The Heights Information & Developments

[sonic0boom]

Currently on the market:

529 Oxford: 3600 sq ft new construction

Be careful with your choice of evidence. You'll only see new construction at 529 Oxford if the builder's variance request to tear down the historic garage apartment currently there is approved by the city and the Historic Committee.

[s3mh]

"1643 Arlington: 3800 sq ft renovation/addition"

Did anyone go look at this one on HAR.com? $895,000, and apparently s3mh thinks this is a tasteful redo of a 1925 bungalow. At 3875 square feet, it is now triple the size of the original structure. None of the windows, walls, floor, roof, plumbing, or electrical, lights, front porch, or doors are original.

But, GUESS WHAT? They kept the original 117 siding! Well, kinda. The original 117 siding remains intact on the front of the house, and perhaps 12 down the sides. However, the brand new addition is clad in Hardie. Yes, that's right. s3mh is bragging about a hideous redo with two different kinds of siding on it. No wonder he thinks the HAHC does a good job.

I can't wait to see what his renovation looks like. Please post pice, s3mh. We'd love to see it.

Of course you now change the subject because I have more than proven my prior statement that real estate market in the Heights is doing just fine under the ordinance despite the idiotic predictions of slums, diving property values and mass exodus by the anti-ordinance zealots.

I never said that HAHC is perfect. You always have to straw man an argument for me when you get beaten down. I would love to see them be more restrictive. But, 1643 Arlington is actually a huge improvement over a demo and new build (just look at the two houses to the north). The original bungalow architecture is well preserved at street level. No preservationist has ever insisted on retaining plumbing, electric, etc. Another straw man argument. The whole point of the commission is to get builders to work with the existing craftsman and victorian architecture instead of tearing down and building new big boxes with all sorts of incompatible architectural elements. So, the HAHC is doing what was intended. And everything is still fine in the Heights real estate market.

[Ross]

S3MH, how about if I want to live in the Heights, but don't like bungalow architecture? Why shouldn't I be able to tear down the ugly bungalow, and build something pleasing to me? Like the two houses North of 1643 Arlington. Those are great houses, and I'm sure the owners are very happy with them. And really, as long as the owners are happy, why would you care what the houses look like?

[RedScare]

Of course you now change the subject because I have more than proven my prior statement that real estate market in the Heights is doing just fine under the ordinance despite the idiotic predictions of slums, diving property values and mass exodus by the anti-ordinance zealots.

I never said that HAHC is perfect. You always have to straw man an argument for me when you get beaten down. I would love to see them be more restrictive. But, 1643 Arlington is actually a huge improvement over a demo and new build (just look at the two houses to the north). The original bungalow architecture is well preserved at street level. No preservationist has ever insisted on retaining plumbing, electric, etc. Another straw man argument. The whole point of the commission is to get builders to work with the existing craftsman and victorian architecture instead of tearing down and building new big boxes with all sorts of incompatible architectural elements. So, the HAHC is doing what was intended. And everything is still fine in the Heights real estate market.

None of what you said is evident in 1643 Arlington. It is not an improvement over the two houses next to it. The materials in those homes at least match. The bungalow architecture is not preserved. Original bungalows did not have concrete and brick porches...at least that one didn't. Besides, at "street level", everyone can still see the mismatched monstrosity behind it. You act as if no one sees the elephant on the lot. I'll be blunt. If that is what you and HAHC prefer, I'll take the new McVics.

And, no, you proved nothing with that list...except your lack of architectural taste. I still look forward to your renovation. It will be a hoot.

[SilverJK]

the HAHC is a joke and it needs to be disolved.

The historic ordinance is destroying the historic fabric of the Heights (culture is way more important that architecture). One of the main features that drew me to the heights was the eclectic mix of homes/people. We are still going to have that (despite the ordinance) because of the non historic district areas, but it is going to break up the heights into micro neighborhoods (these already existed, the ordinance will just make them more pronounced. People living in the historic districts will think they are better than those that don't, people living outside of the districts will think they are better than those living in the districts. The pro district people will try to force their agenda down others throats, the anti district people will try to get rid of the districts. That is a lot or neighborhood turmoil caused by an ordinace that was never voted for, majority supported, or clearly explained to what it means (it seems the HAHC is still unclear what is and isn't acceptable).

Why are you such a bad neighbor?

