Ross Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Was there a vote or some kind of public meeting to determine the boundaries of this so called historic district or are they arbitrary?What if I didnt agree to be in this historic district?Too bad. The people who decided are much smarter than you, and far better qualified to make decisions affecting your property than you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGM Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Try to keep the children off the streets due to all the trucks streaming toward the exits. Sorry, but trucks are not historically accurate. No Heights lady or gentleman would be seen in one of those crude contraptions. I suggest you flag down a streetcar before its too late. All aboard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Is that a lady driving? Very progressive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Is that a lady driving? Very progressive! Historic Districts are not progressive con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv) adj. 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit. 3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate. 4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism. b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement. 5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. 6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism. 7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources. pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv)adj. 1. Moving forward; advancing. 2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. 3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGM Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Historic Districts are not progressiveOligarchy could also apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYC Texan2 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 You know, I understand that you folks are annoyed with sm3h, but the flavor of this board has changed a ton over time. I've been around here since 2003, even though I didn't post much after the website crashed and all my old posts were lost. The board really used to be people who were focused on the redevelopment of the Heights, and the general approach was that anything to promote the good of the neighborhood was fine. The tone of the attacks (now telling somebody to leave the board) is over the line. The negativity is pretty overwhelming, not to mention repetitive / predictable. Also not very neighborly. Would be great to take things down a couple notches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 See what that ordinance did? If the neighborhood went negative, look to the source. A small group forced the larger group to conform to its wishes. The larger group is not at all pleased, and voices its opinion, and will continue until the oligarchs give the larger group its rights back.By the way, which group did you support? Perhaps s3mh is not the only one we are pissed at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYC Texan2 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Ah, the demand to pick a side. I think both sides had a point. The lack of deed restrictions is a problem, the lack of zoning like every other city is a problem, but the Heights was a working class community when it was developed. The cottages are original but aren't that great or significant. We aren't talking about rarified, high-style craftsman or Victorian homes here. But the trend toward restoring the neighborhood to single-family use is positive, and it would be nice to have a way to keep things that way so that investments can be made in housing without worrying that the fabric of the neighborhood is going to be disrupted by a high rise, a bunch of condos, etc. That's the same predictability that people are trying to get when they buy into River Oaks (deed restrictions), West U, the villages or master planned suburbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Ah, the demand to pick a side. I think both sides had a point. The lack of deed restrictions is a problem, the lack of zoning like every other city is a problem, but the Heights was a working class community when it was developed. The cottages are original but aren't that great or significant. We aren't talking about rarified, high-style craftsman or Victorian homes here. But the trend toward restoring the neighborhood to single-family use is positive, and it would be nice to have a way to keep things that way so that investments can be made in housing without worrying that the fabric of the neighborhood is going to be disrupted by a high rise, a bunch of condos, etc. That's the same predictability that people are trying to get when they buy into River Oaks (deed restrictions), West U, the villages or master planned suburbs.So sign everyone willing up for deed restrictions. But the historical district backers didn't want a consensual interaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYC Texan2 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I hear that, but I also don't want the guy down the street to put up a condo building. I understand that's what you are objecting to, but he has the incentive not to sign the deed restrictions because he wants the option value in addition to the single-family value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Why shouldn't the guy down the street be able to build condos? It's his property, not yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYC Texan2 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I understand that you don't want anyone telling you what to do, but if you're talking about what's best for the quality of the neighborhood, that's it. You can't be against all zoning if you want to be able to say your point of view is common sense, b/c every other municipality around Houston has zoning, every enclave inside Houston has it, and every suburban neighborhood. So people choosing where to live, even in zoning-free Houston, place a premium on predictable land use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 If the historic district only restricted people to building single family homes, I don't think there would be as much resistance. It goes much further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Worse, the historic district does not prevent the building of condos. That's the objection. It doesn't prevent any of the bad things that you don't want. It only restricts single family dwelling owners in how they may renovate. Non-contributing structures may be demo'd and condos built in their place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwki Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) ....The lack of deed restrictions is a problem, the lack of zoning like every other city is a problem, but