Norhill Information & Developments

[Texasota]

Which makes no sense at all.Who cares whether you can return the house to its original appearance?

 

Well, it's an historic district; so being able to accurately represent historic architecture is important. The other side of the issue, of course, is that this isn't a museum; people do actually live here. 

[Angostura]

Well, it's an historic district; so being able to accurately represent historic architecture is important. The other side of the issue, of course, is that this isn't a museum; people do actually live here. 

 

 

That's, I think, part of the problem.

 

Many of those that wanted the 90-day waiver process eliminated were less interested in historic preservation than they were in preventing sub-division of lots and out-of-scale new construction.  What they really wanted was deed restrictions.

 

Here are two houses outside the HD's that were tastefully remodeled, maintaining the original spirit and character, but wouldn't have passed muster with the HAHC because an insufficient amount of the original exterior was maintained:

 

 

(Link here)

 

 

(Link here)

 

 

 

Reasonable deed restrictions that allow this kind of remodel but prevent sub-division of lots, etc., would be preferable to allowing the HAHC to decide (without any clear criteria) what kind of construction will be allowed.

[SilverJK]

Exactly... the hysterical preservationist basically try to threaten that the HD is the only way to prevent this... while deed restrictions are what the majortiy of people actually want.  EVEN with new contruction if it stays in the same look and feel of the historic homes... the charm isn't really lost.  I just went through Brooke Smith yesterday and there are brand new builds next to renovations and from the street... its pretty hard to tell which are which.  They seem to be building a lot of 3/2 1600-1800 homes over there and I really like what they are doing.  They are going to have to do something about street parking though... if two trucks part on opposite sides of the street there is barely enough room for one vehicle to pass.

[s3mh]

That's, I think, part of the problem.

 

Many of those that wanted the 90-day waiver process eliminated were less interested in historic preservation than they were in preventing sub-division of lots and out-of-scale new construction.  What they really wanted was deed restrictions.

 

Here are two houses outside the HD's that were tastefully remodeled, maintaining the original spirit and character, but wouldn't have passed muster with the HAHC because an insufficient amount of the original exterior was maintained:

 

 

(Link here)

 

 

(Link here)

 

 

 

Reasonable deed restrictions that allow this kind of remodel but prevent sub-division of lots, etc., would be preferable to allowing the HAHC to decide (without any clear criteria) what kind of construction will be allowed.

 

The first home would definitely be allowed under the ordinance.  A very similar design was permitted on Allston in a renovation/addition by Bungalow Revival in the WHD.  The pictures of the second one look great, but in person the addition does not look good at all.  It looks like someone tried to smash two bungalows together.  The addition dominates the original bungalow and sticks out like a sore thumb against the other houses in the neighborhood. 

[s3mh]

Exactly... the hysterical preservationist basically try to threaten that the HD is the only way to prevent this... while deed restrictions are what the majortiy of people actually want.  EVEN with new contruction if it stays in the same look and feel of the historic homes... the charm isn't really lost.  I just went through Brooke Smith yesterday and there are brand new builds next to renovations and from the street... its pretty hard to tell which are which.  They seem to be building a lot of 3/2 1600-1800 homes over there and I really like what they are doing.  They are going to have to do something about street parking though... if two trucks part on opposite sides of the street there is barely enough room for one vehicle to pass.

 

Actually, you might watch what you wish for.  If you put architectural review in deed restrictions, you get one shot with the appointed review board.  HAHC has two administrative appeals and then allows an appeal to a district court. 

 

And the deed restrictions in Brookesmith are fairly weak.  Some builders have done a good job at blending in with the existing housing, but then there are things like this:  http://search.har.com/engine/806-Northwood-St-Houston-TX-77009_HAR3191677.htm

[SilverJK]

Thats the beauty of deed restrictions... nobody is going to support architectural review for one, because it is stupid.

 

I didn't say Brooke Smith had good deed restrictions... simply stating that a lot of the new builds over there look great and don't detract from the vibe at all.  The one you linked is aweful, there is also the epitome of suburb homes directly accross from D&T Drive in... I swear the house has 9 keystones are whatever those dumb things are called.  I think not allowing front facing attached garages would be a good deed restriction.

