The Heights Historic Districts

[Marksmu]

So people treating the Heights as an investment tool want more say than people who actually live there. Fabulous concept. How's that shadow commission coming along? You guys just aren't doing a good enough job getting your very important message out.

 

When I became active over the historic ordinance, I both lived in the Heights, and owned a rental property there.  I bought the rental b/c I fully intended to build a new house there once my kids got a little bit older.  The historic ordinance came along after I bought my rental...I moved for schools...as my kids got older, it was clear to me that the schools in the Heights are still completely unacceptable...Could they get an education there?  Sure, but its far from what I deem acceptable, I will even say substantially below acceptable - outright bad.   I sold the house I was living in and moved for better schools.  Rather than sell the rental, which has been a very good rental, I changed my plans to keep it and hopefully tear it to the ground 15-18 years from now once my kids are gone again and I don't need as much house as I do now.

 

To say that I, an owner vested in the prosperity of the neighborhood, with friends peppered all throughout the heights, am an "investor" is absurd.  I care about the neighborhood and what is best for it.  The ordinance is terrible and needs to be repealed.  I fight the ordinance b/c it is terrible....It does not have a huge effect on my rental, I have a non-contributing structure so I will get the right to tear it down....I am not worried about that...I fight it b/c its a terrible abuse of the governments power, its not good for the neighborhood's prosperity and growth, its downright bad for young families, and its the perfect example of why power should never be ceded to others who will abuse it.

 

I make  no qualms or apologies for my disdain for the ordinance, I do not pretend I want to fix it or improve it.  My only goal is outright repeal and the return of property rights to the owners. 

 

Also, Mr. Morrison, you may want to read up on the definition of Libel - I have not read, or written any statements about a single individual that are not true.  Truth is an absolute defense to libel....When a person interjects themselves into the public sphere they open themselves up for critique. 

[Marksmu]

http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2013/11/interactive-maps-who-doomed-the-dome-and-pushed-parker/

 

This is a very interesting map regarding the recent Mayoral election. I would assume the historic district drama would've affected Parker more negatively, but she still received between 70-90% of the vote in the Heights.

 

Maybe the HD pushed her total from 85% (like it was in Montrose) to 70%, but that's it.

 

My takeaway is that no one really cares about this issue except the four of you that post on this thread attacking each other (or ganging up on the one pro preservation person)

 

The Heights as a whole tends to be very liberal.  Do you really think that a liberal is going to vote against Parker, an openly gay woman mayor of Houston?  The ordinance had absolutely zero effect on the mayorial election - heck it was not even an issue for her opponents...it impacts such a negligble number of people in this city that to devote time to it would be

 

Your takeaway is reading way too much into something that is not there. 

[SilverJK]

I have my qualms with Mayor Parker, but I also really support some of her ideas too.  Since this is her final term and no real suitable opponent... I was actually considering voting for her even as against the HDs as I am.  (I came down with the flu on election day unfortunately)

[Morrison]

That the four anti-preservation people voted or intended to vote for Parker is all I need to know.

[Marksmu]

That the four anti-preservation people voted or intended to vote for Parker is all I need to know.

 

Woah - I did not vote for Parker.  I am politically very conservative, more libertarian than conservative....I merely stated that the Heights as a whole is very liberal, and a single issue like the Historic Ordinance that effects so few people in a city of our size, did not carry any political weight at all. 

[SilverJK]

That the four anti-preservation people voted or intended to vote for Parker is all I need to know.

 

 

Who's anti-preservation?  I've saved 2 bungalows (one here and one in Louisiana) from the bulldozers and I'm about to restore a late 40s or early 50s car that has likely been rusting in a field somewhere.  I'm all about preservation.   I am however anti ordinance.

 

 

I would have liked to vote for someone else, but Parker was the only candidate that I think will be able to do anything positive  (she has momentum already and I fully support all of her push for bicycle friendliness and parks).  If there was a suitable opponent I would gladly have thrown my support their way, but there wasn't.

[samagon]

That the four anti-preservation people voted or intended to vote for Parker is all I need to know.

Two logical fallacies (the same logical fallacy though, so no extra points for you) in one post, and no real content. Kudos.

I live in a house as old as those as are in the heights. I do not live in a historic district. I will fight to preserve my house as long as I own it. I will fight against the historic ordinance if it comes to my neighborhood.

I'm sure you can figure out the logical fallacy regarding mayor Parker.

[Morrison]

Lols.

