The Heights Historic Districts

[RedScare]

How can you seriously be against preservation? Do you want all of the Heights to be eventually torn down and replaced with giant faux historic McMansions?

If you are too lazy to read the first 29 pages of this thread, why should I waste my time explaining myself AGAIN? If you are too lazy to read and too in love with government interference with my right to preserve my property in a way that suits my needs and tastes, perhaps you should leave the Heights and move to Kingwood or Bellaire. We prefer intelligent neighbors.

[fwki]

Two consecutive artificial posts with no sign of natural intelligence …I think a bot slipped through while Subdude was off on holiday.

[photolitherland]

Youre right, Im sorry, lets just forgo Houstons history and let it all dissapear, who cares I guess anyways.

[TGM]

Youre right, Im sorry, lets just forgo Houstons history and let it all dissapear, who cares I guess anyways.

Which era of history do you wish to preserve, and which one do you wish to see fall by the wayside?

Architecture and music have much in common. Your parents hated what you listened to and you feel this generations music is hollow and contrived. In 50 years some overbearing group will be protesting the destruction of McMansions for the purpose of building the latest faux-neo-classic-Victorian-revival-du jour. I hope you hold true to your word and protest this outrageous destruction of historic Houston architecture.

Edited December 28, 2012 by TGM

[JJxvi]

Youre right, Im sorry, lets just forgo Houstons history and let it all dissapear, who cares I guess anyways.

Agreed.

[s3mh]

Youre right, Im sorry, lets just forgo Houstons history and let it all dissapear, who cares I guess anyways.

This message board has been occupied by historic preservation haters who try to use it as their echo chamber to convince themselves that their hatred for the historic districts is shared by the overwhelming majority of residents in the Heights. Anyone who comes on here and disagrees with their view point will be pilloried until they give in and stop posting, leading the historic preservation haters to think that their hate for the districts has been validated because they have bullied people away from a message board.

Of course the reality is that the historic districts are just fine and are even expanding (Germantown HD next to Woodland Heights was just added). The predictions of property values diving and the Heights turning into a slum because no one will rennovate homes turned out to be 180 degrees in the wrong direction. So, the haters are left to their little internet message board to try to validate their irrational hatred for the historic preservation ordinance and those who worked so hard to get real protection for historic homes in the Heights. That is why they are so threatened whenever anyone tries to crash their little party. Keep posting if you want. It is more entertaining that talking about reality shows with staff in the break room at work.

[RedScare]

They will need all of your luck to navigate the minefields. Im sure everyone in favor of the ordinance will be comforted knowing that they are living in a Historic Home-(all 500 square feet of it)

This is the "historic preservation" that s3mh and photolitherland support. This is what s3mh thinks is "just fine". Take your intellectual dishonesty to Kingwood or Bellaire. Your claim to preservation is a fraud.

[Ross]

I don't have a problem with preservation. What I have a problem with is people who come in after I purchase a property and try to impose new rules on what I can do with that property, especially when the rules they impose are to enforce their sense of esthetics. I would have had no real objection to the historic district ordinances if there was an opt out for current owners.

[SilverJK]

I have no intention of tearing down and building a mc-whatever. I'm not in the historic district. I'm pro preservation, but the historic ordinance is far from anything I could ever support. It was intentionally misleading, unsupported, and overbearing (not to mention it actually supports construction that is not only not historic, but downright ugly).

Who asked for the troll for christmas?

