Building In The Heights

[Ross]

Was there a vote or some kind of public meeting to determine the boundaries of this so called historic district or are they arbitrary?

What if I didnt agree to be in this historic district?

Too bad. The people who decided are much smarter than you, and far better qualified to make decisions affecting your property than you are.

[TGM]

Try to keep the children off the streets due to all the trucks streaming toward the exits.

Sorry, but trucks are not historically accurate. No Heights lady or gentleman would be seen in one of those crude contraptions. I suggest you flag down a streetcar before its too late.

All aboard!

[samagon]

Is that a lady driving? Very progressive!

[RedScare]

Is that a lady driving? Very progressive!

Historic Districts are not progressive

con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)

adj.

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

4.

a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.

b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.

6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.

7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv)adj.

1. Moving forward; advancing.

2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.

3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

[TGM]

Historic Districts are not progressive

Oligarchy could also apply.

[NYC Texan2]

You know, I understand that you folks are annoyed with sm3h, but the flavor of this board has changed a ton over time. I've been around here since 2003, even though I didn't post much after the website crashed and all my old posts were lost. The board really used to be people who were focused on the redevelopment of the Heights, and the general approach was that anything to promote the good of the neighborhood was fine. The tone of the attacks (now telling somebody to leave the board) is over the line. The negativity is pretty overwhelming, not to mention repetitive / predictable. Also not very neighborly. Would be great to take things down a couple notches.

[RedScare]

See what that ordinance did? If the neighborhood went negative, look to the source. A small group forced the larger group to conform to its wishes. The larger group is not at all pleased, and voices its opinion, and will continue until the oligarchs give the larger group its rights back.

By the way, which group did you support? Perhaps s3mh is not the only one we are pissed at.

[NYC Texan2]

Ah, the demand to pick a side. I think both sides had a point. The lack of deed restrictions is a problem, the lack of zoning like every other city is a problem, but the Heights was a working class community when it was developed. The cottages are original but aren't that great or significant. We aren't talking about rarified, high-style craftsman or Victorian homes here. But the trend toward restoring the neighborhood to single-family use is positive, and it would be nice to have a way to keep things that way so that investments can be made in housing without worrying that the fabric of the neighborhood is going to be disrupted by a high rise, a bunch of condos, etc. That's the same predictability that people are trying to get when they buy into River Oaks (deed restrictions), West U, the villages or master planned suburbs.

[kylejack]

Ah, the demand to pick a side. I think both sides had a point. The lack of deed restrictions is a problem, the lack of zoning like every other city is a problem, but the Heights was a working class community when it was developed. The cottages are original but aren't that great or significant. We aren't talking about rarified, high-style craftsman or Victorian homes here. But the trend toward restoring the neighborhood to single-family use is positive, and it would be nice to have a way to keep things that way so that investments can be made in housing without worrying that the fabric of the neighborhood is going to be disrupted by a high rise, a bunch of condos, etc. That's the same predictability that people are trying to get when they buy into River Oaks (deed restrictions), West U, the villages or master planned suburbs.

So sign everyone willing up for deed restrictions. But the historical district backers didn't want a consensual interaction.

[NYC Texan2]

I hear that, but I also don't want the guy down the street to put up a condo building. I understand that's what you are objecting to, but he has the incentive not to sign the deed restrictions because he wants the option value in addition to the single-family value.

[Ross]

Why shouldn't the guy down the street be able to build condos? It's his property, not yours.

[NYC Texan2]

I understand that you don't want anyone telling you what to do, but if you're talking about what's best for the quality of the neighborhood, that's it. You can't be against all zoning if you want to be able to say your point of view is common sense, b/c every other municipality around Houston has zoning, every enclave inside Houston has it, and every suburban neighborhood. So people choosing where to live, even in zoning-free Houston, place a premium on predictable land use.

[kylejack]

If the historic district only restricted people to building single family homes, I don't think there would be as much resistance. It goes much further.

[RedScare]

Worse, the historic district does not prevent the building of condos. That's the objection. It doesn't prevent any of the bad things that you don't want. It only restricts single family dwelling owners in how they may renovate. Non-contributing structures may be demo'd and condos built in their place.

[fwki]

....The lack of deed restrictions is a problem, the lack of zoning like every other city is a problem, but the Heights was a working class community when it was developed. The cottages are original but aren't that great or significant. We aren't talking about rarified, high-style craftsman or Victorian homes here. But the trend toward restoring the neighborhood to single-family use is positive, and it would be nice to have a way to keep things that way so that investments can be made in housing without worrying that the fabric of the neighborhood is going to be disrupted by a high rise, a bunch of condos, etc. That's the same predictability that people are trying to get when they buy into River Oaks (deed restrictions), West U, the villages or master planned suburbs.

