The Heights Historic Districts

[s3mh]

What happened to "Question Authority"?

How about "Dissent is patriotic"?

So are should everyone just tolerate that which is broken and abusive?

Read this before your next post.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

 

If you are against the ordinance, I disagree strongly but would fight to the death to preserve your right to voice your opinion.  My issue is with people who dishonestly try to get people who are inclined to support preservation to get on their side by claiming that you can be for historic preservation but also be against any kind of government involvement.  The facts in the Heights before the ordinance shows you exactly what that looks like.  It is like saying that you can be for saving sea turtles while being against requiring escape shoots on fishing nets.  Sure, maybe some benevolent fisherman will incur the additional expense or will want to advertise that their catch is sea turtle safe.  But, the reality is that before the requirement, sea turtles were getting scooped up all over the place and no one gave a crap about it.

[RedScare]

Since you believe that historic preservation must include supporting government intrusion, without regard to the viability or value of the government involvement, I will proudly wear your accusation of "anti-preservationist". Your statement is poison to the preservation movement. You explicitly claim that those of us who purchase old homes are idiots who must be forbidden from preserving our homes without government regulation. It should be obvious to you why there are so many opponents to your views (as opposed to preservation), but you appear too narcissistic to listen. This is why few of us waste any time attempting to explain it to you. You've made it clear that only repeal of the ordinance will get you out of our homes.

 

And that is exactly my intention. 

 

 

By the way, there are no turtles in my yard.

Edited July 15, 2013 by RedScare

[s3mh]

See answers to s3mh’s questions in red below.

 

So, is your goal to reform the HAHC so that all bad projects can get approved? No. I know you do not like it that people wrote CM Cohen to let her know that they did not support you getting nominated to HAHC.  But the reason people are concerned is that no one has any idea what you actually want to do or what you stand for when it comes to the historic districts. I wish they would have asked me directly vs making untrue assumptions. That said, thank you for asking now; I will try to answer as thoroughly and thoughtfully as possible. I apologize in advance b/c this has resulted in a novel…if I have failed to answer a specific question, it was not intentional, and please point it out to me. Not answering direct questions is my pet peeve, so let me know if you interpreted anything below as such.

 

What we do know is that you wrote a letter to the Leader stating that you are friends with your builder. Yes, I am and have been very good friends with my builder, his wife and their son who is 4 mo older than mine for several years. He and I were engineers together before he left a very secure company to take exorbitant risk starting his own company fixing houses with a 5-month old baby at home. He redid his own house in the Heights ~7 yrs ago while still working as an engineer. It was a severely neglected 1 story bungalow on Yale Street, and he turned it into a beautiful 1-story bungalow, even though he was not in a historic district, and it was before historic districts came into the Heights. His now wife thought he was absolutely crazy. He saved an old, dilapidated now gem on a terrible-to-live-on street that most people wouldn’t touch, and you would be very impressed with his work as a preservationist. He kept the original windows, siding, floors, etc. by choice – not obligation. He is doing my project for me as a favor for his friend. It is not his typical business model b/c he typically stays in the existing footprint of the house, and has not had another project in the “Heights proper” yet due to the expensive cost of entry. Also, every single one of us has used a builder’s service at one point, whether we hired him/her or bought his/her work from a previous owner…we all live in homes and work in buildings that someone built. They provide a critical service to all of us, whether we choose to appreciate it or not. I never thought about or realized this until my close, personal friend became one. You hired an architect who has been an opponent of the historic ordinance. I did not have any idea if he supported or opposed the ordinance when I hired him. When comparing him to Brickmoon (I thought they were both the most experienced local designers b/c they had the most signs in the neighborhood), the ONLY reason I chose him was that he charged based on a fixed fee vs an hourly rate. I was/am very uncomfortable with an unknown fee when both of them (who are experts vs a novice like me at the time) said the process is very unpredictable. For the record, I don’t know what his opinion used to be, but he does not want to repeal the ordinance. He wants Design Guidelines. If the Design Guidelines that he and the whole neighborhood were told were “the Guidelines” are now NOT "the Guidelines" anymore, but they are now only “educational material” that no one looks at (despite the fact that my Preservation staff contact emailed me them linked on their website here), then he wants new Guidelines that are agreeable to both preservationists as well as the local professionals who make their living designing homes in Historic districts. Click

