The Heights Historic Districts

[s3mh]

If this historic preservation ordinance passes, I can see how many landowners in the Heights would just say screw it and allow the Heights to return to the ghetto it once was.

Right. The Heights is going to become a ghetto. Thanks for proving my point that the opposition has no interest in historic preservation and only sees dollar signs. The Heights will become a ghetto the same day Manhattan, the Back Bay in Boston, Telegraph Hill in San Fran, and so on, become ghettos. People already fight like hell to buy 1000-1500 sq ft bungalows for 275-300 per sq ft. And these people are going to let their houses decay because they will have to submit plans to HAHC for approval? Right. To the contrary, if the empty lot next door is going to be a giant monster mansion, there is no reason to maintain a historic bungalow because you are just throwing money at a property that won't get anything more than lot value. Just another example of the opposition using scare tactics to try to defeat historic preservation rather than constructively participate in the process to revise the historic ordinances.

[MOpens]

And then there are lots of arguments that are just self-serving and silly. People claim that the bungalows must go in order to attract families to the Heights to support the public schools. If you build a 4500 sq ft house on a lot and sell it for 800-1mi, do you really think that family will be sending their kids to Field or Browning? Smaller and more affordable housing will bring in the kind of families who are willing to put the time into bringing the schools up to snuff, not monster mansions.

What is your basis for calling this "silly"? All of the elementary schools in and around the Heights have shown great improvement over the past few years. Now, it would be wrong for me to draw a correlation between school improvement and the construction of new and big homes in the Heights, but it is equally wrong for you to imply that people that own 4500 sq ft houses have no interest in public schools. My house does not quite fit your description (we are few hundred sq ft too small...), but we plan to send each of our kids to public school as long as we feel they are getting a high quality education in a safe environment. Our oldest child already attends one of the neighborhood elementary schools, and we have nothing but good things to say about it.

[heights]

The 90 day waiver did very little to keep builders from demolishing historic buildings and replacing them with monster mansions and overbuilt clusters of townhomes. Deed restrictions and landmarking did nothing to prevent the destruction of historic homes.

The minimum setback and minimum lot size restrictions could prevent much of this and they are already available -- and they definitely don't tell me how to hang my toilet paper.

Edited August 16, 2010 by heights

[s3mh]

The minimum setback and minimum lot size restrictions could prevent much of this and they are already available -- and they definitely don't tell me how to hang my toilet paper.

Just look at 15th and Rutland. Four houses on a lot meant for two. If minimum setback and minimum lot size restrictions were so wonderful, how did this happen? Deed restrictions can be bought out. Historic ordinances cannot.

They don't tell you how to hang your toilet paper now, but it is just a matter of time before they do. Nothing in the ordinance says they can't, and some lady said HAHC was going to get more strict every year. By 2015, they will mandate mowing lawns in a north/south fashion. East/west mowing will be subject to a fine. Nothing in the ordinance says that can't.

[s3mh]

What is your basis for calling this "silly"? All of the elementary schools in and around the Heights have shown great improvement over the past few years. Now, it would be wrong for me to draw a correlation between school improvement and the construction of new and big homes in the Heights, but it is equally wrong for you to imply that people that own 4500 sq ft houses have no interest in public schools. My house does not quite fit your description (we are few hundred sq ft too small...), but we plan to send each of our kids to public school as long as we feel they are getting a high quality education in a safe environment. Our oldest child already attends one of the neighborhood elementary schools, and we have nothing but good things to say about it.

95% of Field and Browning students are in the free/reduced lunch program. At risk is 77%/79%, respectively (Love is 92/76). Harvard and Travis are the chosen schools. The improvement has been made at those schools, and they are now the "safe" schools. The other schools (field, browning and love) have seen some improvement, but not because of an influx of children who live in 3500 sq ft new construction in the Heights.

[MOpens]

95% of Field and Browning students are in the free/reduced lunch program. At risk is 77%/79%, respectively (Love is 92/76). Harvard and Travis are the chosen schools. The improvement has been made at those schools, and they are now the "safe" schools. The other schools (field, browning and love) have seen some improvement, but not because of an influx of children who live in 3500 sq ft new construction in the Heights.