[photolitherland]

Unsupported? I talk to tons of people in The Heights and everyone Ive talked to hates seeing historic houses torn down and are in support of the historic preservation ordinances. I dont know where you anti preservation people are hiding out but you make up the minority. What is happening in the Montrose is a travesty. I remember a couple months ago there were 4 beautiful Queen Anne styled homes back near the gay clubs that were in just fine shape and I drove past the block yesterday and they were all destroyed and crap 3 story condos are now rising in their place. Its disgusting and pisses me off to no end. This city doesnt have much history and as much of it that still exists needs to be fully protected from tear downs or renovations that rip off the back 2/3rds of the house to be replaced by a new 2 story addition. Every other progressive city in the nation has fully protected historic districts. Hell, even Little Rock has fully protected historic districts. What would have happened if the French Quarter in New Orleans wasnt protected? Do you think the people living there would want to see New Orleans torn down and replaced with 3 story tin sided condos? Vast areas of NYC are fully protected in historic districts and you dont see the people of that city bitching about preservation ordinances. Hell, even Galveston has better preservation ordinances than Houston. This cities small amount of history needs to be protected and restored, not torn down. You anti preservation people kind of remind me of NRA members. The western part of The Heights has been largely plowed over and replaced with faux historic houses and that part of The Heights seems so desolate and ugly, while the eastern section of The Heights still is largely intact and its so lovely to walk around the streets with the old bungalows and late Victorian architecture dominating the area. I live on Beverly St. and even in the last year Ive seen dozens upon dozens of beautiful bungalows get torn down and replaced by gigantic homes that dont at all fit in with their surroundings.

Edited December 29, 2012 by photolitherland

[fwki]

I have no intention of tearing down and building a mc-whatever. I'm not in the historic district. I'm pro preservation, but the historic ordinance is far from anything I could ever support. It was intentionally misleading, unsupported, and overbearing (not to mention it actually supports construction that is not only not historic, but downright ugly).

Who asked for the troll for christmas?

Same here. One can easily pick out the non-readers in this forum, the audio book crowd. They immediately give themselves away by demonstrating an inability to discern between anti-ordinance posters and anti-preservation posters. It is possible to have civil discourse between readers with different opinions, but non-readers are nothing more than oxygen thieves in public forums.

[Subdude]

This is the "historic preservation" that s3mh and photolitherland support. This is what s3mh thinks is "just fine". Take your intellectual dishonesty to Kingwood or Bellaire. Your claim to preservation is a fraud.

Warning: Keep it civil. No more flaming or name-calling is going to be allowed.

[RedScare]

So, photolitherland claims he moved to the Heights because it is historic district protected, but then notes that he lives on Beverly Street, which is NOT in a historic district. That figures. He doesn't want HIS house encumbered by restrictions, but supports restricting mine. Typical.

At least he doesn't live on my street. We have 100% opposition on my block (I know. I collected the signatures.), and we'd like to keep it that way as we await the day that we return our block to the way Beverly Street is.

[fwki]

Red's Hypocrisy Detector went off scale last night.

[RedScare]

Red's Hypocrisy Detector went off scale last night.

It did. And then Subdude ran over to slap my hand for it. Anyone notice that I got warned for using the identical language in my post that photlitherland used, yet Subdude only saw fit to slap me for it?

My arguments must be effective if the refs only throw flags on me and no one else for the same conduct.

(actually, in fairness to Subdude, he likely only looked at my post because s3mh complained about it without mentioning litherland's post that started it. Besides, my skin is thick. I've taken worse hits.)

[RedScare]

Same here. One can easily pick out the non-readers in this forum, the audio book crowd. They immediately give themselves away by demonstrating an inability to discern between anti-ordinance posters and anti-preservation posters. It is possible to have civil discourse between readers with different opinions, but non-readers are nothing more than oxygen thieves in public forums.

I've been tempted numerous times to dare the so-called "preservation supporters" to compare their "pro-preservation" dwellings against our "anti-preservation" dwellings. I am quite confident that the improvements made to our homes would blow the preservation pretenders out of the water. I only hold back from doing so because I am not at all interested in letting these people know where I live. They are, after all, the ones who take pictures of old houses in order to snitch us out to the city. I am not going to make their snitching easier by telling them where to find me.

[photolitherland]

So, photolitherland claims he moved to the Heights because it is historic district protected, but then notes that he lives on Beverly Street, which is NOT in a historic district. That figures. He doesn't want HIS house encumbered by restrictions, but supports restricting mine. Typical.

