The Heights Historic Districts

[s3mh]

Your math doesn't support your claim.  You state The Heights, so lets review The Heights numbers.  I could care less about other neighborhoods as I do not live there and am only concerned with where I have called home for a VERY long time.

 

170 houses in 18 months does not equal 200 per year.  That works out to be 9.44 houses per month.  Over a 24 month period that equals 226.66 homes, or 173.34 homes short of your 200 home per year claim.

 

Going forward, If you take the 324 total as you state in March 2008 and subtrace the 170 in 2006, that equals 154.  146 short of your 200 per year claim.

 

It all depends on whether you want to play semantics over the term "Heights" in my original post.  I never limited that term to any particular boundary.  You cannot prove me wrong by unilaterally imposing a limitation I never used.  You may care less about other neighborhoods, but there are historic districts in those neighborhoods, so they count.  The statistics show that at the peak, @125 homes were getting demoed a year in the traditional borders of the Heights.  Demo activity in areas like Woodland Heights were just as healthy as in the Heights during the same time period.  So, 200+ demos is at best spot on for the Heights as I define it, at worst, conservative.

 

And the Heights Association statistics did show 2.4 demos a week on average.  Even if I am completely and wildly wrong, you have accomplished very little if you are trying to show that there was no reason for preservation.  @125 demos a year is the equivalent to wiping out about five to six full blocks of homes a year.  In ten years at that rate (and the rate would have only accelerated over time without any restrictions), you could completely wipe all the homes between 11th and 16th from Shep to Yale St.  That is staggering and was the main reason behind the movement to form the districts and get rid of the 90 day waiver, not minimum lot size (as is noted in some of the newsletters from the time frame, separate efforts were being made to address minimum lot size and to try to close the condo loop hole).

[Heights20plusyears]

This was just in the traditional boundaries of the Heights and did not include Woodland Heights, Norhill or other areas considered to be part of the "Greater Heights" (Brookesmith, E. Sunset Heights, etc.).  Add in those areas and you easily have a period during the housing bubble where 200+ were going down in a year.   

 

You are the one that said it DID NOT include other Greater Heights neighborhoods.

[s3mh]

You are the one that said it DID NOT include other Greater Heights neighborhoods.

 

The Heights Association numbers do not include areas outside what is considered the original boundaries of the Heights (4th-30th, Shep to Studewood, basically).  My 200+ extrapolates their numbers to what most people think of when you say "Heights" (including Woodland Heights, Norhill, etc.).

[Heights20plusyears]

The Heights Association numbers do not include areas outside what is considered the original boundaries of the Heights (4th-30th, Shep to Studewood, basically).  My 200+ extrapolates their numbers to what most people think of when you say "Heights" (including Woodland Heights, Norhill, etc.).

 

 

You should be a politician.  You crawfish so well.

[Ross]

It all depends on whether you want to play semantics over the term "Heights" in my original post. I never limited that term to any particular boundary. You cannot prove me wrong by unilaterally imposing a limitation I never used. You may care less about other neighborhoods, but there are historic districts in those neighborhoods, so they count. The statistics show that at the peak, @125 homes were getting demoed a year in the traditional borders of the Heights. Demo activity in areas like Woodland Heights were just as healthy as in the Heights during the same time period. So, 200+ demos is at best spot on for the Heights as I define it, at worst, conservative.

And the Heights Association statistics did show 2.4 demos a week on average. Even if I am completely and wildly wrong, you have accomplished very little if you are trying to show that there was no reason for preservation. @125 demos a year is the equivalent to wiping out about five to six full blocks of homes a year. In ten years at that rate (and the rate would have only accelerated over time without any restrictions), you could completely wipe all the homes between 11th and 16th from Shep to Yale St. That is staggering and was the main reason behind the movement to form the districts and get rid of the 90 day waiver, not minimum lot size (as is noted in some of the newsletters from the time frame, separate efforts were being made to address minimum lot size and to try to close the condo loop hole).

I am trying, but failing, to come up with a reason why demolishing a bunch of crappy houses in the "Heights" is a bad thing. It is not the end of the world, and leads to a better neighborhood.

[s3mh]

I am trying, but failing, to come up with a reason why demolishing a bunch of crappy houses in the "Heights" is a bad thing. It is not the end of the world, and leads to a better neighborhood.

