The Heights Historic Districts

[Subdude]

I don't have a dog in this hunt either, but the same point holds as I've made defending the Ashby protesters - even if it leads to what might be considered suboptimal outcomes, it's hard to blame people for acting in their own financial interests.  

 

 

[Marksmu]

I feel for them as it would really suck if you bought a house in your 20's, raised a family in it with all the memories and such and then be forced out by circumstances beyond their control.  It's a losing battle, though.

 

I have some sympathy for their plight, but this scenario plays out in every major city in the US...it is a cost of living in a city...yes they will have to move somewhere else, moving sucks, but as one heck of a going away present the people that they hate are giving them about 70% more for their property than they could have gotten 5 years ago.

[august948]

I have some sympathy for their plight, but this scenario plays out in every major city in the US...it is a cost of living in a city...yes they will have to move somewhere else, moving sucks, but as one heck of a going away present the people that they hate are giving them about 70% more for their property than they could have gotten 5 years ago.

 

I wonder how much this trend will affect apartments inside the loop and/or near the heights.  If I were in that position and I really loved the area then I'd probably try to find more affordable accomodations nearby.

 

[flatline]

I'm absolutely dumbfounded by this.  Does Mr. Marsh have a job?  Was the fact that the Zuckers (who live at least a 1/2 mile away from him) were going to remove a bad mid 90's addition and renovate their fee simple property in a way that, while a significant improvement, was not quite up to his standards so egregious, so critical to his existence, and so important to his life that he spent a few hours at the planning commission and who knows how many other hours involving himself in the Zucker family's life and property and actively working to cause the government to exert its power to prevent the Zuckers from making decisions for their own family and property as they saw fit, and contrary to the expressed sentiments of what appeared to be the entire block of supportive neighbors who actually live near the house?

 

Pardon the run-on sentence, which is certainly not consistent with the aesthetic character of the topic thread. . .

 

 

[Angostura]

http://houstontx.swagit.com/play/10312013-616

Click on Roman numeral v on right.

2 were overturned and 2 were upheld (both of Bungalow Revival's projects were denied coa's - Houston's best and most famous historic preservationist)

A - bicycle bungalow - overturned Hahc

B - bungalow revival - upheld Hahc (my new next door neighbors who are only adding 835 SF by removing a bad 90's addition

C - creole new construction - overturned Hahc

D - Bungalow Revival - upheld Hahc and denied a dormer

A lot of emotion and exhaustion right now, and I sincerely hope that this doesn't result in my new neighbors moving.

 

 

At some point, the Planning Commission is going to get tired of spending 2 hours every other week talking about whether dormers are Queen Anne or Craftsman.  Unfortunately, not much is likely to change until City Council gets tired of it, too, so I hope the Zucker's appeal to City Council.

[s3mh]

I'm absolutely dumbfounded by this.  Does Mr. Marsh have a job?  Was the fact that the Zuckers (who live at least a 1/2 mile away from him) were going to remove a bad mid 90's addition and renovate their fee simple property in a way that, while a significant improvement, was not quite up to his standards so egregious, so critical to his existence, and so important to his life that he spent a few hours at the planning commission and who knows how many other hours involving himself in the Zucker family's life and property and actively working to cause the government to exert its power to prevent the Zuckers from making decisions for their own family and property as they saw fit, and contrary to the expressed sentiments of what appeared to be the entire block of supportive neighbors who actually live near the house?

 

Pardon the run-on sentence, which is certainly not consistent with the aesthetic character of the topic thread. . .

 

Who are you to tell this guy that he should not participate in the democratic process?  It is an open forum and a public process.  He has every bit as much of a right to participate as do the applicants.  If you disagree with him, fine.  State your argument.  But calling him out just for standing up for what he believes in and participating in an open forum is just flat out wrong.

[Marksmu]

Who are you to tell this guy that he should not participate in the democratic process?  It is an open forum and a public process.  He has every bit as much of a right to participate as do the applicants.  If you disagree with him, fine.  State your argument.  But calling him out just for standing up for what he believes in and participating in an open forum is just flat out wrong.

 

I AM YELLING AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS:   HE SHOULD HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS TO A HOUSE HE DOES NOT OWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

 

What another person does to their PRIVATE PROPERTY is not a democratic process.

 

We should call out every single socialist who think they should get to control other people's property.  Call each and every one out by name over and over again...print their names in the newspaper...rent billboards, we should shame each and every one of them into submission...if I have learned nothing from watching politics its that the more an issue gets a light and a magnifying glass, the more clear it is that the issue should never have been undertaken by government in the first place.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Marksmu

[arche_757]

Woah...