for a video of this unfolding or an old post I just found #22 here for a letter directly from the Mayor to understand why people are confused. It is difficult for both everyone working in Historic Districts or arguing against people who are trying to renovate historic structures without Design Guidelines. Have you ever talked to Sam? He is very experienced in historic renovation and probably has more projects on the agenda than anyone else each month. This is because people LIKE his work and CHOOSE to hire him. He and all other designers, architects and builders are service providers for the owners of property, so if someone doesn’t like their work, it’s not really them they don’t like…they don’t like what their clients have asked them to draw/build. Also, I have attached 2 photos from his kitchen: one of his original stove and one of his original sink. These are in the kitchen of his 1915 original (beautiful) house that he has chosen to keep original, despite the fact that it is not technically in a historic district by one block. Would someone who hates old stuff choose to have an old sink and an old stove? I’m a preservationist, but I need/have a modern stove!  You are out advocating for an appeal of a denial of a COA from a project that was designed by the same architect's firm.  I was supporting/advocating for the family that is going through the same headache as I went through...not the design firm. They have a 3-mo old baby who doesn’t sleep through the night yet, and I really feel for them. At least when I went through the process, my baby was ~8 months old, so he was sleeping through the night. I also support the staff’s original opinion of this project which was that it satisfied all 11 criteria and had staff’s recommendation for approval b/c the owners made every, single change they asked for. When I spoke at their appeal Thursday, the ONLY presentation material I used was directly copy and pasted from Staff’s reports that came from an open record’s request. Some of the Starr’s friends were originally encouraging them to move to the suburbs, but they were convinced by another friend in the Heights that they CAN have closets and 3 bedrooms upstairs with a guest room downstairs for their growing family. They are a very nice couple with an adorable baby who will provide great contributions to our neighborhood and schools. I wanted to let them know that they ARE welcome to the Heights and to thank them for spending their life savings restoring a dilapidated structure who’s previous owner severely neglected and who literally fed rats inside her home (yuck!). Talk to the family who has lived next door for 38 years and see what their opinion is of the condition of this historic home. Most would be too scared to take on a project like that, and I commend the Starr’s for doing it (especially while learning how to be parents and working full-time so they can afford their new home while paying for their other house's mortgage to live). I’m glad they chose the Heights and look forward to sharing beers with them on our old front porches and new back porches. Tera had a great idea to re-purpose one of my old desperate-to-be-restored clawfoot tubs into either a cooler/veggie garden on the screened-in porch, which I think will be fantastic…historic preservation (of an item) at its finest. You mounted a very public campaign against the HAHC to try to get your plans approved on appeal with the Planning Commission. I had no idea how public my story would become. I created an online petition on change.org, which originally seemed like it might turn out to be a bit of a joke with only 3 signatures: my husband and my parents. I am a mom and an engineer and am not trained/experienced in anything public. Clearly I had no idea of how big of an issue this issue is to a lot of passionate people! I had never been on a blog like this (hence my very transparent, uncreative, rookie screenname choice). I wanted to have another baby but needed to get some sort line of sight on a physical place to put him/her before I started trying (or stopping preventing actually). My 1920 1,300 sqft 2/2 on a 5000 sqft lot with original, painted-shut windows simply wouldn’t cut it anymore for 4+ people whose families live in New Zealand and Kansas City. I had thought about adding on to it first, but decided that it just wouldn’t be appropriate. The lot is too small, and the little cottage is not only extremely livable, but it is just perfect and adorable as-is. Plus, it is in fantastic shape b/c the previous owner did a great job fixing it up (we haven’t even painted a wall the whole time we’ve been here). I didn’t even realize that it was NOT in a historic district, while sandwiched in between Norhill HD and Heights East HD by 1 block in both directions. This meant that yes – I COULD have done whatever I wanted with my house including leveling it, but I CHOSE not to. The only reason that I appealed was because I could not get any compromise from Staff. Trust me – I tried b/c I am a nice, non-confrontational person who can always find a middle ground. Two days before the HAHC meeting, on the phone, Staff told me that they would recommend me for approval if I would push my 2^nd story 9 ft back. I went and walked the lot and my thoughts were - will I be able to get into my garage anymore and will the stairs/layout still work 9 ft back? Will there be any yard left? I pondered this on my drive home to find an email stating that unless I pushed my 2nd story now 10 ft back, I was going to be recommended for denial. These 2 numbers were both arbitrary, and I met the ordinance as it was. I pushed it back 1.5 ft, and resubmitted. Pushing it back 10 ft would not have been easy or possible;  here were the consequences:

• I would have zero yard, and yard is important to us for our kid(s) and my New-Zealand-farmer husband. Where would a sandbox and our compost bin go? 
• I would not have been able to get into my garage b/c there would not have been enough turning radius with how far back the house went
• The house would have been 350 sqft bigger than I wanted (costing $50k+ more for extra “dead” sq footage I do not need, let alone want)
• It would have looked more similar to the big-boxes-on-the-back-of-houses that just look strange and out-of-place
• The stairs would not still fit in the same place, so we would have had to redesign the whole house, which is impossible in 2 days before the HAHC meeting