 

I actually respect that statement for its candor.  Of course, I believe the exact opposite is true (can't think of a reason why demolishing a bunch of great houses and replacing them with a bunch of crappy new builds leads to a better neighborhood).  But at least that identifies the real debate instead of trumpeting the old blue sign slogans of being for preservation but against the ordinance.  But if those who are against the ordinance went around the Heights and told everyone that they hated the original housing stock and wanted to tear it all down, more people would come out in favor of the ordinance.  Thus, the carefully crafted slogans about supposedly loving old houses but being against the only thing that keeps people like you from eliminating them from the Heights.

[Marksmu]

I actually respect that statement for its candor.  Of course, I believe the exact opposite is true (can't think of a reason why demolishing a bunch of great houses and replacing them with a bunch of crappy new builds leads to a better neighborhood).  But at least that identifies the real debate instead of trumpeting the old blue sign slogans of being for preservation but against the ordinance.  But if those who are against the ordinance went around the Heights and told everyone that they hated the original housing stock and wanted to tear it all down, more people would come out in favor of the ordinance.  Thus, the carefully crafted slogans about supposedly loving old houses but being against the only thing that keeps people like you from eliminating them from the Heights.

 

I like the old houses - I think they are nice to look at.  I would never want to live in one.  I need more space than the older homes have.  Even after extensive remodels, room sizes can still be significantly too small for my lifestyle.  So while I do like the old houses, I do not want one, and I do not think that anyone should be able to force me to keep one if I owned one.

 

You believe the new builds are crappy.  Some are - most are not.  Most are very nice, and their price tags reflect that.  There are however significantly more crappy old houses than new ones...so I am still ok with demolishing the old ones if a person wants to do so, or keeping it if they want to do that too...I just don't think anyone else should get to tell me what to do to my house.

[Ross]

I actually respect that statement for its candor.  Of course, I believe the exact opposite is true (can't think of a reason why demolishing a bunch of great houses and replacing them with a bunch of crappy new builds leads to a better neighborhood).  But at least that identifies the real debate instead of trumpeting the old blue sign slogans of being for preservation but against the ordinance.  But if those who are against the ordinance went around the Heights and told everyone that they hated the original housing stock and wanted to tear it all down, more people would come out in favor of the ordinance.  Thus, the carefully crafted slogans about supposedly loving old houses but being against the only thing that keeps people like you from eliminating them from the Heights.

 

Shouldn't I be in charge of deciding whether or not my house, which I bought free of restrictions, should be demolished, renovated, or left alone? Why should my neighbor get a say in how I spend my money, or be able to force me to spend more than I planned? I would not be as opposed to the HD ordinance if it gave owners at the time of passage the ability to opt out.

 

 

[Morrison]

Can't the echo chamber be moved to a new page?

[houston082004]

Article in The Leader News about problems people in Heights Historic East are having with the HAHC.

http://www.theleadernews.com/?p=14414

[briekelman]

I don't ever look at haif unless I get an email saying that someone has updated this specific thread. I heard that the recent Leader articles on the topic had been posted on another thread. Therefore, in case others are like me and only check this specific thread, I thought I'd post here too since the subject matter is pertinent to this topic.

 

http://www.theleadernews.com/?p=15142
(Note: there are 7 different articles in this series. You will see a blue box on the middle right section that has links to all 7 different articles)

 

Separately and similarly, yesterday on the cover of the Sunday City and State Section of the Chronicle, there was another article on the topic:

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/houston/article/She-fought-for-historic-preservation-ordinance-5156481.php

 

 

[briekelman]

in case the link for the Chronicle didn't work....here is the article:

 

By Mike Morris

January 19, 2014

 

In October 2010, an emotional Sue Lovell, then a city council­woman, lauded the passage of a strengthened historic preservation ordinance for Houston after a long, complex and divisive battle she and Mayor Annise Parker had led.

In recent months, however, Lovell has appeared before the commissions tasked with implementing the ordinance to lobby on behalf of builders and homeowners seeking to remodel historic homes.

 

What changed?

Not her support for preservation or for the ordinance, Lovell said. What has shifted, she and others said, is the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission's interpretation of the rules.

"I fought for this ordinance," the former councilwoman said, "and I'm going to continue to fight to improve this ordinance."

The rules passed in 2010 prevent property owners from demolishing or altering the exterior of historic buildings in 20 designated districts without the approval of the historical commission. Previously, owners simply had to wait 90 days - even if the commission denied their request.

