (shared by many others) that the new owners of this property are applying to demo out of sour grapes

You think they're proposing to make an outlay of thousands of dollars in order to eliminate the sole element of the property that would allow it to generate cash flow...to spite the neighbors? Yall up in the Heights sure do think highly of yourselves.

The first thing you ought to do is contact the owner to try to figure out what is motivating them to demolish the property. It's probably a reason far more mundane than yourself.

[kylejack]

So I looked at the house on Google Maps and I don't see anything all that unique about its architecture. It doesn't seem like the neighborhood is losing anything significant if this house is demoed. Why don't you just leave them alone?

[heights_yankee]

You think they're proposing to make an outlay of thousands of dollars in order to eliminate the sole element of the property that would allow it to generate cash flow...to spite the neighbors? Yall up in the Heights sure do think highly of yourselves.

The first thing you ought to do is contact the owner to try to figure out what is motivating them to demolish the property. It's probably a reason far more mundane than yourself.

I, as part of the neighborhood assoc board, have already met with the owners. They submitted renovation plans to the board and were denied because their plans were not "appropriate" [i put this in quotes because they have to have a certificate of appropriateness from the city]. they changed materials actually making it less appropriate- from hardiplank to stucco. the hardiplank was not the reason the plans were denied. the plans were denied for significantly altering the facade and aluminum windows, both against the deed restrictions. The board invited the owners and their architect to a meeting so we could openly discuss why their plans were denied and the material changes they could make to the plans to get approval.

They left and said they would resubmit. Instead, they applied for a demo permit.

I guess living here means I think highly of myself. OK. Admittedly, I do think highly of this part of the Heights, which is the largest historic district in Houston. Additionally, all homes on the streets surrounding Proctor Park are brick. This was intended by the developer. They are all original homes and it's a really special and beautiful area. People want to preserve that. There are actually vacant lots available in Proctor Plaza (where these home owners would STILL have to get their plans approved by the PPNA board) and there are many other areas in the Heights where they could build and not have to jump through these hoops. That is an option for them that remains open...

So I looked at the house on Google Maps and I don't see anything all that unique about its architecture. It doesn't seem like the neighborhood is losing anything significant if this house is demoed. Why don't you just leave them alone?

unique doesn't matter. original matters. if they want to be left alone, they should have bought in a non deed restricted neighborhood, which is 80% of the heights.

[kylejack]

unique doesn't matter. original matters. if they want to be left alone, they should have bought in a non deed restricted neighborhood, which is 80% of the heights.

As you said, you will have say over what's built in its place, so what is the problem? You can make sure the right type of structure is built.

[sevfiv]

As you said, you will have say over what's built in its place, so what is the problem? You can make sure the right type of structure is built.

But what's the condition of the original house? I assumed the Foyts (or just one) lived in it until they sold it. It doesn't look like a teardown from Google maps, but is it?

So Greg and Li decided to buy a house in a historic district with strong deed restrictions. Did they not know ahead of time what would and would not fly with the deed restrictions or get a COA?? Sounds like they may have not researched enough. So then they want to tear down what they see as an "unlivable" house and start all over?

Like the OP mentioned, there are empty lots available and in much less restricted areas.

[heights_yankee]

As you said, you will have say over what's built in its place, so what is the problem? You can make sure the right type of structure is built.

but the hitoric nature of the homes is important to this part of the heights. that is why this neighborhood has deed restrictions and a historic designation. yes, a lot of it is sentimentality but that is also why most ppl live in this specific area. you can get a new, big house in other parts of the heights that are less $ than a 2/2 bungalow in proctor plaza...

[heights_yankee]

But what's the condition of the original house? I assumed the Foyts (or just one) lived in it until they sold it. It doesn't look like a teardown from Google maps, but is it?

So Greg and Li decided to buy a house in a historic district with strong deed restrictions. Did they not know ahead of time what would and would not fly with the deed restrictions or get a COA?? Sounds like they may have not researched enough. So then they want to tear down what they see as an "unlivable" house and start all over?

Like the OP mentioned, there are empty lots available and in much less restricted areas.

