INSIDE THE HISTORIC BATTLE FOR GLENBROOK VALLEY 
The color-coded maps, the front-yard tombstones, the shivering naked women, the Ranches and MCMs, the prayer nooks, the free tacos, the threatening drive-by waves . . . it all comes out (well, some of it anyway) in Steve Jansen’s Glenbrook Valley exposé. [Houston Press; previously on Swamplot]
Sign up for the Newsletter
Love the door!!! Too bad about the area squabbling though.
Hard to believe that with all those retractions that the Gaf woman said to go ahead. Sounds like the ‘realtor’ resident (and his band of dictatorial thugs) doesn’t give a damn about what the majority (subtracting the retractions from their original signatures)of his neighbors want.
I’d rather spend my money on lawyers fighting them than to spend it on their ‘ideas’ of repairs that I should make.
It seems to be a growing trend that people like the Ablaza’s feel a need to stand up for “principals” and thereby vote against their own self interests.
The historic district is probably Glenbrook’s last gasp at marketing itself to people who will fix up the old houses when maw-maw passes on. The only other buyers right now seem to be slumlords and speculators. Values have dropped like a stone, and will fall further when many realize this is no longer a neighborhood on the move up.
If they succeed in killing it off, they’ll have nothing but another ranch house in a sea of decay, yard parking, and illegal additions without city permits. One needs to only look as far as Northern Pasadena to see what the Ablaza’s will be left with. Try raising your kids next to sex offenders, drug dealers, immigrant smugglers and convicted felons.
How do they factor into property rights? I guess the Ablaza’s can put up a taller fence to keep them out without getting a city permit.
They win on principal and lose overall. Idiots.
Eastland, it is absurd to state that putting further restrictions on what you can do with your property in Glenbrook will make more people want to live there.
While I am very much in favor of the ordinance, I can’t help but to make a few objective observations of the Glenbrook situation:
1. The district is too big. The focus needs to be on the clusters of the amazing Mid-Century Mods, not on the acres of regular old ranch houses. And with budget cuts probably being a permanent fixture for city budgets for the near future, I wonder whether HAHC will have the ability to keep up with such a large district.
2. The HAHC needs to stop shooting itself in the foot by denying certificates of appropriateness for doors and other minor issues. Closing in a porch on a bungalow=no. Putting in a circular window on a Queen Anne=no. Building a 3500 sq ft, 3 story cross between New Orleans, Federal, and Mission style architecture amidst a bunch of single story bungalows=no. This door or that door=just let it go.
3. Both sides need to stop calling bad arguments “lies” and “deception”. Who knows what will happen to property values. And for every economist you can find that says property values will go down, I can find one who will say they will go up.
4. The City needs to stop making this all up as they go along and must do a better job drafting ordinances related to transitions/formation/repeal of districts. MAP could have avoided a lot of controversy with some better draftsmanship and a lot less of her usual ram it through, get it done way of doing business. Margaret Thatcher was a Prime Minister, not a Mayor.
Subject to the foregoing, I will say that I find it ridiculous to hear about a “screaming Republican’s” new found affection for the rights of Spanish speaking residents who are not fluent in English. I am also tired of hearing people claim that property rights are a one way street. The right to petition local government for the formation of historic districts to protect a homeowner’s investment in the historic character of their neighborhood is just as much a recognized property right as the right to bulldoze an old house and put in condos. This is about competing property rights, not one side stripping the other of all their rights (yes, I am talking to you CM Bradford).
Hmm. The Woodlands and Cinco Ranch have been really successful at attracting residents by letting you do whatever you want with your house.
Paint it with whatever mis-tinted orange and yellow paint you can buy at the Gulfgate Home Depot.
Add a second story anytime you want with a couple of buddies and scrap lumber. No city permit needed.
Feel free to rent additional rooms to your friends and let them park their cars in your front lawn.
Let your weeds grow as high as you want.
Or maybe not.
Eastland, did you forget that they already have REAL good deed restrictions?
But, if I NEEDED a new roof/door/windows or whatever and was TOLD what I had to buy, over what I could afford to buy, I’d let the whole place rot to the ground.
That’s what I object to, having other folks who don’t care one whit about me or my family, determine how much money I’m going to spend on MY property.
@Eastland, paint color should be a homeowner’s choice, subject to any deed restrictions that were voluntarily entered into by that owner. The “historic” designation takes away property rights from owners who are subject to the police power of the City of Houston enforcing someone else’s idea of what’s appropriate.
