The Heights Historic Districts

[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.

 

 

[SilverJK]

what about scale with the non contributing structures?  If a non contributing structure wants to remodel don't they have to satisfy the HAHC as well, are they just given a free pass for being non contributing?

 

I'm sure that the Heights will be some of the first districts done. 

[briekelman]

good question - sorry, I don't know the answer! I'm also not 100% sure if they are measuring only the contributing structures or all structures...I was just guessing. Sorry, I should not post if I'm guessing. Someone could ask the Preservation Staff if they wanted to know for certain. If I hear anything more concrete, I will post.

 

 

what about scale with the non contributing structures?  If a non contributing structure wants to remodel don't they have to satisfy the HAHC as well, are they just given a free pass for being non contributing?

 

I'm sure that the Heights will be some of the first districts done. 

 

 

[s3mh]

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.

 

No one is actually doing a camel back design anymore.  The camel back design can work if you do a telescoping roof line.  One in my HD is @2900 sq ft.  You cannot tell that it has a second floor from the sidewalk until you look around the side of the building.  What they are doing now is just building a second house with the original house being used as an entryway.  That allows them to just cut and paste designs out of the faux creole design book from new construction instead of actually having to design the renovation from scratch.  And the whole reason the ordinance is there is because the new construction looked terrible and was ruining the historic character of the neighborhood. 

[heights]

 And the whole reason the ordinance is there is because the new construction looked terrible and was ruining the historic character of the neighborhood. 

 

 

In your opinion.

[RedScare]

The reason for the ordinance was originally an effort to limit the increasing property values due to new construction in the neighborhood. Once that reason went over like a lead balloon, the campaign was retooled, and the reason stated was to save the old bungalows. The claim was made (but never believed) that historic districts increase property values.

 

The only thing for sure when listening to a historic district proponent explaining historic districts is that their reasons will be complete fabrications. Since the previous poster did not even live in the Heights during all of this time, you can bet that his reasons are made up.

[briekelman]

(tone clarification here: I'm not arguing) Can you send the address of the 2900 sqft house you are referencing? I would like to see it, to make sure I understand what you mean by telescoping roof lines. I think most would consider my rennovation/addition as a camel back (right?), which would not have been my first choice by any stretch of the imagination. The attached photo is my favorite house in the Heights @ 16th and Harvard. Our house could/would never have looked exactly like this, but it would have been nice to use some of the design elements from it (p.s. Creole did this remodel years ago, and it's on the National Register).  Creole was my designer, and trust me, our house WAS designed from scratch through MANY, MANY brainstorming sessions with both us and the Preservation Staff. They are not cranking them out from a design book.

 

No one is actually doing a camel back design anymore.  The camel back design can work if you do a telescoping roof line.  One in my HD is @2900 sq ft.  You cannot tell that it has a second floor from the sidewalk until you look around the side of the building.  What they are doing now is just building a second house with the original house being used as an entryway.  That allows them to just cut and paste designs out of the faux creole design book from new construction instead of actually having to design the renovation from scratch.  And the whole reason the ordinance is there is because the new construction looked terrible and was ruining the historic character of the neighborhood. 

 

 

[briekelman]

I went to see progress on my house over lunch, and guess who I ironically ran into on the 1600 block of Harvard!? The surveyors! I stopped to ask them a few quick questions.

1. They are only measuring Contributing Structures. I forgot to ask the logic why, but my guess is that this is because new construction is supposed to be in character with the existing contributing structures. I have not seen any alterations to non-contributing structures (other than siding) in the 7 months I've been watching this, so I'm not sure how the HAHC and staff looks at those projects. I'm not sure if there just aren't very many alterations to non-contributing structures or if they just get passed on the Consent Agenda??
2. They started first measuring German Town b/c they were in the process of creating Design Guidelines and then moved to HH East, starting first on Harvard Street.
3. Someone from the City staff is with 2 interns, for a total of 3 people. This made me feel better b/c I assume that someone with more experience will know what they are donig and be able to lead the interns. (to be clear, I like intern learning experiences, since I was one for 2 summers, but think it's important that they have some supervision to ensure accurate data).

good question - sorry, I don't know the answer! I'm also not 100% sure if they are measuring only the contributing structures or all structures...I was just guessing. Sorry, I should not post if I'm guessing. Someone could ask the Preservation Staff if they wanted to know for certain. If I hear anything more concrete, I will post.

 

 

[OutfieldDan]

No one is actually doing a camel back design anymore.  The camel back design can work if you do a telescoping roof line.  One in my HD is @2900 sq ft.  You cannot tell that it has a second floor from the sidewalk until you look around the side of the building.  What they are doing now is just building a second house with the original house being used as an entryway.  That allows them to just cut and paste designs out of the faux creole design book from new construction instead of actually having to design the renovation from scratch.  And the whole reason the ordinance is there is because the new construction looked terrible and was ruining the historic character of the neighborhood. 

