trymahjong Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 (edited) I think I have an idea of the sentiments pro&con concerning the Historic designation ordinance in the Heights-( area most people think of => the Heights)What about the districts outside the Heights" What are the thoughts of the property owners of Westmoreland, Audubon, First Montrose Commons, Courtland Place, Boulevard Oaks, Avondale? Edited November 20, 2010 by trymahjong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am very pleased that Audubon Place is not on the recall list.Our house is a Protected Landmark in the City of Houston (we put it on a couple of years ago) and I am very happy that the two abandoned houses behind me now won't be turned into a five story condo complex.Based on the chatter on our Yahoo Groups list serv, it seems that most of my neighbors are happy, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am very pleased that Audubon Place is not on the recall list.Our house is a Protected Landmark in the City of Houston (we put it on a couple of years ago) and I am very happy that the two abandoned houses behind me now won't be turned into a five story condo complex.Based on the chatter on our Yahoo Groups list serv, it seems that most of my neighbors are happy, too.You prefer abandoned houses to actual real people? Why shouldn't someone be able to build a useful, economic, project on those lots? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 Because I am an anti-social Socialist. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trymahjong Posted December 8, 2010 Author Share Posted December 8, 2010 (edited) I attended the RECONSIDERATION gathering City Council held for Blvd Oaks (30+/- owners attended) and Avondale West.(8+/-) last night.--exact format and content of informal meeting hosted by Avondale 3 weeks ago accept for Mayor and several council members were present From purely a spectator point of view. . . BLVD Oaks seems much more on the "keep Historic" side-- not too many questions from those wanting to reconsider--lots of comments from those wanting to preserve- Avondale West harder to predict-- most of the questions/comments (so many I thought he was hi-jacking the meeting) were from a young man who first pointed out that he owned 10% of Avondale West and was fully prepared to divide each of those properties to "LLP owned" properties ASAP if it meant he could have separate votes for each property instead of only one vote because his properties were continious. There were pro preservation comments. The eye opener for me came when An Avondale owner pointed out that the new ordinance seemed to be putting more districts at risk of losing their designation rather than helping districts perserve their designation. The Mayors response seemed to point out that she was willing to sacrifice some districts to save others --she went on to say that because Avondale was so "commercial" it might not be saved--maybe that isn't a direct quote but that's what I understood--and by commercial she meant that all the historic homes that are multi-family use are labled commercial. She went on to say that that too many houses were being torn down after the 90 waiting period. She needed to strengthen the ordiances to save them I'm putting in pictures of 3 homes that were always considered at risk for demolistion if the property owner got the right price--these homes were the ones that the backers of Historic designation hoped to save. I'm afraid these are surely lost if designation is reconsidered. Edited December 8, 2010 by trymahjong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trymahjong Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) Got this email today-----Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 9:03 pmSubject: Congratulations! We are now protected!Planning Director Marlene Gafrick this week presented her recommendations for six of the seven historic districts that went through reconsideration. She recommended no changes for Heights East, Heights West, West Avondale, Norhill and Boulevard Oaks. The recommendation for First Montrose Commons is to remove one property that wasn't supposed to be included in the first place. Because the recommendation is for no change the process is over for us and our boundaries will remain the same as they were when the district was created. The city attorney has ruled that there is no further action for City Council to take. It's over! The process continues for Houston Heights South, Woodland Heights and Glenbrook Valley, all of which are pending districts and have not been formally approved by City Council. There will be a mayor's report on their status next Wednesday. Formal votes by council will probably come later in March. City Council will also have to vote on that minor change to First Montrose Commons. Edited February 28, 2011 by trymahjong 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.