So are you then conceding that the improvements at Harvard are the result of "an influx of children who live in 3500 sq ft new construction in the Heights"? Good, quality, safe public school education in the heart of the fourth largest city in the country, all because of new construction. Seems like something worthy of trading away a proposed preservation ordinance for which no cause/benefit analysis has been done. I doubt you'll say yes - that would be too easy...

You make a fair point, but I also think you are looking at year old (at best) data across an entire school and making a conclusion without considering changes that are or may soon be occurring.

I do not want us to get away from the topic of historic districts, but I do think it is important to avoid generalizations.

[chester77008]

Just look at 15th and Rutland. Four houses on a lot meant for two. If minimum setback and minimum lot size restrictions were so wonderful, how did this happen? Deed restrictions can be bought out. Historic ordinances cannot.

They don't tell you how to hang your toilet paper now, but it is just a matter of time before they do. Nothing in the ordinance says they can't, and some lady said HAHC was going to get more strict every year. By 2015, they will mandate mowing lawns in a north/south fashion. East/west mowing will be subject to a fine. Nothing in the ordinance says that can't.

The lot at 15th and Rutland did not have minimum lot size, that is why they were able to build the high-density mess on that corner. Minimum lot size restrictions require a majority of the owners of a block to sign and apply for the restriction. Why was this not done on that block? Most people in the Heights support minimum lot size, I have never had anyone knock on my door to sign for it. I would sign for it, I will not sign for the proposed protected district ordinance, I plan on adding on the side and mid section of my bungalow. Stop blaming those you don't like, the Heights is made up of intelligent people, not people who blindly follow the lead of Realtors. Put your money where your mouth is and come up with an ordinance that everyone will sign.

Deed restrictions cannot be "bought out", you can deed restrict your own property, those restrictions remain in force for 20 years, at which time they can be secured again. There is no legal mechanism to make them go away, or buy them out.

The residents on Rutland are very well aware of how to secure minimum lot size restrictions. My guess is that they were unable to convince a majority of the property owners to do so, just as they can't convince a majority of the Heights to approve protected district status. Stop blaming and start writing, create an ordinance that will actually have majority support.

[s3mh]

The lot at 15th and Rutland did not have minimum lot size, that is why they were able to build the high-density mess on that corner. Minimum lot size restrictions require a majority of the owners of a block to sign and apply for the restriction. Why was this not done on that block? Most people in the Heights support minimum lot size, I have never had anyone knock on my door to sign for it. I would sign for it, I will not sign for the proposed protected district ordinance, I plan on adding on the side and mid section of my bungalow. Stop blaming those you don't like, the Heights is made up of intelligent people, not people who blindly follow the lead of Realtors. Put your money where your mouth is and come up with an ordinance that everyone will sign.

Deed restrictions cannot be "bought out", you can deed restrict your own property, those restrictions remain in force for 20 years, at which time they can be secured again. There is no legal mechanism to make them go away, or buy them out.

The residents on Rutland are very well aware of how to secure minimum lot size restrictions. My guess is that they were unable to convince a majority of the property owners to do so, just as they can't convince a majority of the Heights to approve protected district status. Stop blaming and start writing, create an ordinance that will actually have majority support.

You signed up for a historic district that is governed by an ORDINANCE. You don't sign ordinances. You sign up to be in a historic district. That is done. A majority of the east and west districts signed up. City Council creates, revises and repeals ordinances. Once you are in the district, you are subject to whatever City Council does. You should have known that when you signed up for a historict district. No one is asking you to sign an ordinance and no one has to ask you to sign an ordinance because it is an ORDINANCE.

Rutland shows exactly why deed restrictions are a pipe dream. You can never get the investor/builder or owner of the rental or empty lot to sign up. You will never get a majority in the Heights to agree to restrictions. The best you can do is go block by block. And that will never work to prevent the Rutland problem because the bad apple will never agree to the restriction.

And deed restrictions are bought out every day. Deed restrictions can be terminated if you own all the lots (or a majority if the language in termination in the restrictions allow it or under other circumstances). If you go about deed restricting the Heights block by block, all you need is to have one person buy out a block and the restrictions can be terminated. The deed restriction argument is just a red herring thrown out by the realtors to keep everyone from working together to craft a sensible, fair and enforceable ordinance.

