s3mh Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 http://search.har.com/engine/1309-Ashland-St-Houston-77008-4101_HAR30384822.htm it will be very interesting to see what happens to this old machine shop. Could at least get 4 residential lots out of it. But you have to wonder what kind of environmental issues there may be with the past industrial use. It will be nice to see some of the industrial scars in the neighborhood get healed and returned to residential property. Hope the other shop on Waverly will go too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwki Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I hope it becomes another source of jobs for the neighborhhod residents, good jobs like manufacturing. It really saddens me when another historical source of income disappears. I think we should empower the Chamber of Commerce to approve any changes to a structure that would preclude the structure from being used as a historically appropriate source of jobs. How would I best go about getting such an ordinance enacted? We could have all the neighborhood business owners vote on it, that is if they favored such an ordinance. If they did not want such an ordinance, then we could redline them out of the vote, I guess. Is that legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3mh Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 I hope it becomes another source of jobs for the neighborhhod residents, good jobs like manufacturing. It really saddens me when another historical source of income disappears. I think we should empower the Chamber of Commerce to approve any changes to a structure that would preclude the structure from being used as a historically appropriate source of jobs. How would I best go about getting such an ordinance enacted? We could have all the neighborhood business owners vote on it, that is if they favored such an ordinance. If they did not want such an ordinance, then we could redline them out of the vote, I guess. Is that legal?Very weak. The original Heights plan separated out the residential and manufacturing, connecting the two with a trolley line. A lack of deed restrictions and land use regulations allowed shops like this to pop up in the middle of what was always a residential area. So, there is a lot of irony in making a tongue and cheek anti-ordinance argument about a parcel of land that is an excellent example of why the ordinance is needed in the Heights.Absent some environmental disaster lurking underground, I suspect that this tract will again show that any harm of dealing with the municipal hurdles is far outweighed by the benefit of not having this lot turned into a dozen patio homes smashed together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Translation: Historic is what we want it to be, not what it actually was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJxvi Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 The idea that the historical ordinance has an influence on the possibility of this reverting to residential is a joke. Similarly, the idea that it is needed to protect against industrial interests buying up $80/SF land and bulldozing houses to build warehouses/shops is another joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwki Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You have mistaken sarcasm for irony, not surprising. And your microcosm prevents you from understanding that jobs are more important than architecture to many people, even some of your neighbors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You have mistaken sarcasm for irony, not surprising. And your microcosm prevents you from understanding that jobs are more important than architecture to many people, even some of your neighbors.You mistake him for being a fan of architecture. Remember, this is a person who applauds the camelbacks necessitated by the ill advised historic ordinance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwki Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You mistake him for being a fan of architecture....I stand corrected. Perthaps "fan of oneself" is more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverJK Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 So, there is a lot of irony in making a tongue and cheek anti-ordinance argument about a parcel of land that is an excellent example of why the ordinance is needed in the Heights.Very very weaker.Regardless of what is built in this location it will never be "historic" and if built to the intention of the ordinance it will be four lot filling craftsman front hemorrhoid backed non historic monstrocity new construction homes. This is a prime example of how the ordinance is terrible.Quick question... if this lot is subdivided into 4-5 lots, each one of these has to be considered a non contributing property right? How many times do we need this to happen before the ordiance becomes moot? (who am I kidding, they will just redraw the lines) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm33 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Um, guys? I have a confession. I live in the Heights and...I don't give a flying fark about the historic ordinance. I am, however, interested in what's going on in the neighborhood, and HAIFers often seem to have the scoop on this. Can every single Heights thread please not turn into a big snark-fest between supporters and opponents of the effing historic ordinance? I know it's a big thing to ask, but nobody has to quit cold-turkey. How about maybe just 1 thread out every 3? Or, do it on the thread actually dedicated to the topic?Whew. Glad that's off my chest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcook2002 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Um, guys? I