In my HAHC meeting, the primary Historic Commissioner that spoke, said that my house was too big. For clarity, it was 3,069 if you count 140 sqft of converted attic space that has a 6 ft at-the-tallest-point-of-the-triangle ceiling, going down to 4 ft on the sides. However, if I would have taken staff's recommendation, my house would have been 350 sqft bigger, and I would have likely been approved with no discussion. Therefore the two pieces of advice I received conflicted! The staff told me to make it bigger, and the Commission told me it was too big. When the HAHC Commissioner said that the house was too big when my ONLY disagreement with staff was that I wanted to keep it smaller – this was confusing. You can understand why, right? When I asked the commissioner for guidance b/c the house was in such bad shape that in order to make it livable in the current size, it would cause “economic hardship”.  This means that because I paid $285k for the house and lot, and you cannot sell a 1300 sqft house for $500-600k+, which is what it would have cost to make the existing structure livable (it was in REALLY bad shape and had been neglected for years). My new neighbors were ecstatic that a family was going to return it to a nice place b/c it was the ONLY house on the block in bad shape. The commissioner suggested the demolition route b/c the rules are different there, and I could potentially get what I wanted this way. I pleaded: "I don't want to demolish it - that's why I'm here!!" (PLUS, I read the demolition section of the ordinance in detail later, and the demolition route would take months; it is extensive and would cost money/time that I did not have). The ordinance clearly states that you can appeal a decision by the HAHC to the Planning Commission and then on to the City Council. Therefore, I followed the ordinance and appealed to Planning. To be clear, it was MY decision to appeal – not my designer, Creole. I learned later that appeals do not happen very often, so this has made a lot of people not like me (hence the previously posted email). However, I don't know why because I simply followed the law. If they like the Ordinance, then why do they not like someone who only chose to follow it the whole time? At the Planning Commission, they overwhelmingly supported my design plans because I met the Ordinance and overruled the HAHC. Also, if you are still wondering why I appealed, of course I tried to do everything possible to get it approved as-it-was, utilizing the procedure explicitly outlined in the ordinance. If I went back to the drawing table, what would I have changed? My 2 pieces of advice conflicted. Then I would have been back at square one, and it is physically impossible to make something bigger and smaller at the same time. I had already invested 2-3 months of time, and I could not afford further delays – both monetarily and most importantly, another baby for who knows how long? These are all things that suggest that you do not support the historic ordinance. Do the aforementioned items as well as the items listed below help clarify?  Sure.  I would only comment that the current trend of turning bungalows into 3000+ sq foot houses is something that is not necessary and is not a good preservation practice.  Many supporters of the ordinance want to see the scale of additions brought back to Earth.  It appears that you have been caught in that argument, which is unfortunate.  I do disagree with your assertion that it is either the original footprint or 3000 sq ft.  Suburban builders have convinced us that we will die if we do not live in a house that is at least 3000 sq ft.  I grew up in a house with 4 beds, 2.5 bath, dining room, living room, den, and an eat in kitchen.  It was 2000 sq ft.  It is in the NE and sold back in early 2000 for $600k (no additions).  It is possible to do additions to bungalows and have lots of bedrooms for kids and visitors without having to build it out to 3000+ sq ft.  Investors can and do rehab dilapidated bungalows in the Heights without having to build out over 3000 sq ft. and still make a very nice profit.  Most chose to do over 3000 sq ft because the biggest return is on that amount of sq ft.  In short, the giant additions are not a necessity either as an actual need of the resident or by the economics of the investor/builder.

 

On the other hand, you have told us that you like historic homes; own and are renovating one, and go to antique stores.  That is all great, but some of the most vocal opponents of the historic ordinance have said and done the same thing.

So, in all fairness, this is you chance to let us know where you really stand.

 

1.  Would you support a repeal of the Historic Ordinance? No.  You should have said "yes".  Now everyone on this message board will call you names.  Joking.

2.  Do you think the Historic Ordinance should be strengthened to prevent the projects like the one on 1600 Cortland?  Or should it be weakened to just set a few objective standards for height, size, preservation of original structure, etc. and have no say in the subjective elements?  Or something in between? There are a lot of the subjective elements now explicitly explained in the new Preservation Web Manual found here. Have you had a chance to look through this yet? yes. I think this is a great document(s), and I like that it is specific to each historic district (Woodland Heights is different to HH East to Montrose to Glenbrook Valley, etc.). The main thing that it lacks is the specific numbers for height, width etc and more real neighborhood picture examples. At the Historic Preservation Fair in May, I went to a session about this new manual. I asked about Design Guidelines, and the presenter said more-or-less that this was supposed to take their place. I asked how can that be b/c the Ordinance clearly states that COA’s shall be approved pursuant to “Design Guildlines” not a “Web Manual”? She said that was a question for the Mayor and later that it takes 2 full people a full year to create Design Guidelines for each district.

I think that if applicants were allowed to follow the ordinance as-written (begin 2^nd stories at the 50% mark and side additions at 30%), then you wouldn’t need to change the ordinance to prevent every addition from turning into homes like the one at 1630 Cortland. When prices of lots with severely dilapidated structures on them like 1630 Cortland are $300k+ (I’ve been told that I was lucky at $285k even with a massive apt complex next door), no one can afford to spend $200-$300k fixing it up, keeping it in the existing square footage. The housing market is currently booming, but it’s not booming THAT much where a 1100-1300 sqft bungalow will sell for $600k+. The house/construction loan would not appraise, and there are only SO many cash buyers that would/could afford that, let alone want to pay that much for a small house, no matter how much character it had. Therefore, that leaves us with people needing to add on to the structure to get their money out of it (“economic hardship” as described in the Ordinance). This is better than demolition, subdividing lots and building townhomes! It also allows modern people and families to come live in Historic Districts. 1100 sqft is ok for one person and a cat, but my new nextdoor neighbor was only ok for so long keeping his 2^nd daughter in a closet for 1 year due to lack of space. If the only way people can get through the system with as little delay as possible b/c time=money (it is expensive to carry 2 mortgages for a year and a half to get through a project – trust me I know!) is to start the 2^nd story at the back of the house, then they will do it and take up the entire yard. Hence 1630 Cortland. I don’t think they should have to take up their entire yard and start their addition at the back wall b/c this is not written ANYWHERE in the Ordinance and neither is size. A 6600 sqft single lot is big for the Heights, but we all know 6600 sqft is actually very small. 1630 Cortland is the perfect example. I have no idea who the builder/designer/owner is, but I just assume that this was their logic and why they chose the design plan they did. I went to its open house, and the resulting layout is very bizarre. I doubt this house would be shown publicly as a great example of Houston’s Historic Preservation either b/c that would be embarrassing to our fine city.  Prices for dilapidated structures are high because builders anticipate being able to build 3000+ sq ft and are willing to pay 350k for dirt and a dilapidated house.  If they cannot count on building 3000+ sq ft, the prices will come down accordingly.  For most people that will mean instead of making 300k on a house they bought for a rental investment in 1990, they will make 250k.  And I have kids and live in 1100 sq ft.  It is great.  Families in Manhattan would consider 1100 sq ft to be luxury.