[Ross]

s3mh, you still haven't given a valid reason why you have any legitimate interest in what your neighbor does to their property. Why should someone who has no desire to subject their property to the truly onerous provisions of the proposed ordinance be forced to accept those provisions? If I inherit my grandparents bungalow, why shouldn't I be able to tear it down and build a 3,000 sq ft house that suits the needs of my family?

[ISMDAVID]

Thank you for contacting the Planning Department regarding the proposed historic preservation amendments. Your input is valuable as we move through this process. Please note the following information regarding a public hearing before the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission this week:

Notice of Public Hearing

The City of Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission will conduct a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 33), Thursday, August 19; 6:30 p.m. at the George Brown Convention Center, 1001 Avenida de las Americas, General Assembly Hall B, 3^rd Level.

For a map and directions to the George R. Brown, please go to http://www.houstonco...apsParking.aspx.

Some street parking may be available or attendees can park in the Hilton/George R. Brown parking garage located on Polk Street subject to availability. Attendees can submit their parking stub for validation (from that garage only).

Speakers will be allowed one minute to make their comments at the public hearing.

To view the proposed amendments and other information about the process, please to the following web page: http://www.houstontx...pres_amend.html.

If you cannot attend the meetings, but would like to comment please email

historicpreservation@houstontx.gov or mail your comments to Historic Preservation, City of Houston, Planning and Development Department, P.O. Box 1562 , Houston, Texas 77251-1562 by September 1, 2010.

Thank you,

Diana DuCroz, AICP

Senior Planner, Historic Preservation

City of Houston Planning & Development

611 Walker, 6th Floor

(713) 837-7924 phone

(713) 837-7996 fax

www.houstonplanning.com

[RedScare]

The 90 day waiver did very little to keep builders from demolishing historic buildings and replacing them with monster mansions and overbuilt clusters of townhomes.

I don't know if you are intentionally lying, or perhaps simply ignorant. I suspect the latter, since you stated much earlier in the thread that you are new to the Heights. I suggest that you investigate this claim. You can check with a fellow HAIF poster and fellow preservationist, heights yankee, who is on the board of Proctor Plaza Historic District. She stated in this very forum that only 3 homes were demolished in the 10 years of historic district staus WITH the 90 day waiting period. That is irrefutable proof that the old ordinance worked. You and the others are over-reaching, and I promise that it will be met with fierce resistance in my neighborhood. As I've stated before, I don't care what you do to your home and neighborhood, but I'll fight to keep your hands off mine.

I plan to print your post to let my South Heights neighbors know what you think of their property rights. Thanks for putting it in such glaring terms.

[dbigtex56]

I don't know if you are intentionally lying, or perhaps simply ignorant. I suspect the latter, since you stated much earlier in the thread that you are new to the Heights. I suggest that you investigate this claim. You can check with a fellow HAIF poster and fellow preservationist, heights yankee, who is on the board of Proctor Plaza Historic District. She stated in this very forum that only 3 homes were demolished in the 10 years of historic district staus WITH the 90 day waiting period. That is irrefutable proof that the old ordinance worked. [emphasis added]

Well, don't do anything primitive such as specifying the post in which she made this statement. And much as I like and admire the fellow HAIFer, are her statements 'irrefutable'?

[RedScare]

Well, don't do anything primitive such as specifying the post in which she made this statement. And much as I like and admire the fellow HAIFer, are her statements 'irrefutable'?

Thanks. I won't.

[dbigtex56]

Thanks. I won't.

I plan to print your post to let my South Heights neighbors know what you think of their property rights. Thanks for putting it in such glaring terms.

Is this what's known as a veiled threat? I'm no lawyer ...

[RedScare]

I'm no lawyer ...

Clearly.

[dbigtex56]

Is this what's known as a veiled threat? I'm no lawyer ...

Clearly.

Now that's a veiled compliment!