have a confession. I live in the Heights and...I don't give a flying fark about the historic ordinance. I am, however, interested in what's going on in the neighborhood, and HAIFers often seem to have the scoop on this. Can every single Heights thread please not turn into a big snark-fest between supporters and opponents of the effing historic ordinance? I know it's a big thing to ask, but nobody has to quit cold-turkey. How about maybe just 1 thread out every 3? Or, do it on the thread actually dedicated to the topic?Whew. Glad that's off my chest.sadly this is all this forum has left these days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 sadly this is all this forum has left these days...Because of the economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwki Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Well, we have the restaurant thing, and, um, the crime thing, um, the Walmart…no no, that’s settled, I guess we could do curbs vs. ditches and rocks. Hmmm, I guess it’s just an architectural forum trying to reclaim its roots. That and it is just too much fun flaming the ordinance as a fool’s errand trying to preserve pine sticks in a swamp. And for many people, this topic is about real money, property rights and limited government….welcome to Texas. And don't be afraid to start a thread and defend it against hijack. But if you start a thread about building in the historic district, it ain't a hijack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Um, guys? I have a confession. I live in the Heights and...I don't give a flying fark about the historic ordinance. I am, however, interested in what's going on in the neighborhood, and HAIFers often seem to have the scoop on this. Can every single Heights thread please not turn into a big snark-fest between supporters and opponents of the effing historic ordinance? I know it's a big thing to ask, but nobody has to quit cold-turkey. How about maybe just 1 thread out every 3? Or, do it on the thread actually dedicated to the topic?Whew. Glad that's off my chest.Interesting. You live in the Heights, yet do not care about the ordinance that controls EVERY single thing about your property. Perhaps you are a renter. That would explain it.As for the suggestion that EVERY Heights thread turns into an ordinance fight, it seems you only click on the historic ordinance threads. You seem to have skipped over the threads about restaurants in the Heights, bars converted to art shops, new bars, closed bars and restaurants, crime reports and lost dogs, all of which are located on the first page of the 'Heights' section. Sure, a topic about the historic district, or construction in a historic district is going to have some of that dreaded historic dialogue. My recommendation is that you not click on threads that say 'historic' or 'construction' in them. Those are pretty much dead giveaways. Oh, and stay away from the Walmart thread. They're fixated on tree caliper inches over there.Otherwise, you're in good shape. Unless you posted this complaint on purpose. Then you are SOL. If you actually do live in the Heights, and own your property, you would...or should...know how important this subject is. The ordinance even controls new construction.I look forward to more posts from you. Maybe they won't all be complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pleak Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Very weak. The original Heights plan separated out the residential and manufacturing, connecting the two with a trolley line. A lack of deed restrictions and land use regulations allowed shops like this to pop up in the middle of what was always a residential area. So, there is a lot of irony in making a tongue and cheek anti-ordinance argument about a parcel of land that is an excellent example of why the ordinance is needed in the Heights.Actually this post is pretty weak.The Heights of which you speak only flourished for a few decades around the turn of the (last) century. Before that -for the greatest majority of time, it was scrubby trees and coastal grasses housing a few wandering Native Americans who passed through from time to time to fish and camp and eat mussels along the bayou. If you want to go by greatest use of time (at least as long as man has been wandering around) that is the biggest %. So maybe the ordinance needs to be changed to reflect that any changes be to put the Heights back to it's original state. You say the Heights was always a residential area. I say for most of recorded history - it has been a temporary campsite at best.After the war, the Heights went downhill. Nobody cared about it, it was old and smelled funny. My uncle had a house there - not sure when they bought - I think sometime in the 40's. They soon turned it into a rental when he got a job up north. Even back then the neighborhood was turning into light manufacturing, repair shop, used car lot hell. Everybody told him to get rid of that old house - wasn't worth anything. He kept it until the mid 80's before finally unloading it. Too bad he didn't hang on a few more years - he could have really cashed out. This is the glorious Heights history. What the ordinance is trying to force is a very small sliver of time that somebody saw from a picture hanging on a wall somewhere and decided that was how the Heights had "always" been. It was a scrubby, ramshackle bypassed neighborhood for a lot longer than a tony "hip" place to live. Now it has come full circle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 It indeed it has come full circle then someday it might have the vibrancy to be "hip" again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plumber2 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Full