Home At 801 Pizer St.

[barracuda]

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

I'm glad to see that you successfully removed yourself from the evil machine, Morpheus.

[BryanS]

Homes only have useful lives of 50 to 100 years.

Eventually, all of Bellaire will be torn down, and rebuilt again.

Homes built in a neighborhood of any era all look the same. No matter where you live Houston.

Once the land value of your home approaches twice the structure value (as this one is approaching), good indicator that it may be better to rebuild (bigger and better) than do any major renovations. The cost of the structure starts to become inconsequential relative to the dirt it sits on.

This home has good bones (despite the cracked, and repaired permit perimeter beam - this is Houston people). It could go either way: 50K to fix it up, pretty nice (to get another 20, 30 years out of it) or demo it (and not have to deal with cast iron drainage, inadequate electrical, no closet space, small cramped rooms, tiny kitchen, the outgrowth on the back of the house, no central air, etc, etc.)

If I were to remodel this house, I would get a demo permit too. However, I would demo the outgrowth on the back. Keep the original windows, gut and make pretty the inside. How do we know this is not the plans of the owner of this place? People may be getting excited for nothing.

Edited November 15, 2009 by BryanS

[RedScare]

Once the land value of your home approaches twice the structure value (as this one is approaching), good indicator that it may be better to rebuild (bigger and better) than do any major renovations. The cost of the structure starts to become inconsequential relative to the dirt it sits on.

This home has good bones (despite the cracked, and repaired permit perimeter beam - this is Houston people). It could go either way: 50K to fix it up, pretty nice (to get another 20, 30 years out of it) or demo it (and not have to deal with cast iron drainage, inadequate electrical, no closet space, small cramped rooms, tiny kitchen, the outgrowth on the back of the house, no central air, etc, etc.)

If I were to remodel this house, I would get a demo permit too. However, I would demo the outgrowth on the back. Keep the original windows, gut and make pretty the inside. How do we know this is not the plans of the owner of this place? People may be getting excited for nothing.

Ha! You are clearly throwing out numbers and guesses without any idea whether they bear any relation to reality. I could blow you away with numbers (since I am in the middle of this stuff), but I will leave you with a simple number. Currently, housing in my neighborhood sells for $220 to $250 a square foot. I can add quality square footage at $60-80 a square foot (I GC myself). Every square foot I add yields an immediate equity of $140-190 a square foot. Contrast that with demolition and building new, where the immediate equity might be 0, at best $10-20 a square foot.

The problem with this house is not the equity realized from a renovation versus a rebuild. The problem, quite simply, is that the neighbors, however well intentioned, want to design the renovation. I can't blame the owners for leaving the meeting angry. I'd be spitting nails.

[Tricky Matt]

I live in Norhill (on one of the non deed-restricted blocks) and I'd hate to this situation to turn into another Freeland Historic District fiasco.

I totally support the minimum lot sizes along with the yard fencing and setback guidelines but in this issue the PPNA has drawn a line in the sand: "You can't change the house and you can't tear it down". And then members of the board publicly malign the person's intentions here and elsewhere without knowing the whole story.

The poor poor bastard who owns this house should pack up and leave now because he's in for a full showing of how the PPNA works "to promote civic betterment and social well-being of all residents in the neighborhood" (from the neighborhood website).

And a personal gripe: Many of the people making such a stink haven't even lived here that long but are instantly champions for a neighborhood they probably won't even live in in another five years once their children reach school age.

These are the same people who had the city take down the basketball goals at Proctor Park because brown people used them and made them nervous (I'm kind of of joking about this, but I used those basketball facilities and the majority the kids who played weren't gang bangers or drug dealers).

Edited November 15, 2009 by Tricky Matt

[BryanS]

Ha! You are clearly throwing out numbers and guesses without any idea whether they bear any relation to reality. I could blow you away with numbers (since I am in the middle of this stuff), but I will leave you with a simple number. Currently, housing in my neighborhood sells for $220 to $250 a square foot. I can add quality square footage at $60-80 a square foot (I GC myself). Every square foot I add yields an immediate equity of $140-190 a square foot. Contrast that with demolition and building new, where the immediate equity might be 0, at best $10-20 a square foot.