[AtticaFlinch]

Right. The Heights is going to become a ghetto. Thanks for proving my point that the opposition has no interest in historic preservation and only sees dollar signs. The Heights will become a ghetto the same day Manhattan, the Back Bay in Boston, Telegraph Hill in San Fran, and so on, become ghettos. People already fight like hell to buy 1000-1500 sq ft bungalows for 275-300 per sq ft. And these people are going to let their houses decay because they will have to submit plans to HAHC for approval? Right. To the contrary, if the empty lot next door is going to be a giant monster mansion, there is no reason to maintain a historic bungalow because you are just throwing money at a property that won't get anything more than lot value. Just another example of the opposition using scare tactics to try to defeat historic preservation rather than constructively participate in the process to revise the historic ordinances.

Say what you want, but your vision of the future has no basis in reality. There are already a number of other fringe communities surrounding the city core with as equally viable housing stock as the Heights, and they're less expensive and have fewer restrictions. If someone were looking to purchase property to build a monster house that ultimately brings up all property values, would you really think they'd do it in an area where they weren't allowed to carry through with their plans? And, if it's as you suggest, and these McVic owners didn't give a turd about the quality of the schools, what's to stop them from going elsewhere? If it doesn't return the Heights to an urban ethnic ghetto, it will at least stem the growth that's so necessary to keep property values rising. It's not about supporting monied interests, as you couldn't have pegged me less accurately. It's about smart growth and compromise. The Heights is still valuable to potential buyers because of the lack of restrictions, and throw a wrench in that, and you've destroyed the single greatest thing about the place. You will have turned it into Woodland lite, and frankly, that's an odd group of people to pursue in the inner city. They add no cultural value to the neighborhood. They suck the life out of it.

[AtticaFlinch]

Now that's a veiled compliment!

Lawyer joke time! And to complete this circle of humor originality, wait'll you hear the joke I've got about a blonde who walks into a bar! It's a doozy!

Do you not find it interesting that both regular professed lawyers on this board, both of opposite ends of the political spectrum, dislike this ordinance?

[dbigtex56]

Lawyer joke time! And to complete this circle of humor originality, wait'll you hear the joke I've got about a blonde who walks into a bar! It's a doozy!

Do you not find it interesting that both regular professed lawyers on this board, both of opposite ends of the political spectrum, dislike this ordinance?

In answer to the first: they ask for her ID.

In answer to the second: no.

[RedScare]

People already fight like hell to buy 1000-1500 sq ft bungalows for 275-300 per sq ft.

That's weird. I just searched har.com for 1000-15000 bungalows in the Houston Heights. 14 are listed. The most expensive one just reduced the asking price $115,000. Why would they do that if people were fighting like hell to buy it? The only other house priced above $275 psf ($276) also had a price reduction. Why is that?

You aren't making up crap again, are you?

Edited August 17, 2010 by RedScare

[dbigtex56]

That's weird. I just searched har.com for 1000-15000 bungalows in the Houston Heights. 14 are listed. The most expensive one just reduced the asking price $115,000. Why would they do that if people were fighting like hell to buy it? The only other house priced above $275 psf ($276) also had a price reduction. Why is that?

You aren't making up crap again, are you?

Seems like I've seen some price reductions in McMansions too. Welcome to the 2010's

Who wants to buy a 5-year old pseudo Victorian, when new ones cost no more?

[RedScare]

I think he was saying 1000-1500 sq ft, for $275-$300 PER SQ FT. I did a quick search too and found many in the 77008 zip. Here are the top 5 based on asking price. FWIW, I am against these changes to the ordinance, but I also don't think property values are going to crash if it gets signed. People do want to live in these bungalows because some people just like the character of them (and some don't).

$410,000, 1200 sq ft, $341/ft

$389,000, 1224 sq ft, $317/ft (Option Pending)

$365,000, 1341 sq ft, $272/ft (Option Pending, Continue to Show)

$365,000, 1382 sq ft, $264/ft

$360,000, 1372 sq ft, $262/ft

Signed,

Not making up crap

I used "Houston Heights" instead of "77008", since we were discussing the Heights, but even using your search term, most of the same homes are on there. And, my point is still the same. Only 2 homes are listed at $275 psf or above, and both had reduced prices, suggesting there wasn't much of a fight to buy them at those prices. Interestingly, the only one of those houses located in a historic district is number 5, on 1105 Tulane. They had to reduce their price 18% for lack of takers.

So much for historic districts hiking property values.

Signed,

Yes you are

[RedScare]

Curious if homes outside of historic districts would be enjoying a boost in market value due to these proposed changes? Seems that way under these arguments.