I was not around for the creation of the Heights Historic Districts (~2007?); I was apartment-living in Midtown and had just moved to Houston, fresh out of college due to a job offer and the great economy that has done nothing but skyrocket since. I was also not involved in the Amendment process (~2010?) b/c I was not technically in a HD, although sandwiched by 2 one block in both directions.  BUT, I gather from talking to people and reading this blog that it was a VERY, VERY ugly fight. Therefore, my opinion is that opening the ordinance would likely be a long, ugly battle that is not necessarily necessary if the ordinance is simply followed unarbitrarily and as-it-is-written today. That said, I do not see how me being on the HAHC would have anything to do with changing the ordinance in any way whatsoever. I would be only 1 of 13 votes, and I don’t want the Ordinance to go away. Why would a Historic Commissioner fight down a Historic Ordinance? I’m an engineer, not a lawyer like most of you seem to be, but wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest?  The worst case scenario fear is that you would try to undo the districts from within as they cannot get the political support to repeal.  Those who fought long and hard for the ordinance have seen a lot of bad things thrown at them and are very wary of trusting someone who might go in the wrong direction.  Their fight goes back over a decade.  You should at least appreciate that they are going to be vigilant over who they support to be on HAHC. 

 

3.  What specifically would you do if selected to serve on the HAHC to try to reform the process (specifics, not "I would be fair and consistent, yada yada")? Well, to start, I would try to be fair and consistent . I know several of the commissioners DO try to do this too, which I appreciate. I would take a copy of the ordinance, any Design Guidelines (hopefully more get created) and the web-based manual with me to every, single meeting, so I could reference it if I forgot something or was less familiar with a district, even if I had been on the HAHC for years and thought I was a pro. I would listen to the thought and logic that owners/designers put into their design plans and take it into account. 419 Eulid in June was the perfect example where the HAHC DID this…the couple was doing a modest 2^nd story addition that started 3 ft before the 50% line, but did not change any of the walls of the house - not one. They did not have Staff’s recommendation for approval due to this one item, but the Commission heard their case and granted them a COA. I would like to applaud the Commission for this, and I would have voted in favor of their project as well. And, NO – I would not vote to approve everything. And, NO – I would not be biased or favor Creole. I believe that this entire country is at least designed on fair and equal treatment. I would vote to approve projects if they met the Ordinance, and vote against them if they did not meet the Ordinance – plain and simple. The Ordinance is a legal document, and the HAHC is obligated to enforce this legal document – not more and not less.  I also believe that more objective standards is a good thing and that there should be a set of pre-approved designs that everyone agrees will work.  I also believe that the HAHC still needs to retain some subjective discretion because things like "scale" and architectural consistency do not always lend themselves to specific guidelines. 

 

4.  If you could make amendments to the ordinance, what would you change? See bottom of #2 above. I don’t think it necessarily needs changing, but more consistent application as it is written. What if people knew they had some sort of clarity on what was ok and what was not ok? The legal document has not changed now for 3 years, but it is being enforced VERY differently, even within the same meeting (e.g. 1811 Harvard vs 415 Arlington in June). What if people knew that they could go up at 50% and out at 30% like the "shall approve" section dictates? I have never seen one project "qualify" for the "shall approve" section, and I sincerely doubt that the intent of having a "shall approve" section was to never have anyone ever utilize it. Why would the original Ordinance writers spend the time writing this section if no one could ever use it? The "shall approve" section also does not have critical words like "OR" stating that you can only do one of the "shall approves"...not multiple. If the aforementioned items were the case, then I don’t think there would be nearly as many aggrieved homeowners. Designers would know what to do and could get their owners through the system with more clarity and less wasted time (without forcing people to build 1630 Cortland). I have also been through the process, which I do not know if any of the other Commissioners have actually been through it? Because of this, I would be able to empathize with the home owners and understand the effort that they have put into their project in our Historic Districts. The "shall approve" sections do not divest the HAHC of their discretion to look at scale and the character of the neighborhood.  I do agree that inconsistency and unpredictability are bad.  But, I think the inconsistency and unpredictability have been the result of HAHC being too permissive.  I would support more objective standards as long as they really required respect of the scale of the neighborhood.  In other words, anyone wanting to shoot for the moon and build 3300 sq ft should not get an automatic pass.  They should have to work with HAHC's interpretation of scale and the character of the neighborhood.  But, if you are doing an addition that is in the neighborhood of 1800-2200 sq ft total, then I would be ok with some standards that require approval or pre-approved foot prints/designs.  It is possible to pack in a lot of sq ft without getting the "humper house" look.  Telescoping roof lines make a big difference as do other modifications.  But, anyone going for the big sq footage needs to have some subjective scrutiny as that size is always the one that has issues of scale.  Of course, I am talking about renovations, not new construction.