The topic is divisive, in part, because the restrictions are some of the only land use controls in Houston, the nation's largest unzoned city.

Initially, Lovell and others said, homeowners were told to preserve a historic home's façade by not adding rooms onto the front half of the structure, only to watch the starting point for building restrictions creep toward the back of the house; the historical commission now prefers additions affect only the rear wall.

"Then they come to the commission and the commission says, 'Well I don't want it set all the way back; it's taking up the whole back yard,' " Lovell said. "It's like trying to nail down Jell-O."

Heights resident Brie Kelman said more predictability is needed. Kelman applied last year to renovate a dilapidated bungalow by adding on to the back half of the house to fit her growing family. She has kept the home's original siding, windows, porch and many furnishings, and has repurposed materials removed during the renovations.

The commission voted no, saying Kelman did not follow its staff's suggestion to push the addition farther toward the back of the house and that the design dwarfed the home.

Pushing the addition back would only increase the square footage, take away her yard and increase the cost, Kelman said. She thought her design had satisfied the only clear numbers she could find in the ordinance.

 

Kelman showed the city's Planning Commission a chart comparing her design to a similar but much larger addition that was approved the same day hers was denied; the denial was overturned.

Sam Gianukos, a builder who had 14 of his clients' applications denied or deferred on the first try last year, said "the commission, basically, is changing the ordinance at the commission."

 

Mayor not content

Both sides use data to make their point.

Of the 361 projects presented to the historical commission last year, Parker said 84 percent won approval outright; another 8 percent were approved after revisions.

Critics, however, say appeals to the planning commission highlight the problem. Last year, 15 historical commission denials were appealed to the planning commission, which ended up reversing decisions in 11 of those.

 

[Subdude]

Note post above was edited due to legal restrictions full articles.  

 

 

[fwki]

In Chronicle article, my favorite quote from Mayor Parker herself about the HAHC: "There are a couple activist commissioners over there who are hijacking the process."

 

Message received, finally.  I'm not sure she ever got it with Gafrick around, or at least couldn't acknowledge such publicly.

[s3mh]

"When we crafted the ordinance, there was a great deal of discussion about whether there should be proscriptive design guidelines," said Parker. "And, frankly, a lot of the people who are coming in today asking for those design guidelines were completely and totally opposed to the historic districts, and did not want those guidelines at the time."

Her conclusion: "If some of these individuals had worked with us more in the beginning, we might not be having these problems now." 

 

 

[samagon]

"When we crafted the ordinance, there was a great deal of discussion about whether there should be proscriptive design guidelines," said Parker. "And, frankly, a lot of the people who are coming in today asking for those design guidelines were completely and totally opposed to the historic districts, and did not want those guidelines at the time."

Her conclusion: "If some of these individuals had worked with us more in the beginning, we might not be having these problems now." 

 

Her conclusion is BS.

 

If there was a great deal of discussion about whether design guidelines should be included or not, then it should have been done, regardless what other people did or did not do.

 

That is not the fault of people who opposed the ordinance.

 

She knew, they all knew it was a problem, or they wouldn't have discussed it, but they passed it anyway, and are now choosing to blame someone else for something that was ultimately their responsibility. Thank you for pointing this out, S3MH.

[s3mh]

Her conclusion is BS.

 

If there was a great deal of discussion about whether design guidelines should be included or not, then it should have been done, regardless what other people did or did not do.

 

That is not the fault of people who opposed the ordinance.

 

She knew, they all knew it was a problem, or they wouldn't have discussed it, but they passed it anyway, and are now choosing to blame someone else for something that was ultimately their responsibility. Thank you for pointing this out, S3MH.

 

So, the people drafting the ordinance should have been able to guess what would make people opposing the ordinance happy.  And the people who opposed the ordinance and did not participate in the process can now cry injustice because they did not get design guidelines that they never asked for when the ordinance was amended.  Or maybe instead of filling mailboxes with flyers claiming that HVAC placement and paint would be controlled by HAHC and that the Heights would turn into a slum when no one would renovate, the builders should have come to the City and participated in the process to ensure that their voices would be heard.  There is definitely a credibility issue when you complain about the ordinance but refused to participate in the process to draft the ordinance.  But this is all more than likely just pretext to try again to get rid of the ordinance. 