The problem with this house is not the equity realized from a renovation versus a rebuild. The problem, quite simply, is that the neighbors, however well intentioned, want to design the renovation. I can't blame the owners for leaving the meeting angry. I'd be spitting nails.

But how much of that is value of the dirt?

It makes no sense to me to dump any money into a 100K structure that sits on a 200K lot. Like fixing a totaled car.

Which is why I would sell it... and let the next guy deal with it. Dirt for sale! (free house included).

At some point, it is more economical to tear down and rebuild, from scratch. It's happening everywhere.

And depending on how extensive quality add on work is... it becomes not so much "adding on," vs. building new anyway (especially if you're starting from new foundation work).

[sevfiv]

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

Yep - that's why I asked about the condition of the house in the very beginning. I do realize, however, that *my* idea of a teardown can be greatly different than most others' ideas..

[RedScare]

But how much of that is value of the dirt?

It makes no sense to me to dump any money into a 100K structure that sits on a 200K lot. Like fixing a totaled car.

Which is why I would sell it... and let the next guy deal with it. Dirt for sale! (free house included).

At some point, it is more economical to tear down and rebuild, from scratch. It's happening everywhere.

And depending on how extensive quality add on work is... it becomes not so much "adding on," vs. building new anyway (especially if you're starting from new foundation work).

Much of it is dirt. However, since residential real estate is tied so closely to price per square foot, every square foot added to conditioned space gets the benefit of that $250 number, up to a certain point. Adding 600 square feet to my 1400 foot house takes the value from $350,000 to nearly $500,000. And the cost to me is closer to $60,000 (garage included). You just flat cannot get that kind of return with a demo and rebuild. A 2,000 foot house from scratch might also fetch $500,000, but it would cost $200,000 or more to tear down the old structure, remove the old foundation, pour a new foundation and build a new house. Considering the old house plus land was valued at $350,000, you just spent $550,000 for a $500,000 new house. Why don't you explain the economics of THAT to us.

[RedScare]

Yep - that's why I asked about the condition of the house in the very beginning. I do realize, however, that *my* idea of a teardown can be greatly different than most others' ideas..

Considering the sale price was under $200,000, it very much sold as lot value...unless Proctor Plaza homes only go for $100 per square foot.

[sevfiv]

Considering the sale price was under $200,000, it very much sold as lot value...unless Proctor Plaza homes only go for $100 per square foot.

Then in my world, if that neighborhood was my budget and desired location, I'd have a nice amount of cash to clean up with.

In the real world, this house is toast.

[TheNiche]

BryanS is speaking in generalities at a regional level, and is generally correct (with plenty of specific exceptions). Without significant capital improvements, the useful life of a house is severely constrained. For tax purposes, MACRS defines it is 27.5 years. I think that it's closer to 35, but beyond that it's going to be difficult to avoid replacing the roof and making other significant changes. Functional obsolecense is also an issue, albeit less predictable because it basically depends on the rate of technological advance in the marketplace.

RedScare is speaking from a level of specificity that is so narrow given his individual circumstances that it lacks applicability to the general case (much less a regional level); I don't dispute his figures, but I'd probably have a hard time replicating them in an independent analysis for the typical user of this sort of information...even one that was in his neighborhood.

[RedScare]

BryanS is speaking in generalities at a regional level, and is generally correct (with plenty of specific exceptions). Without significant capital improvements, the useful life of a house is severely constrained. For tax purposes, MACRS defines it is 27.5 years. I think that it's closer to 35, but beyond that it's going to be difficult to avoid replacing the roof and making other significant changes. Functional obsolecense is also an issue, albeit less predictable because it basically depends on the rate of technological advance in the marketplace.

RedScare is speaking from a level of specificity that is so narrow given his individual circumstances that it lacks applicability to the general case (much less a regional level); I don't dispute his figures, but I'd probably have a hard time replicating them in an independent analysis for the typical user of this sort of information...even one that was in his neighborhood.

This is true. Had I not purchased 5 and a half years ago, much of that equity would not be there. The seller would have gotten it. However, my numbers work precisely because of the increase in the price of dirt. Bryan's suggestion tends to only work when one first purchases the property, and especially after the increased land value has already occurred.

