The Heights Information & Developments

[TGM]

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.

Germany tried the historic district thing in the 1930s-to early 40's and only succeeded in making Swiss property values go up. Maybe the Brownshirts in the various historical districts should take this into consideration when they stamp their fists at historical board meetings.

[s3mh]

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.

Anyone with a real brain can tell you that there has been absolutely no negative effect on properties inside the district. Builders are building and renovating. Houses are selling. Realtors will even admit that the market in the Heights is doing just fine after the ordinance. The hack builders who only know how to tear down perfectly good bungalows and build cheap boxes have all fled the districts to the outlying areas. Good ridance.

The opponents claimed that the ordinance would be the end of real estate in the Heights. They claimed there would be no more renovations, new construction. They claimed that everyone would just let their homes decay instead of having to deal with the HAHC. Quite the opposite has happened. The districts are thriving. People with smaller bungalows are no longer afraid to invest in them for fear of ending up the only bungalow on a block of McVics or ending up next to some monstorous modern thing. The quality builders/renovators (Lucas, Bungalow Revival, Heights, Southland, etc.) are all doing great work in the districts. The districts are rapidly filling up and that is helping the outlying areas get more investment. If the ordinance was as onerous as the anti-district people hyped it up to be, you would not be seeing a long list of new builds and renovations on the market now. You would not be seeing bungalows selling within days of listing. But it is happening. that is because the historic ordinance, though imperfect, works. No one has been able to show any real evidence of any negative effect on the market absent speculation about people sitting in their bungalows chewing on stones instead of putting their plans before the commission.

[SilverJK]

Anyone with a real brain can tell you that there has been absolutely no negative effect on properties inside the district. Builders are building and renovating. Houses are selling. Realtors will even admit that the market in the Heights is doing just fine after the ordinance. The hack builders who only know how to tear down perfectly good bungalows and build cheap boxes have all fled the districts to the outlying areas. Good ridance.

They didn't flee the district, they were pushed out by a minority group of know-it-all (know-nothing-at-all is more accurate). But thanks for sharing your factless based opinions as the gospel truth yet once again.

BTW nobody said construction would stop or all real estate would end in the district, you simply made that up. It would hurt growth, cause ugly camelback hemroid additions, and decrease value of small shacks was what was stated, and you have helped prove a lot of that with your earlier posts.

[RedScare]

Anyone with a real brain can tell you that there has been absolutely no negative effect on properties inside the district. Builders are building and renovating. Houses are selling.

The opponents claimed that the ordinance would be the end of real estate in the Heights. They claimed there would be no more renovations, new construction.

If the ordinance was as onerous as the anti-district people hyped it up to be, you would not be seeing a long list of new builds and renovations on the market now.

In the South Heights, there are only 3 houses for sale on Oxford, Columbia, and Arlington. These streets comprise one half of the nearly 900 homes in the district. Of those 3 houses for sale,one was built on a vacant lot (3600 sf McVic), one is an existing 5,100 sf McVic (built in 2007), and one is a massive add-on onto the back of an existing house, complete with humongous 2 story porte cochere.

I don't know how the realtors are keeping up.

[Marksmu]

The hack builders who only know how to tear down perfectly good bungalows and build cheap boxes have all fled the districts to the outlying areas. Good ridance.

.

Old "bungalows" are almost always a Box, sometimes a perfect box, so it's even funnier when you complain of the new builds being boxy. Not only that these old boxes are not some incredible type of construction...they are nothing more than track homes that just happened to have been built a long time ago. Next your going to tell me we need to preserve the west side of Pearland....if we start now we can preserve the suburb exactly as it was built!

[NYC Texan2]

Redscare, I see your post above that you are just saying that you know how to build your house better than the government. However, I do recall when the Stella Sola building was built that you were quite adamant about the right of the builders to rip out as many houses on that block as he wanted to. You weren't concerned about the impact on the property values of the remaining houses on 10th. I think your overall philosophy is that the government shouldn't have any rules that impact what you build on your property (let's not get into fire regulations and such). Let me know if I'm off on that.