At least he doesn't live on my street. We have 100% opposition on my block (I know. I collected the signatures.), and we'd like to keep it that way as we await the day that we return our block to the way Beverly Street is.

I dont own a home, I rent so I have no say in what the owner does to this house. He told me he plans on tearing it down eventually and replacing it with a crap 3 story condo. If I owned a house I would restore it to the way it looked in the 20s. I wish this house were in the historic district. If you dont want historic districts than slowly but surely all of the Heights and all of the cities other historic structures will be replaced with shit new buildings. If you want to own a home and do whatever you please with it than get out of the Heights and move to the burbs where life is boring and generic.

[RedScare]

Renter. Troll. I'm done. I owned my house before there was a historic district. I'll own it after you're gone. And one day I will succeed in getting rid o the historic district. When that happens, I invite you back to weep for the old homes.

Now, like I said, I'm done. I will not waste my time debating renters who have no skin invested in the game. Your opinions are worthless to homeowners.

[little frau]

I just wish some would learn the difference between anti ordinance & anti preservation when posting here.

That and the difference between "then" and "than".

[s3mh]

It did. And then Subdude ran over to slap my hand for it. Anyone notice that I got warned for using the identical language in my post that photlitherland used, yet Subdude only saw fit to slap me for it?

My arguments must be effective if the refs only throw flags on me and no one else for the same conduct.

(actually, in fairness to Subdude, he likely only looked at my post because s3mh complained about it without mentioning litherland's post that started it. Besides, my skin is thick. I've taken worse hits.)

I've never complained about any of your posts. I like it when you start with your childish name calling. It is a sure sign that I am right and you are wrong. Also, given the ideological slant of the majority of those posting on this message board, I have the definition of thick skin to be posting on here.

[s3mh]

I've been tempted numerous times to dare the so-called "preservation supporters" to compare their "pro-preservation" dwellings against our "anti-preservation" dwellings. I am quite confident that the improvements made to our homes would blow the preservation pretenders out of the water. I only hold back from doing so because I am not at all interested in letting these people know where I live. They are, after all, the ones who take pictures of old houses in order to snitch us out to the city. I am not going to make their snitching easier by telling them where to find me.

Yeah, taking pictures of strangers' homes and using them to advance your political agenda is something that only those awful preservationists would do.

Oops:

http://blogs.har.com/774/12571/Renovations-we-won-t-see-anymore-in-the-Houston-Heights--Examples-from-the-East-Historic-District/

[fwki]

I know I shouldn't even respond, but I could not let this rant stand unchallenged lest some ignorant non-reader buys into it.

This message board has been occupied....

The secret Occupy HAIF movement is now exposed to the world, oh my!

by historic preservation haters....

Non-reader alert!

who try to use it as their echo chamber to convince themselves that their hatred for the historic districts is shared by the overwhelming majority of residents in the Heights....

Are you including dog and squirrel votes in your majority too? No doubt you include renters (old, unimproved homes have lower rents), new-build owners (kills the competition for best homes), outside of HD owners (higher comparable re-sale value, see Norhill Addition), and non-contributing structures (HD? What HD?). But for humans with skin in the game, i.e. Texas property owners of land in the HD with a structure burdened by the ordinance, I challenge your unsubstantiated claim of overwhelming majority. And if that is true, why did the city not use a simple up-or-down vote by only impacted owners on a sanctioned election cycle?

Anyone who comes on here and disagrees with their view point will be pilloried until they give in and stop posting, leading the historic preservation haters to think that their hate for the districts has been validated because they have bullied people away from a message board.

TRANSLATED: City Ordinance Lovers can attempt to justify their adulation by posting here, but be aware that BS will be called and responded to by proud Texans with a clear, rational and stinging rebuke.

Of course the reality is that the historic districts are just fine and are even expanding (Germantown HD next to Woodland Heights was just added).

