The Heights Historic Districts

[fwki]

Right, the staff recommended denial last week after reviewing the application, but it was still on the agenda for 24Jan. The hahc could have concurred and denied, concurred and deferred final action with recommendations or gone against staff and approved. I don't know the outcome.

[callisthenes]

Right, the staff recommended denial last week after reviewing the application, but it was still on the agenda for 24Jan. The hahc could have concurred and denied, concurred and deferred final action with recommendations or gone against staff and approved. I don't know the outcome.

Well OK. All the fulmination against HAHC wrt the petition made me think the committee had ruled previously, and the owners were in some sort of appeals process after that. But I couldn't get info on that from the petition, other than an appeal for the Mayor to exercise some authority in the matter. In the interest of understanding the process, I wonder if planning staff based the recommendation of rejection on general standing city codes/restrictions or restrictions specific to the Heights district/HAHC. I think the ambiguity of some of the Heights historic restrictions was one of the worries dicussed on here, could this be an example of capricious application of the rules.

[fwki]

I have a copy of the application and the staff recommendation to deny along with reasons...not sure I know how to upload from my phone....

[fwki]

Got the video...The HAHC voted 7-3 against approval. Douglas Elliot played the fool and did all the talking....."the overall scale and scope of the house is out of character"....."I know you can't even see the house due to the apartment complex next door, but"......"we've been having a lot of complaints from the Heights about large structures"....."the addition is large compared to the original house"....it was pitiful to watch them all fiddle with their ipads refusing to make eye contact with the owner while she spoke.  This is a 1700 sf addition to a 1300 sf house, smaller than the scale of houses up and down the street. 

 

　

　

The addition complied with the requirements of the ordinance and Elliot acknowledged that was not the problem. The owner implored them for recommendations and Elliot got all twisted up and told her to go the demolition route, adding "I know that sounds silly" and the owner pushed back that she wanted to preserve as much as possible. The owner showed that the house was surrounded by large additions and the only thing out of character is her current run down shack next to a hideous apartment complex. The next door neighbor on the other side wrote a letter begging for approval because the current structure devalues the neighborhood.

 

　

　

Phoebe Tudor said NOTHING, collected her check and left.

[RedScare]

I'd like to hear the opinion of the HAHC Apologist who regularly chastises us for daring criticize the historic district ordinance...and who regularly applauds houses with massive additions added to the back...even posting HAR.com links bragging about the asking prices. I wonder what he thinks of this denial.

[Marksmu]

I'd like to hear the opinion of the HAHC Apologist who regularly chastises us for daring criticize the historic district ordinance...and who regularly applauds houses with massive additions added to the back...even posting HAR.com links bragging about the asking prices. I wonder what he thinks of this denial.

 

He/She/It has not chimed in on this thread one time since this perfect example of over-reaching started...its funny how indefensible stances often garner silence from the opposition.

[samagon]

He/She/It has not chimed in on this thread one time since this perfect example of over-reaching started...its funny how indefensible stances often garner silence from the opposition.

 

In defense of that person, even though it is indefensible, I'm sure he would have found a way to try!

[JJxvi]

Perhaps the owner supported Wal*Mart, or was against the historic districts and is just getting their deserved retribution.

[s3mh]

I told you so. I have always said that all the effort made to try to destroy the preservation ordinance took away from the opportunity to craft a better ordinance. As a result, too much was left to subjective determination by the HAHC. The HAHC was way too permissive at first. Builders and realtors who only see value in square feet put up giant additions in the back of tiny bungalows. Those "humper house" designs have gotten out of control and now HAHC is trying to reign them back into something that is appropriate for the scale of the historic archictecture. That determination could have and should have been made when the ordinance was amended. But that discussion did not take place because a noisy minority dominated the discussion with their demand for complete abolition of historic preservation.

But for those of you who live in the anti-preservation echo chamber, this action by the HAHC did not happen in a vacuum. A lot of people support the historic ordinance. Another district was created next to Woodland Heights recently. If the HAHC was such an awful boogey man, this district would have never happened. But it did. Reality check moment for anti-historic district folks again. People who support the districts are not going to sit on their hands and let realtors and builders define what the neighborhood will look like. It is now a political process. A lot of pressure is being put on HAHC to take into consideration scale. I think this could and should be put in objective terms (% expansion of original foot print or other relevant guidelines). But it never was because last time the ordinance was adressed by council, it was all about killing it off. So, the HAHC is now taking into account scale in response to what the community has demanded. It is the right thing to do, but not the best way to go about it. But, the best way to go about it was never an option because so much energy was expended dealing with the small minority that has been trying to get rid of the districts altogether.