 

A big addition behind an "entryway" that's the original small house is precisely a camelback.  Camelbacks are disfigured with disproportioned large lurking rear ends.  A well designed symmetrical two-story is vastly superior.  Camelbacks in the Heights were rare until this stupid ordinance.

[Angostura]

No one is actually doing a camel back design anymore.  The camel back design can work if you do a telescoping roof line.  One in my HD is @2900 sq ft.  You cannot tell that it has a second floor from the sidewalk until you look around the side of the building.  What they are doing now is just building a second house with the original house being used as an entryway.  That allows them to just cut and paste designs out of the faux creole design book from new construction instead of actually having to design the renovation from scratch.  And the whole reason the ordinance is there is because the new construction looked terrible and was ruining the historic character of the neighborhood. 

 

[Emphasis added above]

 

 

Building a "2nd house with the original house used as an entryway" is exactly what the ordinance encourages people to do given the requirement that any addition be removable so as to allow the original to be restored in the future.  (I'd be curious to see if there was EVER an example of someone actually doing this: buying a 3200 s.f. camelback and restoring it to a 1300 s.f. bungalow.)

 

I recall a number of people at the time the ordinance was being debated criticizing this language exactly because it encourages the kind of ugly additions that have become the norm.

 

In much the same way that our setback and parking requirements encourage development of ugly strip malls along major thoroughfares, this ordinance encourages ugly additions inside HDs.  Law of Unintended (but entirely predictable) Consequences.

[RedScare]

Not only did many of us predict these hideous additions in this very thread, s3mh blithely assured us that this would not happen. Here he is now acting as if construction has morphed into this phase, and that it is a good thing!

Edited July 19, 2013 by RedScare

[TGFTH]

By measuring the width & eave heights of the contributing structures in the district the HAHC & staff are building a case to turn down new construction projects. They have been pushing to lower the overall eave heights below 22' which will make it impossible to have ceiling heights over 9' for the first floor & 8' for the second and by limiting the width of the home they can control the square footage of the homes. Those two combined will pretty much shut down new construction in the neighborhood. They barely passed 2 new construction homes (without staff recommendation) with eave heights of 24' but I was told that most likely you will not see anymore passed above 22'. The HAHC is out of control with their interpretation of this ordinance & the staff is completely lost.

[TGFTH]

Oh, and they won't differentiate between the width of a small bungalow or a two story contributing structure when they are applying it to a new construction or for that matter a renovation. Also, I'm sure they won't account for how much these contributing structures have sunk over the years when they measure the eaves heights. Their end goal is very clear.

[fwki]

.........Their end goal is very clear.

 

No kidding, Gafrick has been very clear about it in four or five public statements made formally in session at both the HAHC and PC.  I posted a you tube video about one of the big lies she spewed, the one nullifying the Heights Design Guidelines.  But there hasn't been a big outcry from Heights homeowners.  Maybe we're seeing ghosts TGFTH, but they sure look real to me.

[Angostura]

By measuring the width & eave heights of the contributing structures in the district the HAHC & staff are building a case to turn down new construction projects. They have been pushing to lower the overall eave heights below 22' which will make it impossible to have ceiling heights over 9' for the first floor & 8' for the second and by limiting the width of the home they can control the square footage of the homes. Those two combined will pretty much shut down new construction in the neighborhood. They barely passed 2 new construction homes (without staff recommendation) with eave heights of 24' but I was told that most likely you will not see anymore passed above 22'. The HAHC is out of control with their interpretation of this ordinance & the staff is completely lost.

 

 

The ordinance pretty much requires them to do this. The ordinance requires that new-builds have setbacks, proportions (width and roofline), and eave height consistent with those of existing contributing structures. So far, the HAHC has largely ignored this.

 

Last month, HAHC approved (unanimously) two new-builds on Ashland near 13th that are nearly 4000 s.f., much larger than anything else on that block. Any reasonable reading of the ordinance would indicate that new-builds in this district would be limited to about 2500 s.f. at the most, and probably single story.

 

The developer has two more lots to get CoA's for, so they'd be wise to hurry up.

[poyea]

You're not paying attention again....

You have had three examples in the past two days of people against the ordinance, but who live in and have spent money restoring hundred year old homes (oh, and HAHC has even publicly praised our efforts by including our homes as shining examples of what good additions should look like).