 

 

[s3mh]

Thats the beauty of deed restrictions... nobody is going to support architectural review for one, because it is stupid.

 

I didn't say Brooke Smith had good deed restrictions... simply stating that a lot of the new builds over there look great and don't detract from the vibe at all.  The one you linked is aweful, there is also the epitome of suburb homes directly accross from D&T Drive in... I swear the house has 9 keystones are whatever those dumb things are called.  I think not allowing front facing attached garages would be a good deed restriction.

 

But the only way to keep people from building houses out of character from the rest of the historic neighborhood is to have some sort of architectural review.  Deed restrictions can only go so far. 

[Ross]

Actually, you might watch what you wish for.  If you put architectural review in deed restrictions, you get one shot with the appointed review board.  HAHC has two administrative appeals and then allows an appeal to a district court. 

 

And the deed restrictions in Brookesmith are fairly weak.  Some builders have done a good job at blending in with the existing housing, but then there are things like this:  http://search.har.com/engine/806-Northwood-St-Houston-TX-77009_HAR3191677.htm

 

There is nothing at all wrong with that house. The bulk of the houses in that area are small, poorly built crap. We lived in one in 1998 while waiting for our townhouse to be built. In hindsight, we should have bought the Brooke Smith house and leveled it and built something nice. It would have saved us some significant money, and improved the neighborhood. And, we would  not have felt compelled to move after having a child.

 

[SilverJK]

But the only way to keep people from building houses out of character from the rest of the historic neighborhood is to have some sort of architectural review.  Deed restrictions can only go so far. 

 

 

I think the majority is okay with that.  It isn't necessarily the new builds that anger people... it is suburban style house with front facing garages, and pseudo styled victorian/craftsman mcmansions that completely fill the lot (especially when lots get subdivided).  No forward facing attached garages, 5000 minimum lot size (unless already smaller), minimum setbacks and they we won't have any of the 8th street style row houses.  If someone builds a giant house on a 5000+ sq. foot lot that satisfies all the criteria, it would likely be over a million dollars, and not wanting million dollar homes in your neighborhood is just stupid at best.   (any attempt to complain about property tax increase will just prove that your trying to keep values down in the neighborhood).

[s3mh]

I think the majority is okay with that.  It isn't necessarily the new builds that anger people... it is suburban style house with front facing garages, and pseudo styled victorian/craftsman mcmansions that completely fill the lot (especially when lots get subdivided).  No forward facing attached garages, 5000 minimum lot size (unless already smaller), minimum setbacks and they we won't have any of the 8th street style row houses.  If someone builds a giant house on a 5000+ sq. foot lot that satisfies all the criteria, it would likely be over a million dollars, and not wanting million dollar homes in your neighborhood is just stupid at best.   (any attempt to complain about property tax increase will just prove that your trying to keep values down in the neighborhood).

 

That house is on a 5000 ft lot and the set back for that house is consistent with the rest of the block (except the guy next door who managed to build right up to the sidewalk).  You can get rid of the attached garage and squeeze the house with some property line setbacks, but you will still have a stucco suburban home built on a slab with no porch and no proper architectural elements except for a vague reference to a Queen Anne in the front elevation.  So, why go through all the trouble of trying to get and enforce deed restrictions when the end result will be the same architectural cacophony that existed before the restrictions plus the loss of tons of the original housing stock?  Deed restrictions do not get it done. 

[Angostura]

So, why go through all the trouble of trying to get and enforce deed restrictions when the end result will be the same architectural cacophony that existed before the restrictions plus the loss of tons of the original housing stock?  Deed restrictions do not get it done. 

 

Because nice houses that fit in with the character of the rest of the block face sell faster and for more money than ugly ones that don't.

 

I recall when we were buying our current house a number of years ago, there was a house on the market that ticked all the boxes, except for one thing: it was built on a slab whereas everything else on the block was pier-and-beam.  It looked out of place and ended up sitting on the market for a very long time.  

