14 Comment

• commonsense October 25, 2013 at 9:56 am

  Re: Lindale Park
  What they’re trying to do is a double edged sword. If they take away incentive for developers to buy the land, and the neighborhood simply cannot support financially new construction of single family homes on each lot (numbers don’t work) then there will be almost no demand for anyone to buy, hence plunging everyone’s property values.
• Texmex01 October 25, 2013 at 10:35 am

  @comonsense, I would suspect the home values would continue to rise with townhomes or single homes….
• commonsense October 25, 2013 at 10:52 am

  @Texmex01, not necessarily, prices depend on who and how many buyers there are. Heights prices for land value homes has largely been increasing due to developers. If developers do not want to buy in Lindale then the only option is single family owners who want to build. But because the cost of land and new construction would be so much higher than the comps in the area then it would be impossible to get a loan for something like that. So, that eliminates two of the biggest groups of buyers. The only ones remaining are people willing to buy really old homes in a questionable area… and despite popular belief those people are few and far between… Translating to lower demand which means potentially lowering of property value.
• mel October 25, 2013 at 11:24 am

  Wow! Keeping out developers not only preserves the character of a historic neighborhood, but it also reduces the residents’ tax bills??? Sounds like heaven!
• commonsense October 25, 2013 at 11:59 am

  Saving on property taxes is like picking up a penny and passing over 100 dollar bill, very short sighted and irresponsible.
• Old School October 25, 2013 at 12:38 pm

  Most of the best appreciation in the Heights is in sections that are already deed restricted for lot size or have adopted the minimum lot size under chap 42. Lindale is not like Midtown or parts of Montrose that have already been torn apart by non-residential development or have been chopped up with lots of townhomes. It looks more like Oak Forest did ten years ago. And if comps were a deterrent, no one would be replacing 1200 sq ft ranch homes in Oak Forrest with 3500 sq ft custom homes.

  When a neighborhood gets bought out for town homes, the incentive to maintain the existing housing stock is lost. Your house is only worth what the dirt is worth. A foundation that has $5,000 of repairs to get it level looks just the same as one without after an afternoon with back hoe ripping through it. The result is that the existing neighborhood will go way downhill while the new construction takes over.
• DNAguy October 25, 2013 at 1:09 pm

  I think this is another failed attempt to save the status quo. What is more likely to happen is that development will temporarily be staved off, yes. But eventually when the land prices remain lower than surrounding areas (that are building townhomes), houses will slowly be bought up and torn down and will be replaced w/ Garden Oaks-like Mcmansions.
  So does the neighborhood really keep its character? Do the homeowners win anything other than delaying the inevitable gentrification? Does it even make sense to have a suburban style neighborhood on a mass transit rail route?
  I would personally answer no to all of these questions.
• sjh October 25, 2013 at 1:26 pm

  Isn’t it nice that a neighborhood still has a choice? More power to them! If the residents agree, then let them have it. There will always be a market for older homes in established neighborhoods….not everyone wants to live in a 3 story townhouse, and not everyone is driven by property values. By the way DNAGuy, the Heights was a suburban development in the early 20th century, and it had street car mass transit. Only now do we seem to think that one is exclusive of the other.
• Old School October 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm

  @DNA guy: They are not trying to prevent gentrification. They are just trying to control it. They are opting for Garden Oaks/Oak Forest style gentrification over being swamped with town homes, a la Shady Acres and Cottage Grove. There are a lot of oversized lots (7k-10k) in that neighborhood. So, the temptation for building townhome clusters is certainly there.
• Drew C October 25, 2013 at 2:33 pm

  Lindale Park, along with Idylwood, is one of the last hidden gems in the city. Nearly EVERYTHING else has been demolished, especially the homes built pre-war. I’m glad the residents are trying to preserve the neighborhood. If you want to scrape a lot clean and build town homes, do it south of Cavalcade.
• Spoonman. October 25, 2013 at 3:17 pm

  Do people want Houston to become a denser city more suitable for public transportation or not? Density means townhomes.
• CREOLE October 25, 2013 at 3:37 pm

  I thought the Hines Tower was going back to the drawing board for a major super sizing, instead it looks like the same building with 7 floors added, to say I’m disappointed is an understatement, Hines made it sound like they were really going big on this orb and instead it will still be this dull design and be lost on the skyline behind the Chase Tower, an example of when Hines actually built super skyscrapers that made a real impact on the skyline.
• sjh October 25, 2013 at 3:43 pm

  Spoonman, people want Houston to have a variety of housing types and neighborhoods to attract many different types of people and families. We don’t have to have every lot in the city townhoused to create density for transit. There are many other models of density. Toronto has density, mass transit, and a variety of housing styles, and they are light years ahead of us.
• Local Planner October 25, 2013 at 3:45 pm

  I don’t understand why people think that just because Houston’s inner core was developed as low-density suburb, it has to stay that way. There’s nothing that makes single family detached (or the occupants thereof) more “special” than single family attached (townhomes) or multifamily or office etc.