One thing to note is that there is a sweet spot in this area. You max out on price per square foot in the 2,000 to 2,500 square foot range. Larger homes often go for $200 psf or less. Smaller homes may get $250 psf, but you leave money on the table. A house on my block added 2,400 square feet to a 1,047 foot bungalow. While it is now a very nice house, it is not worth anywhere near $860,000.

[BryanS]

Much of it is dirt. However, since residential real estate is tied so closely to price per square foot, every square foot added to conditioned space gets the benefit of that $250 number, up to a certain point. Adding 600 square feet to my 1400 foot house takes the value from $350,000 to nearly $500,000. And the cost to me is closer to $60,000 (garage included). You just flat cannot get that kind of return with a demo and rebuild. A 2,000 foot house from scratch might also fetch $500,000, but it would cost $200,000 or more to tear down the old structure, remove the old foundation, pour a new foundation and build a new house. Considering the old house plus land was valued at $350,000, you just spent $550,000 for a $500,000 new house. Why don't you explain the economics of THAT to us.

It depends on what the condition was of the original 1400 sq ft. If you have to gut, and replace everything (foundation work, electrical, plumbing, insulation, new floor coverings, new kitchen, new baths, new central air, new windows, new siding, new everything) and bring everything up to code... you start approaching "building" 1400 sq ft + adding/building 600 new. You're building a 2000 sq ft house anyway. Plus, extensive renovation of existing space is like paying for it twice: once to gut and re-work and then again to put in the new stuff. Vs just building new - one time. In my example, I have two baths in my home. Both had several layers of wall paper. I spent more time trying to get the wall paper off in one bath than it took me to knock out, install, tape, float, and texture in the second bathroom (material was not that much). Me doing all the work. Some homes have walls that bleed - and never stop (haunted ones of course). My home had layer upon what seemed endless layer of wall paper... that seemed to have no end. It was truly bizarre.

I read it is about 20K to demo a house. If I were a builder, I bet I could more than recover that cost by tearing down an old home and then building new+ a third floor, off setting the demo cost. Not to mention, in 30 years, you'd still have value in both in the structure and land. Whereas, the 80 year old renovated/added-on home (which will now be 110 years old) - could revert back to lot value, as the structure is beyond its end of life.

I have no doubt your place is wonderful. It works for you.

[SilverJK]

crap my house only has 15 years of life left before it magically falls over and becomes useless!

[sevfiv]

crap my house only has 15 years of life left before it magically falls over and becomes useless!

Ha! It's quite a range (50-100 years) but mine entered the lightless tunnel last year.

[heights_yankee]

i'm really glad my aunt and uncle who live in a late 1700s farm house in western MA don't know how useless their house is. when they bought it, it was actually condemned and they brought it back to life over 10 years and raised their 4 children there. i guess they should tear it down now. also, my mother's house [which was converted in to a duplex in the 70s years before she bought] was built in 1899. while it has had many aesthetic issues over the years (like wood panelling in all the bedrooms and cheap linoleum literally stuck on top of hardwoods), the bones are still strong and it has undergone many renovations in it's life (it's still an upstairs/downstairs duplex). i guess she should tear it down now, too.

i guess no one has advice on what i can/should do at the hearing, then?

in the end, it is my opinion that what these people (did i ever call them "bad"?) are trying to do is wrong. i want to fight to protect the integrity of this neighborhood. if you think the house should be tirn down, show up at the meeting and plead your case as well. we all have the right to do so. there is a reason the application process and the ability to protest exist and i plan on using it.

there are 2 vacant lots in this neighborhood and many others places to build in the heights. they can tear the addition down and rebuild it. we told them as much. however, in this small, special part of the heights there are certain perameters- wood, one-over-one windows (the proposed vinyl, arched windows); set back- they wanted to add a large, ranch style front porch which would have brought them too close to the front property line and it was not in the traditional style of the home. in fact, the renderings looked stright out of Pearland. that house doesn't belong here but can certainly be built in a non-protected part of the heights.

i understand the history of the neighborhood isn't everyone's thing. but there are many people who do want to see bungalows retained.

and one more thing: HISD has school choice so your children do not have to go to the schools they are zoned to. i have 2 school age children on my block and my son will start pre-k next year. we are not moving. people who leave proctor plaza often go lookign for more space and most people who move to the suburbs never planned on staying in the heights long term anyway.