 

Yes, there will be instances where builders make these kind of "mistakes".  But if you can get to a solution where you get 90% effectiveness without imposing a capricious process controlled by unaccountable bureaucracy, you have to ask whether the extra measure of architectural purity you MIGHT* get with an HD is worth it.  The most vocal HD proponents always seem to argue that without the current system, the only alternative is anarchy. There IS a third way.

 

 

 

*Proponents of regulation always seem to assume infallibility and purity of motives on the part of the regulators. This rarely turns out to be the case.

[SilverJK]

That house is on a 5000 ft lot and the set back for that house is consistent with the rest of the block (except the guy next door who managed to build right up to the sidewalk).  You can get rid of the attached garage and squeeze the house with some property line setbacks, but you will still have a stucco suburban home built on a slab with no porch and no proper architectural elements except for a vague reference to a Queen Anne in the front elevation.  So, why go through all the trouble of trying to get and enforce deed restrictions when the end result will be the same architectural cacophony that existed before the restrictions plus the loss of tons of the original housing stock?  Deed restrictions do not get it done. 

 

 

Is that really your best argument.  Developers are going to go build ugly houses that don't fit in just because.  Obviously they will build what sells.  People want front porches, with crafstman or victorian architectural styling.  You go through the trouble because it is the right way to do it.  Architectural cacophony???  the HD actively wants additons to be blatant, so they could be removed to go back to the original house (which will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER happen)... what could be less harmonious than that?

[s3mh]

Because nice houses that fit in with the character of the rest of the block face sell faster and for more money than ugly ones that don't.

 

I recall when we were buying our current house a number of years ago, there was a house on the market that ticked all the boxes, except for one thing: it was built on a slab whereas everything else on the block was pier-and-beam.  It looked out of place and ended up sitting on the market for a very long time.  

 

Yes, there will be instances where builders make these kind of "mistakes".  But if you can get to a solution where you get 90% effectiveness without imposing a capricious process controlled by unaccountable bureaucracy, you have to ask whether the extra measure of architectural purity you MIGHT* get with an HD is worth it.  The most vocal HD proponents always seem to argue that without the current system, the only alternative is anarchy. There IS a third way.

 

 

 

*Proponents of regulation always seem to assume infallibility and purity of motives on the part of the regulators. This rarely turns out to be the case.

 

90% effectiveness?  Have you ever been to Oak Forest or Garden Oaks?  Lots of deed restrictions, but the architecture is from A to Z and back again.  Basically, everyone is building a "mistake" because everyone is just making it up as the go along.  And in the Heights, while a minority are willing to build within the character of the neighborhood or do great restoration work, the majority (prior to the ordinance) would either build faux-New Orleans Italianate or something from A to Z (modern, suburban what the F?, Mission, like this thing: http://search.har.com/engine/917-Aurora-Houston-TX-77009_HAR59575054.htm). Most importantly, deed restrictions do nothing to prevent tear downs, which was the primary reason people wanted HDs.  The whole deed restriction argument is just a briar patch for builders.  "Oh no, don't throw me into a neighborhood with deed restrictions.  They are just as effective at historic preservation as the ordinance".  Get rid of the ordinance and replace it with deed restrictions and all the historic housing will get demoed.

[s3mh]

Is that really your best argument.  Developers are going to go build ugly houses that don't fit in just because.  Obviously they will build what sells.  People want front porches, with crafstman or victorian architectural styling.  You go through the trouble because it is the right way to do it.  Architectural cacophony???  the HD actively wants additons to be blatant, so they could be removed to go back to the original house (which will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER happen)... what could be less harmonious than that?

 

Most of the builders see architecture as an expense that they want to minimize.  They also see architecture as being inimical to square footage.  They want to build boxes that are as big as possible and as easy and cheap to construct as possible.  This is happening with additions too and is the subject of an ongoing controversy in the HAHC/Planning Commission.  But at least the new builds and renovations are now appropriate and demos have been significantly reduced.  Entire blocks of houses would have been lost in the recent boom but for the HAHC.

 

As for your claim that an addition would never be removed, I have seen it happen several times.  The Bungalow Revival house on Allston took out a 2 story addition and restored the house to a single story.