Also known as the I-45 Expansion Defense Historic District.

The predictions of property values diving and the Heights turning into a slum because no one will rennovate (sic) homes turned out to be 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

And your source for these rash predictions are....hearsay? And 180 degrees is....hyperbole?

So, the haters are left to their little internet message board...

You mean those opposed to the ordinance eloquently set forth and defend their position in the most active neighborhood message board in "HAIF - Houston's Leading News Forum".

...to try to validate their irrational hatred for the historic preservation ordinance...

No validation is required when defending one's property rights in Texas from politicians pandering to River Oaks elitists and wannabes (see HAHC Chairman and the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance)

and those who worked so hard to get real protection for historic homes in the Heights. That is why they are so threatened whenever anyone tries to crash their little party.

Now don't get your feelings hurt. I do not hate you, I don't even know you. I think you put a lot of effort into something you support, and I respect that effort, no matter how misguided it may be. And this is your party, like it or not.

Keep posting if you want. It is more entertaining that talking about reality shows with staff in the break room at work.

Do I detect a tad of elitism here? Did staff have a nice holiday or two? Did staff enjoy the pot-luck holiday luncheon management allowed? Sorry, just kidding, don’t call Subdude on me. Oh, and Happy New Year to all the HAIFers, where ever you live whatever you post!

[s3mh]

I know I shouldn't even respond, but I could not let this rant stand unchallenged lest some ignorant non-reader buys into it.

The secret Occupy HAIF movement is now exposed to the world, oh my!

Non-reader alert!

Are you including dog and squirrel votes in your majority too? No doubt you include renters (old, unimproved homes have lower rents), new-build owners (kills the competition for best homes), outside of HD owners (higher comparable re-sale value, see Norhill Addition), and non-contributing structures (HD? What HD?). But for humans with skin in the game, i.e. Texas property owners of land in the HD with a structure burdened by the ordinance, I challenge your unsubstantiated claim of overwhelming majority. And if that is true, why did the city not use a simple up-or-down vote by only impacted owners on a sanctioned election cycle?

TRANSLATED: City Ordinance Lovers can attempt to justify their adulation by posting here, but be aware that BS will be called and responded to by proud Texans with a clear, rational and stinging rebuke.

Also known as the I-45 Expansion Defense Historic District.

And your source for these rash predictions are....hearsay? And 180 degrees is....hyperbole?

You mean those opposed to the ordinance eloquently set forth and defend their position in the most active neighborhood message board in "HAIF - Houston's Leading News Forum".

No validation is required when defending one's property rights in Texas from politicians pandering to River Oaks elitists and wannabes (see HAHC Chairman and the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance)

Now don't get your feelings hurt. I do not hate you, I don't even know you. I think you put a lot of effort into something you support, and I respect that effort, no matter how misguided it may be. And this is your party, like it or not.

Do I detect a tad of elitism here? Did staff have a nice holiday or two? Did staff enjoy the pot-luck holiday luncheon management allowed? Sorry, just kidding, don’t call Subdude on me. Oh, and Happy New Year to all the HAIFers, where ever you live whatever you post!

Case and point. Had the post not been on the mark, the preservation haters would not have gone nuts over it.

1. The idea that you can be for historic preservation, but not for any kind of preservation ordinance is wonderful PR, but falls flat in the face of reality. The facts are that historic houses in the Heights were getting demolished in a wholesale fashion prior to the amendments to the historic ordinance. To say that you are for preservation, but only on a voluntary basis is like saying you are against bullying in schools, but only if the little pipsqueaks can stand up for themselves without having to have the teachers intervene. Without the revision to the ordinance, the historic homes in the Heights would have been lost and every block would have been transformed into some mish mash of lot line faux Vics, "where in the world did that come from" custom homes and "look at me!" oddball moderns. So, saying "I am for preservation, but on a voluntary basis" is just another way of saying "tear down all the old crap and good luck to anyone who wants to out bid a builder for a bungalow sandwiched between two lot line McVics."