 

Finally and most importantly, I would thank people more for their contributions to our historic neighborhoods and commend their significant investment/contribution. Some people DO get thanked, but it is not nearly enough. It is usually someone with a lot of clout, not your average John Smith like me. I realize this is not a specific change to the Ordinance like you have specifically asked in #4 above, but in general, I think thanking owners could/should happen a lot more.

 

Not intending to argue with Brie.  I have made a few responses for the benefit of others who apparently are waiting on pins and needles for me to respond. 

[SilverJK]

Funny how NOBODY had heard of the preservationist's true agenda until a few years ago.  We all thought it was just to stop the Demolition of old homes when it first came about... oh wait, that was the main purpose of it when they got all the signatures in the beginning... nothing a little ammendment won't change though to get your true intentions in place...

 

Nearly everyone here can and would support something to prevent teardowns (if it was in bad enough shape to warrant a teardown, there could be a process to get a demolition permit). 

 

Why in the hell should someone need a historical committee's certificate of appropriateness to change out their windows when nearly half of their neighbors homes are non contributing new structures?  It just doesn't make any sense.  Someone like me, who plans to do a few small - medium rennovations now... and a major rennovation/expansion in 2 years would be extremely annoyed at having to get the COA for every single project. 

 

It reminds of the walmart issue... target is okay... walmart is evil.  Developers are evil, unless they are your catchy named Renovation Developer, then they are okay.  The HDs are PRO-Developers if you haven't noticed....  just a different kind of developer.  Guess who gets to charge a premium because they are always approved by the HAHC.  Yes they are rebuilding old houses, but they are still in it to make money and the HDs help them make even more money.  

 

Dont get me wrong though, I support the Renovation Developers and their milking of the system to make big money.  Taking advantage of a situation is the Real Estate way.

Edited July 16, 2013 by SilverJK

[RedScare]

Dont get me wrong though, I support the Renovation Developers and their milking of the system to make big money.  Taking advantage of a situation is the Real Estate way.

 

I love those guys! Because I know who they are taking that money from. And it ain't historic district opponents.    

[fwki]

.... Developers are evil, unless they are your catchy named Renovation Developer, then they are okay.  The HDs are PRO-Developers if you haven't noticed....  just a different kind of developer.  Guess who gets to charge a premium because they are always approved by the HAHC.  Yes they are rebuilding old houses, but they are still in it to make money and the HDs help them make even more money.  

 

Dont get me wrong though, I support the Renovation Developers and their milking of the system to make big money.  Taking advantage of a situation is the Real Estate way.

 

I'm with you on that one.  It works just like zoning.....Da Man lets you know who to use, and the money goes round and round.  That's why the working man is totally against zoning in any form, cause he gets the short end by design. Look at all these prima donna "preservationist" architects circling this HAHC crowd like sharks, with no more scruples.  And they have a built-in advantage with this corrupt mandatory make-up of the zoning board..."citizens", as they call themselves, get five seats, and look at the freaks that have those.  They all 'bout crapped themselves when Brie made a run.

[Ross]

Sure.  I would only comment that the current trend of turning bungalows into 3000+ sq foot houses is something that is not necessary and is not a good preservation practice.  Many supporters of the ordinance want to see the scale of additions brought back to Earth.  It appears that you have been caught in that argument, which is unfortunate.  I do disagree with your assertion that it is either the original footprint or 3000 sq ft.  Suburban builders have convinced us that we will die if we do not live in a house that is at least 3000 sq ft.  I grew up in a house with 4 beds, 2.5 bath, dining room, living room, den, and an eat in kitchen.  It was 2000 sq ft.  It is in the NE and sold back in early 2000 for $600k (no additions).  It is possible to do additions to bungalows and have lots of bedrooms for kids and visitors without having to build it out to 3000+ sq ft.  Investors can and do rehab dilapidated bungalows in the Heights without having to build out over 3000 sq ft. and still make a very nice profit.  Most chose to do over 3000 sq ft because the biggest return is on that amount of sq ft.  In short, the giant additions are not a necessity either as an actual need of the resident or by the economics of the investor/builder.

It doesn't really matter whether or not you think a 3000 square foot house is un-necessary. That's totally up to the property owner, and it should not be any of your concern. And I say that as someone who lives in a 1400 square foot 2 bed one bath house with a wife and child. Scale is irrelevant, unless it's your property.

[Morrison]

Brie- interesting company you keep. Your defenders do nothing to help your cause.

[JJxvi]

lmao. Welcome.