[Ross]

90% effectiveness?  Have you ever been to Oak Forest or Garden Oaks?  Lots of deed restrictions, but the architecture is from A to Z and back again.  Basically, everyone is building a "mistake" because everyone is just making it up as the go along.  And in the Heights, while a minority are willing to build within the character of the neighborhood or do great restoration work, the majority (prior to the ordinance) would either build faux-New Orleans Italianate or something from A to Z (modern, suburban what the F?, Mission, like this thing: http://search.har.com/engine/917-Aurora-Houston-TX-77009_HAR59575054.htm). Most importantly, deed restrictions do nothing to prevent tear downs, which was the primary reason people wanted HDs.  The whole deed restriction argument is just a briar patch for builders.  "Oh no, don't throw me into a neighborhood with deed restrictions.  They are just as effective at historic preservation as the ordinance".  Get rid of the ordinance and replace it with deed restrictions and all the historic housing will get demoed.

 

You may be correct that many houses would be demolished, but, so what? Your judgement of what a property owner needs is irrelevant, it's none of your business. Deed restrictions work - take a look at First Colony, where you can hardly open your front door without approval, and every detail of a house has to meet the requirements set forth in the deed restrictions. The problem in the Heights area is that no sane person would agree to those restrictions after the fact. Instead, the HD proponents took the back door route, and now use the police power of the City to enforce their aesthetic views, and those views were forced on property owners after the fact, and against their will.

 

[Ross]

Most of the builders see architecture as an expense that they want to minimize.  They also see architecture as being inimical to square footage.  They want to build boxes that are as big as possible and as easy and cheap to construct as possible.  This is happening with additions too and is the subject of an ongoing controversy in the HAHC/Planning Commission.  But at least the new builds and renovations are now appropriate and demos have been significantly reduced.  Entire blocks of houses would have been lost in the recent boom but for the HAHC.

 

As for your claim that an addition would never be removed, I have seen it happen several times.  The Bungalow Revival house on Allston took out a 2 story addition and restored the house to a single story.

 

So, 1 house out of thousands was restored to it's original lack of splendor. So what? Who cares? Why have a rule that affects a near zero number of properties?

 

Most of the new renovations are ugly, since they can't be integrated into the structure of the original house. The histories written in the future are going to be less than kind to those who promulgated this garbage.

[TGM]

Most importantly, deed restrictions do nothing to prevent tear downs, which was the primary reason people wanted HDs. The whole deed restriction argument is just a briar patch for builders. "Oh no, don't throw me into a neighborhood with deed restrictions. They are just as effective at historic preservation as the ordinance". Get rid of the ordinance and replace it with deed restrictions and all the historic housing will get demoed.

S3mh,

The most effective way to preserve anything is to be the one buying the property. Why do historic preservation groups waste time, money, and effort on blasting developers when it would have been much easier to pass the hat and purchase a property in the first place? With sites like Kickstarter you can raise funds if your fellow preservationist are too cheap to pony up their own funds.

[SilverJK]

Most of the builders see architecture as an expense that they want to minimize.  They also see architecture as being inimical to square footage.  They want to build boxes that are as big as possible and as easy and cheap to construct as possible.  This is happening with additions too and is the subject of an ongoing controversy in the HAHC/Planning Commission.  But at least the new builds and renovations are now appropriate and demos have been significantly reduced.  Entire blocks of houses would have been lost in the recent boom but for the HAHC.

 

As for your claim that an addition would never be removed, I have seen it happen several times.  The Bungalow Revival house on Allston took out a 2 story addition and restored the house to a single story.

 

 

Allston house was a crap addition.  (wasn't it barely walkable cause the roof was so low?)

 

 

If what you are saying was true... since a large chunk of woodland heights is not in the district... how come we didn't see whole blocks get developed?  Heck there is a chunk of 4-5 lots that is sitting vacant on Pecore that nothing has happened with.  It is just more S3mh being S3mh, saying if we don't do things your way, the only alternative is DOOM. 