2. We had a vote. Anti-preservationists came up way short. Thus, they want a different vote.

3. Renters not on the same level as homeowners? And then an accusation of elitism?

4. HAIF as a representative measure of the Heights? That is rich. Most people in the Heights won't touch this message board with a ten foot pole because of the vitriol launched at anyone who presents an opposing viewpoint. Again, case and point.

5. No, it is your party that I am crashing. I enjoy the sparring and am not going anywhere any time soon. This punching bag is made of kevlar.

6. No elitism. Elitism would be to call them secretaries, which I do not do because they are skilled employees, even though they are not the ones in the office with the degrees. It is simply a fact that they love reality TV shows and will talk day and night about them. I can't stand them. I do have guilty pleasures like Workaholics and South Park. But they don't watch those shows. So, I make use of 60+ wpm by posting here instead of trying to relate to the discussion of Honey Boo whatever that thing is.

[photolitherland]

Quoted from fwki:

TRANSLATED: City Ordinance Lovers can attempt to justify their adulation by posting here, but be aware that BS will be called and responded to by proud Texans with a clear, rational and stinging rebuke.

So, people who support historic districts and the preservation of this cities dwindling history are not proud Texans? If anything the people who support preservation care more about Texas heritage than you anti historic district rable rousers. Sorry, but if there are not historic districts with strict guidelines than this cities history will all be gone in 50 years at the rate of tear downs in the Heights before the ordinance was passed. And I guess us renters are just lowly scumbags who shouldnt have a say in the neighborhood we live in. I guess we are like 3rd class passengers or something to you. Guess what? The majority of people who live in the Heights who own historic homes or rent them are in favor of preservation of this historic neighborhood. You do not hold the majority view otherwise the preservation ordinances would not have passed. You would like The Heights to turn into Rice Military if you had it your way.

Edited December 31, 2012 by photolitherland

[Ross]

@photo, so you think it's OK to force a homeowner to comply with esthetic restrictions AFTER they purchase a home? That's pretty totalitarian, don't you think? I like history, but don't really care if every old building in town disappears if that's the wish of the property owners. In a just world, the preservation ordinance would not have been enacted.

[heights]

Case and point. Had the post not been on the mark, the preservation haters would not have gone nuts over it.

Kind of like how there must be truth to the posts about you or you would not have gone to the moderator complaining? And by the way, it's "case in point", not "case and point."

Happy New Year!

Edited January 1, 2013 by heights

[ISMDAVID]

With this board becoming an entertaining daily read again, is there any news on the progress of the lawsuit that was filed earler this year?

[luciaphile]

It seems to me that constraints are placed on homeowners all the time, without anyone being grandfathered.

We are not in the floodplain, for instance, but the government's data is not terribly accurate and at some point we got a letter stating that we were suddenly in a hundred-year floodplain, by fiat. I can't pretend it really matters, as my husband is too tight to ever expand the house, but still, it amounts to a taking.

For a handful of neighborhoods in this city, ordinances have been passed which are designed to prevent the building of "superduplexes" (builders were routinely submitting plans for houses with eight game rooms, or something) and the overshadowing of smaller existing houses by newer ones, and to preserve the character of the streetscape to some degree. It's true that the implementation, for those who choose to enter the process of building a new home, seems like it could be quite maddening. And I myself find a sea of single-family houses kind of dull. But those neighborhoods are greatly outnumbered by areas which are charmless, like that where I live, where people may do mostly as they like, and the city benefits if they do. It sort of usefully channels their energy where it is most needed. The McMansion I would dislike in another context, I would more or less welcome on my street.

