heightslurker Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 I recently received a booklet of information regarding my area of the Houston Heights and a group wanting to have it designated as a "historic district" for the purposes of requiring that homeowners who have any major external changes need them to be approved by a committee first. (i.e. those types of changes that would require a permit) I do like the Heights for what it is and it is the reason we moved here. I would hate for the neighborhood to start going in the direction that Montrose has gone (endless amounts of townhomes). Yet, the reason we live inside the loop and not a master planned community is because of the freedom and diversity. I am not so sure that this type of designation would stop this freedom. I think it could be a good thing. Apparently if the homeowner decides they don't want to do what the committee suggests, they can simply wait 90 days and do whatever they want anyway. I can see the argument that the "waiting period" and comittee process can be a good way of educating the public on the preservation of an old home. You win some and you lose some but atleast there is a greater chance you win over a few people if they have to go through this process. Is it a good thing? I haven't decided. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 The Heights is actually in better shape than most of the designated historic districts in Houston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heights_yankee Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 I think it's a good thing. My area is designated and I think people consider that before buying there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYC Texan2 Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 As everyone knows, the historical preservation laws are toothless in Houston. That this idea would even be debatable shows how brainwashed we all are by the pro-development mentality (don't get me wrong, I love development, but Houston sorely needs some rules on the subject). This wouldn't make a difference, although it might give another forum for Heights residents to lobby against large projects that they don't want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 in theory it's great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 It seems that toothless historic districts would be about as effective as toothless historic preservation ordinances. The idea behind the waiting period sounds basically like wishful thinking, since the homeowner/developer can just wait it out. Without some sort of zoning or enforceable design guidelines, then it seems that over time the neighborhood would probably revert to the townhouse model such as in the Montrose. I'm not saying that model is necessarily a bad one, only that neighborhoods considering historic district designation need to realize that they can't have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyps Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 From the Woodland Heights Distribution List....Jim Bell of KUHF writes...We Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Thank you for the notice! I happened to hear the report on the radio. It's really a shame that Houston is unable/unwilling to save a neighborhood with the architectural quality of the Heights. You would think that homeowners would be begging for a strong protection ordinance, since it seems it would help property prices. Urban neighborhoods that are able to maintain architectural quality and continuity are often the most expensive, eg Society Hill in Philly (at least parts of it) and Georgetown in DC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Be prepared for a full-front offensive from Houston Property Rights Association..This developer-funded organization specializes in distortions and scare tactics, and is largely responsible for Houston lacking historic preservation measures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 You're no doubt right. Call me madcap, I just had this wacky idea that people might want to protect their neighborhood. You know, like how they do it in other cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgs1419 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I respect Mr. Bell and his attempt to raise awareness about The Heights and its history. I have issue with a copule of points raised in his article.From his article: "To show people what the city will lose if their preservation efforts fail, half a dozen beautiful old homes will be open to the public Saturday and Sunday."Of the six houses on the home tour, one was built in 2004 and two more are 90+ year old homes that have been doubled (literally) in size through recent renovations. Both renovations are tastefully done but it's ludicrous to think that either would ever pass muster in front of a historical review committee. 50% of the houses being celebrated by the Heights Association this weekend wouldn't exist if there was a historical preservation ordinance. Likewise, to hint that the house in the photo accompanying the article (white house, 18th and Harvard) is 'on the bubble' shows a lack of understanding of the economics of the neighborhood. That house is restored, well maintained, on a deed restricted lot, in a good block and quite large - a lead pipe cinch to sell at or near prices obtained for new construction. A better photo would be of a 1100sf bungalow that's been converted to a duplex and back to single family...twice...that's in disrepair, on a dividable lot, in a crappy block with a lawn mower repair shop next door. If you want to 'save' The Heights, deed restrict your lot (see www.houstonheights.org for more info) and get together with your neighbors and pass a prevailing lot size for your block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I agree with you completely, jgs. I saw that "craftsman bungalow" with two stories and a claim of tasteful addition and just about fell off of my 86 year old porch. If that is the Heights version of "historic", I'll