 

I understand both sides from you two.  Cities prosper by having both sides of the argument, they fail by having one or the other sides weilding too much power.  It is best to meet in the middle, and in the case of Mr Marsh it seems that perhaps he is being far too nitpicky over "styles" and less so over an actual rational reason for rejecting a project.

 

And to a lesser extent the Heights is a historic neighborhood (as far as Houston goes) but it *should not* hamper reasonable development.  Sensible designs should be allowed without such vitriol from either group (not speaking about any one in particular).  As when people get mad at each other compromise fails and that hurts everyone particularly those who are the actual "victims" (so to speak) as their voices get drowned out by both sides.  City Hall needs to get involved, but doubt anything comes of anything until January after the election cycle has run and politicians need to burn off the caloric intake following Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Edited November 1, 2013 by arche_757

[s3mh]

I AM YELLING AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS:   HE SHOULD HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS TO A HOUSE HE DOES NOT OWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

 

What another person does to their PRIVATE PROPERTY is not a democratic process.

 

We should call out every single socialist who think they should get to control other people's property.  Call each and every one out by name over and over again...print their names in the newspaper...rent billboards, we should shame each and every one of them into submission...if I have learned nothing from watching politics its that the more an issue gets a light and a magnifying glass, the more clear it is that the issue should never have been undertaken by government in the first place.

 

And until the law changes from what it is to what you want it to be, Mr. Marsh and others very much have the right to participate and speak out for what they believe is right. 

[s3mh]

Very sad indeed.  It seems the very vocal minority with the most extreme views has officially taken hold in our neighborhood.  Really sad indeed.  I was out trick or treating last night, and one thing was abundantly clear to me - 90+% of the new construction which is family friendly was occupied by families with young children (average age looked to be 3), while the ultra majority of the original housing was occupied by older people with no kids at all.  On top of that, of the original houses on the 3 streets we went on, about 60% were not participating in Halloween at all.  Lights off, gates locked...

 

I say this as anecdotal evidence of what I already know to be true.  The older people, with no families who wish to keep the Heights "historic" are fighting the growth of the neighborhood to keep their property values lower not because they care even one iota about preservation...They may think their house is cute and that it is a good size for them, but their fight is about nothing more than not getting taxed out of the area.  When the neighborhood comes out at night, like it did last night, the segregation between the two groups is abundantly clear.

 

I also went trick or treating.  Only one of the new builds on my street were answering the door for trick or treaters.  They are empty nesters who are about 5-10 years from retirement.  The other new builds are young couples who weren't home and one other empty nester who kept the porch light off.  The six families with kids all live in original homes with varying degrees of additions.  The one ardent anti-ordinance resident is old and retired.  From what I gather, she was opposed because she wanted to be able to get lot value in the event she had to sell and move into a retirement/assisted living home and did not want to have her property values restricted by the ordinance.   

 

The number of retired residents in the Heights who have so little retirement income that rising property taxes are an issue for them are so small that they are insignificant as a political force.  Most of the residents from the old days have sold and moved on.  The retired residents who remain tend to be very well off and are not concerned about their property taxes. 

 

The reality is that the pro-historic preservation people are a broad mix of young and old.  Conservative and liberal.  Rich and poor.  It is funny how whenever an argument comes up over something about the ordinance that the discussion quickly turns to a personal attack on pro-ordinance people instead of an objective discussion about how to solve problems and make things better for all. 

[JJxvi]

I agree that it comes from a sense of smug superiority and arrogance rather than an actual economic decision for most of those people.

[Heightsfamily]

Okay, I just have to respond to the trick-or treating comments! I live across from the new Sullivan Brothers houses on 16th street. All were open for trick-or-treating business despite being either "empty nesters 5-10 years from retirement" or "young couples". Lots of cute decorations, and I noted that the parents of the trick-or-treaters were socializing on the sidewalk while the kiddos were doing their thing - totally a neighborhood feeling. I felt guilty that we were going out and not handing out candy. There is room is this neighborhood for all sorts of people including us who are bridging the gap between parenting and empty-nesting all the while living in our 1899 house across from the beautifully built 2013 Sullivan Brothers homes. Viva la difference! Sorry for the poor french.

[innerlooper]

I AM YELLING AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS:   HE SHOULD HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS TO A HOUSE HE DOES NOT OWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

 

 

 

 

 

Marksmu, I take it you don't have to live next to this free spirit. Location: about as far from the Heights as the new Walmart.