[Angostura]

Some of the design guidelines actually encourage renovators to increase the total size of the house.  By requiring that additions start close to the back of the existing structure, and original materials be preserved to the extent possible, there is very little flexibility to how to lay out the house.

 

Here are two examples of more modest-sized homes that in my opinion look great:

 

http://www.har.com/homevalue/337-W-22nd-St-Houston-77008-M43760434.htm

http://www.har.com/homevalue/344-W-22nd-St-Houston-77008-M97582416.htm

 

 

Both sold in the high 600's if I'm not mistaken, despite being less than 3000 s.f.

 

However, neither would pass muster in the HD's, since both projects retained only a fraction of the original structures (about the front 1/3 or so). I suspect a high proportion of HD residents would be happy to live next door to these, as they retain the character of the original if not that much of the material. 

 

 

[Marksmu]

Some of the design guidelines actually encourage renovators to increase the total size of the house.  By requiring that additions start close to the back of the existing structure, and original materials be preserved to the extent possible, there is very little flexibility to how to lay out the house.

 

Here are two examples of more modest-sized homes that in my opinion look great:

 

http://www.har.com/homevalue/337-W-22nd-St-Houston-77008-M43760434.htm

http://www.har.com/homevalue/344-W-22nd-St-Houston-77008-M97582416.htm

 

 

Both sold in the high 600's if I'm not mistaken, despite being less than 3000 s.f.

 

However, neither would pass muster in the HD's, since both projects retained only a fraction of the original structures (about the front 1/3 or so). I suspect a high proportion of HD residents would be happy to live next door to these, as they retain the character of the original if not that much of the material. 

 

I logged into my realtor portal for you - This is direct from HAR:

 

337 w. 22nd sold for $655,000, after 2 days on the market.

344 W 22nd sold for $675,000 after 42 days on the market.

[briekelman]

As someone who is in the middle on this topic - both a preservationist who LIKES the ordinance in principle while thinking the enforcement of this legal document could be improved with more consistency:

 

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle.

 

(my first attempt to be funny on a blog    )

 

Brie- interesting company you keep. Your defenders do nothing to help your cause.

 

 

[briekelman]

You have hit the nail right on the head with those 2 examples.

 

The way the ordinance is being enforced (not written), you cannot do anything to the front 2/3 - 3/4 of the house (yes, I am intentionally saying 2 numbers b/c that is what is said by a Historic Commissioner over and over again). The legal document says you can go up at 50% and out at 30%, and nowhere are 67% or 75% written. I did not want/need my house to end up being 3000 sqft; frankly it will make me house-poor with less green space, which I do not like. I originally planned our budget on ~2500 sqft, but was not allowed to do this. I want an upstairs' master bedroom with 2 small kids rooms connected with a jack-and-jill bathroom, so that we could be close to the kid(s) if things happen in the night (even though a realtor told me the market prefers a downstairs' master). The furthest forward I could start my 2nd story when I read the Ordinance (50%) made the house ~3,000 sqft. However, Staff recommended me for denial b/c I wouldn't push the 2nd story back 10 ft, making it 350 sqft bigger to 3,350. That is why I appealed - I wanted to keep it smaller and didn't think I should be forced to make it bigger when it is not written anywhere.

 

The attached photo is of a Brickmoon project at the corner of Highland and Studewood in the Woodland Heights - just outside of a Historic District. It is a modest, side addition (maybe ~10 ft out to the side? with no 2nd story) that comes to the front of the property. Because the addition comes to the front wall, it would not have been allowed in a HD. However, I think it looks seamless and definitely keeps in character with the original house....hard to remember how the original house looked any different?

 

 

Some of the design guidelines actually encourage renovators to increase the total size of the house.  By requiring that additions start close to the back of the existing structure, and original materials be preserved to the extent possible, there is very little flexibility to how to lay out the house.

 

Here are two examples of more modest-sized homes that in my opinion look great:

 

http://www.har.com/homevalue/337-W-22nd-St-Houston-77008-M43760434.htm

http://www.har.com/homevalue/344-W-22nd-St-Houston-77008-M97582416.htm

 

 

Both sold in the high 600's if I'm not mistaken, despite being less than 3000 s.f.

 

However, neither would pass muster in the HD's, since both projects retained only a fraction of the original structures (about the front 1/3 or so). I suspect a high proportion of HD residents would be happy to live next door to these, as they retain the character of the original if not that much of the material. 

 

 

[Marksmu]

You have hit the nail right on the head with those 2 examples.

 

The way the ordinance is being enforced (not written), you cannot do anything to the front 2/3 - 3/4 of the house (yes, I am intentionally saying 2 numbers b/c that is what is said by a Historic Commissioner over and over again). The legal document says you can go up at 50% and out at 30%, and nowhere are 67% or 75% written. I did not want/need my house to end up being 3000 sqft; frankly it will make me house-poor with less green space, which I do not like. I originally planned our budget on ~2500 sqft, but was not allowed to do this. I want an upstairs' master bedroom with 2 small kids rooms connected with a jack-and-jill bathroom, so that we could be close to the kid(s) if things happen in the night (even though a realtor told me the market prefers a downstairs' master). The furthest forward I could start my 2nd story when I read the Ordinance (50%) made the house ~3,000 sqft. However, Staff recommended me for denial b/c I wouldn't push the 2nd story back 10 ft, making it 350 sqft bigger to 3,350. That is why I appealed - I wanted to keep it smaller and didn't think I should be forced to make it bigger when it is not written anywhere.

