Save The Bungalows

[TheNiche]

we're not talking about an enormous percentage of homes here.

sheila, most of the people showing contention toward your statements are of the "maria isabel" mindset (she is discussed on this forum) - that's what good taste and money will get ya... (well, actually, her dream home is still a vacant lot).

I'm not quite sure who Maria Isabel is, but if Sheila were to only act within neighborhoods, then you'd be right that "we're not talking about an enormous percentage of homes here." But if she were successful in carrying out her plans using government force (which can only legally be accomplished with zoning), she's going to establish a bureaucracy that will affect the whole city. I'd say that 100% is a pretty enormous percentage.

Even if it were theoretically possible for the City to ONLY have a say in historical/significant properties, it debatable as to what constitutes "historical/significant", so historical protection ordinances would have the potential to be abused by local governments as a form of 'dirty zoning' by cities that aren't willing or politically able to overcome some of the hurdles to implementing actual zoning. And that was part of the reason that federal law takes an all-or-nothing approach.

[RedScare]

I haven't seen any proposals of what anyone proposes to do. As the proud owner of one of those bungalows to be saved, clearly I am an admirer of them. But, what does 'Save the Bungalows' want to do? Do you want to force me to paint my bungalow in period colors and schemes? Do you want to prohibit me from installing a tin roof on it? Do you want to prohibit me from building an Art Deco garage in the back?

I am already deed restricted and lot prevailed. How many more restrictions do you wish to put on my house before you consider yourself safe from my whimsy? Or, is it possibly not me you fear? Could it be that a whimsical developer is bad, yet I am merely 'eclectic'? I bought in the Heights for precisely that reason...that the American master planned development has curtailed more property rights than the government ever dreamed of. My bungalow was to be my own personal rebellion against what society thinks I should grow up to be. Am I going to be prohibited from enjoying my 6,600 square feet of RedScare anarchy, simply because I bought an undersized, un-air-conditioned non-updated dump in the RIGHT neighborhood?

These are serious questions. Though I love the Heights, and the housing stock that makes it unique, I loathe 'property associations' and their insistence that they know more about taste than I do. I want to know what is proposed before I lend the full faith and credit of my 1920 Heights bungalow to the cause....because, frankly, I know less of you and your motives than you know of mine.

[TheNiche]

I bought in the Heights for precisely that reason...that the American master planned development has curtailed more property rights than the government ever dreamed of. My bungalow was to be my own personal rebellion against what society thinks I should grow up to be. Am I going to be prohibited from enjoying my 6,600 square feet of RedScare anarchy, simply because I bought an undersized, un-air-conditioned non-updated dump in the RIGHT neighborhood?

These are serious questions. Though I love the Heights, and the housing stock that makes it unique, I loathe 'property associations' and their insistence that they know more about taste than I do. I want to know what is proposed before I lend the full faith and credit of my 1920 Heights bungalow to the cause....because, frankly, I know less of you and your motives than you know of mine.

Very good post, Red. You're hitting them out of the ballpark lately.

[Guest danax]

I haven't seen any proposals of what anyone proposes to do. As the proud owner of one of those bungalows to be saved, clearly I am an admirer of them. But, what does 'Save the Bungalows' want to do? Do you want to force me to paint my bungalow in period colors and schemes? Do you want to prohibit me from installing a tin roof on it? Do you want to prohibit me from building an Art Deco garage in the back?

I just read their mission statemen blurb and they're trying to educate people and probably pass legislation if possible, to prevent places like the Heights from losing too many more historic homes. I'm guessing your deed restrictions are not too restricitive and are really are like most in Houston and are there to prevent some schmuck from doing something like opening a mechanic shop next door then tell you and everyone around him to go have self-intercourse that he'll do what he darn well wants to, which is Houston's unique blight seen mainly in under-gentrified neighborhoods. They do want to make stricker lot size laws and their whole deal seems to be the prevention of demolition for inappropriate structures; condos, townhomes & Hummer homes/McMansions and it doesn't seem like they'd be too hard on personal property expressions as long as the structures still look like 1890-1930 Heights.

I think there should be a way for neighborhoods to elect to prevent their own demolition. And Niche's fear that such a law would be highjacked for racial/political purposes is a possiblity, although doing so could have a reverse effect as "yuppies" are known to swarm to historic nabes. Yes, something like that could end up happening in 3rd Ward where a lot of the housing was "never meant to be preserved" and doing so would seem like an obvious "let's keep 3rd Ward poor and black" but should we scrap the whole idea for such a fear?