[Morrison]

I'm still waiting for someone in the district to switch with me. You want out. I want in. Trades-ies anyone?

[Marksmu]

Marksmu, I take it you don't have to live next to this free spirit. Location: about as far from the Heights as the new Walmart.

 

The historic ordinance would do absolutely nothing to prevent that ugliness until the person tried to fix or remodel that ugly house.  The ordinance does not prevent hording, rebuilding old junkers in your front or back yard, or anything else.  It applies only to the structure itself.  The only thing that will get rid of something like that would be deed restrictions, and the Heights, except for some small pocket areas, are not deed restricted.  Its clear as day on your title search - it says unrestricted...that means, you can have a house, a townhome, an apartment, a manufacturing facility, a hospital, or a small vegetable farm next door.  You really dont know, and you really do not have any say.

 

While, I personally hate the historic ordinance, a case could be made for a very limited set of deed restrictions (which I also hate)  The problem there being that the second you open the door to deed restrictions at all, you will have the crazy historic nuts thinking that they need to limit everything, and they would try.  Its for that reason I do not support deed restrictions too....while they could be beneficial to prevent blight - they would be abused by nuts and end up being another hoop you have to jump through.

 

The appreciation in our area is rapid enough that homes like that are becoming less and less common. Just keep waiting, when the property there gets high enough those people see dollar signs and they will pick up and move.

[Marksmu]

And until the law changes from what it is to what you want it to be, Mr. Marsh and others very much have the right to participate and speak out for what they believe is right. 

 

Well since Mr. Marsh has injected himself into the public spotlight by attending these meetings and allowing himself to be broadcast on the internet  by the council and in these "historic" meetings we should know a little bit more about him.  If he has a right to have an opinion about other people and their property, we should have a right to know about him and let other people know whether or not he is legitimate and practices what he preaches or if he is just a hypocrite. 

 

All information here is 100% publicly available through the city links to you tube, through a google search of Mr. Marsh, or through HCAD.  I have done nothing but compile it in a convenient location, so there is no chance of any invasion of privacy here.  He spoke up, he put himself out there, and the law is clear here - one who puts himself into the spotlight must accept both the positives and the negatives of his actions.

 

Mr. Marsh claimed to have lived in the Heights historic area for 37 years in the youtube video at city council which can be seen here:

(statement at about the 3 hr and 7 min)

 

He is concerned about the lack of input  the neighbors have on other peoples property and the fact that they are tearing down homes to build new ones.  Well where does Mr. Marsh live.  HCAD tells me that he lives at 15XX Arlington St.  What is funny about 15XX Arlington is that it is NEW CONSTRUCTION.  The same type of new construction which he wishes to prevent.  HCAD informs us that the house this pro-preservation anti-new construction, anti-remodel champion lives in was built in 1996 and is 2725 square feet (much larger than the remodels he opposes)  So the champion of historic shacks, is also too good to live in them.  That makes him a hypocrite in my book.  

 

But a google search provides more information.  A person by the name of Jean Steinhardt does home portraits.  She did a home portrait for Mr. Marsh along with a little bio - in this bio she states why it is that Mr Marsh moved from a bungalow into a brand new home:  "they (Mr. Marsh) lived in their Heights bungalow on Oxford Street for several years. The house began to seem too small, but adding on was not feasible"  http://www.jeansteinhardt.com/marsh.htm

 

So a bungalow is good enough for you and your family with growing kids, but not good enough for just him and his wife.  He needed more space, you, well you dont need it or deserve it!  He deserves new construction with modern amenities, but YOU do not.  You must keep your old windows and doors, your old wood siding, your old shutters, etc, etc, etc.  He gets the new, you are stuck with the old.  There is a word for this:  HYPOCRITE!  Its appalling....I am offended that someone who does not practice what he preaches would dare to go out and tell others that they can not do EXACTLY what he is doing.   His life must really be pathetic if he has the time and the energy to go out and try to ensure that others can not do exactly what he has already done.  It sickening. 

 

I feel very sorry for the Zucker's they have been denied the RIGHT to use their property in a way that they deem best, by a group of snobs, who do not practice what they preach at all.   Mr. Marsh, you sir are a hypocrite who truly needs to find something better to do than harass your neighbors. 

[JJxvi]

Every neighborhood for all time has had nutcases who stick their noses where it doesn't belong and try to run other people's lives "for the good of everybody"

 

Some neighborhoods don't give those people power and some do.