 

[briekelman]

Wait a minute.....

 

I thought the Ordinance was pitched as already having design guidelines? Simply click on the youtube video below, listen to Marlene's words, and look at Marlene's Powerpoint. "Already in place for the Old 6th Ward, Houston Heights, etc...." It is pretty clear to me that Design Guidelines were in place.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWf-f9JRh4g

 

This is also why my Preservation Planning staff contact sent me the Design Guidelines linked on the Houston Preservation website. It wasn't until my appeal that they decided to start calling them "educational material."

 

I have copy/pasted my back and forth with my Preservation Planning Staff contact below (removing her name with XXXX for privacy sake). I even asked if these were the latest DG's since they were dated 2008, when the Ordinance was dated 2010. She said very clearly - yes.

 

This is pretty clear to me, and I'm not sure what changed or why these DG's are not used anymore.

 

Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: 1207 Harvard
To: Brie Kelman

 

No, for the Heights design guidelines 2008 is the most up to date version. They were put together after Heights West and East historic districts were created.  

 

XXXX, City of Houston Planning & Development Department

 

 

From: Brie Kelman
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:48 AM

To: XXXX
Subject: Re: 1207 Harvard

 

Ok - cool - thanks. This is the document I was using originally. I noticed that it's dated 10/13/2010, where the guidelines are dated December 2008. Since you sent them to me, I assume they are correct, but I just wanted to double check that there isn't anything newer than 2008?

 

Thanks again!

 

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:43 AM, XXXX wrote:

No problem. I’ve attached a PDF, the section on Certificates of Appropriateness starts on page 21 and section 33-241 covers additions.

 

XXXX, City of Houston Planning & Development Department

 

 

From: Brie Kelman
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:35 AM
To: XXXX
Subject: Re: 1207 Harvard

 

No problem! I can only imagine how hectic it is over there...it's hectic over here getting ready!

 

Thanks for your email and the guidelines. They are good for me to have as well, but if you could forward the ordinance as well, that would be helpful. 

 

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:31 AM, XXXX wrote:

 

Sorry, I know I just sent you the design guidelines. Did you mean the guidelines or a copy of the Ordinance? Sorry it’s been a bit of a hectic morning.

 

XXXX, City of Houston Planning & Development Department

 

From: XXXX
Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: 1207 Harvard
To: Brie Kelman

 

Hi Brie,

 

At this point I think that it may be best to move forward with the original proposal. Even though staff will be recommending denial, it is just a recommendation the Commission has the final say and they do not always support staff recommendations. I would recommend that you come to the Commission meeting and present all of the reason that you’ve stated below and that we’ve talked about to the Commissioners, by doing this you’ll be providing them with information and the personal reasons behind your proposal. This can make a difference in their decision.

 

If you’re going to send in any other supporting documents they will need to be submitted by Friday morning.

 

Here is a link to the Heights Design Guidelines- http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/houston_heights_design_guide.html

 

Best,

XXXX

 

XXXX, City of Houston Planning & Development Department

 

From: Brie Kelman
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:29 AM

To: XXXX

Subject: Re: 1207 Harvard

 

Hi XXXX,

 

Sorry, I forgot to ask one more thing. Can you please email me a copy of the historic guidelines? I want to make sure we are using the correct document . Thanks!

 

 

Edited January 21, 2014 by briekelman

[BBLLC]

... did not participate in the process can now cry injustice because they did not get design guidelines that they never asked for when the ordinance was amended.  ... There is definitely a credibility issue when you complain about the ordinance but refused to participate in the process to draft the ordinance.  But this is all more than likely just pretext to try again to get rid of the ordinance.

s3mh

There was a document on the Planning Department's preservation website at least through May 2013 titled "A Design Guide for the Houston Heights Historic District's". ANY logical person would assume these were the guidelines discussed in the ordinance.Design Guidelines cover page.pdf

Edited January 21, 2014 by BBLLC

[s3mh]

s3mh

There was a document on the Planning Department's preservation website at least through May 2013 titled "A Design Guide for the Houston Heights Historic District's". ANY logical person would assume these were the guidelines discussed in the ordinance.Design Guidelines cover page.pdf

 

I do remember that document.  If that is what everyone wants, I am fine with that.  However, those "guidelines" would do little to provide certainty and limit the discretion of the commission.  It had a few examples of additions that were considered to be appropriate, but they were mostly additions that resulted in 2000-2500 sq feet.  None of those additions are anything like the giant 3000-3500 sq ft humper house additions that are the subject of controversy before the commission.  I have also seen the draft design guidelines for Germantown.  Those guidelines do little to provide the allegedly desired predictability.  Even though they are over 50 pages, they have requirements like "infill construction must be similar in size to existing homes . . ."; "additions in any location may not visually dominate the original house . . ."; and "New construction that is incompatible with the neighborhood is not allowed . . . ."  An the guide for Montrose has appropriate addition examples that are significantly more restrictive than what is currently being built in the Heights. 