Signed,

Just trying to post some facts with real data points (a change for some on this thread)...not you Red

My limited, but nonpolitical research suggests that there is and will continue to be. I have been mildly debating whether to sell my house for several months (long before the historic district issue cropped up). The reasons appear to me to be that the new, larger homes that everyone complains about drive up prices for the smaller homes nearby. Take my street. Across the street from me are 6 new large homes of 3200 to 4000 square feet. They are valued at $650,000 to $850,000. By comparison, my house is 1358 square feet plus a garage gameroom at 600 feet. If I sell at $425,000, it looks like a bargain on my street. But, if everything around me was my size, I would be limited by the lower prices.

My realtor doesn't think a historic district designation will move prices a dollar either way, for the simple reason that buyers do not pay attention. They'll look at my cute remodeled kitchen and brand new garage and that's all they need. He may well have a valid point.

EDIT: I should point out that I didn't find huge differences between historic and non-historic homes, but if I sell I don't want anything impacting my price at all, even a small drop.

Edited August 17, 2010 by RedScare

[AtticaFlinch]

In answer to the first: they ask for her ID.

Not where I was going with that, but I like where you're going with it nonetheless. Metahumor rawks the internet.

In answer to the second: no.

Why not? I'm not saying they're better able to read than you or I, but surely, at least during their training, they've been exposed to the acrimony cause by the ambiguity of certain written laws. And speaking of which, how many tax payer dollars do you think will be spent defending this ordinance in courts if it's passed? I'm betting at least one million dollars. Anyone want to take the over/under?

[TheNiche]

I think he was saying 1000-1500 sq ft, for $275-$300 PER SQ FT. I did a quick search too and found many in the 77008 zip. Here are the top 5 based on asking price. FWIW, I am against these changes to the ordinance, but I also don't think property values are going to crash if it gets signed. People do want to live in these bungalows because some people just like the character of them (and some don't).

$410,000, 1200 sq ft, $341/ft

$389,000, 1224 sq ft, $317/ft

$365,000, 1341 sq ft, $272/ft

$365,000, 1382 sq ft, $264/ft

$360,000, 1372 sq ft, $262/ft

Signed,

Not making up crap

Cherry-picking your data from the very top is not dishonest but it is disingenuous. Any consumer that wants to can run statistical analysis using HAR's data. Run your query exactly as you did, then select to view it as a list and to view all results. Then copy and paste into Excel and have at it.

That's what I did for lot listings and house listings fitting your 1,000-to-1,500-square-foot criteria. I'm tempted to go nuts with multivariate regression, but I'll keep it simple to make a point...

The average lot price equates to $29.43 per square foot of land. The average home price equates to $41.18. So approximately 28.5% of the average residential property's value is attributable to improvements.

The average price per square foot of building area for single-family listings was $203.86, of which only 28.5% of the value, or $58.18, might be attributable to improvements. The average size of a house was 1,236 square feet, meaning that the average house in 77008 is valued at $71,910.

And that's perfectly intuitive! The average house in the Heights doesn't get demolished because it is still in demand, whether significantly upgraded (as can be witnessed in the top quartile) or depreciated somewhat but moderately-well maintained (as in the middle three quartiles). The bottom quartile of homes are ____, sometimes more of an impairment to the value of land than an asset.

The fact that existing houses of these characteristics are still demanded within the marketplace is reason to question the necessity or purpose of the proposed ordinance, and the fact that the underlying land value is so disproportionately high relative to the value of the house is reason enough for a reasonable homeowner to at least express concern for the specifics regarding the ordinance. Having the entire neighborhood's land values impaired by a HAHC stigma would not be desirable...and could in time spill over to the improvement value, as Red has pointed out.

I knock you uppity Heights folks for being racist, but deep down, I know that you're just like me...greedy as all hell and merely disinterested in your impacts upon others. The racism is merely incidental. I urge you to approach this issue with universal skepticism towards all viewpoints. ...and to stop cherry-picking data, which makes you look like d-bags.

Edited August 17, 2010 by TheNiche

[Gooch]

Say what you want, but your vision of the future has no basis in reality. There are already a number of other fringe communities surrounding the city core with as equally viable housing stock as the Heights, and they're less expensive and have fewer restrictions.

