Homes At 1303-1309 Ashland St.

[s3mh]

Wow, you have an answer for everything. It's amazing how much knowledge one person can have. I'm glad to know that not only have you lived in the Heights longer than anyone else on this board, but you were actually here when the Heights was founded.

Well, I am very interested in the history of the Heights. I have read about everything generally available in print and on the web about the Heights and have also seen a lot of stuff (on message boards, social media, in person, etc.) from the various Heights residents who know a lot about the Heights. But, your post provided so much more good information about the history of the Heights and wasn't the typical name calling and sniping that people do on here when they have nothing to contribute. I will readily admit that I cannot begin to assail your point by point factual refutation of my post. Very refreshing considering all the childish insults and name calling by the folks on here who cannot stand to share a message board with someone who is not in lock step with their anti-preservation/pro-development views.

[RedScare]

For all of your professed knowledge, you are incorrect. There are very few Sears homes in the Heights. I will take the word of an author of a book on Sears homes over a person who has lived here less than 2 years. And that author said that, despite the similar look to Sears homes, almost none of the Heights homes were from Sears. I realize that you love to speak as if you know what you are talking about, but, unfortunately, most of what you say is simply made up. There are many of us in the Heights who have done a lot more research than you. We also have different opinions of Heights issues. Perhaps our opinions are different because we have lived here much longer than you have. Who knows? But, the point remains, there are few Sears homes in the Heights.

[RedScare]

Other homes were not built as tract homes. People wrongly get this idea because most of the HCAD listings for people's homes in the Heights shows their property as being built in 1920. But, that is just an arbitrary designation made after annexation because the City did not want to have through all the records from the Heights to determine whether a house was built in 1918 or 1917 or 1916 and so on.

See, this is a perfect example of you completely pulling something out of your ass and passing it off as your copious knowledge, garnered from diligent research. If you REALLY knew your Heights history, you would know that the "1920" designations came because of a fire that destroyed many of the deed records. Properties built prior to 1920 in which the records were destroyed were simply given a building date of 1920. Annexation would have nothing to do with deed records, as they are filed with the County Clerk. My house is one of these. HCAD shows 1920, even though the sidewalk in front of my house bears the contractor's name and date of 1904.

Carry on.

[SilverJK]

S3mh,

The Historic Districts have helped increase my houses value to the point where I have so much equity that I can get a construction loan, and not having to work through the approval committee makes it that much sweeter.

Just because you googled something and talked about it with your friends who also googled something doesn't make you knowledgeable. My next door neighbhor who grew up in the heights, has told me some interesting stuff about the neighborhood he heard from his parents who were some original residents of The Heights. What does that have to do with an overbearing Historic District.... absolutely nothing. For the gajillionth time, it isn't "preservation" that bothers most of us, it is the way the ordinance works. I miss the old days... when you weren't here.

[s3mh]

For all of your professed knowledge, you are incorrect. There are very few Sears homes in the Heights. I will take the word of an author of a book on Sears homes over a person who has lived here less than 2 years. And that author said that, despite the similar look to Sears homes, almost none of the Heights homes were from Sears. I realize that you love to speak as if you know what you are talking about, but, unfortunately, most of what you say is simply made up. There are many of us in the Heights who have done a lot more research than you. We also have different opinions of Heights issues. Perhaps our opinions are different because we have lived here much longer than you have. Who knows? But, the point remains, there are few Sears homes in the Heights.

Sure, whatever you say. I have heard a number of homeowners tell me that they had Sears catalog homes and show me the numbering on the wood. There were a number of home catalogs back then. Could some have mistaken Sears homes for another catalog? Maybe. But, I am still waiting to hear about how the workers who built tract homes in the 40s and 50s were transported back in time to build tract homes in the Heights before the concept even existed in home construction. And the point remains, there are no tract homes in the original Heights neighborhoods.

[s3mh]

S3mh,

The Historic Districts have helped increase my houses value to the point where I have so much equity that I can get a construction loan, and not having to work through the approval committee makes it that much sweeter.