[NYC Texan2]

I've been following this discussion on and off for a little while but haven't seen all the posts. However, there is much more construction going on between Oxford and Harvard south of 11th than between Oxford and Studemont, which isn't in the historic district. If the historic districts are pushing activity away, then there should be a rush of construction in the latter area. There isn't.

[sonic0boom]

I've been following this discussion on and off for a little while but haven't seen all the posts. However, there is much more construction going on between Oxford and Harvard south of 11th than between Oxford and Studemont, which isn't in the historic district. If the historic districts are pushing activity away, then there should be a rush of construction in the latter area. There isn't.

The area between Oxford and Studemont is much smaller than between Oxford and Harvard. And on the few streets I've walked (near Antidote), they also seem to be fairly built out already. Maybe there's an argument to be made about the cause and effect of the historic district on this area, but i don't think this is evidence of it.

[RedScare]

I live in one, and drive through the other daily. I do not see what NYC Texan2 claims is going on in my neighborhood. For instance, on my street, I can look up and down it from my house and cannot see a single home under construction. In the last year, there has been one remodel of a previously remodeled house, and one new home constructed in a 4 block stretch. I'd hardly call that gangbusters, especially compared to the construction that went around me prior to the historic ordinance shutdown in June 2010.

[fwki]

Time will tell on property values and activity. But one thing I know for SURE is if living outside the districts means I don't have to stand in front of that collection of self-annointed priests/priestesses and beg for permission to improve my house as best suits me economically and aesthetically, then I am better off. Catch a bad day at the wrong time of the month, er, I mean the week, and you're hosed because there is no rhyme or reason to it. Just watching those videos makes me want to puke. Hiring someone to do it for me makes me want to puke. Going up there my self.....they'd be hauling me off in handcuffs, I'd be screaming for marksmu to come shoot his way in and rescue me.

[RedScare]

I've had a renovation ready to go since last year. It still hasn't started, simply because I refuse to put forth the effort to ask those morons for permission. Eventually, I'll probably do it, but my own small addition to the Heights economy has not occurred, specifically because of the board. And, I am not the only one. Roadblocks to participation lower participation (see the voter ID fight for an explanation). Limiting renovations by this board cannot have a positive effect on property values. When investment goes into a neighborhood, values rise. When it is choked off, values drop (or rise slower). Remember that the person bragging about how bustling things are in the Heights never even lived here when things were really booming. He only moved here at the start of the historic district process. He has nothing to compare it to.

[Marksmu]

I've had a renovation ready to go since last year. It still hasn't started, simply because I refuse to put forth the effort to ask those morons for permission. Eventually, I'll probably do it, but my own small addition to the Heights economy has not occurred, specifically because of the board. And, I am not the only one. Roadblocks to participation lower participation (see the voter ID fight for an explanation). Limiting renovations by this board cannot have a positive effect on property values. When investment goes into a neighborhood, values rise. When it is choked off, values drop (or rise slower). Remember that the person bragging about how bustling things are in the Heights never even lived here when things were really booming. He only moved here at the start of the historic district process. He has nothing to compare it to.

I agree with what you have said about the ordinance and the way it is enforced in principal...however the response I actually want to make requires a new thread - as my response to your voter id analogy would be the threadjacking of all threadjackings....much like this thread has devolved into a historic thread ordinance.

Overly cumbersome and restrictive rules definitively lower participation in renovation and new construction. Not only does it lower the participation but it adds significant cost...S3MH, and her ilk, would have you believe the additional costs are negligible, and if the materials and builders who used them were plentiful, she may be right...but they are not. That materials are not plentiful, builders who work with them even less so, and in the end the homeowner who builds/renovates is the one who is stuck with the interest on a construction loan that never ends because they have not gotten the permission or approval from the glorious all knowing HAHC.

[NYC Texan2]

"Definitively"? You can say that regulations like zoning raise costs, but that doesn't change the fact that zoning is used by every master planned community and incorporated suburb in Houston, in addition to every major city in Texas including Beaumont and Galveston. It apparently is effective. The predictability is a huge asset to the community and encourages further development.

There are two houses under construction on the western side of Oxford. There are not any under construction on the eastern side of that street. The two blocks from Oxford to Studemont saw new construction commence after the area between Oxford and Heights, so it definitely is not fully redeveloped by any stretch of the imagination. The sampling is small, but there is dose of overstatement going on in this thread.