 

If you really think any recent addition in the heights will ever be removed for the house to go back to it's orginal size, your are more off your rocker than I could have ever imagined.  My addition/renovation is going to cost somewhere in the 200-250k price range.  This is a pretty typical cost to do a full scale renovation/expansion.  Do you really think someone would removed a 1/4 million dollar addition to get back to the original 2/1?   What did the sq. footage end up being on the Allston house?  You have not seen the addition be removed several times... that is a blatant lie.  (i've seen a few removed, to be replaced by a different addition but that isn't what we are talking about.)

[s3mh]

S3mh,

The most effective way to preserve anything is to be the one buying the property. Why do historic preservation groups waste time, money, and effort on blasting developers when it would have been much easier to pass the hat and purchase a property in the first place? With sites like Kickstarter you can raise funds if your fellow preservationist are too cheap to pony up their own funds.

 

I bid against investors on a couple of properties that were in various states of disrepair when I bought my house.  I made it through multiple rounds of bids on some properties and made what should have been a winning outright bid on others.  Every time I was out bid by just a few thousand and would have gladly beat the final offer given the chance (I told my realtor to offer over the final bid, but the seller's agent always got a contract signed when bids closed to make sure they got their commission).  There is absolutely no guaranty that even a well funded group would be able to buy up a property that is being eyed for demolition or for a really bad redo.  The only way to be sure that properties were saved is to put up such a huge premium that no one would be able to match.  But, then you are asking people to basically throw away money in order to save historic properties.  Thus, it is far easier to do what every other major metropolitan area has done--enact a historic ordinance to protect historic properties. 

[s3mh]

Allston house was a crap addition.  (wasn't it barely walkable cause the roof was so low?)

 

 

If what you are saying was true... since a large chunk of woodland heights is not in the district... how come we didn't see whole blocks get developed?  Heck there is a chunk of 4-5 lots that is sitting vacant on Pecore that nothing has happened with.  It is just more S3mh being S3mh, saying if we don't do things your way, the only alternative is DOOM. 

 

If you really think any recent addition in the heights will ever be removed for the house to go back to it's orginal size, your are more off your rocker than I could have ever imagined.  My addition/renovation is going to cost somewhere in the 200-250k price range.  This is a pretty typical cost to do a full scale renovation/expansion.  Do you really think someone would removed a 1/4 million dollar addition to get back to the original 2/1?   What did the sq. footage end up being on the Allston house?  You have not seen the addition be removed several times... that is a blatant lie.  (i've seen a few removed, to be replaced by a different addition but that isn't what we are talking about.)

 

Additions are being removed, not to go back to the original sq ft, but to do much more tasteful and architecturally harmonious additions which often result in a loss of sq ft.  The addition on Allston is crap today, but was probably one of the nicer additions in the neighborhood back in the day.  But had the prior owners just demoed the house, there would be nothing left to properly renovate and restore.  I can definitely see a time in the future when the large additions start to age and get removed in favor of more tasteful work.  The important point isn't whether the addition is removed to go back to the original sq ft, but preserving the original sq ft so a future owner has the option of getting rid of a lousy addition and doing something better.  The intent of preserving the original structure was never about making sure that people would be able to return to the original footprint.  That is another anti-preservation strawman argument.

 

And it is funny that you are asking why large chunks of Woodland Heights that are outside the HD are not getting developed.  I thought that the HDs were sending people running and screaming into non-HD areas where the rate of development was "outperforming" the HDs.  I guess the HDs must not be so horrible after all. 

[SilverJK]

Additions are being removed, not to go back to the original sq ft, but to do much more tasteful and architecturally harmonious additions which often result in a loss of sq ft.  The addition on Allston is crap today, but was probably one of the nicer additions in the neighborhood back in the day.  But had the prior owners just demoed the house, there would be nothing left to properly renovate and restore.  I can definitely see a time in the future when the large additions start to age and get removed in favor of more tasteful work.  The important point isn't whether the addition is removed to go back to the original sq ft, but preserving the original sq ft so a future owner has the option of getting rid of a lousy addition and doing something better.  The intent of preserving the original structure was never about making sure that people would be able to return to the original footprint.  That is another anti-preservation strawman argument.

 

And it is funny that you are asking why large chunks of Woodland Heights that are outside the HD are not getting developed.  I thought that the HDs were sending people running and screaming into non-HD areas where the rate of development was "outperforming" the HDs.  I guess the HDs must not be so horrible after all. 

