Save The Bungalows

[Sheila]

We are www.savethebungalows.org

a bunch of folks in Houston who want to dispell the myths surrounding historic preservation and advocate the saving of everyday history. We had our first meeting last night to prepare for our first act of public political advocacy.

Thought we might find some like minded folks on these boards. Check out the website and if you have questions, drop a line.

[TJones]

I am all for saving Craftsman period bungalows, I love these type houses.

[bachanon]

welcome to the forum sheila.

what will be your "first act of public political advocacy"?

[torvald]

We are www.savethebungalows.org

hooray! good job.

[jgs1419]

what will be your "first act of public political advocacy"?

Buy a bungalow?

[nmainguy]

Sheila spoke tonight at our civic club meeting [sunset Heights]. She was quite articulate and a positive voice.

I applaud her drive.

[Sheila]

welcome to the forum sheila.

what will be your "first act of public political advocacy"?

Mayor White is the guest speaker at the Houston Heights Association Meeting next Monday. We are hoping for an opportunity to ask the Mayor some questions. There are many folks in this area who believe that the people who live in the neighborhoods ought to have some say in their future.

You see. this isn't just about saving structures.

[musicman]

Sheila, We've had Mayor White at our civic club twice. What he did both times was say that if we could please save the questions til the end. So we did and only 2 people got to ask questions before he left. I think the 2nd time 3 people got to ask questions. I'd somehow set an agenda with a specific time for questions.

[Sheila]

Sheila, We've had Mayor White at our civic club twice. What he did both times was say that if we could please save the questions til the end. So we did and only 2 people got to ask questions before he left. I think the 2nd time 3 people got to ask questions. I'd somehow set an agenda with a specific time for questions.

That is what we suspect. But we will do what we can.

[musicman]

That is what we suspect. But we will do what we can.

PM me with the meeting info. maybe i'll get my butt over there. thx.

[musicman]

We are www.savethebungalows.org

a bunch of folks in Houston who want to dispell the myths surrounding historic preservation and advocate the saving of everyday history. We had our first meeting last night to prepare for our first act of public political advocacy.

Thought we might find some like minded folks on these boards. Check out the website and if you have questions, drop a line.

The bungalow group and several others were on ch 13 news talking with the mayor. Seems the Mayor was pissed. He wants to put big business in front of things such as limiting the number of structures on a lot, saving history, etc.

[RedScare]

The bungalow group and several others were on ch 13 news talking with the mayor. Seems the Mayor was pissed. He wants to put big business in front of things such as limiting the number of structures on a lot, saving history, etc.

Seems the bungalow group doesn't know how to save the bungalows. Otherwise, they wouldn't be hitching their wagon to that "prevailing lot line" crap. Can anyone explain to me how a 3,500 sq house on a full lot saved a bungalow, where 2 townhomes on a divided lot destroyed one?

[musicman]

Seems the bungalow group doesn't know how to save the bungalows. Otherwise, they wouldn't be hitching their wagon to that "prevailing lot line" crap. Can anyone explain to me how a 3,500 sq house on a full lot saved a bungalow, where 2 townhomes on a divided lot destroyed one?

Not sure, the prevailing lot line method is MUCH easier way to keep a lot size rather than trying to update deed restrictions which can dictate what can and cannot be built. I know in my old neighorhood, builders were going in there attempting to replat (and rename) the property to put three homes onto two lots. to be honest, the city could care less cause they will be getting more money if there are three homes vs two. the nieghborhood has to go speak to the planning department stating that there are restrictions which dictate lots size and building sizes. once some ruckus is made, usually the city tells the builder that they must conform to the restrictions. Personally, i know someone who owns an old bungalow that is surrounded by towering townhomes. Their house is great but having structures that tall really take away from simple things like sitting in your backyard. Houston is all big business and has been since at least Mayor Lanier. It is unfortunate but the average joe is more likely to get screwed in the end.

[RedScare]

Personally, i know someone who owns an old bungalow that is surrounded by towering townhomes. Their house is great but having structures that tall really take away from simple things like sitting in your backyard. Houston is all big business and has been since at least Mayor Lanier. It is unfortunate but the average joe is more likely to get screwed in the end.

Personally, I DO own an old bungalow. But, mine is surrounded by towering 3,500 sf homes on full lots. Again, what's the difference? I love my neighbors, but the lot line ordinance is not saving anything. It is a red herring. Frankly, I think the townhomes, if built in the Victorian style, look better than the McVictorians.