Texan2, did you know that the Norhill Addition to the City of Houston has deed restrictions because it was developed by Varner Realty, the same developer of River Oaks? And that these deed restrictions are sufficient to prevent the issues you cite? So why didn't these people work for a much less radical solution for the current districts than this political, inept, costly and ineffective (at preventing your reasonable worries) HAHC? Because to these people it is not about protecting landowners from those things, it is about power and self-righteousness to them and more importantly to their handlers. These pro-ordinance fools empowered the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance (located in River Oaks) to make this neighborhood its delicate flower (expletive redacted). And the head Priestess of the HAHC is not coincidentally on the Board of the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance. Do you think this HAHC control would fly in River Oaks?

And if you still think it’s about protecting landowners, then go read the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance funded study of the districts carried out by the U of H Hobby Center for Public Policy: http://www.uh.edu/hcpp/GHPAhistoricdistricts.pdf

The study (total unprofessional slide show crap, doesn’t cite sources or data) reveals the true agenda of the Alliance, HAHC and their neighborhood dupes in one of its concocted conclusions on slide 19: “When considering the value of houses, Norhill South appears to be the best candidate from the control group for future historic district designation.”

So-called “Norhill South” is actually the original Norhill Addition to the City of Houston, deed restrictions and all. This part of Norhill is booming without the HAHC and faces none of the dangers you cite because of deed restrictions. Then why have they turned their sights southerly? Power and self-righteousness. They don’t give a flip about protecting me. Only fools believe otherwise.

[RedScare]

I understand that you don't want anyone telling you what to do, but if you're talking about what's best for the quality of the neighborhood, that's it. You can't be against all zoning if you want to be able to say your point of view is common sense, b/c every other municipality around Houston has zoning, every enclave inside Houston has it, and every suburban neighborhood. So people choosing where to live, even in zoning-free Houston, place a premium on predictable land use.

What is interesting about this post is that if it is true, the lawsuit against the City will succeed. There is...by law...NO ZONING in the City of Houston. You are claiming that the ordinance is zoning, and I agree. Just because you believe that people want zoning (it has always been voted down), does not make it legal to impose zoning against the City Charter.

As fwki correctly states, deed restrictions (non-government imposed) are OK. Zoning laws are not. We all bought in the Heights knowing that it was not zoned. Most of us chose to buy here BECAUUSE it was unzoned. Your statement that people want zoning for predictable land use is unsupported by fact.

[NYC Texan2]

Just because people bought knowing it wasn't zoned doesn't mean that the current homeowners are happy with that fact, Red. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.

The point is that the rest of the Heights has had the deed restrictions lapse, so deed restrictions are not a solution to the situation. You generally cannot impose deed restrictions by ordinance or law (although courts have voided deed restrictions in the past).

[RedScare]

The point is that the rest of the Heights has had the deed restrictions lapse, so deed restrictions are not a solution to the situation. You generally cannot impose deed restrictions by ordinance or law (although courts have voided deed restrictions in the past).

And yet, that is exactly what the City has done, isn't it?

By the way, my canvassing of the neighborhood during the historic district fight revealed virtually no one in the blocks around my house in favor of the district. This is not an exaggeration. Literally ONE person in the 3 blocks I canvassed was lukewarm in support of the district. Her husband, however, was opposed. He signed the petition in opposition. No one else that I spoke with was in favor.

The historic districts will not last. There is too much opposition to them. They will be attacked in the courts, in City Hall, and ignored by residents. The few people in support of them cannot control the overwhelming number opposed to them. And worse, the historic district ordinance gutted the effort to deed restrict properties. Progress was being made, but now no one is working it, and no one wants to sign. This was very much a 'cut off nose to spite face' move by supposed fans of historic preservation.

[LTAWACS]

Too bad. The people who decided are much smarter than you, and far better qualified to make decisions affecting your property than you are.

Unacceptable.

[LTAWACS]

Too bad. The people who decided are much smarter than you, and far better qualified to make decisions affecting your property than you are.

No. Too bad for them. I'd like to see them come onto my property and stop me.

[Ross]

No. Too bad for them. I'd like to see them come onto my property and stop me.

You must kowtow to your superiors. They are far smarter than you, just ask them. They have managed to subvert the police power of the City to do their dirty work. They won't come on your property, they will send an armed minion of the City Administration to pass the message and force you to submit. If you resist, they will send the SWAT team to force compliance with their vision of what the Heights should be.

[TGM]

They won't come on your property, they will send an armed minion of the City Administration to pass the message and force you to submit. If you resist, they will send the SWAT team to force compliance with their vision of what the Heights should be.