[TheNiche]

i guess no one has advice on what i can/should do at the hearing, then?

in the end, it is my opinion that what these people (did i ever call them "bad"?) are trying to do is wrong. i want to fight to protect the integrity of this neighborhood. if you think the house should be tirn down, show up at the meeting and plead your case as well. we all have the right to do so. there is a reason the application process and the ability to protest exist and i plan on using it.

Your original request was: "What can/should I do for the greatest impact in protesting this?" The answer you got was to proactively talk to the property owners about their plans instead of going from conjecture (seeing as how a demo permit can mean different things, exterior/interior/partial). And that's an honest answer. If you want a strong case against their plans, you need to be able to articulate why their plans are against the public interest; right now, you don't even know what the plans are that you have already decided that you will vote against.

Edited November 16, 2009 by TheNiche

[kylejack]

i guess no one has advice on what i can/should do at the hearing, then?

in the end, it is my opinion that what these people (did i ever call them "bad"?) are trying to do is wrong. i want to fight to protect the integrity of this neighborhood. if you think the house should be tirn down, show up at the meeting and plead your case as well. we all have the right to do so. there is a reason the application process and the ability to protest exist and i plan on using it.

How do you know they are tearing down the house rather than the horrible addition? You have not talked to them, you do not know, so of course nobody can advise you.

[barracuda]

How do you know they are tearing down the house rather than the horrible addition? You have not talked to them, you do not know, so of course nobody can advise you.

I think maybe we were arguing the same point all along. I would support demolishing that ghastly addition without a doubt. I'd only hesitate on demolishing the original structure. From the sidewalk, the original brick part of the house appears to be in good shape, although that's just from a cursory look.

[heights_yankee]

Your original request was: "What can/should I do for the greatest impact in protesting this?" The answer you got was to proactively talk to the property owners about their plans instead of going from conjecture (seeing as how a demo permit can mean different things, exterior/interior/partial). And that's an honest answer. If you want a strong case against their plans, you need to be able to articulate why their plans are against the public interest; right now, you don't even know what the plans are that you have already decided that you will vote against.

How do you know they are tearing down the house rather than the horrible addition? You have not talked to them, you do not know, so of course nobody can advise you.

we do know what they are planning on doing. their original plans were to demo/rebuild the addition and renovate the interior of the existing house, including raising the roof line. with the exception of the ranch style, lot line encroaching front porch, it was primarily materials, not design, that got their original plans denied. the VP of deed restrictions did talk to them when the variance sign went up. thomas mcwhorter with the city also talked with them, pushing the promise of tax benefits for restoration vs demo. they said no, we want to tear it down. when a neighbor walked by and saw the sign, they stopped to talk to them and asked if they were renovating. they said the house had too much damage from Ike and that they are going to tear it down in its entirety.

i don't know where you got the idea that i was just guessing or that no one has spoken with them. there was a tear down (studewood at cottage) recently that was supported by the board because the house was definitely not fit for habitation. also, there was another house on cottage that was allowed to be used for an art project (from the inverness coffee house guys) and then torn down. it was also a definite tear down. the house at 801 pizer just does not seem to fall in to that category according to several people who have been inside it recently. the fact that they hired an architect and drew up elaborate plans is evidence toward the fact that they found the house to be sturdy when they bought it. if the original plans were approved, i have no doubt in my mind that they would knee deep in renovations as we speak.

if they come to the hearing with certified whoozie whatzits from engineers then great. if the house has to be torn down, it does. but until i see that kind of hard evidence, my opinion is that this is a home that should be saved for its history and its special place facing proctor park.