Just because you googled something and talked about it with your friends who also googled something doesn't make you knowledgeable. My next door neighbhor who grew up in the heights, has told me some interesting stuff about the neighborhood he heard from his parents who were some original residents of The Heights. What does that have to do with an overbearing Historic District.... absolutely nothing. For the gajillionth time, it isn't "preservation" that bothers most of us, it is the way the ordinance works. I miss the old days... when you weren't here.

That's great. So, you now support the historic districts. Welcome aboard!

I am not sure why you are complaining about an "overbearing" Historic district. It has been in place for almost two years and over 90% of what comes before the commission gets approved. The dire predictions about real estate in the districts were all just ignorant scare tactics by self interested realtors and builders. There has been no mass exodus of homeowners to escape the districts. In fact, inventory in the HDs has dropped off significantly since the new ordinance took effect.

I know a lot of Heights old timers too. They do not miss the old days. In the old days, people flush with oil boom cash would go around the Heights buying up and demoing houses and replacing them with cruddy apartment complexes. Then, when people started moving back into the city, builders started cutting down perfectly good original homes to replace them with town homelike boxes and started putting in rows of condos. The original showplace homes were mowed down one by one until only two were left standing (none were replaced by anything that could touch the original). They are glad that residents have finally been able to get together to protect and preserve the neighborhood.

[RedScare]

Hey, that's cool. Let me try it!

I know a bunch of Heights oldtimers. They liked it much better before uppity, self-important "preservationists" came in and tell them what to do with their homes.

Hey, that was easy! I think I'll just make up stuff and attribute it to nameless bunches of people. Then everyone (actually, no one, but I don't know any better) will think I'm cool and knowledgeable about the Heights, even though I just moved here!

EDIT: Anyone notice that even though the poster claims there are bunches of Sears homes in the Heights, he hasn't listed a single one? I suppose we should trust him?

[Subdude]

Apparently the earlier warning in the thread about personal attacks wasn't clear enough.

Topic closed.

[s3mh]

I am hearing that the warehouses have been sold and that they will be demoed within a month.  The house on 13th just to the southwest of the warehouses is supposed to get demoed too.  I have heard that a developer is planning on constructing 4 houses on the land.  Sounds like they will be on full sized lots.  Great news for the block if this comes to fruition.

[RedScare]

3500-4000 sf homes on a street with 1000 sf homes on it is a good thing? I am trying to get with the program. I understand that 2000 sf townhomes are evil, but I thought that massive "McVics" were also evil. The only thing profitable on full size lots would be a McVic. Are McVics now good for the neighborhood?

 

TIA

[s3mh]

3500-4000 sf homes on a street with 1000 sf homes on it is a good thing? I am trying to get with the program. I understand that 2000 sf townhomes are evil, but I thought that massive "McVics" were also evil. The only thing profitable on full size lots would be a McVic. Are McVics now good for the neighborhood?

 

TIA

 

How to make an argument like RedScare:

 

Step 1:  Take a very valid and coherent argument like not wanting to see historic bungalows demolished in order to build homes that are lot line/out of scale and that do not reflect the existing architectural style (faux Victorian or New Orleans Italianate on a block with all craftsman architecture). 

Step 2:  Remove a significant premise from the argument (demolition of existing historic housing).

Step 3:  Add a premise that has never been argued:  It is preferable to have an old warehouse than to have new construction/all new construction is bad if it is bigger than 1000 sq ft

Step 4:  Bend the facts as needed (All houses on 1300 block of Ashland are 1000 sq ft; only McVics are being built as new construction when many builders have done a very good job of replicating craftsman 4 square/two story homes; only 3500-4000 sq ft homes are economically viable--see Sears catalog inspired single story bungalows on the 1000 block of Rutland that sold in a heartbeat). 

The result is the above argument. 

 

No.  I have never argued that there should be no new construction.  I am against the demolition of perfectly good historic housing in favor of building form book Italianate/Creole things that are out of scale and out of character of the existing craftsman architecture.  It is 100% consistent to want to see the preservation of existing housing and be glad that the definition of neighborhood non-conformity (a big ugly warehouse) is demolished and replaced with new construction. 

 

Wait, maybe this is all to throw us all off the scent of the invalid argument repeatedly made by historic opponents that this kind of property could never be redevoped because of the onerous historic ordinance.  The Heights was supposed to turn to a slum with dilapidated rentals and houses left to the termites in hopes of a demolition permit. 