"Roger that commander, we're at the house and it looks like we have one part of the addition using an Arts & Crafts motif, while the other is Mid-Imperial Century Modern. We're going to implement the standard HAHC Level-1 cleansing fire."

[jmontrose]

So my wife and I are thinking of moving to the heights with our 11 year old son.  Looking for neighborhoods with more kids than the 'Trose where we have been for a while.

 

I'm wondering how the demographics are changing now that all the new houses in the Heights seem to be pushing 7 figures.

 

Who is moving in to all of these mansions?  People with big families?  What ages?

 

Who is moving out?

 

What are you seeing on your streets and among your friends?

[poyea]

On our block, we currently have 11 kids, all between 5-11. We did lose 3 to Garden Oaks about 2 yrs ago for schools, but the others seem to be going the private school route. Somewhat oddly (or not), the four newest adds on the street are empty nesters with grown kids, all moving into larger houses (new build, remodels).

We've been here 10 yrs now, and there are definitely more kids playing in the streets now than when we arrived, which has been great to see. I think with prices increasing so much, the pool of buyers leans towards the older/professionals. We know of a few couples that moved here recently, knowing they were going to start a family. They figured they have a couple years plus 5 before they have to decide on schooling. Enjoy the hood until then versus suburbia now. If those with kids could just link arms and stay, the schools could be great too.

[s3mh]

9 kids on my block.  But that is above average for the western side of the Heights.  We are zoned to Love.  No one intends to send their kids to Love.  We hit the HISD lottery as did one other family on the block.  All the others are sending their kids to private school.  No one is planning on moving out of the neighborhood for schools. 

 

It used to be the norm that people would move to the Heights with the intention of moving to the burbs once their kids are school age.  But now due to the massive change in the price point it takes to get into the neighborhood (and to get into other close-in neighborhoods like GOOF, Spring Valley and Bellaire), most everyone is buying with the intention of staying.  Commute times from the burbs have just gotten ridiculous and quality of life inside the loop has improved tremendously.  So, more and more people are willing to pay for private school or work to improve public schools because a move to the burbs ends up being at best a sideways move in terms of quality of life for a family.

 

The transition in the schools is moving quickly, but it is not easy.  Harvard and Travis are great.  Parents are making a big push to help Field turn around.  Helms is getting there.  Love and Browning have a long way to go.  There are more and more families sending their kids to Hamilton and Hogg. 

 

For every segment of housing, any assumption you make will be filled with so many exceptions that it just isn't safe to make any assumptions.  I always assumed that the seven figure houses would all go to older empty nesters or DINKs who had no intention of having kids.  But three of the most recent seven figure sales around me all went to families with babies and pre-k/toddlers.  On Saturday morning, a trip to the local breakfast/coffee spots is like going to a Gymboree class.  We were playing at Jaycee park earlier this month and the place was packed with four different birthday parties going on.  A few years a go when we first started going there, barely any kids would be there even on the weekend.  So, if I were to make a guess, I would say that better than half of the new residents are younger couples with new families. 

[lilyheights]

We built and lived in the Heights from 2003-2014. The number of kids increased greatly over those years.

There are a lot of families there.

We moved out of the Heights to have a larger yard and a smaller (but still good sized) one-story house. We have kids. They remain in private.

We just couldn't afford the kind of house and lot we wanted in the Heights anymore. So, we left the property taxes behind. We moved to a more modest neighborhood to offset tuition.

The Heights is a great place to live. I'm glad we were able to be a part of it.

[jmontrose]

Thanks s3mh! I  do hear a lot about people moving to the Heights with small children or to start families (good elementary schools).  I also hear about people like "lilyheights" who move out (as much as they love the heights) for more affordable space (and better middle/high schools).

 

Some people say "Big houses will give more people the option to stay" or "we plan/hope to stay".  

 

But I am still looking for examples of a family with children age 10-13 moving into the central Heights, or upgrading to a new house in the heights, within the last year.  (bounded by Shepard-20th-Studewood-Whiteoak).  

 

Has anyone seen this?

 

[terra002]

I currently own a townhouse in midtown. However, I plan on selling that and buying a house in the heights once my first child is a few years old or second is born, whichever comes first.  It seems like a good place to raise kids and still be centrally located.

[Ross]

I don't understand the disdain for Love Elementary. It's a decent school with a good principal. Lots of non-zoned students fight to go there.

[Purdueenginerd]

Im in cottage grove (not the heights), but my fiance and I will probably try to avoid the burbs if we can. I'm 7-10 years away from having a kid at school age though, so i can chill for a while.