pass on the designation...which is a big pass, since I actually own a non-altered bungalow. They need my vote. My lot is already deed restricted and lot prevailed. The best way to "save" the Heights is education and encouragement. However, the prevailing lot designation merely encourages outsized Victorian homes due to land prices, so I don't see that saving any Heights character. It's merely making it a Victorian West U. Frankly, I think the Victorian townhomes preserve the character better than a 4,000 square foot home on 2 lots. They are more size appropriate, and allow for neighbors who might not be millionaires.I'm going to have to think about this a lot. When you don't live inside the designated area, it seems a no-brainer. When it is your biggest investment, you look at everything a lot closer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 The house in the article Is the current home of Bart Truxillo and the former home of the Cooleys [as in Denton]. I just throw this out as added information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgs1419 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Red,Good comments. The value I see in the 25x132 lots with the novo-victorian architecture is that they provide many blocks with a mix of housing mass which, to some extent, mimics the original design of the neighborhood, just bigger. They certainly broaden the price point for new construction. Like anything, too much of them isn't a good thing because you lose the value inherent in variety. Same thing can be said for a block full of 4,000sf pseudo victorian boxes (see 8 1/2th St at Beverly for a working example).I hesitantly recommend the prevailing block size ordinance as a way to 'save' the neighborhood because it can only be employed by those most closely affected by continuing development.If folks that don't live in The Heights want to save it, come buy a bungalow and restore it. Better yet, buy an apartment complex that was built in the 70s, tear it down and build new. There are still plenty of opportunities to spend your own money here instead of influencing others how to spend theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyps Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 My first reaction is usually, protect! Of course, a no brainer. Here are beautiful old homes, that have stood through this city Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 jgs1419 makes a good point that a lot of the houses being displayed are not original. As much as I like preservation, it is unrealistic to think that old neighborhoods can be preserved in amber, or that people will want to live in homes that were designed for life a hundred years ago. There has to be room for people to modernize and upgrade their properties. What is perhaps more important than strict preservation is identifying the qualities that give neighborhoods their quality and design zoning/preservation ordinances around these. A common method is a design standards board for new construction. This realizes that new construction or improvements of existing old properties are necessary, but ensures that they are consistent with the "feel" of the neighborhood. Standards can cover such things as percentage of lot use, height, and overall design. This seems like it can be a reasonable compromise to not force people to live in antiques, but at the same time provide a mechanism to preserve the quality of the neighborhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgs1419 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 What is perhaps more important than strict preservation is identifying the qualities that give neighborhoods their quality and design zoning/preservation ordinances around these.I lament that the Heights Association has expended unmeasureable amounts of energy trying to dissuede what they broadly define as bad development. I wish they would spend more time trying to design, codify and implement a concise statement of 'quality' development as defined by the many diverse points of view that make up our neighborhood. That said, it is very difficult to codify "feel". Maybe your comments on % of lot utilization, height,etc. are a good place to start. If there ever is a 'plan', it must include alternate housing styles/density or the neighborhood will be lack the socioeconomic and ideologic diversity that contributes to its quality - just as important, in my view, as the design and style of the buildings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heightslurker Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 The most recent Heights Association newsletter touches on this topic.The article can be read here (page 9):http://www.houstonheights.org/pdf/hha0406.pdfInteresting coment in this article I want to draw your attention to:"If the AshlandTea House had been in a Cityof Houston historical district,it would still be standing as youread this article. The City Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmariar Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) Background - Reading about the slumping Houston housing market (see this on Swamplot, for example), I came across a link to an article about the market for historic home in Los Angeles:"In with the old: Architectural Restoration in L.A. is booming" - 9/8/2008 - About California's tax breaks for historic homes, the historic home restoration industry they have spawned, and the market for historic vs. non-historic homes. (Related: "Incentives for the Preservation and Rehabilitation of Historic Homes in the City of Los Angeles: A Guidebook for Homeowners")Which got me thinking about economic incentives. Houston of course has very weak historic preservation regulations and incentives. (They have gotten slightly better recently, but I've heard people debate whether the changes we've seen recently are (1) a sign of improvement or (2) about as developer-friendly an outcome as possible in an environment of increasing intolerance of the unrestrained destruction of Houston's historic properties.) I