 

But, if you want design guidelines, go for it.  I am all for it.  Just don't run to the Leader when the guidelines turn out to be more restrictive than what is currently being allowed.  And don't expect that there will no longer be any subjective element to the ordinance.  That is simply unavoidable.

[Ross]

No. s3mh, it's not unavoidable. Just get rid of the whole ordinance, which wasn't needed, and is utterly stupid and overbearing. At a minimum, allow anyone to opt out of the district now, and get rid of the clause that requires houses be able to return to the original look. That's an utterly ridiculous requirement. Without that, architects would be able to design additions that blend with the prior work, instead of forcing people to build the horrifically ugly humps.

[fwki]

So Parker admits she has a problem on the HAHC, in effect calling out Elliot, Bucek and perhaps mod as hijackers.  Then she points to some mythical DG ghosts as having caused the problems with the ordinance which is complete revisionist history because the DG problem didn't surface until they removed the Heights DG's after we were beating them over the head with them at the appeals.  Even SM3h knew this because he graciously posted a link to the Heights DG's for me on this site years ago.  Brie's email trail proves above all that the city administration is changing the law as they go along to suit an unknown or at least unstated goal.  Furthermore, Gafrick's lame-duck, career-ending move was to completely hijack the appeals process with new draconian rules like Obama and his executive order pen.  And all this is after the illegal HD ballot in a city that outlaws zoning.  The Leader just stated the obvious to the those who weren't paying attention.

 

Now Sue Lovell is trying to "save the ordinance" by simply adding new DG's.  Sure, right, now I am supposed to trust this bunch?  New DG's may save the builders because frankly, they just want clarity, good or bad.  But not the property owner victims, they are hosed either way.  I'm with Ross.  And it will be much easier as Elliot, Bucek and mod continue to wreak havoc along with the new kangaroo court appeals process.  The victims' screams will be too loud for Council to ignore.

Edited January 22, 2014 by fwki

[samagon]

So, the people drafting the ordinance should have been able to guess what would make people opposing the ordinance happy.  And the people who opposed the ordinance and did not participate in the process can now cry injustice because they did not get design guidelines that they never asked for when the ordinance was amended.  Or maybe instead of filling mailboxes with flyers claiming that HVAC placement and paint would be controlled by HAHC and that the Heights would turn into a slum when no one would renovate, the builders should have come to the City and participated in the process to ensure that their voices would be heard.  There is definitely a credibility issue when you complain about the ordinance but refused to participate in the process to draft the ordinance.  But this is all more than likely just pretext to try again to get rid of the ordinance. 

 

 

I think the people drafting the ordinance knew precisely what would make the opposition happy, not passing the ordinance in the first place, but since the will of the people was not the main order of business, it wasn't meant to be. Furthermore, it's there in black and white, without the help of any outside influence, the city knew that guidelines were needed, but did nothing, maybe because as you pointed out, the design guidelines already existed and were being recommended by the city!

 

Anyway, the opposition did participate, you can go back and read meeting notes, you can read this thread, you can see exactly what they were complaining about, yes, a good number did just say no, but an even better number provided reasons why they were saying no, such as examples of things that the ordinance was unclear about. And not just paint.

 

If you felt they could have done differently at the time, you should have reached out to them, rather than threatening to rat out your neighbors. (ref: http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/23402-historic-districts-in-houston/?p=377604)

 

 

Lastly, don't think that people are going to foregive and forget. We know who was funding the fight against our community. We will remember who you are when it is time to do an addition. We will remember when we sell our homes and buy another. We will remember when we renovate. The Heights is a small town in a big city. We have fought for years to protect our historic neighborhoods and have won. We will remember who was with us and who was against us.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2014 by samagon

[BBLLC]

...  Even though they are over 50 pages, they have requirements like "infill construction must be similar in size to existing homes . . ."; "additions in any location may not visually dominate the original house . . ."; and "New construction that is incompatible with the neighborhood is not allowed . . . ." 