A couple of people in the area say they were in the house recently and they do not see how the owners' claims can be true. I mean, wouldn't a "cracked foundation" have shown up in their inspection? Cracked foundation being what they told some neighbors who inquired. And does a pier and beam house have the ability to have a cracked foundation? Hmmmm... They also said to the same neighbor that they were recently told it would cost 1/2 to rebuild rather than remodel.

They definitely did know about the deed restrictions because they went through the certificate of appropriateness process and the submission to the PPNA board the 1st time. When they were denied, they clearly got annoyed/angry and now are saying the house in unlivable. It was plenty livable with a aluminum, arched windows and a stucco addition.

[barracuda]

They made the choice to move into a deed restricted neighborhood, and there doesn't appear to be any reason why they shouldn't adhere to the same rules as everyone else.

As you said, you will have say over what's built in its place, so what is the problem? You can make sure the right type of structure is built.

But the point of deed restrictions isn't to build new homes that look unique. The point is to preserve what's already there. There are plenty of updates that could make that house more "unique" without demolishing and rebuilding.

[kylejack]

They made the choice to move into a deed restricted neighborhood, and there doesn't appear to be any reason why they shouldn't adhere to the same rules as everyone else.

They are adhering to the same rules as everyone else, assuming there's not a rule that says you can't apply for a permit to demo.

[TheNiche]

The board invited the owners and their architect to a meeting so we could openly discuss why their plans were denied and the material changes they could make to the plans to get approval.

They left and said they would resubmit. Instead, they applied for a demo permit.

A couple of people in the area say they were in the house recently and they do not see how the owners' claims can be true. I mean, wouldn't a "cracked foundation" have shown up in their inspection? Cracked foundation being what they told some neighbors who inquired. And does a pier and beam house have the ability to have a cracked foundation? Hmmmm... They also said to the same neighbor that they were recently told it would cost 1/2 to rebuild rather than remodel.

Your opinions that they are demoing the house out of spite and that your conclusion that demoing the house is inappropriate are based on supposition and hearsay.

Let me try this one more time: The first thing you ought to do is contact the owner to try to figure out what is motivating them to demolish the property. There probably is a method to their madness, even if they are not very good at practicing clear or consistent communication with the neighborhood stakeholders. Whether or not you change your opinion, going into the meeting informed of their reasoned intentions allows you to ask more intelligent questions of them and to make a better case for your viewpoint.

But what's the condition of the original house? I assumed the Foyts (or just one) lived in it until they sold it. It doesn't look like a teardown from Google maps, but is it?

HAR still has the photo gallery up on the old listing. Wood paneling dominates a hideous interior; the kitchen is a total loss. There are no photos of any bathrooms, which probably isn't a good sign. Also, it looks like there's an ugly structure behind the house...probably a garage apartment, possibly an addition. Maybe that's where a cracked slab comes into play. Maybe that ugly thing is all that's getting demoed. Who knows? I'd really like to see heights_yankee talk to her neighbors and get back to us with a first-hand account of their situation.

[musicman]

thanks for posting picture of that "unique" house.

[kylejack]

The house sucks and I look forward to seeing it demoed.

[sevfiv]

I like the house - and it would be unique if people were able to run free with their bulldozers!

A big point here is that the house is there and it can be lived in as intended. Why demolish it? Why waste it?

[kylejack]

As intended by who?

[TheNiche]

thanks for posting picture of that "unique" house.

Your barbs are usually spot on, but not this one. True, the house is anything but unique, but astoundingly...that's the point. The deed restrictions and the powers that be that enforce them so zealously are actually trying to make everything look like the same maligned ticky tacky crap that pervades the suburbs.

And although I think that heights_yankee is going about this issue the wrong way, and although I personally shun politically-enforced aesthetic order, I actually do recognize the benefit of excessively deed restricted inner-city neighborhoods like these. They're like flypaper. They suck up all the pesky order-obsessed squares. Without places like these for squares to congregate, they'd be all up in my business in the parts of Houston that aren't on their radar (yet). Basically, it'd be like Austin. And that'd suck tremendously.

[sevfiv]

As intended by who?

By the builder and by the functional nature of a house.

[kylejack]

By the builder and by the functional nature of a house.

Apparently they want a house to live in as they intend rather than the original builder, who is dead anyhow.