recognize that the city faces some obstacles in enacting restrictions on the use of private property, even in the name of historic preservation. But it seems less excusable that we don't have stronger economic incentives to preserve historic structures.Not that I'm not interested in the broader debate, but I'm posting this in the Heights subforum because I'm interested in hearing whether owners of historic houses have been able to take advantage of any tax or other economic incentives in connection with the preservation/restoration of their home. I can't think of any that would apply to just any given 100-year-old house (though I could be wrong on that), but what about those of you or your friends who own "protected landmark" houses inside or outside the OSW or Heights "protected" historic districts? I'm planning to read through the ordinance and city's information online, too, but thought people might have some stories to tell, and hadn't recalled the topic being discussed much before... Edited March 1, 2009 by tmariar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 We put our house on the Protected Landmark list when it was first possible. (that is the house as my avatar). If you make capital improvments, you can reduce your appraised value by that amount (We have not done that)However, since it is a Protected Landmark, I was able to lower my appraised value, as the land is worth LESS than comprable property in my neighborhood (The Montrose).There are not many Protected Landmarks (I think there are still fewer than 100) so I do not think there will be much history about tax benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmariar Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Interesting! I wonder how that incentive works in practice. I assume there are only certain capital improvements you can make to the house once it's got protected status. And I wonder whether the appraisal discount applies only in the year in which the improvements are made or if it's permanent, and what the procedure is for getting the benefit. Not asking for anyone to answer those questions - I'm still planning to do some research at some point. But your post was the kind of information I was looking for - thanks, Flashman. Your house looks lovely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 The improvements must be approved. But you can get retroactive credits if you did work that would have been approved.The city has a pretty good site:http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/historic...s/landmarks.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) The improvements must be approved. But you can get retroactive credits if you did work that would have been approved.The city has a pretty good site:http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/historic...s/landmarks.htmI might actually have a building that would qualify for this if I pursued historical landmark status, but I wonder whether some of my energy-saving improvements that will change the exterior appearance of the building might disqualify me from getting a Certificate of Appropriateness. Edited March 2, 2009 by TheNiche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melwood Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I read the link on the city website, but just to make sure I have this straight - I live in Norhill Heights, which is an Historic District. At least that's what my street sign says. 3 years ago I spent a bunch of money on a house addition, and I got the Certificate of Appropriateness from the City before I started. I've kept records of what was spent. So I can get a tax break?If so, then I should notify HCAD during tax protest time to get the break? Or is there a better way?thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melwood Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 thanks - I found the HSTE form and will contact Randy Pace. He helped me get the COA when we had the work on the house done. No rush on this, I didn't even know it existed so it's not like I've been missing the money. On the other hand, I welcome even a modest savings in taxes where I can get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evans-Davis Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Houston Heights has been selected as one of the best places to buy a historic house. This Old House and Preservation Directory agree with what many of us already know...Houston Heights is special! We are ranked right up there with the lower garden district of New Orleans. Cool! Check it out! http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/photos/0,,...0634053,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Neat - the Heights house is on W 23rd, circa 1925. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Houston Heights has been selected as one of the best places to buy a historic house. This Old House and Preservation Directory agree with what many of us already know...Houston Heights is special! We are ranked right up there with the lower garden district of New Orleans. Cool! Check it out! http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/photos/0,,...0634053,00.htmlThe list is titled "Best Old House Neighborhoods 2009: The South," however one of the neighborhoods listed is in Baltimore, MD. Since when did the South annex Maryland? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMME Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 (edited) The list is titled "Best Old House Neighborhoods 2009: The South," however one of the neighborhoods listed is in Baltimore, MD. Since when did the South annex Maryland?Maryland is considered the south by many. It is a point of much debate. Edited June 25, 2009 by EMME Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Maryland is considered the south by many. It is a point of much debate.I would no sooner bother to debate whether Maryland is a southern state than I would debate whether there was a government conspiracy behind 9/11. It's ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.