 

The attached photo is of a Brickmoon project at the corner of Highland and Studewood in the Woodland Heights - just outside of a Historic District. It is a modest, side addition (maybe ~10 ft out to the side? with no 2nd story) that comes to the front of the property. Because the addition comes to the front wall, it would not have been allowed in a HD. However, I think it looks seamless and definitely keeps in character with the original house....hard to remember how the original house looked any different?

 

Now you are using facts/logic to argue with preservationists....the preservationist loathe facts & logic.  They fight with emotion, emotion, no matter how illogical, can never be wrong. 

The ordinance is about control and property values...if you control the structures, you control the value.  Its not about preservation, history, or anything else.  Its a very vocal minority attempting to assert control over people who just want to go on about their lives.

 

S3MH says we "cant get the political support to repeal" the ordinance - but that is a half truth....the support is there, the political environment is not.  To repeal something is very different than enacting it, and everything is politics....this is a very insignificant issue in Houston, its just significant in our neighborhood.  The council, the HAHC, everyone is making sure that everyone who appeals wins - that is not coincidental.  To appeal costs money, if you have the money to appeal and to stage the fight, then you probably have the money to sue too - As it is right now, there is an argument that the ordinance has not actually caused anyone harm...without harm or damages there is no standing to sue...It will most likely take someone being denied at the appeal level to gain standing.  If the council just approves everyone, the ordinance can not be judically over-turned, which is why everything gets approved.  It takes money to win, and so far not enough of it has been ponied up.  The support for the districts, and the ordinance is nowhere near what the preservationist would have you believe it is...they used dirty methods and trickery to enact the ordinance, more & more people who later find out they are harmed by this will continue to drop their "support" for this ordinance.  I see it daily, as more and more families want more space without moving out of the area.

 

The ordinance IS anti-family, and while it IS possible to live in a small space, very very few people want to do so....especially those who have the money to live where they want and in the house of their choice, like so many Heights residents.

[fwki]

..........The council, the HAHC, everyone is making sure that everyone who appeals wins - that is not coincidental.  To appeal costs money, if you have the money to appeal and to stage the fight, then you probably have the money to sue too - As it is right now, there is an argument that the ordinance has not actually caused anyone harm...without harm or damages there is no standing to sue...It will most likely take someone being denied at the appeal level to gain standing.  If the council just approves everyone, the ordinance can not be judically over-turned, which is why everything gets approved.  It takes money to win, and so far not enough of it has been ponied up.........

 

The outcome of the sub-committee should confirm or rebutt this argument.  I'm not sure this HAHC faction is smart enough to actually be gaming the system to prevent a significant lawsuit though.  The Planning Committee on-the-other-hand is definitely focused on the bigger picture and they are tired or even pissed off at having to clean-up after the HAHC.  Ths is latest one took the cake with absoultey NO reasons or basis discussed or given by the HAHC for denial, thus a unanimous vote to overturn.

 

So the goal of the sub-committee is to gain alignment between the two commisions on appeals, and what they come up with will certainly tell us a lot about the politics behind the scenes.  If it drags on until after the election though, get ready for World War Z because the outcome will end the big additions, ditch precedent and what we were sold as CoA guidelines.  If you look at everything Gafrick has been doing and saying over the last two years, that is her intent.

 

 

Just got this email from Mayor's staff referring to the earlier email I posted above:

 

Dear Council Member Lovell, Mr. <redacted> and Mr. <redacted>:

 

I need to clarify the note the Mayor sent yesterday in terms of the subcommittee’s charge.  The mission of the subcommittee is to work through what happens when the Historical and Archeological Commission denies a Certificate of Appropriateness and the appeals procedures for the Planning Commission.  It is not charged with revising the ordinance certificate of appropriateness criteria.  The Mayor regrets any misunderstanding the language of the note might have created.

 

Madeleine G. Appel

Deputy Chief of Staff

Office of the Mayor

City of Houston

832-393-1078

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2013 by fwki

[barracuda]

Some of the design guidelines actually encourage renovators to increase the total size of the house.  By requiring that additions start close to the back of the existing structure, and original materials be preserved to the extent possible, there is very little flexibility to how to lay out the house.

 

Here are two examples of more modest-sized homes that in my opinion look great:

 

http://www.har.com/homevalue/337-W-22nd-St-Houston-77008-M43760434.htm

http://www.har.com/homevalue/344-W-22nd-St-Houston-77008-M97582416.htm

 

 

Both sold in the high 600's if I'm not mistaken, despite being less than 3000 s.f.

 

However, neither would pass muster in the HD's, since both projects retained only a fraction of the original structures (about the front 1/3 or so). I suspect a high proportion of HD residents would be happy to live next door to these, as they retain the character of the original if not that much of the material. 

 

These are great examples of how additions should be done. From my perspective, the exterior physical materials are less relevant to making the house "historic" than the style and proportion of the house. The biggest problem with the historic ordinance is that it forces additions to take on strange and ridiculous camelback proportions that would never have been built when the homes were originally constructed. On the other hand, these additions are far less noticeable and don't stick out like a sore thumb. Even better, they provide a house with better flow and allow the homeowners to preserve more yard space by centering the house rather than pushing most of the addition awkwardly to the back yard. 