For those of you who think this is the beginning of the end of the districts, you woefully underestimate the support of the districts and what this episode really brings to light. The argument right now against the districts is that people should be able to build giant houses behind bungalows. But those giant houses behind bungalows that have already been built just make an excellent argument for stricter protection. The "humper house" was named the design cliche of the year on swamplot. If anything, the proliferation of the humper houses has galvanized support for the districts and for stronger enforcement of the historic preservation ordinance. The real overreach here is coming from the builders and realtors. When the 90 day waiting period was enacted, the idea was that 90 days would give people enough time to find someone willing to renovate instead of demolish a building. But the 90 day waiting period just became a cost of doing business. Builders continued to demolish and build anything fake New Orleans looking thing they wanted as if there was no ordinance at all. Now, with some teeth in the ordinance, the builders are again overreaching by putting up the giant humper houses instead of actually trying to expand the square footage without disturbing the visual scale of the original architecture. But this overreach will again result in an equal and opposite reaction--a more restrictive ordinance. So, the more people try to get rid of the ordinance, the stronger it gets.

[JJxvi]

I have no problems with camelbacks from a neighborhood perspective.  Wouldn't want to live in one of the things, but whatever.  They will get integrated into the neighborhood with the hundreds and hundreds of other architectural oddities that exist EVERYWHERE in this neighborhood, its just unfortunate for property owners that are going to get ramrodded while this current preservation fad lasts.  50 years from now, people are going to discuss how these certain houses ended up as crazy looking as they do, and maybe someone will even idiotically try to "preserve the camelbacks!"  I doubt they'll blame the "realtors and builders" for their existence, though. Everybody knows why these are being built.

Edited January 30, 2013 by JJxvi

[fwki]

Breaking news from the HAHC!  Attention all potential buyers of HD homes, attention all potential sellers of HD homes....the peak is in, prepare yourselves for market adjustment.....3,000 sf is too big to get CoA, adjust property value to accommodate life how it was in 1929 when we packed 6 kids into 1200 sf.

[samagon]

is s3mh's wall of text revisionist history, or am I just mis-remembering? I am too lazy to go back through the thread, but I could have sworn that the people who were against this were not just wanting to keep it from passing, or removing their property from it, but that it was far too subjective, and the way that it could be adjusted at any time was far too over-reaching.

 

Hell, I only have skin in the game because my property could very easily be added to a historic district by city council members. Specifically, section 33-221

 

 

Sec. 33-221. Designation.

 (a)  The city council may designate buildings, structures, objects and sites as landmarks and protected landmarks, may designate areas as historic districts, may designate sites as archaeological sites, and may define, amend and delineate the boundaries of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archaeological site as provided in this article. 

 (  To encourage public participation and the resultant preservation of historical, cultural and archeological resources, the city council shall be authorized to offer owners of properties considered for designation tax exemptions and other incentives that the city council may determine appropriate, at the time of the proposed designation. 

 ©  Prior to action by the city council, the HAHC shall review each application for designation and make a recommendation with respect to the application, but designation shall be made only by city council.

 

I chose to buy the house I currently own specifically so I wouldn't have to bother with a restrictive covenant, and it stands to reason that along the same lines, I would never choose to live in a historic district, and as a matter of fact, all this ordinance does for me is entice me to tear my house down as soon as I can afford to build another house that has no defining historic merit at all so that I will be excluded when (not if) the city council shifts their gaze in my direction.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I enjoy my house, I enjoy the historic nature of my house and I want to do what I (emphasis on I) can do to preserve it, but I like someone else looking over my shoulder telling me how to do it at their subjective whim so much less that I would be willing to take a wrecking ball to my house to avoid it.

Edited January 30, 2013 by samagon

[SilverJK]

I told you so.

 

 

Yes you did.  You specifically stated that you would remember those that opposed you when it was their time to try to renovate their house.  Point proven. 

[JJxvi]

http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/23402-historic-districts-in-houston/page-27#entry381088

[TGM]

Breaking news from the HAHC! Attention all potential buyers of HD homes, attention all potential sellers of HD homes....the peak is in, prepare yourselves for market adjustment.....3,000 sf is too big to get CoA, adjust property value to accommodate life how it was in 1929 when we packed 6 kids into 1200 sf.