[TheNiche]

we do know what they are planning on doing. their original plans were to demo/rebuild the addition and renovate the interior of the existing house, including raising the roof line. with the exception of the ranch style, lot line encroaching front porch, it was primarily materials, not design, that got their original plans denied. the VP of deed restrictions did talk to them when the variance sign went up. thomas mcwhorter with the city also talked with them, pushing the promise of tax benefits for restoration vs demo. they said no, we want to tear it down. when a neighbor walked by and saw the sign, they stopped to talk to them and asked if they were renovating. they said the house had too much damage from Ike and that they are going to tear it down in its entirety.

i don't know where you got the idea that i was just guessing or that no one has spoken with them. there was a tear down (studewood at cottage) recently that was supported by the board because the house was definitely not fit for habitation. also, there was another house on cottage that was allowed to be used for an art project (from the inverness coffee house guys) and then torn down. it was also a definite tear down. the house at 801 pizer just does not seem to fall in to that category according to several people who have been inside it recently. the fact that they hired an architect and drew up elaborate plans is evidence toward the fact that they found the house to be sturdy when they bought it. if the original plans were approved, i have no doubt in my mind that they would knee deep in renovations as we speak.

if they come to the hearing with certified whoozie whatzits from engineers then great. if the house has to be torn down, it does. but until i see that kind of hard evidence, my opinion is that this is a home that should be saved for its history and its special place facing proctor park.

So, what's going to replace the house? Surely their plans do not entail merely scraping the lot and walking away.

The reason that several of us concluded that you're going entirely off of conjecture and hearsay is that that's what it looks like. You have not personally interviewed them regarding their new plans. The people that have interviewed them haven't seemed to have gotten the full story--or perhaps did not pass the full story on to you--and important details are missing.

Clearly you have some level of authority, and how you use it is your prerogative. Nobody is disrespecting that fact, or you personally. But you'd find that people will be more sympathetic to your case if you take the time to carefully gather and assemble pertinent information to make your case instead of pracitcing a 'ready, fire, aim' approach.

Also, if what it does ultimately come down to is an engineer's evaluation of structural soundness, then what do you need our input for?

[heights_yankee]

So, what's going to replace the house? Surely their plans do not entail merely scraping the lot and walking away.

The reason that several of us concluded that you're going entirely off of conjecture and hearsay is that that's what it looks like. You have not personally interviewed them regarding their new plans. The people that have interviewed them haven't seemed to have gotten the full story--or perhaps did not pass the full story on to you--and important details are missing.

Clearly you have some level of authority, and how you use it is your prerogative. Nobody is disrespecting that fact, or you personally. But you'd find that people will be more sympathetic to your case if you take the time to carefully gather and assemble pertinent information to make your case instead of pracitcing a 'ready, fire, aim' approach.

Also, if what it does ultimately come down to is an engineer's evaluation of structural soundness, then what do you need our input for?

i wanted to do my due diligence before and you have given me some things to think about. while original posts by yourself and kylejack would seem to say only that no one should dispute this application, your later posts did give me more of an idea of what anyone attending a hearing should be prepared to answer. that is useful.

i have not fired before aiming. knowing what your target is and having a position are just preparing to fire. which, of course, is aiming.

my level of authority is as an elected member of the board of the neighborhood association, which is tasked with protecting the historic value of the area. however, i will not really be attending the hearing as a member of the board. the board president will be the official rep. myself and some other concerned residents will be going to show our support.

i don't think is more of a story.

[TheNiche]

i have not fired before aiming. knowing what your target is and having a position are just preparing to fire. which, of course, is aiming.

Preparation to fire is readying. That entails the acknowledgement that there is a target, that you are able to fire upon them, and that you want to fire upon them. You cannot fire without preparation (i.e. readiment)...unless it is an accidental discharge of a loaded weapon, and nobody wants that. I think that you have to have turrets syndrome or something like that to pull off an accidental discharge in the course of sophistry.

You can, however, fire without aiming, which is to say that you intend to direct barbs at your target in some particular way for a desired effect but that you carelessly execute the argument in such a way as that you miss the target. People do this all the time, usually because they're trying to emote a reasoned argument or because they were challenged on the spot and got flustered. This circumstance is often avoidable by doing adequate research before being placed in a stressful situation.

i don't think is more of a story.

No comprende.

Edited November 16, 2009 by TheNiche

[Evans-Davis]

Not to worry...the HAHC will likely turn down the demo request. However, as we all know too well, it will be just 90-days and then they can do what they want. I co-chaired the Houston Heights Historic District East petition drive and have spoken many times before the HAHC. I am sorry to see Proctor Plaza facing this situation. However, I am pleased to see another neighborhood rising up to protest. If I might make a request, please offer a few words about the need for strengthening the ordinance so that no means no. Houston Heights feels like it is battling this fight all alone. There is strength in numbers.