[barracuda]

Your barbs are usually spot on, but not this one. True, the house is anything but unique, but astoundingly...that's the point. The deed restrictions and the powers that be that enforce them so zealously are actually trying to make everything look like the same maligned ticky tacky crap that pervades the suburbs.

How is trying to retain the historical nature of a neighborhood akin to making it look like the "crap" in the suburbs?

And although I think that heights_yankee is going about this issue the wrong way, and although I personally shun politically-enforced aesthetic order, I actually do recognize the benefit of excessively deed restricted inner-city neighborhoods like these. They're like flypaper. They suck up all the pesky order-obsessed squares. Without places like these for squares to congregate, they'd be all up in my business in the parts of Houston that aren't on their radar (yet). Basically, it'd be like Austin. And that'd suck tremendously.

Why would "order-obsessed squares" want to live in a neighborhood where almost every house is old, quirky, and modest? I'd expect that such a mindset would be attracted to a cookie-cutter neighborhood in the suburbs. You also ought to try asking folks in the neighborhood why they live there. I think you'd find that few if any of them fit the stereotype you're trying to attach to them.

Edited November 15, 2009 by barracuda

[barracuda]

Apparently they want a house to live in as they intend rather than the original builder, who is dead anyhow.

So they should have bought in a neighborhood that isn't deed-restricted. There's nothing stopping them from doing so. There are certainly others who'd be willing to renovate that house to make it more attractive and livable while adhering to the deed restrictions they signed up for.

[RedScare]

A couple of people in the area say they were in the house recently and they do not see how the owners' claims can be true. I mean, wouldn't a "cracked foundation" have shown up in their inspection? Cracked foundation being what they told some neighbors who inquired. And does a pier and beam house have the ability to have a cracked foundation? Hmmmm... They also said to the same neighbor that they were recently told it would cost 1/2 to rebuild rather than remodel.

A quick check of HCAD reveals that a foundation beam IS, in fact, cracked and later repaired. There is no need for an inspection, since HCAD has published this fact for all the world to see. Additionally, the brick ledge could be damaged. A friend of mine lived in a house exactly 1 block south of this one, and the brick ledge was badly damaged, leading to cracks throughout the brick veneer.

Perhaps I am not an expert on historic homes (mine was only built in 1920), but if these new neighbors asked ME what I thought of the hideous cancer that grew onto the back of that home, I not only would not oppose tearing it down, I would offer to loan them my sledgehammer. This case seems to be a case of misplaced priorities, in that the rear add-on is NOT original, and detracts from the house, and therefore, the neighborhood. It would be hard to imagine a new renovation that would look worse than that non-historic add-on. However, since the committee chose to nix the homeowners proposed renovations, and demo/rebuild is a legal option, I don't see the gripe here. You won. They will not be attaching a non-approved add-on to the house.

[RedScare]

So they should have bought in a neighborhood that isn't deed-restricted. There's nothing stopping them from doing so. There are certainly others who'd be willing to renovate that house to make it more attractive and livable while adhering to the deed restrictions they signed up for.

The first post suggests that they ARE abiding by the deed restrictions. They submitted their plans to the board, which rejected them. Now, they propose to raze the structure and build new, which the deed restrictions apparently allow. If this historic district wanted to prevent anyone from ever building a new house in this neighborhood they probably should have made that a part of the deed restrictions.

[kylejack]

So they should have bought in a neighborhood that isn't deed-restricted

Why should they have done that? They are okay with the deed restrictions and abiding by them. The OP has decided they are "bad people" because of their original request and wants to oppose them on everything, despite the fact that he has apparently not even asked them what they intend to build in the place of this ugly house.

[TheNiche]

How is trying to retain the historical nature of a neighborhood akin to making it look like the "crap" in the suburbs?

These single-family houses were built to look alike, in an ordered fashion, as a planned community. And the operating idea behind these deed restrictions is to maintain a uniform character throughout the neighborhood. The neighborhood was originally developed as a suburb of Houston, and its inhabitants continue to ensure that it functions as one.

By any relevant characteristic, Proctor Plaza is functionally akin to any random subdivision in Missouri City, Spring, or [gasp] Copperfield. And it's "quirkiness" does not even begin to compare with the "quirkiness" of an Obra Homes subdivision.