Have no fear the jack-boot architecture facists of the HAHC have plenty of experience stuffing people into small confines, boxcars, etc.

Edited January 30, 2013 by TGM

[west20th]

Have no fear the jack-boot architecture facists of the HAHC have plenty of experience stuffing people into small confines, boxcars, etc.

 

Did we really need to go there?

[fwki]

Speaking of Germantown, they had no choice but to deal with the devil.....that or TxDoT eats their livers with fava beans.  Yeah that's a good example of how popular these HD's are.

Edited January 30, 2013 by fwki

[fwki]

Judge for yourself.  I think the HAHC has completely lost the plot.  Any Houston politician who enables or in any way supports this type of zoning control over one's domicile needs to be thrown out of public service.  Vote with your vote:

1207 Harvard gets toasted by the zoning commission.

[Marksmu]

I told you so. I have always said that all the effort made to try to destroy the preservation ordinance took away from the opportunity to craft a better ordinance. As a result, too much was left to subjective determination by the HAHC. The HAHC was way too permissive at first. Builders and realtors who only see value in square feet put up giant additions in the back of tiny bungalows. Those "humper house" designs have gotten out of control and now HAHC is trying to reign them back into something that is appropriate for the scale of the historic archictecture. That determination could have and should have been made when the ordinance was amended. But that discussion did not take place because a noisy minority dominated the discussion with their demand for complete abolition of historic preservation. But for those of you who live in the anti-preservation echo chamber, this action by the HAHC did not happen in a vacuum. A lot of people support the historic ordinance. Another district was created next to Woodland Heights recently. If the HAHC was such an awful boogey man, this district would have never happened. But it did. Reality check moment for anti-historic district folks again. People who support the districts are not going to sit on their hands and let realtors and builders define what the neighborhood will look like. It is now a political process. A lot of pressure is being put on HAHC to take into consideration scale. I think this could and should be put in objective terms (% expansion of original foot print or other relevant guidelines). But it never was because last time the ordinance was adressed by council, it was all about killing it off. So, the HAHC is now taking into account scale in response to what the community has demanded. It is the right thing to do, but not the best way to go about it. But, the best way to go about it was never an option because so much energy was expended dealing with the small minority that has been trying to get rid of the districts altogether. For those of you who think this is the beginning of the end of the districts, you woefully underestimate the support of the districts and what this episode really brings to light. The argument right now against the districts is that people should be able to build giant houses behind bungalows. But those giant houses behind bungalows that have already been built just make an excellent argument for stricter protection. The "humper house" was named the design cliche of the year on swamplot. If anything, the proliferation of the humper houses has galvanized support for the districts and for stronger enforcement of the historic preservation ordinance. The real overreach here is coming from the builders and realtors. When the 90 day waiting period was enacted, the idea was that 90 days would give people enough time to find someone willing to renovate instead of demolish a building. But the 90 day waiting period just became a cost of doing business. Builders continued to demolish and build anything fake New Orleans looking thing they wanted as if there was no ordinance at all. Now, with some teeth in the ordinance, the builders are again overreaching by putting up the giant humper houses instead of actually trying to expand the square footage without disturbing the visual scale of the original architecture. But this overreach will again result in an equal and opposite reaction--a more restrictive ordinance. So, the more people try to get rid of the ordinance, the stronger it gets.

 

You don't get to turn this around on us.  We stated long ago that the ordinance was far too vague and that because of its being so vague it was subject to abuse and favortism.  It seems to me now that the only folks getting approvals now are the folks who have been deemed worthy by the HAHC, and that its not a property by property basis. 

 

The HAHC is making up the rules as they apply to individuals.  Any ordinance that is so vauge that it can be interpreted should be void on its face. This is a travesty and its application is inexcusable.  The HAHC has literally stolen these individuals property rights from under them....(assuming they owned before the ordinance)

 

Either way, its a travesty.  A small shack does not support the lifestyle of a growing family.  The HAHC does not care.  This is going to reverberate throughout the heights and only hasten the depreciation of the rest of the remaining shacks property values.  This should not be happening in the name of preservation.  I can only hope that a bulldozer accidentally, and in the middle of the night, flattens this property.  If it were my house, I would allow it to crumble to nothing just to spite the gestappo.   

[RedScare]

If there is ever created a HAIF Hall of Fame, post #1007 will certainly win for best 180 performed by a poster. He didn't even attempt to fit it into his narrative of HAHC Uber Alles. He simply claims that he always told us, as if we didn't read the previous 1006 posts in this thread. Flip flopping on this scale should be banned everywhere but during presidential debates.