BTW, a realtor was quoted in a recent Chronicle article saying 77008 was a "seller's market". Doesn't sound like a negative comment.

[Ross]

77008 includes most of Timbergrove as well, where houses are dropping like flies. Another one was torn down on Nashua today. I think that's the 8th City Cottage teardown in a year.

[RedScare]

Well, if a realtor was quoted in the Chronicle, that's good enough for me.

[Marksmu]

The biggest difference between zoning and what has happened here is that the zoning went into effect before construction started and homes existed....In this case a minority of owners were able to change the rules and force their beliefs on everyone retroactively......People had owned homes they planned to renovate as they saw fit for many years and had the rules changed overnight and without any form of compensation.

Zoning does give predictability in an area knowing it will remain residential but it does not control the quality of the homes....this ordinance is bad all the way around for everyone who wanted to purchase property to live in and eventually sell at a premium, or upgrade to live in themselves. It only benefits those who have a small house they want to keep the property taxes down on.

And as was stated above - 77008 is a large area code....but the properties that are selling like hot cakes are the $500,000-$650,000 new construction homes (not the faux McCamelbacks). Even though people have their own opinions, I know of nobody who actually believes a McCamelback is an improvement on a small well maintained shack.

Drive down Waverly or Nicholson between 11th and 12th. Look at the quantity of new construction there...13 houses in less than a year...ALL sold. 2 currently under construction, 1 of which is owner building...then drive between 9th and 11th on Waverly and Nicholson....I have not counted but I believe its in the neighborhood of 11 houses completed & sold in the last year - and those have sold DESPITE being located across the street from and next door to an inpatient mental hospital.

The areas West of Yale outside of the district are BOOMING - there is no comparison at all that can be made anywhere inside of the ordinance area. Its not an exaggeration, just drive the area- you will see it yourself. Half the properties never make HAR as the builder is able to sell them without a realtor listing just by putting his sign out front....most of these homes dont list until they are half complete and not already sold.

"Definitively"? You can say that regulations like zoning raise costs, but that doesn't change the fact that zoning is used by every master planned community and incorporated suburb in Houston, in addition to every major city in Texas including Beaumont and Galveston. It apparently is effective. The predictability is a huge asset to the community and encourages further development.

There are two houses under construction on the western side of Oxford. There are not any under construction on the eastern side of that street. The two blocks from Oxford to Studemont saw new construction commence after the area between Oxford and Heights, so it definitely is not fully redeveloped by any stretch of the imagination. The sampling is small, but there is dose of overstatement going on in this thread.

BTW, a realtor was quoted in a recent Chronicle article saying 77008 was a "seller's market". Doesn't sound like a negative comment.

[SilverJK]

some of the newer contstruction on Oxford (west side near white oak)was only possible because they demo'd the delapidated shacks that were on the lots before the ordinance went into effect. Had they not demo'd those prior to the ordinance, we'd likely be stuck with some 800sq. ft crack houses still.

[RedScare]

There are two houses under construction on the western side of Oxford. There are not any under construction on the eastern side of that street. The two blocks from Oxford to Studemont saw new construction commence after the area between Oxford and Heights, so it definitely is not fully redeveloped by any stretch of the imagination. The sampling is small, but there is dose of overstatement going on in this thread.

You may not know this, but most of Oxford...even on the west side of the street...is not in the historic district. The HAHC carved out dissenting properties around the edges of the district until they could get the required 51%. Most property owners on Oxford opposed the historic district. Only the 1000 block voted in.

One of the 2 houses that you pointed to as proof of construction in historic districts is in fact not in a historic district. One is. Along the entirety of Oxford, Columbia, and Arlington that is within the historic district, a grand total of 2 homes are being renovated, and one built new in the last year.

[Eggplant]

RedScare - Please clarify those comments. Some (less than half) of the houses in Houston Heights South (I-10 to 11th) on the west side are in the historic district; however, all of the houses north of 11th (south of 20th) on the west side are in the district.

I am basing this on the Historic Heights East and South maps found here.

Also, which two houses on Oxford/Columbia/Arlington are you referring to? I'm not questioning your count; I just want to confirm that we're on the same page.

[RedScare]

Egg,

I was only referring to the South Heights district. However, the East Heights map gives a great visual effect to what I said. You'll notice a nice straight line up Oxford for the East Heights district border. But, on the South Heights border, you'll notice a jagged line. The 1000 block is included, but only about half of the 900 block is included. None of the 600, 700, and 800 blocks are in the district, as virtually all of them signed 'No' petitions, so they were left out of the district in order to meet the 51% requirements.