[RedScare]

Speaking of bending the facts to suit your argument, those Rutland houses are on 4400 sf lots. Maybe you are OK with getting 4400 square feet and calling it a full lot, but in my world, that's called getting stiffed. I call 6,600 sf a "full lot" in the Heights.

 

So, if that is the definition you use, then I'll concede your point. Of course, then I'll wonder what your problem with townhomes is. They fit on lots close to that size.

[s3mh]

Speaking of bending the facts to suit your argument, those Rutland houses are on 4400 sf lots. Maybe you are OK with getting 4400 square feet and calling it a full lot, but in my world, that's called getting stiffed. I call 6,600 sf a "full lot" in the Heights.

 

So, if that is the definition you use, then I'll concede your point. Of course, then I'll wonder what your problem with townhomes is. They fit on lots close to that size.

 

Step 6:  avoid all the points you cannot argue (especially the main one) and pick out some minutiae and try to again divert attention from all the bad arguments.  3500 to 4000 sq ft do not mean economic viability.  3500-4000 sq ft is just the arbitrary sq footage that builders and realtors think will bring in the most money for new construction.  The fact is that 3200 sq ft on a 6600 sq ft lot on Harvard sold for a nice bundle, as did 3000 sq ft on a corner lot on Cortlandt. 

 

And again, you go right back to the strawman and claim that I am against all townhomes.  I do not want them displacing single family homes in my neighborhood or interfering with the historic character of the neighborhood.  But, in Cottage Grove, West End, Rice Military and other similar areas, have at it.

[RedScare]

Not really. Everyone on here knows your schtick. I don't need to rehash it. Besides, every time I go to the trouble, someone accuses me of getting personal and deletes my hard work. If anyone wishes to see for themselves your moving goalposts, they need only read the historic district thread.

 

As for what you do not want in your neighborhood, I will ask again, what gives you the right to move into MY neighborhood 7 years after I get here and tell me what I can or cannot do with my home?

[SilverJK]

save the historic warehouses!

[fwki]

Wait, maybe this is all to throw us all off the scent of the invalid argument repeatedly made by historic opponents that this kind of property could never be redevoped because of the onerous historic ordinance. 

 

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.  Maybe I'm hanging out with the smart kids in school, but I have never heard or seen this argument that warehouses would never be demoed in favor of homes due to the Ordinance.  Did you dream that one or is it just your circle of friends?

[s3mh]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.  Maybe I'm hanging out with the smart kids in school, but I have never heard or seen this argument that warehouses would never be demoed in favor of homes due to the Ordinance.  Did you dream that one or is it just your circle of friends?

 

Setting aside all the flyers I got in my mailbox from opponents warning that development in the Heights would come to a screeching halt with the ordinance, here is an argument made in the previous thread I started that got shut down after the usual juvenille name calling erupted.  Basic argument is that the property would have to be sold at a major discount in order to be redeveloped under the ordinance.  In essence, the same thing as saying that the ordinance makes redevelopment infeasible:

 

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).         

[s3mh]

As for what you do not want in your neighborhood, I will ask again, what gives you the right to move into MY neighborhood 7 years after I get here and tell me what I can or cannot do with my home?

 

Democracy.  We have a representative form of municipal government.  The people elected to council and the Mayor supported the historic ordinance.  And you may have been here for ten years, but there are plenty of people who have been here for twenty and thirty years who support the ordinance and were working on getting it to council long before you showed up. 

[Angostura]

Anyone know what the land sold for?

 

Interesting to see if HAHC grants permission for 3500+ s.f. homes on a block where most homes are less than half that size.

 

 

[west20th]

Hopefully it will be a Sullivan project. If we are going to have McVics may as well have Sullivan McVics.

[s3mh]

Anyone know what the land sold for?

 

Interesting to see if HAHC grants permission for 3500+ s.f. homes on a block where most homes are less than half that size.

 

It happens all the time.  HAHC has rarely pushed back on the basis of scale.  9 out of 15 residences on the 1300 block of Ashland are over 2000 sq ft, and 10 out of 15 will be over 2000 sq ft once a renovation and addition just underway is completed. 