[little frau]

Harris County Clerk's site shows Mr. Marsh bought the 15xx Oxford house in 1976 and sold it in 1996.  Surprisingly, it is on it's 5th owner since then.  The 4th owner remodeled in 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

[s3mh]

Well since Mr. Marsh has injected himself into the public spotlight by attending these meetings and allowing himself to be broadcast on the internet  by the council and in these "historic" meetings we should know a little bit more about him.  If he has a right to have an opinion about other people and their property, we should have a right to know about him and let other people know whether or not he is legitimate and practices what he preaches or if he is just a hypocrite. 

 

All information here is 100% publicly available through the city links to you tube, through a google search of Mr. Marsh, or through HCAD.  I have done nothing but compile it in a convenient location, so there is no chance of any invasion of privacy here.  He spoke up, he put himself out there, and the law is clear here - one who puts himself into the spotlight must accept both the positives and the negatives of his actions.

 

Mr. Marsh claimed to have lived in the Heights historic area for 37 years in the youtube video at city council which can be seen here:

(statement at about the 3 hr and 7 min)

 

He is concerned about the lack of input  the neighbors have on other peoples property and the fact that they are tearing down homes to build new ones.  Well where does Mr. Marsh live.  HCAD tells me that he lives at 15XX Arlington St.  What is funny about 15XX Arlington is that it is NEW CONSTRUCTION.  The same type of new construction which he wishes to prevent.  HCAD informs us that the house this pro-preservation anti-new construction, anti-remodel champion lives in was built in 1996 and is 2725 square feet (much larger than the remodels he opposes)  So the champion of historic shacks, is also too good to live in them.  That makes him a hypocrite in my book.  

 

But a google search provides more information.  A person by the name of Jean Steinhardt does home portraits.  She did a home portrait for Mr. Marsh along with a little bio - in this bio she states why it is that Mr Marsh moved from a bungalow into a brand new home:  "they (Mr. Marsh) lived in their Heights bungalow on Oxford Street for several years. The house began to seem too small, but adding on was not feasible"  http://www.jeansteinhardt.com/marsh.htm

 

So a bungalow is good enough for you and your family with growing kids, but not good enough for just him and his wife.  He needed more space, you, well you dont need it or deserve it!  He deserves new construction with modern amenities, but YOU do not.  You must keep your old windows and doors, your old wood siding, your old shutters, etc, etc, etc.  He gets the new, you are stuck with the old.  There is a word for this:  HYPOCRITE!  Its appalling....I am offended that someone who does not practice what he preaches would dare to go out and tell others that they can not do EXACTLY what he is doing.   His life must really be pathetic if he has the time and the energy to go out and try to ensure that others can not do exactly what he has already done.  It sickening. 

 

I feel very sorry for the Zucker's they have been denied the RIGHT to use their property in a way that they deem best, by a group of snobs, who do not practice what they preach at all.   Mr. Marsh, you sir are a hypocrite who truly needs to find something better to do than harass your neighbors. 

 

You can call Mr. Marsh all kinds of names (that is the Modus Operandi for the anti-ordinance people when dealing with people who they do not agree with--"snobs", "hypocrite", "lives are pathetic" etc., disparaging historic architecture, "shacks").  You can make substantive counter arguments to what Mr. Marsh said at the hearing (a tactic that is in scarce supply in the rhetoric of the anti-ordinance people).  But, do not question Mr. Marsh's right to stand up in a public forum and express his views.  That right is just as fundamental and sacrosanct as any property right granted by the Constitution. 

 

And your attack on Mr. Marsh, to the extent it is slightly substantive, is woefully lacking.  It is a complete strawman argument.  People who support the ordinance are not against new construction.  In fact, we strongly support new construction when it is consistent with the historic architecture and is not at the expense of the existing historic architecture.  And new construction is great when it replaces non-conforming structures, like ranch style houses or warehouses.  Calling someone a hypocrite just because they live in new construction assumes that supporters of the ordinance are against all new construction.  They are not.  Thus, the argument is completely invalid.

 

According to the link to the portrait studio you found on the internet:

 

"[Mr. Marsh] bought a lot two blocks away on Arlington and had a new house built. In order to help preserve the ambience of the neighborhood they love so much, they chose a builder who specializes in new builds that match the style of much older houses."