Regarding a previous post, I see four houses under construction or renovation on Columbia between 11th and White Oak. I don't think you can say with any statistical significance that there has been any drop off in construction activity in the historic district, whether or not the west side of Oxford is included.

[RedScare]

Yes, I AM saying I know better how to renovate or build my house than the government. Are you saying that the government knows better?

I remember well the Stella Sola building thread. The owners bought one lot behind the building to provide additional off-street parking. I remember you being a big opponent of people parking on the street. Have you changed your mind? I also recall that the building on the lot prior to Stella Sola lost an entire wall of brick before it was mercifully torn down. It was replaced with another 2 story building. What is your point? Even in your beloved NYC, zoning laws would allow replacing a crumbling 2 story commercial building with another 2 story commercial building? Are you advocating zoning for the Heights? Worse, are you advocating stricter zoning than New York?

I checked out your claim of 4 new homes under construction on Columbia. It is actually two. One new home is replacing the 864 square foot shack that was on the lot. Even HAHC appears to concede 864 sf is useless. More likely, since it was built in 1940, they didn't care if it was demolished, since the Heights is all about 1920, it seems. The other is replacing a house that had its front elevation change somewhat. Don't know why it was allowed to be demo'd.

The other two houses that you claim to be new are actually renovations. One is a renovation to a home built in 2009, prior to the new ordinance. The other is to a house that had been extensively renovated in the past. The new work is somewhat better than the non-contributing renovation that preceded it. So, really we are talking only 2 new houses under construction. In fact, I looked at HCAD for the 600-1000 blocks of Columbia. Since the historic restrictions went into effect in 2010, only 3 new homes have been built. In the several years prior to the new restrictions, more than 22 new homes were built.

I'd call that statistically significant (86% decline). How about you?

EDIT: According to the HAHC, the house with the extensively changed facade that appeared to be new construction is actually only a renovation. Since the front elevation had already been modified extensively, nothing is lost in allowing the renovation. So, the new total is ONE new house since the historic ordinance went into effect, 2 renovations to previously modified homes, and a new garage (the 4th new construction that you mentioned).

Edited July 8, 2012 by RedScare

[NYC Texan2]

Sounds like a lot of investment going on given that homeowners / businesses now think the neighborhood is destined to go to hell. There is still a lot of construction in the area between Heights and Studemont. The market for land in the area is obviously tightening. The number of available lots is declining as the average quality of the remaining housing rises. So no, I don't think you have proved anything.

I don't have a problem with onstreet parking. My point around Stella Sola was that if we had appropriate zoning, it wouldn't be an issue, because Studemont was not a commercial street until the deed restrictions lapsed. Replacing the existing building would have been fine, but ripping out the neighborhood to build a parking lot isn't much of a plan. The ability to do that doesn't create a predictable environment for impacted homeowners. And if you look at the extensive new construction on that block (not), you can see what I'm talking about.

That said, I also think the city's rules about required parking for new development really condemns us to suburban-style development. Dallas is way ahead of us.

Edited July 8, 2012 by NYC Texan2

[OutfieldDan]

I personally appreciate all the new development on Studewood (Studemont is south of 1-10 and there is no such place between Heights and Studemont), including the parking that makes the development work/happen. We now have a place to go, to be proud of, to enjoy. It's been for the "better good." I also enjoy the newer homes in the Heights, and all the architechural variety. Unfortunately more of them are now forbidden, at least temporarily.

[NYC Texan2]

That's great, Dan. I'd be all the more proud of it all if it wasn't on Studewood.... Studement would be just great. There aren't any houses around there.

[RedScare]

Sounds like a lot of investment going on given that homeowners / businesses now think the neighborhood is destined to go to hell.

Sounds like you didn't read my post.

[fwki]

Sounds like you didn't read my post.