[SilverJK]

Warehouses are achitecturally important to this area.  They should be forced to keep the look of the warehouses, but can add a giant bump in the back for living space.

[s3mh]

Warehouses are achitecturally important to this area.  They should be forced to keep the look of the warehouses, but can add a giant bump in the back for living space.

 

Very tired "joke" on the historic ordiance based on the false premise that preservation is arbitrary and without any real value.  If that was really the case, we wouldn't see anyone taking on this property or the massive boom in the Heights real estate market.  But arguing against what the ordinance really does has never been a successful tactic.

[SilverJK]

I'm not joking.  I find old warehouse architecturally interesting not to mention they are true sign of what the neighborhood was.  I absolutely love the brick faced old warehouses that are found East of Downtown.  What is truly tiring is that you think you get to decide on what is architecturally important and what isn't, meanwhile supporting new out of scale contstruction while telling people they can't replace their old rotten windows with similarly styled but energy effecient ones.   The ordinance is a freaking joke, your support for it is a joke.  What the ordinance really does is piss people off.  The massive boom in the real estate market isn't limited to the heights (and especially not limited to the HD).  You fail to see that this is happeneing in SPITE of the ordinance, not because of it. 

 

Typical S3mh being S3mh.

[mkultra25]

I like the old warehouses as well and would rather see them than townhouses any day of the week. And no, I'm not joking either. 

[s3mh]

  You fail to see that this is happeneing in SPITE of the ordinance, not because of it. 

 

And you fail to see that the main argument against the ordinance has been decimated by the fact that the real estate boom is just as strong in the historic districts as everywhere else.  If the ordinance really was as onerous and offensive as opponents say it is, you would see that reflected in the market.  But, instead, people are falling over each other fighting to get a house in the historic districts.  I have a lot of friends who are looking in the Heights and would love to get a discount as a result of the historic ordinance.  Instead, they just keep getting out bid. 

 

And, as usual, you pull a RedScare by strawmanning an argument on me.  I never said that the historic ordinance would cause a real estate boom.  I have candidly admitted that the ordinance could have an adverse economic effect on owners of properties that are in serious disrepair that would have been torn down without any thought without the ordinance.  At best, I have opined that the historic ordinance would help owners who have maintained historic homes avoid being sandwiched between lot line houses that are completely out of character architecturally with the neighborhood. 

[august948]

If the ordinance really was as onerous and offensive as opponents say it is, you would see that reflected in the market.  But, instead, people are falling over each other fighting to get a house in the historic districts.

Is the ordinance being onerous and offensive to existing homeowners necessarily negated by rising real estate prices?

[SilverJK]

And you fail to see that the main argument against the ordinance has been decimated by the fact that the real estate boom is just as strong in the historic districts as everywhere else. 

 

 

I haven't seen anything to indicate it is as strong in the HD as outside, infact from what I've seen, the borderlands outisde of the HDs but still in Heights proper are the ones selling for OVER the listing price. 

 

Keep on trollin'. 

[RedScare]

And you fail to see that the main argument against the ordinance has been decimated by the fact that the real estate boom is just as strong in the historic districts as everywhere else.  If the ordinance really was as onerous and offensive as opponents say it is, you would see that reflected in the market.  

The main argument has never been what you claim. The main argument has always been that you have no right to tell me how to renovate my home.

 

Let me give you a definition of onerous and offensive. I have been trying to get permitted for a renovation to my home that has no effect on the front or sides of the house since January. As of today, I am still trying to get the permit. Your posts have suggested that you have little understanding of economics and what influences building costs, so I won't try to explain it to you. But, everyone else knows what a 3+ month delay in construction does to construction costs. If not for the fact that my architect and contractor are friends, this delay would be cost prohibitive.

 

THAT is onerous and offensive. 

[s3mh]

I haven't seen anything to indicate it is as strong in the HD as outside, infact from what I've seen, the borderlands outisde of the HDs but still in Heights proper are the ones selling for OVER the listing price. 

 

Keep on trollin'. 

 

1339 Tulane and 1336 Cortlandt both sold new construction before even listing.  Multiple bidders.