The 2 houses I refer to are one in the 900 block of Oxford...921 perhaps?...and in the 1000 block of Columbia. The Columbia house was already non-contributing due to a prior renovation. The new house is somewhere in the 700 or 800 block of Columbia. I'll have to go look. Everything else is small changes like doors and windows (shouldn't even require permission for that), or garages. If I missed one, let me know.

[TGM]

For what it's worth in 100 years they will all be historic and someone will be moaning about how the spray-foam nano-siding with rare-Jupiter crystals lacks the vintage craftsmanship and feel of the turn-of-the-century HardiPlank.

[JJxvi]

I'm all for Historic Districs if they keep out the Jupiter crystals.

[TGM]

I'm all for Historic Districs if they keep out the Jupiter crystals.

I think by then we will have moved past the Earthlings Only mentality you planetist!

Of course way back in 2012 no one would have thought that "save the planet" movement was the intergalactic equivalent of the "white power" movement.

[sonic0boom]

Huh ... thanks for the link to those maps. I thought i was in the Heights South district and successfully used that as one my criteria to reduce my property taxes. But it looks like the east side of Oxford for my block isn't included. Shhh don't tell HCAD.

[s3mh]

Drive down Waverly or Nicholson between 11th and 12th. Look at the quantity of new construction there...13 houses in less than a year...ALL sold. 2 currently under construction, 1 of which is owner building...then drive between 9th and 11th on Waverly and Nicholson....I have not counted but I believe its in the neighborhood of 11 houses completed & sold in the last year - and those have sold DESPITE being located across the street from and next door to an inpatient mental hospital.

The areas West of Yale outside of the district are BOOMING - there is no comparison at all that can be made anywhere inside of the ordinance area. Its not an exaggeration, just drive the area- you will see it yourself. Half the properties never make HAR as the builder is able to sell them without a realtor listing just by putting his sign out front....most of these homes dont list until they are half complete and not already sold.

The "boom" on Waverly and Nicholson is an optical illusion. Builders have taken lots down to 3300 and 4000 to cram more houses into a single block. So, it is easy to outpace other sections of the Heights when you are adding more lots to each block. Also, the districts have seen way more construction/rennovation over the past 15 years compared to west of Yale. The areas west of Yale were behind and are now catching up to the rest of the Heights. Even if there was no historic ordinance, you would not see that kind of growth in the HDs because available land is getting very scarce. But when opportunities come up in the HDs, people are buying, renovating, and building.

Like 930 Harvard. 4200 sq ft addition/renovation on the market for $938,000.

[Eggplant]

Egg,

I was only referring to the South Heights district. However, the East Heights map gives a great visual effect to what I said. . . .

That's an important distinction. The story north of 11th is not as clear as what you described. Take a quick walk and you'll find several recent bungalow renovations for sale on the 1600 block of Columbia and Arlington including 1644 Columbia (listing for $865K) which was discussed on another thread, and 1522 Columbia (listing for $750K) which is in process. Recent sales include 1539 Columbia, 1420 Columbia, and 1602 Arlington. (The HAR iPad app does not show sales prices. My personal observation was that the homes did not sit unsold for very long.)

Oxford Street is more schizophrenic. Although there have been recent sales (1401 and 1433 Oxford, both on the historic side), some homeowners on the historic side have complained at HHA meetings that they are unable to sell their properties because potential buyers are restricted in how the homes can be improved. On the other hand, there are older (seemingly abandoned) homes in advanced stages of disrepair on the east side just north of the high school. These lots haven't sold even though, according to the map referenced above, they are not subject to the restrictions.

I am not opposed to the idea of historic renovation restrictions. I enjoy areas of our country (Philadelphia, Boston, etc.) that have maintained their beauty and historical relevance due to restrictions that are clearly explained, consistently enforced, and generally respected. I can therefore appreciate what the district cheerleaders are trying to achieve. However, I don't believe that the implementation in Houston achieves the desired results and am unconvinced by a lot of the rhetoric on both sides. I'm keeping an open mind, so keep writing.

You're welcome Sonic0boom. It's not surprising that an Oxford St resident would be confused; the street is all over the place on the map. Don't worry. I won't tell.