 

What we do not know is whether Mr. Marsh tore down an existing structure that was contributing or whether it was a vacant lot or had a structure that could not be saved.  Before publicly calling someone a hypocrite, especially someone you do not know and who had more guts than you to stand up and speak for what he believes in a public forum, you bear the burden of proof to support your claim.  You simply assume that he must have demo-ed a contributing building and is a hypocrite as a result.  That assumption is wrong. 

 

You also fail to understand the issue with size.  There is no per se square footage that is acceptable.  The issue is scale, not square footage.  Square footage is one element of scale, but there is much more to be considered. 

 

And you wrongly assume that Mr. Marsh does not want the homeowner to do anything.  He raises issues with the application and a majority of both the Planning Commission and HAHC agrees with him.  They have not banned any work on the property.  They have just rejected one application.  It is just a fact of life that when you have a subjective approval process that some people will have to go back to the drawing board to make it work.  Builders have pushed the issue of scale by making every new project a near lot filler.  Concerned residents have pushed back.  HAHC has generally responded to resident's concerns and is pushing back on the issue of scale.  It will take some work to try to make the process more predictable, but it can be done.  And that issue will never convince the community to through the baby out with the bath water and go back to the days where there were 200+ demolitions in the Heights every year of historic buildings that could have easily been saved. 

 

[Marksmu]

I do not think he should not be able to make his statements, I support free speech - rather I think if he is going to make them, and make someone else's life suck as a result of them, his life should have to suck just as much.  Its like Obamacare, good enough for me, but not for congress.  What a crock of crap.  I maintain that Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite.  His house looks no different at all than any of the Tricon, Sullivan, Whitestone, Ansari, or Allegra homes that have been built.  Its not historic, it does not look historic, it looks like a new modern victorian, or as the snots say - a McVic.

 

And until you can prove to me that he did not remove a bungalow from that lot, I will assume that he did.  The heights was built out primarily from bungalows, so the burden of proof lies with him, not me...odds are on my side.  For all new construction, something must be removed.  I am seriously doubtful that the lot he purchased was completely vacant, more likely there was a bungalow there that was either too small or was in disrepair - and rather than comply with history and remodel a dilapidated shack or rebuild another tiny bungalow, he built a nice new big house because that was what he wanted for himself...others should not have that opportunity...nope, he is special  So special in fact he created a commission with no authority to make himself feel more special.

 

A google street view of Mr. Marsh's house sure makes that look like Hardi-siding on it....those columns sure look like a builders standard fiberglass column...and those windows are almost certainly double paned insulated glass...None of that is historic in any way and all of those things are dictated by the ordinance.  He does not comply with the ordinance, b/c it doesnt apply to him but by god, it should apply to other people....that is the definition of a hypocrite.  At least some of the supporters of this monstrosity of an ordinance actually live in these old houses. 

 

As to builders demoing old houses, oh well....Builders build what people want.  If they did not, they would not be in business.  The market is currently screaming at the top of its lungs for nice modern homes in the Heights.  People want bigger houses, not crappy glued together houses that make 1 person happy b/c there is an infinitesimally small remote chance that sometime in the year 2110 they may remove the addition and return the 2400 square foot hosue back into a 1100sq ft closet, just like old days.  Heck one day they may look out their wiindow west and see pastures and native prairie again...it could happen. 

 

The fact that the ordinance is subjective is reason enough to throw it out.  A law must be objective to be enforceable, or it is open for abuse.  This law is being abused and should be done away with.  Even your beloved Bungalow Revival is sick of it...There is no fixing this mess.   It must be thrown out....you do not compromise or try to paste together fixes for something this dysfunctional.  Toss it. 

 

[SilverJK]

Seems like it would be in Mr. Marsh's best interest to prevent anyone from adding on to their home, it makes his adequately sized newer home even more valuable.  There is a personal gain there that puts his opinions in a conflict of interest with the contributing structures owners which makes any opinion on scope/style pointless. 

 

 

 

 

[s3mh]

Seems like it would be in Mr. Marsh's best interest to prevent anyone from adding on to their home, it makes his adequately sized newer home even more valuable.  There is a personal gain there that puts his opinions in a conflict of interest with the contributing structures owners which makes any opinion on scope/style pointless. 

 

Looks like you and Marksmu need to duke it out on this one.  He seems to think that the preservationist are all a bunch of retirees who are trying to suppress property values to keep theirs low to avoid rising property taxes.  I suspect that it will be a draw between you two as neither of you is right. 