I agree, but as you have corrected me in the past, it is not about architecture, history or reality for the hardcore, so why would they read your posts? Now I have got to get back to searching for the alternate reality portals to prepare for the HAHC, I thought I spied one in the alley next to Antidote but it was just one of the old washing machines. I'm thinking Tom's Ice House may have had one, so it's off to Berryhill for now.

[txcat84]

Updates on hipster gas station vandalism? Development on 19th,rumors about water works parcel? How did the street walking thing on 19th go? Will the new farmers market have legs? Have any projects been sidelined or vice versa due to oil slump? More development coming for N. Shepherd?

Something. Anything. Board seems dead lately?

[Heightsfamily]

Let me stick my nose in this . . .

 

This used to be my favorite morning coffee read. Over time one personality starting dominating every single thread with a sense of know-it-allness and self importance. I found many of the replies to be offensive and tried to complain but apparently it did not meet the stated criteria of "offensive" for the boards. At the very least, that person's comments served to shut down any sort of conversation/discusssion of the Heights. My humble opinion is that this is what eventually drove others away and now we are left with a "latest" news kind of blog  instead of one with good discussions. It has become very boring and i usually can get that sort of information elsewhere, often sooner. So let's bring back some real discussion and let all get a word in edgewise.

[BullMan008]

I think the art on the BLVD is new. I love seeing it since we didnt have this years ago. The Blvd was a very quiet street years ago. 

[s3mh]

There hasn't been a big juicy issue in the Heights for a while.  The most interesting thing recently was the dust up over the Heights Mercantile development.  While I strongly supported the developer, looking back on it, it was a big hail Mary pass to try to get the planning commission to bend on the parking minimums.  I certainly hope the developer has a plan B.  If not, the developer can look in the mirror if it has any doubt who to blame if the project can't get done.

 

The Heights is really in a build out phase.  Nothing big will happen until the market has fully digested the new multifamily and retail in the pipeline, especially in light of the pull back in the energy market.  It is just more of the same for now.  A lot of the big issues that were the subject of heated debate on this board have mostly played out.  Walmart is over.  The historic ordinance is here to stay.  The real estate boom has plateaued, but is not going to give up any appreciate absent something catastrophic in the Houston economy.  There just isn't much to fuss about.  Million dollar homes going up everywhere.  Yawn.  Great new restaurants are exciting, but nothing to get people whipped up into a frenzy unless someone dares to park their car in front of someone's house.  Katyville style development south of I-10 has come to be the norm.  The neighborhood is basically in stasis.  But give it some time.  When the energy markets come back, I am sure someone will propose a highrise on one of the few remaining big parcels in the Heights and get everyone cussing and fussing again. 

[Avossos]

First Ward is getting some radical overhauls. It's actually going to be amazing

[J008]

They found another body. 

 

http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/2015/04/26/search-crews-find-human-remains-in-heights-park/26427463/

 

[txcat84]

Doesn't have to cause a "frenzy" or be controversial. Just looking for good-hearted news of almost any variety. I will check elsewhere. Thanks!

[Heightsfamily]

I am not looking for a dust-up, frenzy and certainly no dead bodies! I just feel like one person tends to shut down the "conversation" with "expert" opinions about everything; it feels like there is nothing more to say once that person has weighed in. So for interesting topics:

 

I have seen the new art work on the boulevard. While I love for this to continue, I think I really liked the original pieces better. Maybe just because they were novel or maybe it was a better showing? 

 

What do you think of residential permit parking on Heights streets? This has come up near my house and was pretty much a gross mis-application of the ordinance. However, it really pointed out the downside of the level of gentrifying that we are now experiencing. For me the remodeled disgusting apartment complex and row of new well-built, appropriate houses was a big win-win, but some found other issues.

 

I am very excited about the new restaurants on Shepherd. This is really huge for us I think. I am kind of scared to say this (old story about posting a negative rant at the bar got someone tossed out of said bar) but leaping into it - No matter how many times I hear that the food at Down House has improved it has not been what I have found. So wish them more on the food at the new spots. This might spark a "frenzy"

 

I am sure I can think of some other conversation worthy topics. I would just hope that the replies would be ones that participate in the conversation rather than pontificate.