[musicman]

Personally, I DO own an old bungalow. But, mine is surrounded by towering 3,500 sf homes on full lots. Again, what's the difference? I love my neighbors, but the lot line ordinance is not saving anything. It is a red herring. Frankly, I think the townhomes, if built in the Victorian style, look better than the McVictorians.

agree that the lot line ordinance isnt' strong enough. Deed restrictions are the only thing that can prevent this. My big beef with a lot of em is how they affect drainage for neighboring properties. before the entire lot wasn't concrete. after construction most of it is. all this water has to run somewhere. our storm sewers are already over capacity. even though there are ordinances that say you cant have water draining onto adjacent properties...it does.

Edited May 9, 2006 by musicman

[TheNiche]

Would someone please explain to me how this is a big deal?

[west20th]

Would someone please explain to me how this is a big deal?

The proposed 6,000 SF minimum. It's a big deal because some in Sunset Heights are trying to push this as "saving the character of Sunset Heights" when in fact the intent of the developers of the area was 25' frontages w/alley access (reference Red's previous post). The 6,000 sq. ft. minimum would encourage construction of nothing but huge 1/2 million dollar McVictorions, hardly preserving the "feel" of the area. Actually the development east of Shepherd, as opposed to the helter-skelter development in Shady Acres, has been somewhat restrained and tasteful in regards to building setbacks, front elevations AND restoring the usefullness of the alleys by using the origional 25' lots.

[TheNiche]

The proposed 6,000 SF minimum. It's a big deal because some in Sunset Heights are trying to push this as "saving the character of Sunset Heights" when in fact the intent of the developers of the area was 25' frontages w/alley access (reference Red's previous post). The 6,000 sq. ft. minimum would encourage construction of nothing but huge 1/2 million dollar McVictorions, hardly preserving the "feel" of the area. Actually the development east of Shepherd, as opposed to the helter-skelter development in Shady Acres, has been somewhat restrained and tasteful in regards to building setbacks, front elevations AND restoring the usefullness of the alleys by using the origional 25' lots.

No, I mean why it matters that one form or another of new housing construction (especially of the upscale owner-occupied single-family type) is considered bad. I just don't buy into the notion that everything in a neighborhood has to look the same.

[RedScare]

No, I mean why it matters that one form or another of new housing construction (especially of the upscale owner-occupied single-family type) is considered bad. I just don't buy into the notion that everything in a neighborhood has to look the same.

Exactly. The residents are having panic attacks over this issue, yet NO ONE has convinced me that ANY of the supposed consequences of using the original 3,000 sf lots in Sunset Heights (or sub-dividing in Houston Heights) is bad for the neighborhood. A slightly higher density would encourage retail services to locate in the neighborhood. The smaller lot sizes would allow younger buyers to move into the neighborhood.

I believe this is a disguised effort to make the Heights the newest Bellaire/West U. Why else would residents so strongly support an ordinance that only allows $600K and up houses to be built?

[gnu]

Exactly. The residents are having panic attacks over this issue, yet NO ONE has convinced me that ANY of the supposed consequences of using the original 3,000 sf lots in Sunset Heights (or sub-dividing in Houston Heights) is bad for the neighborhood. A slightly higher density would encourage retail services to locate in the neighborhood. The smaller lot sizes would allow younger buyers to move into the neighborhood.

I believe this is a disguised effort to make the Heights the newest Bellaire/West U. Why else would residents so strongly support an ordinance that only allows $600K and up houses to be built?

If the object is to "save the bungalows", it seems like they need to put their energy into strengthening houston's lax historic preservation ordinance. If you can keep an existing house in place then no one will be able to build a townhome or a mcVictorian or anything else. Thus, character preserved. of course, easier said than done.

[nmainguy]

This is something I posted earlier today from another thread:

The fight here in Sunset was about Prevailing Lot Size: that is whether or not someone could come in, buy a platted 6000 sq/ft lot and replat it back to it's original 3000 sq/ft size in order to build 2 homes. I-like most in Sunset Heights live on one single platted lot of 6000sq/ft which were originally 2 3000 sq/ft lots.