While freedom loving and slightly wary of regulation, I'm leaning towards "saving the bungalows".

[RedScare]

While freedom loving and slightly wary of regulation, I'm leaning towards "saving the bungalows".

I am glad you responded danax, since you are another bungalow owner. I agree with all 3 statements in the above quote, and that is my point. I AM saving a bungalow.

Now, Bungalow Savers, please answer this question. If your stated goal is to save the bungalows, why do you support the prevailing lot line ordinance? Why does the Houston Heights Association support an anti-bungalow ordinance like the prevailing lot line ordinance?

Let me explain. Within the last 2 weeks, SIX bungalows have been towed from their lots within 3 blocks of my house. Are they going to be replaced with new bungalows? No. At $30 per square foot for land, the sales price for a 1500 sf bungalow would be over $230 per sf of house, far too expensive for the neighborhood. To sell a new home, the price must be less than $200 per sf, meaning the only house you could build is at least 3,000 sf, usually more. There are 6 new houses for sale down the street from me for $779,000 to $879,000. None are bungalows. The reason none are bungalows is because the lots are too expensive.

So, in addition to explaining what other legislation you propose, could you also explain why a 4,500 sf house, selling for $879,000 is better than two $400,000 houses on a 25 foot lot? And, how does that protect my bungalow?

I am not asking these questions in opposition to you. I am asking these questions to point out the 'more harm than good' scenarios that can occur, and ask how your proposals deal with that possibility. I also ook forward to a HHA board member explaining how McVictorians preserved the Heights bungalows and character.

[musicman]

I think there should be a way for neighborhoods to elect to prevent their own demolition.

Deed restrictions will do this. unfortunately the prevailing lot line is NOT designed to restrict what type of structure is built. I believe the Heights and similar areas have been using this because it is easier to enact than altering deed restrictions. Deed restrictions could determine what type of structures can be built, size, types of materials, etc.

[Guest danax]

Now, Bungalow Savers, please answer this question. If your stated goal is to save the bungalows, why do you support the prevailing lot line ordinance? Why does the Houston Heights Association support an anti-bungalow ordinance like the prevailing lot line ordinance?

Let me explain. Within the last 2 weeks, SIX bungalows have been towed from their lots within 3 blocks of my house. Are they going to be replaced with new bungalows? No. At $30 per square foot for land, the sales price for a 1500 sf bungalow would be over $230 per sf of house, far too expensive for the neighborhood. To sell a new home, the price must be less than $200 per sf, meaning the only house you could build is at least 3,000 sf, usually more. There are 6 new houses for sale down the street from me for $779,000 to $879,000. None are bungalows. The reason none are bungalows is because the lots are too expensive.

So, in addition to explaining what other legislation you propose, could you also explain why a 4,500 sf house, selling for $879,000 is better than two $400,000 houses on a 25 foot lot? And, how does that protect my bungalow?

6 houses moved in 2 weeks? Wow, and $800K........? I didn't know things had gotten that turbulent over there. With the new home prices at such levels, it's not surprising that the price-pressure differential created between existing and new homes has created a "giant sucking sound" that will continue to suck home after home from their concrete blocks like a trailer park tornado, all to the apparent delight of the Planning Commission. I wonder where those bungalows are going?

Obviously, the prevailing lot size law is a joke as far as preserving historic character. It looks like the group sees the same thing you do and is wanting to address that situation. Their website mentions some ideas that might become proposals such as:

"In addition to prevailing lot size and prevailing set backs, the following criteria might be considered:

1. Lot coverage relative to structures on the lot (permeability)

2. Height in linear footage

3. Side setbacks

4. Garage location

5. Architectural Style "

Even if such criteria became law, you'd still end up with old homes being destroyed for new, but at least the street scene would look somewhat cohesive.

The recently passed preservation ordinance will stop destruction of this kind and I wonder how many Heights residents have elected to have their homes protected. I think if I were a neighborhood leader, I'd be focusing on convincing neighbors to do this and try to achieve preservation on a house by house basis instead of hanging my hat on a hope of the Commission passing something that would be so restrictive to development.