[s3mh]

I do not think he should not be able to make his statements, I support free speech - rather I think if he is going to make them, and make someone else's life suck as a result of them, his life should have to suck just as much.  Its like Obamacare, good enough for me, but not for congress.  What a crock of crap.  I maintain that Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite.  His house looks no different at all than any of the Tricon, Sullivan, Whitestone, Ansari, or Allegra homes that have been built.  Its not historic, it does not look historic, it looks like a new modern victorian, or as the snots say - a McVic.

 

And until you can prove to me that he did not remove a bungalow from that lot, I will assume that he did.  The heights was built out primarily from bungalows, so the burden of proof lies with him, not me...odds are on my side.  For all new construction, something must be removed.  I am seriously doubtful that the lot he purchased was completely vacant, more likely there was a bungalow there that was either too small or was in disrepair - and rather than comply with history and remodel a dilapidated shack or rebuild another tiny bungalow, he built a nice new big house because that was what he wanted for himself...others should not have that opportunity...nope, he is special  So special in fact he created a commission with no authority to make himself feel more special.

 

A google street view of Mr. Marsh's house sure makes that look like Hardi-siding on it....those columns sure look like a builders standard fiberglass column...and those windows are almost certainly double paned insulated glass...None of that is historic in any way and all of those things are dictated by the ordinance.  He does not comply with the ordinance, b/c it doesnt apply to him but by god, it should apply to other people....that is the definition of a hypocrite.  At least some of the supporters of this monstrosity of an ordinance actually live in these old houses. 

 

As to builders demoing old houses, oh well....Builders build what people want.  If they did not, they would not be in business.  The market is currently screaming at the top of its lungs for nice modern homes in the Heights.  People want bigger houses, not crappy glued together houses that make 1 person happy b/c there is an infinitesimally small remote chance that sometime in the year 2110 they may remove the addition and return the 2400 square foot hosue back into a 1100sq ft closet, just like old days.  Heck one day they may look out their wiindow west and see pastures and native prairie again...it could happen. 

 

The fact that the ordinance is subjective is reason enough to throw it out.  A law must be objective to be enforceable, or it is open for abuse.  This law is being abused and should be done away with.  Even your beloved Bungalow Revival is sick of it...There is no fixing this mess.   It must be thrown out....you do not compromise or try to paste together fixes for something this dysfunctional.  Toss it. 

 

Let's recap some of the arguments made above:

 

1.  You support free speech, but only if it comes with a heavy personal price to the person who takes a position that you oppose.

 

2.  You can anonymously (well, sort of) attack someone by name and address on an internet message board, but do not actually have to have the facts to back it up.  It is the burden of the victim of your attack to rebut your assumptions.

 

3.  Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite because his house does not comply with an ordinance that did not come into existence until 15 years after his home was built. 

 

4.  A law that grants a municipality subjective discretion is void or should be repealed.  So, I guess you will never seek a variance in any of your project and will begin a campaign to strip the City of Houston of the authority to grant variances?

 

And for the record, Bungalow Revival is still a supporter of the ordinance.  But they are grown ups and will work to improve the ordinance and the process before HAHC instead of letting the builders go back to knocking down 200+ bungalows a year and replacing them with an odd mess of faux architecture, pressed together like graham crackers in a box.   

[Angostura]

 

1.  You support free speech, but only if it comes with a heavy personal price to the person who takes a position that you oppose.

 

 

 

 

It is possible to both support free speech AND think someone who goes out of their way to prevent people from putting additions on their houses is kind of a jerk, or at least a busybody.

[JJxvi]

I support the right to give an opinion that someone else is a jerk and hypocrite. After all I might need it here.

[Marksmu]

Let's recap some of the arguments made above:

 

1.  You support free speech, but only if it comes with a heavy personal price to the person who takes a position that you oppose.

 

2.  You can anonymously (well, sort of) attack someone by name and address on an internet message board, but do not actually have to have the facts to back it up.  It is the burden of the victim of your attack to rebut your assumptions.

 

3.  Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite because his house does not comply with an ordinance that did not come into existence until 15 years after his home was built. 

 

4.  A law that grants a municipality subjective discretion is void or should be repealed.  So, I guess you will never seek a variance in any of your project and will begin a campaign to strip the City of Houston of the authority to grant variances?

 

And for the record, Bungalow Revival is still a supporter of the ordinance.  But they are grown ups and will work to improve the ordinance and the process before HAHC instead of letting the builders go back to knocking down 200+ bungalows a year and replacing them with an odd mess of faux architecture, pressed together like graham crackers in a box.   