Prevailing Building Line is similar in that it restricts how far out to the street you can build but does not address lot size.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Developm...ldLineFlyer.pdf

My property was re-platted in 1918 from 2 3000 sq/ft lots to one 6000 sq/ft lot. The intent of the developers was 3000 sq/ft plats-almost 100 years ago. Times have changed but I have no problem if someone wants to buy a 6000 sq/ft plat and re-plat back to 3000 sq/ft. There are no restrictions as to style-there is a 40' height limit, however. In Sunset we have new corrigated metal 3500 sq/ft homes as well as smaller victorian knock-offs. If I wanted a same-as neighborhood, I'd move to Grogan Mills.

Norhill is a good example of a neighborhood that cared enough to fight for a historic designation in order to retain it's original character. I don't see that happening in the Heights or Sunset Heights.

[sevfiv]

If the object is to "save the bungalows", it seems like they need to put their energy into strengthening houston's lax historic preservation ordinance. If you can keep an existing house in place then no one will be able to build a townhome or a mcVictorian or anything else. Thus, character preserved. of course, easier said than done.

i second that - and so simple, yet not

[bachanon]

In Sunset we have new corrigated metal 3500 sq/ft homes as well as smaller victorian knock-offs. If I wanted a same-as neighborhood, I'd move to Grogan Mills.

bach ponders catalog of pictures featuring the wide variety of homes in grogan's mill

Edited May 10, 2006 by bachanon

[nmainguy]

bach ponders catalog of pictures featuring the wide variety of homes in grogan's mill

nmainguy ponders a Grogan's Mill street with a 1918 bungalow, a 2005 corrugated metal home, a 2004 Japanese style home and a 2006 Tricon victorian home. Not likely.

[bachanon]

point taken.

[Sheila]

Would someone please explain to me how this is a big deal?

If you think historic preservation is crap, this isn't a big deal.

It isn't a big deal if you live where there is zoning or consistant and enforced deed restrictions.

For the rest of us, life is different.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/hei...ws/3849166.html

I know what the city's motives are. If you can get a 200k house torn down, divide the lot and put up two 500k houses, you just quintupled your tax revenue. They ultimately want more expensive home in the city and would be happy to see more moderate and low income people to move out.

Edited May 13, 2006 by Sheila

[bachanon]

i've said it before.............

historic/neighborhood preservation groups need to establish "save your neighborhood" kits. these kits should include the steps necessary to establish a deed restricted, neighborhood association in an existing neighborhood with specific boundaries, steps to strengthen an existing neighborhood assocation, and the names of organizations who will support these endeavors.

going before city council is great. however, getting the majority of your neighbors organized so that any developer has to deal with your deed restrictions and architectural standards sounds like a plan.

is it possible? i've been told it is. is it easy? i doubt it.

[RedScare]

I know what the city's motives are. If you can get a 200k house torn down, divide the lot and put up two 500k houses, you just quintupled your tax revenue. They ultimately want more expensive home in the city and would be happy to see more moderate and low income people to move out.

So, your solution is to disallow the subdividing of lots, so that developers must tear down a 200K house and replace it with a 700K house. Brilliant. The moderate and low income people will thank you.

[TheNiche]

If you think historic preservation is crap, this isn't a big deal.

It isn't a big deal if you live where there is zoning or consistant and enforced deed restrictions.

For the rest of us, life is different.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/hei...ws/3849166.html

I know what the city's motives are. If you can get a 200k house torn down, divide the lot and put up two 500k houses, you just quintupled your tax revenue. They ultimately want more expensive home in the city and would be happy to see more moderate and low income people to move out.

So what is this really about? You want to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods--why? I'm not asking about why various groups (consumers, city, investors, etc.) like redevelopment...I'm asking you what's so wrong with it that you think it necessary to limit individuals' property rights.

For the record though, I do deeply respect those aspects of your organization that are non-political, such as providing resources for those who would be interested in restoration.

[nmainguy]

So what is this really about? You want to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods--why? I'm not asking about why various groups (consumers, city, investors, etc.) like redevelopment...I'm asking you what's so wrong with it that you think it necessary to limit individuals' property rights.

For the record though, I do deeply respect those aspects of your organization that are non-political, such as providing resources for those who would be interested in restoration.

That's a simple one: choose not to live where you think people want to limit individual's property rights. Sheila never advocated that so your attempt at demonizing her has failed. She is about saving bungalows-not about restricting your right to build and live in some behomith you choose to plop down on a 6000 sq/ft lot in the Heights or elsewhere. For those that choose to do that; this thread is not for you.