 

But, if you want design guidelines, go for it.  I am all for it.  Just don't run to the Leader when the guidelines turn out to be more restrictive than what is currently being allowed.  And don't expect that there will no longer be any subjective element to the ordinance.  That is simply unavoidable.

1. "Infill construction must be similar in size to existing homes.." WHERE?? on the block or in the district. Who gets to decide?

2. "New construction must be compatible." Where is the definition of compatible outlined? If prevailing setbacks and minimum lot sizes are used why can't a 4000 sqft house be next to a 2000 sqft house? Who gets to decide?

3. Mayor Parker said the same thing. Be careful what you ask.

I however do not accept the premise that objective guidelines couldn't be developed.

[SilverJK]

Someone needs to design a yard sign with a Historic Ordinance monster smashing bungalows with a conformity stick. 

[s3mh]

1. "Infill construction must be similar in size to existing homes.." WHERE?? on the block or in the district. Who gets to decide?

2. "New construction must be compatible." Where is the definition of compatible outlined? If prevailing setbacks and minimum lot sizes are used why can't a 4000 sqft house be next to a 2000 sqft house? Who gets to decide?

3. Mayor Parker said the same thing. Be careful what you ask.

I however do not accept the premise that objective guidelines couldn't be developed.

 

1.  HAHC decides.  Block and district are both relevant for the determination.  

2.  Compatible is a subjective standard and is used to avoid inflexible one size fits all rules that will just send everyone to the planning commission to seek variances.  Every historic district in the United States (and there are hundreds of them) has a commission that is charged with applying a subjective standards.  Those who desire to build and renovate in those districts have to be able to have the ability to adjust their designs to gain approval of the commissions they deal with.  Predictability is a value, but can only go so far when dealing with historic preservation.  

3.  I am all for tighter standards.  I live near several homes that will inevitably renovated within the next decade.  They all have great potential to be stunning examples of craftsman architecture.  Without the ordinance or with a poorly enforced ordinance, they could be destroyed and replaced with more gratuitous square footage to make a quick buck for a builder and realtor, while destroying the character of the neighborhood.

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/HistoricPreservationManual/historic_districts/heights_features.html

 

And there are plenty of objective guidelines and there are guidelines for the Heights.  The above link has Heights specific guidelines.

 

But there will always be the need for subjective review because you cannot put a definition on "scale" and "compatible".  

[BBLLC]

1.  HAHC decides.  Block and district are both relevant for the determination.  

2.  Compatible is a subjective standard and is used to avoid inflexible one size fits all rules that will just send everyone to the planning commission to seek variances.  Every historic district in the United States (and there are hundreds of them) has a commission that is charged with applying a subjective standards.  Those who desire to build and renovate in those districts have to be able to have the ability to adjust their designs to gain approval of the commissions they deal with.  Predictability is a value, but can only go so far when dealing with historic preservation.  

3.  I am all for tighter standards.  I live near several homes that will inevitably renovated within the next decade.  They all have great potential to be stunning examples of craftsman architecture.  Without the ordinance or with a poorly enforced ordinance, they could be destroyed and replaced with more gratuitous square footage to make a quick buck for a builder and realtor, while destroying the character of the neighborhood.

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/HistoricPreservationManual/historic_districts/heights_features.html

 

And there are plenty of objective guidelines and there are guidelines for the Heights.  The above link has Heights specific guidelines.

 

But there will always be the need for subjective review because you cannot put a definition on "scale" and "compatible".

First, thanks for the pensive reply. I made a mistake purchasing the chicken ranch. I am now trying to make the best of a bad financial decision. In my opinion, when I sell this property to some commercial developer that has connections I don't and has the staying power to wait this out, the neighborhood will end up worse for it.

You are absolutely correct that the HAHC gets to decide. Yet the ordinance reads differently than it is being applied. I do however disagree that subjectivity is needed or that it is good.

The ordinance states that guidelines will be developed and voted on by the city council within 6 months of the ordinance's passage. That hasn't happened. The "manual" you have referenced contain the opinions of the staff of the Planning and Development committee. These have not been voted on by the City Council.