[Ross]

Judge for yourself.  I think the HAHC has completely lost the plot.  Any Houston politician who enables or in any way supports this type of zoning control over one's domicile needs to be thrown out of public service.  Vote with your vote:

1207 Harvard gets toasted by the zoning commission.

 

Who is the holier than thou dweeb with the beard, and why is he qualified to make decisions on someone's home?

[ISMDAVID]

and we kept hearing that they were easy to work with.....now they are exercising their dislike of her design for a denial even though she appears to have followed the rules as written?  Travesty - I agree that the gentlemen with the beard simply could talk himself to sleep with such nonsense.  I loved the comment about letter her demolish the house - that comment alone should get him thrown off of this board in my opinion.

There isnt a chance in ____ that I will be renovating any of my properties while the HAHC is in control - I may paint them some bright offensive color though since that cant be dictated.

[Angostura]

Judge for yourself.  I think the HAHC has completely lost the plot.  Any Houston politician who enables or in any way supports this type of zoning control over one's domicile needs to be thrown out of public service.  Vote with your vote:

1207 Harvard gets toasted by the zoning commission.

 

Wow.

 

Just, wow.

 

 

So Council approves an ordinance that basically requires camelbacks.  HAHC finds camelbacks distasteful, and refuses to approve.

 

Message: only buy a property with intent to renovate if you don't plan to increase square footage. Good luck with that.

[Angostura]

[inadvertent double post.]

Edited January 31, 2013 by Angostura

[Subdude]

Have no fear the jack-boot architecture facists of the HAHC have plenty of experience stuffing people into small confines, boxcars, etc.

 

I would allow it to crumble to nothing just to spite the gestappo [sic]. 

 

HAHC Uber Alles

 

 

 

 

 

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies^[1][2]) is an argument made by Mike Godwin in 1990^[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[RedScare]

I think the Nazi and fascist comparisons began in this thread a very long time ago. In fact, the HAHC has now eclipsed passe Nazi references. What we need here is a term to describe capricious and arbitrary rulings, as HAHC just made a ruling, not on the rules in the ordinance, but rather based on "complaints from the neighborhood". Ironically, these complaints were of HAHC's own rulings.

[jamesw]

Wow is all I can say.  I live down the street from this house and I have to say, it is just about the ONLY house on the street that does NOT fit in w/ the surrounding houses.  Most of the houses on the blockface are large and just about every house across the street is a two story - in fact one of them is a 3-story uber-house that must be at least 3,500 square fee.

 

Not to mention that it is right next-door to a hideous apartment building, and I would LOVE to see this house remodeled, as would everyone on our street.  We used to call it the Haloween house because the previous  owner/tenants painted it black and orange one year...

 

I hope the new owners get their approval for the remodel and addition shortly.

Cheers

James

[SilverJK]

Just for fun...   I told you so!!!   Disgusting display of power, exactly what everyone was worried about would happen.

 

Stop the HAHC signs are needed.

[RedScare]

Stop the HAHC signs are needed.

 

Perhaps with a scary Camelback snarling at a bungalow?

[s3mh]

I think the Nazi and fascist comparisons began in this thread a very long time ago. In fact, the HAHC has now eclipsed passe Nazi references. What we need here is a term to describe capricious and arbitrary rulings, as HAHC just made a ruling, not on the rules in the ordinance, but rather based on "complaints from the neighborhood". Ironically, these complaints were of HAHC's own rulings.

This is exactly my point. The anti-historic district people have done nothing from the beginning but gone all talk radio on this issue without providing anything constructive to make the process better. At least RUDH produced a lengthy document of proposed changes to the Walmart development while simultaneously opposing the same and refrained from the completely off the wall accusations and name calling that have come from anti-historic district people.

Calling the HAHC "fascist" or comparing them to Nazis is so indefensibly over the top that it shows that those opposing the districts have nothing but an irrational hatred for any sort of land use restriction that is not based on an particular set of principles, but, instead, comes from the same sort of inflamatory talk radio garbage that appeals to a small minority of people. Last I checked, Nazis and facists did not provide the right to appeal their decisions to a democratically elected counsel with a further right to challenge that body's decision to a democratically elected, independent judiciary. But, of course, those facts do not matter when you are practicing irrational ideological zealotry. Demogoguery plays well inside the echo chamber of the anti-ordinance supporters. But it completely turns off anyone who might be on the fence and just reinforces the determination of supporters.