circle is right. My grandparents lived just 2 doors down from this place on Ashland, and my great grandmother lived right across the street from it on 13th St. I recall when visiting my grandparents in their later years, that nobody keep up their yards on their street. I think my grandparents may have been the only property owners living in their own house on the street by that time. Renters parked cars in the front yards and used oak trees as hoists to pull engines and other uses. It was really a mess. The machine shop was actually not that bad of a neighbor, at least they kept their site clean. Now a former resident, or a relative like myself would never recognize the neighborhood. My grandparents house is still standing although altered and enlarged. Yes, "full circle" is a proper description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwki Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 ...The machine shop was actually not that bad of a neighbor, at least they kept their site clean....These neighborhood businesses were a vital part of the life support system that kept the Heights from denigrating further during the post-war period. The owners and workers generally were from the hood and had double-vested interest in limiting crime and blight. The tile business next to me was a great neighbor with friends in the HPD that would call on us at a moment's notice. They sponsored Heights Norhill Little League (HNLL is pushing 60 years, one of the oldest in Texas), the kids went to the local schools and followed their parents' lead and stayed in the neighborhood with the business. Forget about white flight to the burbs. Fernandez (think BB's Cafe) kept my car running and I knew I made it home safe once I eyeballed all the hubcaps along his Studewood fence. Third generation neighborhood carpenters along with my tile friends rebuilt my crappy bungalow piece by piece over 20 years, replacing depression era patch work that comprises much of the "historical" districts. I have many friends who worked or owned such businesses, and when I read clueless, myopic posts about what "contributes" to this neighborhood I feel really sorry for the authors and their empty, ersatz lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 200+ feet of frontage with alley access, and from what I could find, this block has no MLS or MBL in place. Outside the historic district, this would be 6 to 8 detached homes or ~12 townhouses. Since new construction must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the HAHC, the buyer (assuming he demo's the warehouses) is subject to the following restrictions:- Residential: width, roofline and eave height compatible with typical contributing structures (read: ~1300-1500 s.f.)- Commercial: height not to exceed that typical of existing current structures.They're asking $1.35M for the land. Let's assume it goes for less than that, add in demo costs, and say $1.25 for the land, cleared. If HAHC only lets someone build 4 1400 sf houses, add in construction and finance costs, and the total cost could be, say, $2M (round numbers). So they'd have to sell each one for north of $600k to make a profit. Not much market for that size house in that price range.Only other option is to redevelop as commercial, which, depending on how rigid the HAHC is, could be the more likely outcome.This will be an interesting test of the impact of the ordinance on redevelopment. I for one would be surprised if they get the $47/sf asking price (seeing as how is 50% above the current going rate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3mh Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 If HAHC only lets someone build 4 1400 sf houses, add in construction and finance costs, and the total cost could be, say, $2M (round numbers). Show me one instance where HAHC has only allowed someone to do a new build 1400 sq ft. All the committee meeting minutes are online. All the permits are public record. The facts are that HAHC has permitted new builds @2500 two story homes on small 4300-4400 sq ft lots (See 1300 block of Tulane and Rutland) even though most of the homes around it were single story bungalows and 3000+ sq ft on full sized lots. These houses sell from $450k for the smaller ones to $850k for the big ones. Low end total revenue would be 2.4 mil (2x450 + 2x750), high end 2.8 mil. Plenty of room for a very nice profit considering that there will more than likely be a good discount on the land price. An interesting comparison would be this property:http://search.har.com/engine/2721-Ashland-St-Houston-TX-77008_HAR24808744.htmNot quite as big and a bit too close to the highway, but no demolition/potential enviro issues. If the historic districts actually create the real estate black hole that the anti-district people claim, then 2721 Ashland should get snapped up and built in a fraction of the time it takes to move 1309 Ashland. It will be interesting to watch what happens in the real world and not the fictional world of internet message boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Man, your logic skills are the suck. That land at 2721 Ashland is asking $76 psf. And, it is located on shotgun alley. Land on that street is going for less than $30 psf. No one will pay triple the going rate for that crap. Yet, if 1309 Ashland sells quicker than land asking 3 times its value, you'll be using that as proof of...something.Now, you DID actually post something that I agree with. The HAHC has had no problem approving 3000 to 4000 sf homes on empty lots, and seems to love hideous humpbacks on old homes, which increase their size to 3,000 sf. The anti-district people, myself included, are pissed that it is the small home owners that get screwed. While builders of gargantuan