 

 

You are not being honest.  There are many more factors in the remodeling than to be architecturally  harmonious.  Many of these additions were poorly designed attic builds, which are being replaced with nice rebuilds.  This isn't just about the architecture, a lot of it is about making the house more livable to today's standards.  (which for most the original bungalows can not do).   You arguement is completely disingenious.

 

As far as your last statement... even though it doesn't make any sense whatsoever... I'll try to address it.

 

Woodland Heights (even outside of the HD) is a pretty solid block of historic homes.  They aren't being "developed" because they are already mostly built out.  You are saying that despite being built out, the developers will buy the houses up and smash them to build Katy Heights.  People are choosing to do renovations/additions on these homes outside of the HDs without any silly HAHC or overbearing rules.  Even with rather weak deed restrictions.  Nobody said anything about people running and screaming from HD to non-HD areas...  but someone buying a home planning to do renovations would definitely look into outside of the HD instead of inside of the HD.  That doesn't change the fact that people wanting to do renovations in the HD are pissed off when they find out the hoops they have to jump through just to change out a dang window. 

[fwki]

......People are choosing to do renovations/additions on these homes outside of the HDs without any silly HAHC or overbearing rules.....

This is the key fact that the Ordinance lovers choose to ignore.  Organic preservation controlled by the owners and their desire to be truly part of this neighborhood was in full swing when I got here in 1992.  I bought a newly preserved house myself back then.  The Ordinance was nothing more than political power play to force developers and contractors to part with tribute to those connected with the zoning board; it has nothing to do with aesthetics or preservation.  Nothing more or less has been "preserved" with the ordinance and we are stuck with butt-ugly aesthetics and a downtown circus of Martha Turner wannabes that have nothing else to put on their otherwise double-spaced CV's except "political organizer".

 

But political winds are blowing with elections coming up.  The mayor received a very forceful, comprehensive letter from a long-time local preservationist condemning the train wreck in City Planning (along with a stack of support letters) and on Thursday the Planning Commission served us a potential appeal to City Council at the perfect time for all to see what City Council did to us with this Ordinance.  Then we will have our forum to point right at these politicians and tell them to repeal this thing or we will hang this denied CoA around their necks as a political albatross fit for a zoning zealot.

[Texasota]

This is the key fact that the Ordinance lovers choose to ignore.  Organic preservation controlled by the owners and their desire to be truly part of this neighborhood was in full swing when I got here in 1992.  I bought a newly preserved house myself back then.  The Ordinance was nothing more than political power play to force developers and contractors to part with tribute to those connected with the zoning board; it has nothing to do with aesthetics or preservation.  Nothing more or less has been "preserved" with the ordinance and we are stuck with butt-ugly aesthetics and a downtown circus of Martha Turner wannabes that have nothing else to put on their otherwise double-spaced CV's except "political organizer".

 

But political winds are blowing with elections coming up.  The mayor received a very forceful, comprehensive letter from a long-time local preservationist condemning the train wreck in City Planning (along with a stack of support letters) and on Thursday the Planning Commission served us a potential appeal to City Council at the perfect time for all to see what City Council did to us with this Ordinance.  Then we will have our forum to point right at these politicians and tell them to repeal this thing or we will hang this denied CoA around their necks as a political albatross fit for a zoning zealot.

 

Dear god man. It's very difficult to take you seriously when your language is so hyperbolic and incendiary.

[fwki]

Dear god man. It's very difficult to take you seriously when your language is so hyperbolic and incendiary.

Yep, that's my style.  And I have fun with it.  If this was a business, I would treat it seriously, but it's just a bulletin board for people to have fun and debate.  If a post I make causes other people to have fun or debate, all the better.  We had some really funny threads going for while there.  And I have seen some great debates.  S3 is a godsend because he responds to everything, even rank satire.  I try not to offend personally  (I said try and public figures don't count as per Supreme Court) but my style is offensive specifically not to be taken seriously.  Sometimes people flip out and I have to explain myself, but more often than not, people get it.  You should see some of my letters to the mayor, but I think she gets it.