the Heights was a working class community when it was developed. The cottages are original but aren't that great or significant. We aren't talking about rarified, high-style craftsman or Victorian homes here. But the trend toward restoring the neighborhood to single-family use is positive, and it would be nice to have a way to keep things that way so that investments can be made in housing without worrying that the fabric of the neighborhood is going to be disrupted by a high rise, a bunch of condos, etc. That's the same predictability that people are trying to get when they buy into River Oaks (deed restrictions), West U, the villages or master planned suburbs.Texan2, did you know that the Norhill Addition to the City of Houston has deed restrictions because it was developed by Varner Realty, the same developer of River Oaks? And that these deed restrictions are sufficient to prevent the issues you cite? So why didn't these people work for a much less radical solution for the current districts than this political, inept, costly and ineffective (at preventing your reasonable worries) HAHC? Because to these people it is not about protecting landowners from those things, it is about power and self-righteousness to them and more importantly to their handlers. These pro-ordinance fools empowered the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance (located in River Oaks) to make this neighborhood its delicate flower (expletive redacted). And the head Priestess of the HAHC is not coincidentally on the Board of the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance. Do you think this HAHC control would fly in River Oaks?And if you still think it’s about protecting landowners, then go read the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance funded study of the districts carried out by the U of H Hobby Center for Public Policy: http://www.uh.edu/hcpp/GHPAhistoricdistricts.pdfThe study (total unprofessional slide show crap, doesn’t cite sources or data) reveals the true agenda of the Alliance, HAHC and their neighborhood dupes in one of its concocted conclusions on slide 19: “When considering the value of houses, Norhill South appears to be the best candidate from the control group for future historic district designation.”So-called “Norhill South” is actually the original Norhill Addition to the City of Houston, deed restrictions and all. This part of Norhill is booming without the HAHC and faces none of the dangers you cite because of deed restrictions. Then why have they turned their sights southerly? Power and self-righteousness. They don’t give a flip about protecting me. Only fools believe otherwise. Edited July 22, 2012 by fwki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I understand that you don't want anyone telling you what to do, but if you're talking about what's best for the quality of the neighborhood, that's it. You can't be against all zoning if you want to be able to say your point of view is common sense, b/c every other municipality around Houston has zoning, every enclave inside Houston has it, and every suburban neighborhood. So people choosing where to live, even in zoning-free Houston, place a premium on predictable land use.What is interesting about this post is that if it is true, the lawsuit against the City will succeed. There is...by law...NO ZONING in the City of Houston. You are claiming that the ordinance is zoning, and I agree. Just because you believe that people want zoning (it has always been voted down), does not make it legal to impose zoning against the City Charter.As fwki correctly states, deed restrictions (non-government imposed) are OK. Zoning laws are not. We all bought in the Heights knowing that it was not zoned. Most of us chose to buy here BECAUUSE it was unzoned. Your statement that people want zoning for predictable land use is unsupported by fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYC Texan2 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Just because people bought knowing it wasn't zoned doesn't mean that the current homeowners are happy with that fact, Red. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. The point is that the rest of the Heights has had the deed restrictions lapse, so deed restrictions are not a solution to the situation. You generally cannot impose deed restrictions by ordinance or law (although courts have voided deed restrictions in the past). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 The point is that the rest of the Heights has had the deed restrictions lapse, so deed restrictions are not a solution to the situation. You generally cannot impose deed restrictions by ordinance or law (although courts have voided deed restrictions in the past).And yet, that is exactly what the City has done, isn't it?By the way, my canvassing of the neighborhood during the historic district fight revealed virtually no one in the blocks around my house in favor of the district. This is not an exaggeration. Literally ONE person in the 3 blocks I canvassed was lukewarm in support of the district. Her husband, however, was opposed. He signed the petition in opposition. No one else that I spoke with was in favor.The historic districts will not last. There is too much opposition to them. They will be attacked in the courts, in City Hall, and ignored by residents. The few people in support of them cannot control the overwhelming number opposed to them. And worse, the historic district ordinance gutted the effort to deed restrict properties. Progress was being made, but now no one is working it, and no one wants to sign. This was very much a 'cut off nose to spite face' move by supposed fans of historic preservation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Too bad. The people who decided are much smarter than you, and far better qualified to make decisions affecting your property than you are.Unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Too bad. The people who decided are much smarter than you, and far better qualified to make decisions affecting your property than you are.No. Too bad for them. I'd like to see them come onto my property and stop me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 No. Too bad for them. I'd like to see them come onto my property and stop me.You must kowtow to your superiors. They are far smarter than you, just ask them. They have managed to subvert the police power of the City to do their dirty work. They won't come on your property, they will send an armed minion of the City Administration to pass the message and force you to submit. If you resist, they will send the SWAT team to force compliance with their vision of what the Heights should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGM Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) They won't come