[Eggplant]

Those are both beautiful homes.  I would be lucky to live in either one of them and would enjoy seeing them in my neighborhood.  Marksmu - can you please explain the relevance of the "sales price range" that appears in HAR listings of sold homes?  Based on the "What is Sales Price Range" blurb on the website, it's a pretty meaningless number.  Why do they bother listing it?

[JJxvi]

These are great examples of how additions should be done. From my perspective, the exterior physical materials are less relevant to making the house "historic" than the style and proportion of the house. The biggest problem with the historic ordinance is that it forces additions to take on strange and ridiculous camelback proportions that would never have been built when the homes were originally constructed. On the other hand, these additions are far less noticeable and don't stick out like a sore thumb. Even better, they provide a house with better flow and allow the homeowners to preserve more yard space by centering the house rather than pushing most of the addition awkwardly to the back yard. 

 

If you had your way nobody would be able to buy a camelback and demolish the obvious added part to go back to 1930 like everyone will soon want to!

Edited July 16, 2013 by JJxvi

[Marksmu]

Those are both beautiful homes.  I would be lucky to live in either one of them and would enjoy seeing them in my neighborhood.  Marksmu - can you please explain the relevance of the "sales price range" that appears in HAR listings of sold homes?  Based on the "What is Sales Price Range" blurb on the website, it's a pretty meaningless number.  Why do they bother listing it?

 

Im not sure why they do it, best as I can guess is that its done to give you a rough idea of the price, but that you still need to contact a realtor to actually find out for sure.  I think its just another way to generate leads - Data that gives you an idea, but really just drives your curiosity into making a phone call to find out the exact price.  That phone call is the foot in the door and the agents are happy. 

 

That is however, just my guess.  Its not something an agent inputs, at least I don't and I don't know where it would be input...

[Eggplant]

Thanks for the reply.  It's surprising they would feature such meaningless values so prominently on the page.  In the case of 337 W 22nd, the "rough idea" is a 90K range.  Not very helpful if we're trying to get a feel for how listing price and final sales prices compare.

[DunkinNuts]

Wow you miss a lot when you take a week off. Just want to throw my two cents in, we are new to the area and have mostly lived in the NE so we are very familiar with historic districts and in my opinion and observations the only good the districts in houston are doing is preventing a large apartment complex from being built next to my house. Other than that i really don't see the point, houston lost its history a long time ago and as long as the new homes and additions look like they fit in then who cares about square footage. I will say i find it interesting how strong the property rights is here, having lived in a lot of places with zoning and strong ordinances we have gotten use to restrictions but i will say i am really enjoying the other side of it.

[OutfieldDan]

It's time to face up to it. The problem with the ordinance is that it's forcing very ugly restorations upon the neighborhood.  The ordinance and HAHC are ruining the Heights. There are lots of larger new homes in the Heights that fit in nicely with our look and feel.  Some new homes aren't craftsman and they look good too. After all, the Heights has evolved to be diverse in many respects. I would much rather see some of these obsolete dilapidated bungalows torn down and replaced by nice new two story homes instead of having new construction being forced into ugly camelbacks.  I despise the camelback design.

[RedScare]

This! ^^^

[heights]

I just saw two guys walking up and down Harvard Street taking notes and using some sort of electronic device on a tripod.  I asked them what they were doing and they said, "We're from the City, and we're measuring all of the contributing structures in the Historic Districts."

 

It kind of reminded me of, "We're from the government, and we're here to help you."

[briekelman]

At the Historic Preservation Fair, I was talking to the Director of Planning, and she said they were going to have a couple of interns this summer to take measurements of the houses around the neighborhoods to create a database. I think having data will be great; I just hope that the interns will know what they are doing to make sure that the data is accurate.

[TGM]

At the Historic Preservation Fair, I was talking to the Director of Planning, and she said they were going to have a couple of interns this summer to take measurements of the houses around the neighborhoods to create a database. I think having data will be great; I just hope that the interns will know what they are doing to make sure that the data is accurate.

Is this specific to historic areas or are they just going around tresspassing in a variety of neighborhoods.

[fwki]

Scale police on recognizance.

Part of the New Deal by Gafrick, she stated it at the HAHC & PC meetings.

Since the former districts no longer have Design Guidelines for CoA use, supplanting with Scale Police database and their new Web-based mouse maze.

 

Edited July 19, 2013 by fwki

[Morrison]

Lots of concern trolling on this site. Lots.

[Marksmu]

Is this specific to historic areas or are they just going around tresspassing in a variety of neighborhoods.

 

I hate the districts as much or more than the next person, but if its done from the street or sidewalk its pretty clearly not tresspassing.

[briekelman]

Definitely specific to historic areas and likely specific to contributing structures only (I can't remember specifically, but I'm 95% sure that's the case). They only have so many resources, and there are a LOT of historic districts, so I would assume they need to have a narrow focus.

 

Is this specific to historic areas or are they just going around tresspassing in a variety of neighborhoods.