RedScare Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 On my way home, I caught half of a story about a new city ordinance that would allow a property owner to designate his property historic. Thereafter, the property could not be destroyed or moved. Importantly, the designation stays with the property if the original owner sells it. Only a vote of city council could lift the designation and allow destruction. Did anyone else hear this story? I am curious if it was voted in, or just proposed. This sounds similar to something I suggested in the 6th ward thread about the couple razing the 100 year old house, so I would be pretty excited if it actually came to fruition. EDIT: It is true. Here's the link at KUHT. http://www.kuhf.org/site/News2?JServSessio...ws_iv_ctrl=1521 Great news for lovers of old structures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danax Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Wow. I would love to see the details to see how stringent the restrictions would be.I wonder if the home has to be in an already designated Historic District?I know that in '02 there was a similar ordinance that missed by 1 vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 i have no link, but this was in an email:City Council Passes Preservation Amendment,Creates Protected Landmark DesignationThis morning Houston City Council unanimously voted to amend the Historic Preservation Ordinance and create a new category of historic designation: Protected Landmark. GHPA strongly supported this measure, which, for the first time, provides real protection from demolition, relocation and unsympathetic alteration for our irreplaceable historic resources.GHPA specifically wants to recognize Mayor Bill White and Council Members Adrian Garcia and Pam Holm for their commitment to historic preservation and outstanding work on crafting and passing the amendment. I encourage you to call, write or e-mail your thanks to Mayor White, Council Members Garcia and Holm, and your specific Council representative for their support of historic preservation in Houston. A directory of City Council members is available at http://www.houstontx.gov/council/index.html.Special thanks to all GHPA members who contacted their Council Members in support of this vital amendment. You played a significant role in this important preservation success and proved that, working together, we can create a preservation ethic for Houston.Ramon DavisExecutive DirectorAmendment SummaryProperty owners may now elect to permanently protect their historic buildings from alteration, relocation or demolition by having their property designated a Protected Landmark. Protected Landmarks may still be rehabilitated or restored with a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Houston Archeological and Historical Commission (HAHC), as required for all currently designated City Landmarks. The property owner must request Protected Landmark status; the designation cannot be imposed by any City officials or agencies.Protected Landmark status will travel with the land and remain in place even if the property is sold. Owners of historic properties that have previously been designated as City Landmarks may apply to HAHC to have their properties designated as Protected Landmarks, thus affording their properties additional protection.To qualify as a Protected Landmark, a historic property must:Meet three of the eight criteria for designation as a City Landmark in the current Municipal Code, or Have been constructed before 1905, or Be individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or Be an individually designated Recorded Texas Historic Landmark.In addition, the amendment secured the futures of eight important city-owned buildings by designating these historic properties as Protected Landmarks: City Hall Kellum-Noble House Julia Ideson Building Heights Branch Library Former Heights City Hall/Fire State No. 14 Arthur B. Cohn House Fire Station No. 7 (Houston Fire Museum) Gregory School in Freedmen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucesw Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Here's a previous thread with a graphic.http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...?showtopic=3171 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirzania Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Great. I hate being pessimistic but I hope this doesn't make it easier for people to run out and have their homes/stores considered "historic landmarks." The only reason I've become bitter about this is a few people in PA. 309 and Kernsville is the worst intersection along 309, mostly because it's an interestion that most high school kids take to school. It's in desperate need of being widened since you cannot see the other road until you've already gone through the intersection. The reason for this? Three ghastly buildings that have been erected over the years. A fourth used to stand on the southwest corner, the secondmost historic property along that stretch. Well, the expansion was planned, the property was purchased, it was demolished. The other three building owners RAN to get their buildings claimed as historical landmarks. One of these had been reduced to a shack (that sells shotguns, of course). It had a load-bearing wall that made it a "historical landmark." The other is a cursed storefront that's seen too many proprietors in its day. The only thing "historic" about it? The basement. The last property was a house with tons of ramshackle additions that was only a few feet away from the streets that ran by it. What truly disgusts me about this whole thing? These buildings were allowed their historical markers. There was a stunning old house that was next to the cursed storefront. It was the main farmhouse of one of the first families to settle the Lehigh Valley. By now I'm sure you realize it was torn down as soon as the mayor said, "Let's expand 309 at Kernsville Rd.!" (I cried - I wanted that house. ) The first house I mentioned that was demolished? It was built by the father of this family for his (great grand-?)daughter when she was married. I just don't want to see the same sort of crap happen in Houston. Tear-downs of darling bungalows in the Wards or the Heights, but atrocities that are nothing more than sheet metal and plywood "saved." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoAtomic Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 The only real flaw I see in this is that the 'build date' qualifier is pre-1905. It should have been pre-1970, to catch the significant mid-century architecture that abound in Houston. But maybe they'll modify it moving forward ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 i agree - the build date will be a huge roadblock for some... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Using 1905 conveniently excludes almost all of Houston's major growth (ie pre-ship channel and Spindletop). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 The date is not only thing though. You have to registered historical. It is not always easy to get this designation. Just having an old house doen't make it historical in that orginization.I have an aunt that lives ina house built in 1849 back in Louisiana and the National Historic Register won't register it because it was updated. They added some entry steps in the back that was out of sync with the original house.I think this ordinance was just to quiet some people by saying we're doing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 The date is not only thing though. You have to registered historical. It is not always easy to get this designation. Just having an old house doen't make it historical in that orginization.I have an aunt that lives ina house built in 1849 back in Louisiana and the National Historic Register won't register it because it was updated. They added some entry steps in the back that was out of sync with the original house.I think this ordinance was just to quiet some people by saying we're doing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 I think this ordinance was just to quiet some people by saying we're doing something.I suspect you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danax Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 The date is not only thing though. You have to registered historical. It is not always easy to get this designation. Just having an old house doen't make it historical in that orginization.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>The article says either registered with the National Historic Register or 100 years old, not both. We really need to see a copy of this thing.As for the date being too old, Gordon Quan has said that the average home in Houston was built in 1953 so I think they were afraid of being overwhelmed if the made it 50 years old, for example. Too bad for the mod homes. We need another way to save them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 To qualify as a Protected Landmark, a historic property must:Meet three of the eight criteria for designation as a City Landmark in the current Municipal Code, or Have been constructed before 1905, or Be individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or Be an individually designated Recorded Texas Historic Landmark.prodedures for landmark designationlook under "historic preservation forms" heading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.