It’s illegal to build an addition without a permit in the City of Houston. All the “historic” designation will do is make enforcement easier, as it appears the compliance folks rush right out to nail miscreants in those areas, whereas they ignore complaints in other areas.
What’s wrong with parking on the lawn?
High weeds are a violation of city ordinance, and don’t need “historic” designation to enforce.
I want neighbors who maintain their houses. If you must resort to spray paint, tar paper, chicken wire or molded plastic to maintain your exterior, please don’t move to my neighborhood.
Eastland, perhaps there are other reasons that The Woodlands and Cinco Ranch attract residents beyond the fact that neither community is a historic district. Give that some thought.
@Old School
The door was APPROVED by the HAHC, his permit cost $60.00, still not sure why he spent $300.
Also, he lives in a typical ranch style house but is determined to turn it into a mid-century mod…would you want someone taking a simple bungalow and turning it into a high style victorian???
“I want neighbors who maintain their houses. If you must resort to spray paint, tar paper, chicken wire or molded plastic to maintain your exterior, please don’t move to my neighborhood.”
Since unpermitted or below-code projects are illegal throughout the COH I’m not sure why you think these are good excuses to impose another level of bureaucracy on your neighbors.
“would you want someone taking a simple bungalow and turning it into a high style victorian???”
If it’s not my house, they can turn it into a goddamn sailboat. If you are so uptight that you care what style your neighbors’ houses are in, you desperately need to get a life.
“I will say that I find it ridiculous to hear about a “screaming Republican’s†new found affection for the rights of Spanish speaking residents who are not fluent in English.”
If you read the article, you’d find out that said “screaming Republican” grew up in Monterrey, Mexico.
Also, he lives in a typical ranch style house but is determined to turn it into a mid-century mod…would you want someone taking a simple bungalow and turning it into a high style victorian???
Why would you care? I figure as long as the changes are safe, any further issue is between him and the deed restrictions.
Please advise where these are prohibited in the city code? Right now it appears all are OK to maintain historic houses: spray paint, tar paper, chicken wire and molded plastic.
If it’s not my house, they can turn it into a goddamn sailboat. If you are so uptight that you care what style your neighbors’ houses are in, you desperately need to get a life.
You know, there is a dearth of sailboat houses, which can be desperately pretty, around Houston. I think we need a mandatory restriction on the non-sailboat houses put up.
Spoonman: the article says the screaming Republican’s WIFE grew up in Monterrey, Mexico. Recently, a Texas State Senate Republican called it “insulting” for someone to testify to his committee in Spanish. Any Republican, regardless of where they are originally from, claiming to cry tears for ESL residents is shedding nothing more than crocodile tears given the overwhelming English first/anti-immigration sentiment of the Republican party.
Hisper: A door doesn’t make a house. Save preventing some obvious blunders like something ultra modern on a bungalow, HAHC needs to be permissive when it comes to doors. They need to choose their battles wisely.
Eastland: you were spot on until you got to paint color. The historic ordinance does not control paint color. It does require period appropriate materials, which would help prevent some of the sloppy work you see in your neighborhood.
And for the “why would you care what your neighbor does with their house” comments, get real. We live in neighborhoods, not in individual secluded two acres lots hidden behind a veil of pine trees. When you look to buy a house, you don’t put on a pair of blinders.
Old school, why shouldn’t I be able to use hardi plank or hardi board to repair my historic house? It’s cheaper than wood, and lasts longer. Why shouldn’t I be able to add a room to my house without getting some pissy bureaucrat to make sure it meets some imagined standard for architectural purity? It’s my house, not yours, you should have zero say in how it looks, unless I knew about, and accepted, deed restrictions when I purchased the property. Using the police power of the City to force a new set of architectural standards on existing property owners is disgusting, and reeks of an obsession to control the live s of others.
And for the “why would you care what your neighbor does with their house†comments, get real. We live in neighborhoods, not in individual secluded two acres lots hidden behind a veil of pine trees. When you look to buy a house, you don’t put on a pair of blinders.
Buy in an HOA then. All of these issues are because of the battle for historical designation, at the city level. If this were simply another HOA battle, that’s another story. I don’t support adding restrictions a person didn’t buy into, but will defend the right of the HOA to protect its deed restrictions.
After the “opt-out” only 45% approved the district. But it will be left to city council to decide? Seems like our mayor really does want to be our mother and she not only will remind us to eat our vegetables but will tell us which ones we will eat and if we don’t she will shove them down our throats. Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for her. And never will…