on your property, they will send an armed minion of the City Administration to pass the message and force you to submit. If you resist, they will send the SWAT team to force compliance with their vision of what the Heights should be. "Roger that commander, we're at the house and it looks like we have one part of the addition using an Arts & Crafts motif, while the other is Mid-Imperial Century Modern. We're going to implement the standard HAHC Level-1 cleansing fire." Edited July 24, 2012 by TGM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmontrose Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 So my wife and I are thinking of moving to the heights with our 11 year old son. Looking for neighborhoods with more kids than the 'Trose where we have been for a while. I'm wondering how the demographics are changing now that all the new houses in the Heights seem to be pushing 7 figures. Who is moving in to all of these mansions? People with big families? What ages? Who is moving out? What are you seeing on your streets and among your friends? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3mh Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 9 kids on my block. But that is above average for the western side of the Heights. We are zoned to Love. No one intends to send their kids to Love. We hit the HISD lottery as did one other family on the block. All the others are sending their kids to private school. No one is planning on moving out of the neighborhood for schools. It used to be the norm that people would move to the Heights with the intention of moving to the burbs once their kids are school age. But now due to the massive change in the price point it takes to get into the neighborhood (and to get into other close-in neighborhoods like GOOF, Spring Valley and Bellaire), most everyone is buying with the intention of staying. Commute times from the burbs have just gotten ridiculous and quality of life inside the loop has improved tremendously. So, more and more people are willing to pay for private school or work to improve public schools because a move to the burbs ends up being at best a sideways move in terms of quality of life for a family. The transition in the schools is moving quickly, but it is not easy. Harvard and Travis are great. Parents are making a big push to help Field turn around. Helms is getting there. Love and Browning have a long way to go. There are more and more families sending their kids to Hamilton and Hogg. For every segment of housing, any assumption you make will be filled with so many exceptions that it just isn't safe to make any assumptions. I always assumed that the seven figure houses would all go to older empty nesters or DINKs who had no intention of having kids. But three of the most recent seven figure sales around me all went to families with babies and pre-k/toddlers. On Saturday morning, a trip to the local breakfast/coffee spots is like going to a Gymboree class. We were playing at Jaycee park earlier this month and the place was packed with four different birthday parties going on. A few years a go when we first started going there, barely any kids would be there even on the weekend. So, if I were to make a guess, I would say that better than half of the new residents are younger couples with new families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilyheights Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 We built and lived in the Heights from 2003-2014. The number of kids increased greatly over those years. There are a lot of families there. We moved out of the Heights to have a larger yard and a smaller (but still good sized) one-story house. We have kids. They remain in private. We just couldn't afford the kind of house and lot we wanted in the Heights anymore. So, we left the property taxes behind. We moved to a more modest neighborhood to offset tuition. The Heights is a great place to live. I'm glad we were able to be a part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmontrose Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Thanks s3mh! I do hear a lot about people moving to the Heights with small children or to start families (good elementary schools). I also hear about people like "lilyheights" who move out (as much as they love the heights) for more affordable space (and better middle/high schools). Some people say "Big houses will give more people the option to stay" or "we plan/hope to stay". But I am still looking for examples of a family with children age 10-13 moving into the central Heights, or upgrading to a new house in the heights, within the last year. (bounded by Shepard-20th-Studewood-Whiteoak). Has anyone seen this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terra002 Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I currently own a townhouse in midtown. However, I plan on selling that and buying a house in the heights once my first child is a few years old or second is born, whichever comes first. It seems like a good place to raise kids and still be centrally located. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I don't understand the disdain for Love Elementary. It's a decent school with a good principal. Lots of non-zoned students fight to go there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purdueenginerd Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Im in cottage grove (not the heights), but my fiance and I will probably try to avoid the burbs if we can. I'm 7-10 years away from having a kid at school age though, so i can chill for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3mh Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I don't understand the disdain for Love Elementary. It's a decent school with a good principal. Lots of non-zoned students fight to go there. It is not really disdain as much as a reality that the school is made up of 90% economically disadvantaged kids and about 60-70% at risk kids. I do not doubt that the teachers and principal are doing a good job. But the reality is that most of the kids come to kindergarten with no pre-k and many are just learning numbers and letters for the first time. The kids who have pre-k are ready to learn to read and write. There is only so much in the way of heroics that a kindergarten teacher can do to manage the wide range of learning levels in that kind of situation. And things just get worse when it gets close to time for testing. Love does have a large number of transfer students. But they are not coming from Harvard, Travis, Helms, etc. They are starting a dual language program at Love. That might help get people motivated to send their kids to Love. But there is still a long way to go. Most people I know zoned to Love do not consider it as an option at all. 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.