[SmellyHoustonian]

The Heights as a whole tends to be very liberal.  Do you really think that a liberal is going to vote against Parker, an openly gay woman mayor of Houston?  The ordinance had absolutely zero effect on the mayorial election - heck it was not even an issue for her opponents...it impacts such a negligble number of people in this city that to devote time to it would be

 

Your takeaway is reading way too much into something that is not there. 

 

I agree that in the city as a whole it had little effect, the surprising thing to me is that it had little to no effect in Heights specific precincts that are almost entirely contained within a historic district (with the Woodland Heights, entirely contained), she received between 70 and 90% of the vote in Heights precincts that are affected by the historic district.

 

My takeaway is that even Heights residents don't care, and the ordinance does not bother them one bit. It's just the people on this thread and maybe a few others that actually care about the ordinance. No one else gives a damn, and y'all are wasting your time on this message board fighting among yourselves and having the same tired hashed out discussions over and over again.

 

That takeaway seems correct.

[JJxvi]

Sue him for libel!

[SilverJK]

I agree that in the city as a whole it had little effect, the surprising thing to me is that it had little to no effect in Heights specific precincts that are almost entirely contained within a historic district (with the Woodland Heights, entirely contained), she received between 70 and 90% of the vote in Heights precincts that are affected by the historic district.

 

My takeaway is that even Heights residents don't care, and the ordinance does not bother them one bit. It's just the people on this thread and maybe a few others that actually care about the ordinance. No one else gives a damn, and y'all are wasting your time on this message board fighting among yourselves and having the same tired hashed out discussions over and over again.

 

That takeaway seems correct.

 

 

It is completely foolish to think because of the mayoral voting people don't care.  It isn't a one or the other issue.

 

 

A lot of your people that aren't speaking against are ones that it hasn't impacted.  If you just live in HD and are happy living there and don't plan on any renovations why would you care?  It is people who are renovating or planning to rennovate that are the ones coming out against the ordinance.  I live outside of the district... so my personal dwelling isn't impacted.  I speak against the HD because I don't want it coming to block.   No one gives a damn until it impacts them...  (as you can see from several people coming to this site to gain support in regards to their renovations being denied). 

[Heights20plusyears]

 You all know that no one in the Heights wants to go back to the days when 200+ bungalows a year were being demolished and have to instead make it seem like everyone who supports the ordinance is a bad person with an improper motive. 

 

Show me 200 addresses that bungalows were demolished in 1 year in The Heights.

I'm tired of reading this untrue statement.

[s3mh]

Show me 200 addresses that bungalows were demolished in 1 year in The Heights.

I'm tired of reading this untrue statement.

http://www.houstonheights.org/newsletter/2006-08/hha200608.pdf

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20061222203514/http://www.houstonheights.org/newsletter/2006-12/hha200612.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20080419030300/http://www.houstonheights.org/newsletter/index.htm

Back in 2006, the Houston Heights Association documented 170 demolitions in a year and a half in the Heights and a rate of 2.4 homes a week being demolished.  By March of 2008, the count was 324 since June of 2005, but the rate began to slow late in 2007 into 2008 as the first historic districts came together.  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.   

[SilverJK]

Wasn't this myth busted back when it was brought up last time?  Those are demolition permits which include garages and other outlying buildings and maybe even partial demolitons.  So your 170 is a bit exaggerated for homes... and of those likely many of them weren't really even demo... more like picking up the pile of former house that sits on a lot.  I remember people making a fuss back in 06 about a house getting a demo permit but it was actually for the old carriage house that had burned down in like the 70s.  It was litterally a pile of rubble with a few walls of framing still standing. 

 

Were a lot of homes that could have easily been saved knocked down, definitely, and many of them bummed me out as back then I was looking to buy a home and a lot of those would have been perfect for me but they never even got listed.  The 90+90 day waiting/holding period for demos slowed them dramatically and a few other small changes could have been made to prevent even more of them.  This is what everyone wanted and was sold when they signed up for the original historic district.   That is a far cry from what the HDs are today.  (the original goal was to stop demolition of livable/saveable bungalows, it was told to everyone a million times).  Current HD ordinance and Saving Bungalows are about as similar as crap and chocalate.

[Heights20plusyears]

Back in 2006, the Houston Heights Association documented 170 demolitions in a year and a half in the Heights and a rate of 2.4 homes a week being demolished.  By March of 2008, the count was 324 since June of 2005, but the rate began to slow late in 2007 into 2008 as the first historic districts came together.  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.   

 

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.

[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."