[BryanS]

Not to worry...the HAHC will likely turn down the demo request. However, as we all know too well, it will be just 90-days and then they can do what they want. I co-chaired the Houston Heights Historic District East petition drive and have spoken many times before the HAHC. I am sorry to see Proctor Plaza facing this situation. However, I am pleased to see another neighborhood rising up to protest. If I might make a request, please offer a few words about the need for strengthening the ordinance so that no means no. Houston Heights feels like it is battling this fight all alone. There is strength in numbers.

All man-made structures will return to the earth, eventually.

People who cherish their old homes should sell them to local government entities - where they can be preserved "forever."

Let everyone else live in freedom.

[TheNiche]

All man-made structures will return to the earth, eventually.

People who cherish their old homes should sell them to local government entities - where they can be preserved "forever."

Let everyone else live in freedom.

Or a property owner can create a deed covenant whereby any future owner of the property is required to maintain it into perpetuity or to build it back precisely according to the original specification in the event of condemnation or a casualty loss.

True though, there are plenty of ways to skin a cat...some more discrete than others.

[BryanS]

Or a property owner can create a deed covenant whereby any future owner of the property is required to maintain it into perpetuity or to build it back precisely according to the original specification in the event of condemnation or a casualty loss.

True though, there are plenty of ways to skin a cat...some more discrete than others.

That's not good enough for these people. Because you'd still be relying on the govt/court system to enforce covenants.

The only sure fire way to keep it around forever - and unchanged - is to remove all private parties from the situation. You can’t blame the home owner for any violations or tackiness… if there is no home owner!

Because everybody's house is like Abe Lincoln's log cabin or The Parthenon. Let's keep it around forever. Only the govt can do that.

Of course, I am being quite sarcastic.

Thank you god that I do not have neighbors like some of the people on here. I have tried, through excessive neglect of my yard, to get the neighbors to complain – to no avail. I almost can’t stand it anymore. I will be forced to take of my yard, driven by my own disgust of how shabby it has become. People just aren’t good for anything these days.

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

....or they could just move the house to another area/sell it and then build something new.

[sevfiv]

I don't know these people and the extent of their situation (just as much as is known here) but here's my plan for them:

sell the house to someone who actually wants the house and build their dream home in a non-historic designated neighborhood (the majority of neighborhoods).

Maybe they are contracting "Maria Isabel Sixth Ward syndrome" - best to ward it off as soon as possible

[TheNiche]

sell the house

Several people have suggested that. Here's why the property owners probably are not going to respond well to the suggestion:

They bought it at or very near lot value, working on inadequate budget assumptions. They started out by planning a sizable renovation and probably thought that the mere fact that they were improving the property would be welcomed news to their neighbors. Instead, the neighbors have been obstructionists, and are forcing the renovation budget to go higher than anticipated. So they try to go with a demo/rebuild, which is still cost effective, but it looks like they're going to get shot down with that one too.

If it's in the deed restrictions that the PPNA has to approve a demo (as opposed to just being subject to the City's 90-day rule), then the house looks like it'll stay put. Nobody can do anything with the property that doesn't qualify as an economic misimprovement. And that means that a market price at or near lot value is too high, because the lot is of impaired usefulness. To sell the property, the owners would likely have to realize a loss...and that's before taking into account Realtors' fees and other closing costs or the expenses associated with searching for and purchasing an alternate property.

You may as well tell them: "Your ideas on how to improve this house reveal insufficient consideration for the aesthetic appreciation that I ought to enjoy from looking at the exterior of your property while my dog craps on your lawn each morning. Therefore you ought to endure a five-figure loss and purchase a lesser house in a neighborhood whose occupants I look down upon...but of course, only following the sale of this the house to someone who may or may not engage in any repairs at all in the forseeable future. Because I don't mind so much looking at rotting wooden windows or a crumbling facade, but energy-efficient vinyl windows would make me cringe in disgust."

^ You see how silly that sounds?

[sevfiv]

Yep, a big boohoo for them.