[RedScare]

6 houses moved in 2 weeks? Wow, and $800K........? I didn't know things had gotten that turbulent over there. With the new home prices at such levels, it's not surprising that the price-pressure differential created between existing and new homes has created a "giant sucking sound" that will continue to suck home after home from their concrete blocks like a trailer park tornado, all to the apparent delight of the Planning Commission. I wonder where those bungalows are going?

Obviously, the prevailing lot size law is a joke as far as preserving historic character. It looks like the group sees the same thing you do and is wanting to address that situation. Their website mentions some ideas that might become proposals such as:

"In addition to prevailing lot size and prevailing set backs, the following criteria might be considered:

1. Lot coverage relative to structures on the lot (permeability)

2. Height in linear footage

3. Side setbacks

4. Garage location

5. Architectural Style "

Even if such criteria became law, you'd still end up with old homes being destroyed for new, but at least the street scene would look somewhat cohesive.

The recently passed preservation ordinance will stop destruction of this kind and I wonder how many Heights residents have elected to have their homes protected. I think if I were a neighborhood leader, I'd be focusing on convincing neighbors to do this and try to achieve preservation on a house by house basis instead of hanging my hat on a hope of the Commission passing something that would be so restrictive to development.

Yeah, that is in addition to the two lots that were cleared 6 months ago. Both have new construction underway, one priced at $769,000 and the other not yet listed, but the piers suggest something similar. I have only lived hear two years, and already I could sell my lot, WITHOUT THE HOUSE, for $30,000 more than I paid for the house and lot.

It is important to note that I sympathize with and support the preservation group. I just want people to realize that the cure may be worse than the illness. The prevailing lot line ordinance stopped the building of reasonably sized and priced row houses, only to force construction of monsters twice the size. Ultimately, I feel only a change in attitude by home buyers to a preference for smaller homes will stem the tide. Pardon me, while I chuckle at that last thought.

I find it interesting that Woodland Heights has not had nearly the West U effect that the Houston Heights is undergoing. I suspect that there is more of an appreciation of brick bungalows than wood sided ones. In any event, good luck to the 'Save the Bungalows' group. I may even show up at the meeting. But, please look at the repercussions as well as the benefits of your actions.

[musicman]

Obviously, the prevailing lot size law is a joke as far as preserving historic character. It looks like the group sees the same thing you do and is wanting to address that situation. Their website mentions some ideas that might become proposals such as:

"In addition to prevailing lot size and prevailing set backs, the following criteria might be considered:

1. Lot coverage relative to structures on the lot (permeability)

2. Height in linear footage

3. Side setbacks

4. Garage location

5. Architectural Style "

Even if such criteria became law, you'd still end up with old homes being destroyed for new, but at least the street scene would look somewhat cohesive.

The recently passed preservation ordinance will stop destruction of this kind and I wonder how many Heights residents have elected to have their homes protected. I think if I were a neighborhood leader, I'd be focusing on convincing neighbors to do this and try to achieve preservation on a house by house basis instead of hanging my hat on a hope of the Commission passing something that would be so restrictive to development.

Unless there is an active drive to update deed restrictions adding the above criteria, anything can be built based on the current restrictions and builders are well aware of this. I do think your comment about new rules being restrictive on development is a key point. If leaders go overboard, then development will be restricted.

[Sheila]

Why not assess the bungalows and see which ones are best to keep? I would enact deed restrictions so that the bungalow units themselves are kept in at least a large amount of the neighborhood.

"Houston's Vanishing Neighborhoods for People Who Are Not Rich But Don't Want to Live in the Far Suburbs. " - IMO, this is near to impossible to solve - The area is in high demand. As demand increases, the property values, and prices, increase. If I were you, I would assist people into living in communities in as close of a proximity as possible.

In fact, the Houston Housing Authority has a public housing initiative in the area. It is called the "Historic Rental Initiative" - http://www.hach.org/community/index.cfm?fu...;communityID=13

Why not turn the area into a partly mixed income neighborhood? Some units will be public housing and some will be residential lots. Deed restrictions can be in place to limit housing styles.

I am completely for the construction of Gregory Lincoln and HSPVA in the area, though

Why not assess the bungalows and see which ones are best to keep? I would enact deed restrictions so that the bungalow units themselves are kept in at least a large amount of the neighborhood.