fake craftsmans are applauded, we get slammed for wanting to replace rotting wood siding with Hardie. We get told NO! for trying to move an ill-placed door. We cannot change even one piece of the front of our structure, while the "historic" builders rip old homes to the studs and replace it with new doors, windows, Hardie and some huge blob on the back. Somooow THAT is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, while our moved door on an ACTUAL old house ruins everything.And, you supported that. Congratulations, you...umm...won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plumber2 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 If the facts that Ango state are true, then I would say the property is priced too high. The market will even things out. The property owner can either reduce his price or keep sitting on it hopingthat the restrictions will change. His choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Man, your logic skills are the suck. That land at 2721 Ashland is asking $76 psf. And, it is located on shotgun alley. Land on that street is going for less than $30 psf. No one will pay triple the going rate for that crap. Yet, if 1309 Ashland sells quicker than land asking 3 times its value, you'll be using that as proof of...something.you don't get it!!! If they are asking that price, then that's what it's worth!!! end of story!!/sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marksmu Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Not quite as big and a bit too close to the highway, but no demolition/potential enviro issues. If the historic districts actually create the real estate black hole that the anti-district people claim, then 2721 Ashland should get snapped up and built in a fraction of the time it takes to move 1309 Ashland. It will be interesting to watch what happens in the real world and not the fictional world of internet message boards.2721 Ashland is not what anyone who thinks about the heights proper considers the Heights. It may technically be in the Heights, but the area up there is significantly more undeveloped and surrounded by many undesirable elements...It is quite possibly the worst choice for a comparison property...A MUCH better comparison would be the properties located on the 1000 block of Tulane....Lets see what happens there...the seller REQUIRED one person purchase all of the lots.Your intellectually honesty is called to question with EVERY post as you deliberately pick an example that is not even remotely close to accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwki Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I'm telling ya it's the portals, we have to find the portals and it will all make sense....slip through into Regulatoryland where it is fun to plead in front of the Gods of Siding & Window Panes, and it's ok that only the Chosen Ones who sponsor the gods have the skills and illegals to turn our shacks into humpbacks filled with Chinese sheetrock whilst proclaiming them svelte beauties of architectural wonder. In that reality the original Norhill Addition south of the Forbidden Zone and west of the Woodland Reichstag is an example of unspeakable, vile acts against our insect and microbiological brothers cohabitating peacefully in our communal bungalows. And Norhill's secretly encoded movements of doors and windows foretell unregulated horrors occurring inside their Craftsman chambers of architectural "alternative" lifestyles. And the Gods covet the lands in the South, and want to have them as their own playground expansion and put an end to these horrors, thereby increasing the kickbacks from the Chosen Ones and redtags for the Underground. Only then will the Gods rest and say it is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Goodbye air duct shop and hello 24-hour check cashing place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Show me one instance where HAHC has only allowed someone to do a new build 1400 sq ft. All the committee meeting minutes are online. All the permits are public record.Fair point. I made the mistake of reading the ordinance, not looking at approvals.There have been a total of 6 CofA's issued this year (thru April's meeting, others not posted online yet) for new residential construction in the three Heights HD's. These range in size from 3400 to 4600 s.f. constructed area, and all are on lots not less than 6600 s.f.Of these 6, three are spec houses, all around 3500sf, currently offered at prices from $800 to $850k.Two of these three spec houses (440 & 444 Harvard) represent the only multi-home project granted a CofA in the last year. If a developer can build 4 rather large homes, similar in size to the ones at 15th and Rutland that were met with rather fierce protests, then a project can be viable, provided the land goes for <$1M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Goodbye air duct shop and hello 24-hour check cashing place.I bet it's an Applebee's with a large parking lot in front.Wait, what if they get a variance for a 10 story condo building!!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I bet it's an Applebee's with a large parking lot in front.Wait, what if they get a variance for a 10 story condo building!!?Or better yet... it's an Applebee's with a Starbux inside of it. Inside the Sbux will be a "game-room". INSIDE the game room is where the check cashing place will be. All of this will be housed in the basement of the surface parking lot for the 10 story condo building. The units will be for lease of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 No massage parlor? Put in one of those and I'd rent the penthouse and never have to leave the building! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.