Personally, we're probably $700k into this bungalow. Yes, we could own a larger, newer home, in the Heights even. And we could have just torn down and built new. But we chose to buy, reno, expand, and reno some more because we love this old, breezy, leaky, inefficient home.

So, please explain to me how I am anti-preservation? I already know I am anti-ordinance so I have that half of your equation covered.

I enjoy how s3mh has no problem calling out Brie and putting her on the clock for a response but goes silent when asked to respond to some things, especially when he is so blatantly incorrect. Maybe he thought it was a rhetorical question? It wasn't. So, I'd like to know how someone like me can be anti-ordinance but absolutely for preservation??? Just curious. Silence will be deemed to be in agreement.

[s3mh]

I enjoy how s3mh has no problem calling out Brie and putting her on the clock for a response but goes silent when asked to respond to some things, especially when he is so blatantly incorrect. Maybe he thought it was a rhetorical question? It wasn't. So, I'd like to know how someone like me can be anti-ordinance but absolutely for preservation??? Just curious. Silence will be deemed to be in agreement.

I have already responded to that. Read my posts and keep up with the conversation.

It is simply idiotic to claim to be a preservationist just because you put money into your own house but see no problem with 200+ historic homes getting demoed every year and getting replaced with a cacophony of architectural styles from cheap fake creole boxes to suburban transplants to mission and all the way out to modern minimalism. If you were anywhere else in the US and told people that you were a preservationist but had no problem seeing the wholesale destruction of the historic housing stock, people would laugh in your face. Historic preservation isn't like preserving a 57 Ford Thunderbird. You can't put your house on a flatbed and take it to a big house show in Auburn, Indiana to get an idea of what it would look like in the proper context. Historic residential architecture is dependent on the preservation of the neighborhood, not just a single example in a sea of creole wanna be boxes and other oddities. It is akin to saying that you are for preserving Rhinos because you spend a lot of money traveling to different zoos to see them, but don't think that any government should do anything to stop people from hunting them into extinction in the wild.

[s3mh]

I enjoy how s3mh has no problem calling out Brie and putting her on the clock for a response but goes silent when asked to respond to some things, especially when he is so blatantly incorrect. Maybe he thought it was a rhetorical question? It wasn't. So, I'd like to know how someone like me can be anti-ordinance but absolutely for preservation??? Just curious. Silence will be deemed to be in agreement.

I have already responded to that. Read my posts and keep up with the conversation.

It is simply idiotic to claim to be a preservationist just because you put money into your own house but see no problem with 200+ historic homes getting demoed every year and getting replaced with a cacophony of architectural styles from cheap fake creole boxes to suburban transplants to mission and all the way out to modern minimalism. If you were anywhere else in the US and told people that you were a preservationist but had no problem seeing the wholesale destruction of the historic housing stock, people would laugh in your face. Historic preservation isn't like preserving a 57 Ford Thunderbird. You can't put your house on a flatbed and take it to a big house show in Auburn, Indiana to get an idea of what it would look like in the proper context. Historic residential architecture is dependent on the preservation of the neighborhood, not just a single example in a sea of creole wanna be boxes and other oddities. It is akin to saying that you are for preserving Rhinos because you spend a lot of money traveling to different zoos to see them, but don't think that any government should do anything to stop people from hunting them into extinction in the wild.

[poyea]

I have already responded to that. Read my posts and keep up with the conversation.

It is simply idiotic to claim to be a preservationist just because you put money into your own house but see no problem with 200+ historic homes getting demoed every year and getting replaced with a cacophony of architectural styles from cheap fake creole boxes to suburban transplants to mission and all the way out to modern minimalism. If you were anywhere else in the US and told people that you were a preservationist but had no problem seeing the wholesale destruction of the historic housing stock, people would laugh in your face. Historic preservation isn't like preserving a 57 Ford Thunderbird. You can't put your house on a flatbed and take it to a big house show in Auburn, Indiana to get an idea of what it would look like in the proper context. Historic residential architecture is dependent on the preservation of the neighborhood, not just a single example in a sea of creole wanna be boxes and other oddities. It is akin to saying that you are for preserving Rhinos because you spend a lot of money traveling to different zoos to see them, but don't think that any government should do anything to stop people from hunting them into extinction in the wild.

I guess I am just a preservationist of things that I own, and choose to not tell other what they can and can't do with their own property. Personally, I think that all cars should have white walls facing out, because that's the way it used to be. And I feel like I should be able to force others to follow these guidelines, no matter the cost and regardless of what they like.

You should just stay out of my business. Do your own thing. But leave me alone. If you want a leaky window, have at it. But don't tell me what I can and can't do with my property. If you want to control it, then BUY it yourself. I'm amazed that you think otherwise honestly.