Not all bungalows are craftsman. There are plenty of queen anne style bungalows. I renovated one at 1029 Tulane a few years back that had been completely obfuscated.

What defines "gratuitous square footage"? As a renovator/builder in the Heights for the past 21 years, I have personally saved several dozen structures through renovation. I have removed 4 large commercial structures and built what I think are compatible structures to the overall look and feel of the entire Heights area, not an arbitrarily gerrymandered district. I am in business to make money but I am also passionate about what I do. I think you paint with two broad of a brush.

If this ordinance gets overturned, I fear that David Weekly, Perry, In-town, and Sandcastle will end up buying and doing exactly what neither of us wants. I also realize I am put into the same camp by some. I feel like the war might be lost over some relatively minor battles. Help make this more sensible.

[JJxvi]

I suggest passing the hat around for donations in order to turn the lot into the "StopClose the Heights Wal*Mart Protest Sculpture"

[Angostura]

What defines "gratuitous square footage"? 

 

 

Much (though admittedly not all) of the support for a stronger preservation ordinance was a desire to slow densification and, to a lesser extent, increases in square footage.

 

Inevitably, as land value increases, the economic incentive is to increase the amount of square footage of house per square foot of land, either by subdividing lots, or by replacing 1500 s.f. bungalows with 4000 s.f. houses.  Although I tend to support the rights of property owners, I even kind of understand this concern.  As more and more densification happens on a given block or neighborhood, the value of the existing structure on the last un-subdivided lot can fall to zero even as the average value of homes increases.

 

In other words, when the market in a given neighborhood is entirely large homes on small lots, the market for the 1500 s.f. bungalow on 6600 s.f. of lot ceases to exist, and the house that WAS worth $400k is now pretty much just worth the $250k for the land that it sits on.  Ironically, though , the surest way to make sure the market for smaller bungalows dries up is to make it very risky for people to buy them with the intent of renovating and expanding them.  

[s3mh]

Much (though admittedly not all) of the support for a stronger preservation ordinance was a desire to slow densification and, to a lesser extent, increases in square footage.

 

Inevitably, as land value increases, the economic incentive is to increase the amount of square footage of house per square foot of land, either by subdividing lots, or by replacing 1500 s.f. bungalows with 4000 s.f. houses.  Although I tend to support the rights of property owners, I even kind of understand this concern.  As more and more densification happens on a given block or neighborhood, the value of the existing structure on the last un-subdivided lot can fall to zero even as the average value of homes increases.

 

In other words, when the market in a given neighborhood is entirely large homes on small lots, the market for the 1500 s.f. bungalow on 6600 s.f. of lot ceases to exist, and the house that WAS worth $400k is now pretty much just worth the $250k for the land that it sits on.  Ironically, though , the surest way to make sure the market for smaller bungalows dries up is to make it very risky for people to buy them with the intent of renovating and expanding them.  

 

I will actually cite to one of the most rabid anti-ordiance HAIF posters to rebut this argument.  The Niche argued that gentrification in the Heights was actually leading to a net loss in population as the generation that lived in the Heights prior to gentrification tended to have large families and are being replaced by smaller families, empty nesters, and singles (young and old).  Large single family properties that were previously divided into multifamily are being renovated or demolished and replaced with single family (as is the case with a property on Tulane that is just north of one of the Bastian properties by the old chicken plant).  And the multifamily apartments that were full of lower income families are getting gentrified and replaced with singles and couples (like the pair on Ashland).  Of course, the two giant apartment complexes and the big townhome developments will push the population numbers in the opposite direction.  But the gentrification of single family residential homes is not seen as a densification issue, and is actually a reduction in density on a net population basis due to the change in demographics.

 

Also, the idea that the market for 1500 sf bungalows cease to exist when there is uncertainty regarding renovation or expansion is rebutted by the current market.  Despite the constant drumbeat of anti-ordinance stories in the Leader, there are still piles of people racing to open houses and bidding on bungalows in the historic districts.  The real issue is that most of the low hanging fruit in the historic districts has been flipped and there are very few bungalows coming on the market.  As a result, the prices for bungalows in the HDs have been crazy high even with all the alleged uncertainty regarding HAHC.  The problems HAHC, if anything, will just shift the purchasing power away from investors and back to people who are looking for homes as it is just about impossible for a buyer to win a bidding war with builders/investor.