[RedScare]

Here's the weird thing. s3mh was one of the most militant, if not the most militant, of the district cheerleaders. He even went so far as to threaten those opposed to the districts, saying that they were taking pictures of old houses, in case we tried to renovate them without permission. He claims that McVictorians are ruining the neighborhood, because they are out of scale to the bungalows. But, here he is 2 posts above mine, trumpeting the McMansioning of the very hoses he claims to want to protect. And, apparently the HAHC is APPROVING it! This renovation on Harvard is more than tripling the square footage of the original house. And, of course, to fit within the guidelines they have to design an architectural albatross. But, here these cheerleaders are celebrating this eyesore!

My only point in this is that I know better how to tastefully renovate my home than the government. The HAHC, and those who support it, are only proving that they know nothing about architecture, and worse, that they are not really trying to protect these homes. They are ruining them! But, this is what happens when you try to force your will on unwilling participants through government regulation. They look at the regs and design around them. And, here's the crazy part. A huge part of pushing these historic districts was the painting of builders and developers as evil profiteers, intent on killing off the historic Heights. Did they say that about the builder at 930 Harvard? Nope. Why not? Because he was smart enough to put the word 'Bungalow' in his trade name. Doesn't matter if you build 4200 foot monstrosities as long as you fake everyone out by saying 'Bungalow'. For proof, look no further than post #59. The "builders" on Nicholson are evil, while the "Bungalow" builder on Harvard is wonderful. This, in spite of the fact that the 'bungalow' on Harvard is at least 50% larger than every house on Nicholson...twice the size of many of them.

No wonder I am bitter.

Edited June 15, 2012 by RedScare

[Ross]

The "boom" on Waverly and Nicholson is an optical illusion. Builders have taken lots down to 3300 and 4000 to cram more houses into a single block. So, it is easy to outpace other sections of the Heights when you are adding more lots to each block. Also, the districts have seen way more construction/rennovation over the past 15 years compared to west of Yale. The areas west of Yale were behind and are now catching up to the rest of the Heights. Even if there was no historic ordinance, you would not see that kind of growth in the HDs because available land is getting very scarce. But when opportunities come up in the HDs, people are buying, renovating, and building.

Like 930 Harvard. 4200 sq ft addition/renovation on the market for $938,000.

Many of those lots were already 4000 sq ft or less - that area was never very upscale, and had small houses on small lots.

[RedScare]

Many of those lots were already 4000 sq ft or less - that area was never very upscale, and had small houses on small lots.

Heh heh. A quick glance at HCAD would have saved him a lot of embarrassment. Nicholson lots were originally platted at 33.33 feet wide.Further west was even smaller. Those lots, the ironically named Nicholson Addition, were platted at 25 feet wide. So, those builders who built on 3300 and 4000 square foot lots were actually being historically accurate, unlike "bungalow" builders who add 3000 square feet to the backs of old houses.

[Marksmu]

Heh heh. A quick glance at HCAD would have saved him a lot of embarrassment. Nicholson lots were originally platted at 33.33 feet wide.Further west was even smaller. Those lots, the ironically named Nicholson Addition, were platted at 25 feet wide. So, those builders who built on 3300 and 4000 square foot lots were actually being historically accurate, unlike "bungalow" builders who add 3000 square feet to the backs of old houses.

DING DING - I live on Waverly - I own a lot and a half which made my lot 50' wide. My neighbors on both sides, own old small homes that are on 33' lots....

S3MH cant be bothered to check facts. Furthermore it is not an optical illusion - its actually happening Areas to the West of Heights INSIDE the district which was not built up prior to the ordinance being passed are still being ignored....Areas to the West of Heights OUTSIDE the district are booming. New beautiful construction with every single one of them being sold PRIOR to completion....meanwhile you have "bungalows" that look like someone actually dropped another house on top of the old house sitting complete and unsold on HAR for months.

Any realtor with half a brain can tell you, and prove to you, that the ordinance is having a negative effect on properties inside the district. You cant get all your information from HAR because the properties that people actually are fighting over never have to list on HAR - the builders can build them and save the 6% for themselves because people actually want them.

Its not illusion, its not hyperbole, its not exaggeration. The historic district has improved the market for new construction in the areas outside of it. It is a fact; any argument to the contrary is non-factual opinion.

[fwki]

I think Red has psychic powers or maybe a PC with internet access.