Windows: Big Brother has taken an unusually strong hand here about windows. There is a window in my shower, above eye level, very handy for quickly drying the room and keeping mildew down. It was drafty and not terribly private however, so almost immediately upon moving in I encouraged my kid to throw his ball against the house in that general area (see cheap husband, above) and soon enough was able to replace it with a nice double-paned frosted window. The guy who did the work said that the it violated code as someone might slip on the tile and crash through it. Another time I replaced a leaky aluminum bedroom window that always stuck -- I had to use a screwdriver as a sort of lever while pushing on it, and was the only one who mastered this, which would have been unfortunate had we needed to leave that way in an actual fire -- and decided to replace it with an easily-sliding double-paned vinyl thing, tripartite, because that looked the best. Again, a window replacer advised me that I was in violation, because a five-hundred pound person might not be able to get out of it in a fire. He did it for me sans permit anyway, but said that was why his truck was not marked with the name of his business. Ironically he had come to town to profit off of a then-city-program designed to offer rebates to homeowners in disadvantaged areas to replace old windows and thereby achieve energy savings. It was quickly discovered that in nearly all cases simple window replacements would violate city code, bigger openings would have to be cut, and few of the targeted people could afford to undertake this greater remodeling. The program was thus mainly a failure. I understand these rules were devised to prevent tragedies, but my house is so small, nearly every window and door is visible from any point. Egress is truly not a problem.

And sometime in the offing, here, the city will require new construction and remodels to conform to universal design. They trotted the idea out already, withdrew it after a hue and cry, but one sensed it was just the opening salvo.

Not to mention, two entirely new taxing jurisdictions have been created since we moved here -- and said taxes happen to be dedicated to things to which I have as great an antipathy as some people do for preservation ordinances.

ETA: I'm not insensitive to the fact that, in Houston, the rules you face in the Heights may seem particularly galling, unused as Houstonians are to a lot of regulation, and because they fly in the face of the freewheeling ethos there. That ethos doesn't seem exactly endangered, though. It seems like it just give the anointed areas a certain cachet.

Edited January 1, 2013 by luciaphile

[Ross]

luciaphile, the rules you mention apply to the entire city, and were driven mostly by uniform code changes. The Historic Districts were driven by those who think their esthetic values are better than their neighbors, and that certain parts of town should remain embedded in amber, regardless of the desires of the other property owners. The City should have zero interest in the appearance of a structure, as long as the appropriate code requirements are met. Appearance controls should be through deed restrictions, not ordinance.

[luciaphile]

luciaphile, the rules you mention apply to the entire city, and were driven mostly by uniform code changes. The Historic Districts were driven by those who think their esthetic values are better than their neighbors, and that certain parts of town should remain embedded in amber, regardless of the desires of the other property owners. The City should have zero interest in the appearance of a structure, as long as the appropriate code requirements are met. Appearance controls should be through deed restrictions, not ordinance.

Okay! Though here, those neighborhood rules vary across the city, and this is not a big deed-restriction town.

I am genuinely and neutrally curious whether you would feel this way if you lived somewhere that was actually historic in the usual sense of the word.

Anyway, the buzz about the Heights seems stronger than ever -- the interesting exception to the Houston rule. We should all have such problems?

Off this topic, Houston's geography seems to be far more egalitarian than it was in the 70s/80s. At that time, one actually heard the phrase "social address" used without irony. There was a sense you would sink out of sight if you lived in the wrong area. Now there seems to be a more evenly distributed "energy" and resurgent neighborhood pride.

I wonder if this is partly due to the flight from the public schools, or at least from HISD. For the parents of my generation -- apart from a less-than-absorbing interest in their kids -- I think there was a feeling that attending public school was a part of the civic contract. Indeed, a sense that ... if a kid couldn't make it in public school, there was something weak about him/her. Now, certain areas seem to be undergoing a revival perhaps partly because people feel no need whatsoever to be tied to the local schools.

My mother says that no child in her neighborhood attends public school, and the bus does not even go there. Most of the houses are adorned with signs for various private schools. I find this very strange. Sorry, this may be a topic you have thoroughly exhausted somewhere on the HAIF, or have long since ceased to notice.