"Houston's Vanishing Neighborhoods for People Who Are Not Rich But Don't Want to Live in the Far Suburbs. " - IMO, this is near to impossible to solve - The area is in high demand. As demand increases, the property values, and prices, increase. If I were you, I would assist people into living in communities in as close of a proximity as possible.

In fact, the Houston Housing Authority has a public housing initiative in the area. It is called the "Historic Rental Initiative" - http://www.hach.org/community/index.cfm?fu...;communityID=13

Why not turn the area into a partly mixed income neighborhood? Some units will be public housing and some will be residential lots. Deed restrictions can be in place to limit housing styles.

I am completely for the construction of Gregory Lincoln and HSPVA in the area, though

[bachanon]

anyone hear sheila on the radio this week? i think it was the news on 88.7.

[Subdude]

anyone hear sheila on the radio this week? i think it was the news on 88.7.

Yep, it was on yesterday afternoon. I thought, "that's HAIF Sheila on the radio!"

[musicman]

I attended Sheila's "save the bungalows" meeting today....councilmembers garcia, lovell, and brown were in attendance and of course Sheila Jackson Lee made her appearance for the camera.

lots of topics were covered.

councilmember Garcia spoke how he is all for preservation and that he has lovell and brown on his side.

Councilmember Lovell said she wants to enact a program to allow for tax incentives to keep the old homes. If it is torn down then, the owner/developer will have to pay back the city for the tax break they've received . She stressed that the Mayor was fully behind her.

councilmember Brown said that he's in charge of ensuring that growth is done in a planned manner not just randomly. so he will be developing some plans that may direct growth. He said the Mayor is behind him as well.

both stressed saving historical aspect is important.

At the end was a question session. But one issue was raised and councilmember garcia said that the Mayor told him that he isn't really sure whether people care about historic preservation. The people around me snickered and said...hmmm..I guess the Mayor is behind the developers like we expected. I thought it was funny that Brown and Lovell said nothing else after that.

[RedScare]

Councilmember Lovell said she wants to enact a program to allow for tax incentives to keep the old homes. If it is torn down then, the owner/developer will have to pay back the city for the tax break they've received . She stressed that the Mayor was fully behind her.

Where do I sign up for my government handout.

Seriously, tax incentives sound like a much more even-handed approach to this issue than forcing more government regulation on us. And, most of us would think twice about tearing down a house if we had to give back all of our tax breaks lump sum.

BTW, thanks for attending and giving us an update. Me, I couldn't go. I had to watch our Super Bowl contenders on TV.

[TheNiche]

Where do I sign up for my government handout.

Seriously, tax incentives sound like a much more even-handed approach to this issue than forcing more government regulation on us. And, most of us would think twice about tearing down a house if we had to give back all of our tax breaks lump sum.

At first blush, I'd agree that this is a much more preferable approach.

I'm not very clear on the legal implications of historical tax breaks that could be reclaimed by the City, but what would happen if a property covered by the tax break sells? Does the City have some kind of conditional lien on the property that would only kick in if it were demolished? Would title/mortgage companies allow that kind of potential risk or do you think that they might ask that such risks be cleared from the title by the seller? If there is that kind of requirement, then the impact of such an ordinance may be a wash.

Also, did it occur to anybody that if you essentially give money to owners of certain kinds of homes, that those homes will simply increase in value within the marketplace relative to the value of non-subsidized homes? Even this approach may have downsides if it ends up making the housing stock in predominantly-'historical' areas more expensive.

[musicman]

At first blush, I'd agree that this is a much more preferable approach.

I'm not very clear on the legal implications of historical tax breaks that could be reclaimed by the City, but what would happen if a property covered by the tax break sells? Does the City have some kind of conditional lien on the property that would only kick in if it were demolished? Would title/mortgage companies allow that kind of potential risk or do you think that they might ask that such risks be cleared from the title by the seller? If there is that kind of requirement, then the impact of such an ordinance may be a wash.

Also, did it occur to anybody that if you essentially give money to owners of certain kinds of homes, that those homes will simply increase in value within the marketplace relative to the value of non-subsidized homes? Even this approach may have downsides if it ends up making the housing stock in predominantly-'historical' areas more expensive.

if the property changes hands, so does the tax break to the new owner.

But all your other questions remain unanswered Niche. It was more of a feel good meeting rather than one that addressed issues. When councilmember Garcia said that the Mayor wasn't sure whether people care about preservation, well...that pretty much summed it up for me.