May be the best argument for the ordinance in this thread. If someone in the Heights doesn't want to deal with the restrictions, they can reap their profits and move. Reducing their mortgage and increasing their equity in the process...

[AtticaFlinch]

May be the best argument for the ordinance in this thread. If someone in the Heights doesn't want to deal with the restrictions, they can reap their profits and move. Reducing their mortgage and increasing their equity in the process...

Or you get a real estate panic when a bunch of stock is dumped on the market at the same time, inevitably driving down total values of all homes in the area.

[Gooch]

Or you get a real estate panic when a bunch of stock is dumped on the market at the same time, inevitably driving down total values of all homes in the area.

Anything is possible. Are there any examples of that in the other historic district in Houston, or other cities?

[AtticaFlinch]

Anything is possible. Are there any examples of that in the other historic district in Houston, or other cities?

I think you'll find Houston's situation is rather unique. As such, my opinion is based on educated guesswork more than anything else - just like everyone else here. We can be drawn to any number of possible conclusions in order to support our preconceptions. The only thing we know for certain about this ordinance is that it will arbitrarily impose regulations upon homeowners who had purchased their property without the restrictions already in place and without giving them the ability to opt in or out. As to how exactly it'll play out over the decade or so following, we've yet to see. However, another couple things we do know about human behavior is 1) Power corrupts, and 2) Whenever humans panic, we tend to do it as a mob. If a handful of people feel the board start to overextend their power, then you can pretty much guarantee those homeowners will cut their losses and sell. Whether it'll cause a wave of similar activity from other homeowners has yet to be seen. I will say this though, I'm glad I don't have a horse in this race and don't own in the Heights. I'd hate to be a guinea pig in this little experiment.

[heights_yankee]

You can check with a fellow HAIF poster and fellow preservationist, heights yankee, who is on the board of Proctor Plaza Historic District. She stated in this very forum that only 3 homes were demolished in the 10 years of historic district staus WITH the 90 day waiting period. That is irrefutable proof that the old ordinance worked.

Ugh. I just typed out a thoughtful and articulate answer to this and when I hit the send button my computer ate the freaking post. I will try to duplicate my genius for you again here...

So, actually this statement isn't accurate. It has not been the 90 day rule that has preserved the homes in my neighborhood, North Norhill/Proctor Plaza. Very few people apply for teardown variances here because of our deed restrictions, which have a lot of control (not all exercised) over new constructions. It is extremely difficult to build a large McCraftsman here, no thanks to the 90 day rule. As long as I have lived here, all applications for tear downs have been approved by the neighborhood association and the HCAC save one- the infamous home at 801 Pizer. They requested a variance to tear down and were denied by the HCAC and pleaded with by their neighbors but they tore it down anyway after the 90 day wait. This is the only one that could have and should have been saved and it fell after 90 days anyway. The other tear downs in this area needed to go due to condition issues (although one was 'demolition by neglect' which is such a sad and shady way of doing it- intentionally letting your property fall in to a dangerous state of disrepair so you can tear it down in hopes of making bigger money. It didn't work and the lot is still vacant. This is not a case study in why the deed restrictions are dangerous or wrong, either, as it is 1 house out of 850. It's rare anywhere to find such a homeowner who is willing to do that with their investment.)

We have roughly 1% new construction and this is primarily because of our neighborhood deed restrictions, which are strikingly similar to what the HCAC is trying to move forward with. Yes, I do favor preservation generally but I also live with in restrictions similar to the ones being proposed already and I see, 1st hand, how they benefit my neighborhood and do no harm to property owners. We are still a very eclectic neighborhood and diverse from a socio-economic standpoint. Our deed restrictions provide for this and protect this, not make it impossible as others have suggested.

Also, values. 2 examples- a bungalow with a large addition on the back recently sold with in 8 days of being listed. Listing price: $500k (Melwood). Another home is a 2/1 with the original footprint and a teeny sunroom added off the larger bedroom in back. It had an offer over asking price within 48hours of being on the market. Asking price was ~$329k. Both cases here are friends of ours. If you search HAR for 77009, you can see 2/1s that sold in the high $200ks or low $300ks, then there are the ones with additions selling for quite a bit more.