[Ross]

 

What do you think of residential permit parking on Heights streets? This has come up near my house and was pretty much a gross mis-application of the ordinance. However, it really pointed out the downside of the level of gentrifying that we are now experiencing. For me the remodeled disgusting apartment complex and row of new well-built, appropriate houses was a big win-win, but some found other issues.

 

Bad idea. The streets belong to all of the residents, not just those who own adjacent property. If there are real parking issues, then call the police. Otherwise, it's part of living in an area with easy access to amenities. Having said that, I try to be a polite parker, avoiding parking directly behind a driveway, etc. I will park over the rocks some people put out, since I have the ground clearance to do so.

[Heightsfamily]

Honestly, I have found that if you speak directly to the parties involved with an open mind you usually can find satisfactory conclusions. That is not how this was handled and everyone got their dander up. I think it has all settled down but the process just pointed out the changes as we gentrify. Some of my newer neighbors don't have the history in the area to appreciate the positive changes and simply view it as a problem that might have occurred in West U or somewhere else. I hope the newer folks will take the time to get the feel of things first in the future! And as it turns out, we really don't have a parking problem just lots of assumptions . 

[Angostura]

 

What do you think of residential permit parking on Heights streets? This has come up near my house and was pretty much a gross mis-application of the ordinance. However, it really pointed out the downside of the level of gentrifying that we are now experiencing. For me the remodeled disgusting apartment complex and row of new well-built, appropriate houses was a big win-win, but some found other issues.

 

 

 

 

In general, I'd like to see more street parking and less land area dedicated to surface parking lots.

 

Where it's really a constant problem, like for example the 600 block of Arlington, I'd prefer residents apply for residential parking during certain hours (6pm to 10pm, say), than illegally place boulders in the right of way, which restricts parking 24/7.

[Heightsfamily]

If I read the map correctly, it seems that block is getting overflow from commercial activity on White Oak. I think this is just what the ordinance is intended for. Near my house it was really a spat about whether the area in front of the houses was for the exclusive use of the owners. They were unhappy that guests of the apt complex across the street parked there. Unfortunately, both sides of the street have parking that is all in the COH right of way so theoretically is open to both parties. 

[txcat84]

Agree with Downhouse opinion. I do like the food there, but how much pickled crap can you put on how many dishes? I hope their flavor profile branches out too, because when I've eaten at D&T, I've found myself thinking it tastes like something from another page of the Downhouse menu. Which isn't always a bad thing, but in this case I could take it or leave it. The group does a good job with their booze programs though.

I live relatively close to shepherd so any restaurants, bars, retail would be long walking distance. Hope that development trend continues!

[bedmondson]

I got into a fight with a store owner about parking.  I was going to a place down the street and parked in the cut out area in front of a "Customer Only Parking" sign on the wall of the building (link below).  The parking is a bit weird because of the building overhang but to me it looks like that area is still public. And the sign didn't have a phone number on it and appeared to be illegal. Was I right in not moving my car and arguing with a crazy old lady? Anyways when I got back the truck was still there so I guess I won.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.798328,-95.399137,3a,75y,79.5h,85.45t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s4wdRDf-dQRVHyCDNZaAg7Q!2e0

[Angostura]

That's in the right of way, so you're probably OK assuming it's a public space.

 

That said, it's legal to park on Yale most hours of the day, so whether it was better to argue with an old lady than it was to park 50 feet further up the road is between you and your conscience.

[innerloop]

both sides of the street have parking that is all in the COH right of way so theoretically is open to both parties. 

 

It's not a theory.

[innerlooper]

Oaks cut down on Yale, between the sidewalk and the street. Didn't Wendys get in trouble over this on Kirby?

[cspwal]

Wendy's did get in trouble for it; part of the reason was they didn't apply and receive a permit to remove teh trees, which were in the public right of way.  It sounds like these trees would also be in the public right of way, if they are on the street side of the sidewalk.