Why would "order-obsessed squares" want to live in a neighborhood where almost every house is old, quirky, and modest? I'd expect that such a mindset would be attracted to a cookie-cutter neighborhood in the suburbs. You also ought to try asking folks in the neighborhood why they live there. I think you'd find that few if any of them fit the stereotype you're trying to attach to them.

Order-obsessed squares come in multiple flavors. They're a market that can be segmented, like any other, according to variations on a common theme. Without a doubt, among the most defining traits are a superiority complex and a preference for living amongst people who think exactly like they do.

Edited November 15, 2009 by TheNiche

[barracuda]

A quick check of HCAD reveals that a foundation beam IS, in fact, cracked and later repaired. There is no need for an inspection, since HCAD has published this fact for all the world to see. Additionally, the brick ledge could be damaged. A friend of mine lived in a house exactly 1 block south of this one, and the brick ledge was badly damaged, leading to cracks throughout the brick veneer.

Perhaps I am not an expert on historic homes (mine was only built in 1920), but if these new neighbors asked ME what I thought of the hideous cancer that grew onto the back of that home, I not only would not oppose tearing it down, I would offer to loan them my sledgehammer. This case seems to be a case of misplaced priorities, in that the rear add-on is NOT original, and detracts from the house, and therefore, the neighborhood. It would be hard to imagine a new renovation that would look worse than that non-historic add-on. However, since the committee chose to nix the homeowners proposed renovations, and demo/rebuild is a legal option, I don't see the gripe here. You won. They will not be attaching a non-approved add-on to the house.

No argument about the hideous rear end. It's a badly attempted add-on that's even uglier in person. It's the original structure that holds the value of that house (unless it's really that badly damaged).

The first post suggests that they ARE abiding by the deed restrictions. They submitted their plans to the board, which rejected them. Now, they propose to raze the structure and build new, which the deed restrictions apparently allow. If this historic district wanted to prevent anyone from ever building a new house in this neighborhood they probably should have made that a part of the deed restrictions.

It sounds like the homeowners chose not to resubmit the plans with the requested modification (w/o the stucco) and instead shifted immediately to demolition plans. That's a pretty major change of plans. And while the demolition may be allowable under the deed restrictions, it's not within the spirit of buying a home in a designated historic district.

[barracuda]

Order-obsessed squares come in multiple flavors. They're a market that can be segmented, like any other, according to variations on a common theme. Without a doubt, among the most defining traits are a superiority complex and a preference for living amongst people who think exactly like they do.

All I can say is it's hard to agree with that knowing many of my down-to-earth neighbors. But I guess I'm just blinded by my membership in their superiority cult.

[sevfiv]

Apparently they want a house to live in as they intend rather than the original builder, who is dead anyhow.

That is obvious - again, the issue I brought up is that the house is extant and usable. They wanted to change it and it wasn't kosher with the existing deed restrictions and it didn't get the COA. Their bad. And why put it in the dumpster when there are empty lots to use to build new...?

[TheNiche]

All I can say is it's hard to agree with that knowing many of my down-to-earth neighbors. But I guess I'm just blinded by my membership in their superiority cult.

I never said that you folks weren't down-to-earth. Our economy runs on squares. You all are extraordinarily useful.

[TheNiche]

That is obvious - again, the issue I brought up is that the house is extant and usable. They wanted to change it and it wasn't kosher with the existing deed restrictions and it didn't get the COA. Their bad. And why put it in the dumpster when there are empty lots to use to build new...?

Sounds like there may be reason to believe that the house is not usable, or that its days are numbered. Under some scenarios, this property could actually be construed as a vacant lot with some 'structured debris' on it that needs removing.

None of us knows for sure, however. Our evidence consists of suppositions and hearsay

[musicman]

Your barbs are usually spot on, but not this one. True, the house is anything but unique, but astoundingly...that's the point. The deed restrictions and the powers that be that enforce them so zealously are actually trying to make everything look like the same maligned ticky tacky crap that pervades the suburbs.

when i saw the interior, it reminded me of many houses who put paneling (or 1/4 sheetrock) on after the original wallpaper over shiplap crumbled. very little of house is original cept for the front facade. but i'm sure the committee had a nice time over margaritas from berryhill though.