 

1.  If you go out of your way to make a stranger and a neighbor's life both more difficult and more expensive, then you darn sure better be ready to take what you have coming.  The person who put themselves out there is Mr. Marsh - The Zucker's just want to be left alone to build their house, something Mr. Marsh took the liberty (unrequested) to interject his opinion into - as if ANYONE cares what the hell he says.

 

2.  I have no way of knowing what existed on the lot his built his brand new non-historic home upon.  If he does, he is welcome to share that information.  I am certain he is in a much better place to have that knowledge than I am.   His silence will do nothing other than deepen my belief that he removed a house.

 

3.  Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite b/c he is offended and deeply troubled by the removal and additions onto houses that remove the "historic" nature of the neighborhood.  He claims to have built a house that was intended to mesh with the neighborhood, but he used none of the historic materials he now requires others to use.  He used new windows, not reclaimed ones, he used (I believe) Hardi-Plank and not real wood, he used (I believe) fiberglass columns, not real wood, and he did none of the extensive trim work that is seen on the exterior of the older homes.  So - he is a hypocrite, not b/c his house does not comply with an ordinance that did not exist when it was built, but because he built a house that was supposed to look historic, but used none of the materials he now requires others to use.  He had his choice to add historic elements to the home he built, and he did not, and what I see looks exactly the same as what Tricon was building up until 2006...which you and your ilk call McVics.  

 

4.  A law that is impossible to comply with should be void.  A variance is used when the intent of the law is not met by the strict adherence to the words written.  A variance is a useful tool b/c there will always be exceptions to every rule that require a special circumstance....In the case of the ordinance, the law is so bad that its literally impossible to comply with it b/c what is required changes daily based on the mood of the HAHC, and the builder/architect selected.  Its a members only club, where the members are just know it all busy bodies who should not be in any position to have any power over others.  You cant comply with a moving target, and that is what has been established.

 

Finally - I doubt you are able to speak on the record for Bungalow Revival, unless you are an employee of them - but the owners facebook post from Nov 2 copied below seems to refute what you have written.  This message does not seem like support to me.  It seems to me that even the most historic preservation minded people have now seen that the pro-ordinance people are really just after power and control...this is long past differing reasonable opinions. 

 

"Incredibly Frustrated with the lack of consistency and guidelines we are getting from the Houston Archeological and Historic Commission!!! As owner and designer of Bungalow Revival, I have been a proponent of Historic Districts way before we had them in Houston. I was a founding member of "Save The Bungalows" a Houston based grass-root group formed to promote renovation and strongly oppose demolitions in our historic neighborhoods. I was also one of the founding members of the " Historic Districts Coalition" another group formed to unite Houston's historic neighborhoods to support the passing of the Historic Districts Ordinance. I have been "walking-the-talk" since 1996 when we purchased our first home, a rundown bungalow on the West side of the Houston Heights. In 2003 I started Bungalow Revival. Our very first project was moving and restoring an Historic Victorian Cottage that was scheduled for demolition to make room for new construction. The bungalow I currently live in, we moved to the Heights from Montrose to prevent its demolition... In total we have moved seven houses to protect them from the wrecking ball and renovated and remodeled dozens of historic homes. When we as a community went through the painstaking ordeal to pass the Protected Historic Districts Ordinance we did it in a united front as preservationist. Webster defines Historic Preservation as an endeavor that seeks to preserve, conserve, and protect buildings. That is what we fought for and that is what we propose on doing for every single one of our projects. The HAHC has taken this ordinance and our efforts in a totally different direction from what was presented to the Historic Neighborhoods Community. Our Historic Ordinance is being morphed by the HAHC into a "puritanical" ordinance. Purist is defined as one who has very strong PERSONAL ideas of what is correct or acceptable and who usually opposes changes. Many rules are being changed and/or added continuously. As a builder who practices and promotes preservation within and outside of the Historic Districts I strongly resent the direction the HAHC has been high jacking the ordinance that we as a community of preservationists not purists put in place. Many of the projects being denied by this group (many of these individuals don't even live in Historic Homes nor in Historic Neighborhoods) honor our neighborhoods past and future. Please excuse my rant, but something has to change or this Ordinance just simply and sadly needs to go away!!!"

[SmellyHoustonian]

Marlene Gafrick resigned as planning director for the COH.

 

Get your ducks in order, and lobby for a candidate to replace her that represents your views on the historic district.

[SilverJK]

Looks like you and Marksmu need to duke it out on this one.  He seems to think that the preservationist are all a bunch of retirees who are trying to suppress property values to keep theirs low to avoid rising property taxes.  I suspect that it will be a draw between you two as neither of you is right. 

 

 

I highly doubt Marksmu thinks that every ordinance supporter is a retiree trying to suppress property values.  (quit calling them preservationists as that is an intentional misdirection)

 

 

There are a lot of people that fit in to that bucket (some of them very vocal), Mr. Marsh happens to be in a different group of people.

 

 

Neither of us can be solely right because there is no argument.  I guess your wrong (for having the thought that we are so narrow minded)

 

 

 

Why don't you address what I stated though instead of trying to turn things around and dodge what I said... restricting additions makes Mr. Marsh's house more desirable as the stock of newer, modern, and larger sq. footage houses is held stagnant (or at least reducing the growth of these homes).   He has every right to say whatever he wants, but excluding the fact that he lives in a modern home (I didn't listen to the whole thing but it appeared that he was implying that he lived in a home like the one in question) was intentional as that would take a bit of wind of his sails if it was known.

[Marksmu]

I highly doubt Marksmu thinks that every ordinance supporter is a retiree trying to suppress property values.  (quit calling them preservationists as that is an intentional misdirection)

 

 

There are a lot of people that fit in to that bucket (some of them very vocal), Mr. Marsh happens to be in a different group of people.

 

 

Neither of us can be solely right because there is no argument.  I guess your wrong (for having the thought that we are so narrow minded)

 

 

 

Why don't you address what I stated though instead of trying to turn things around and dodge what I said... restricting additions makes Mr. Marsh's house more desirable as the stock of newer, modern, and larger sq. footage houses is held stagnant (or at least reducing the growth of these homes).   He has every right to say whatever he wants, but excluding the fact that he lives in a modern home (I didn't listen to the whole thing but it appeared that he was implying that he lived in a home like the one in question) was intentional as that would take a bit of wind of his sails if it was known.

 

Ya, I dont actually think that every supporter is merely trying to suppress property values.  There are some true preservationists with unreasonable utopian beliefs mixed into the group.  However, the ultra majority of people who signed the petitions were just plain tricked.  They wanted to stop the lots from being subdivided, stop the townhomes, and preserve the feel of the neighborhood.  Responsible developers like Sullivan, Bastion, Whitestone were already doing a great job and I believe the ultra majority of support was through nothing more than say one thing and do another.  Its apparently perfectly acceptable for neighborhood organizers to promise one thing, do another, and then lie when caught.   I can think of several examples in national headlines just right now.  Status quo for these folks though.  If you cant pass your position with the truth, lie, and then say it would have worked if it were not for the opposition!

 

Truth is that many wanted to suppress property values, some actually care about small houses, some are just nosy power hungry neighbors - but most were just plain tricked.

 

[s3mh]

I highly doubt Marksmu thinks that every ordinance supporter is a retiree trying to suppress property values.  (quit calling them preservationists as that is an intentional misdirection)

 

 

There are a lot of people that fit in to that bucket (some of them very vocal), Mr. Marsh happens to be in a different group of people.

 

 

Neither of us can be solely right because there is no argument.  I guess your wrong (for having the thought that we are so narrow minded)

 

 

 

Why don't you address what I stated though instead of trying to turn things around and dodge what I said... restricting additions makes Mr. Marsh's house more desirable as the stock of newer, modern, and larger sq. footage houses is held stagnant (or at least reducing the growth of these homes).   He has every right to say whatever he wants, but excluding the fact that he lives in a modern home (I didn't listen to the whole thing but it appeared that he was implying that he lived in a home like the one in question) was intentional as that would take a bit of wind of his sails if it was known.

 

Mr. Marsh is not showing up to oppose everything that is going up in the Heights.  In fact he has spoken in support of several projects at commission hearings and has spoken against only a tiny fraction of the applications that go before the commission. 

 

And there is absolutely no stagnation in the number of large homes and additions going up in the Heights.  If anything, the market is getting a bit too top heavy.  There are currently 21 properties on the market for 800k plus just in Houston Heights proper with at least nine new single families approved for the Heights WD that are not even on the market yet.  Face it, the idea of the HAHC causing stagnation in the Heights is an anti-ordinance argument that has long sailed away. 

 

Marksmu is trying to back pedal, but his posts are unambiguous.  He believes that the supporters of the ordinance are all retirees that want to use the ordinance to keep their property values down (isn't working out so well).  Of course, I have no interest in seeing you two argue it out.  I am just pointing out the fact that both arguments have absolutely no basis in reality.