COMMENT OF THE DAY: ON THE CORNER OF WEST MAIN AND ROSELAND “903 W. Main is a lovely Prairie style home in First Montrose Commons. The owner of it and the neighboring home 909 W. Main, an even grander Craftsman, will demolish both homes for replacement with eight townhouses (likely four story, given the density). But he’s saving the trees, so apparently the civic association is ok with the plans! First Montrose Commons is currently working on an application to become a city historic district. And these two homes contribute to that historic fabric.” [no history remains, commenting on Daily Demolition Report: Rambam]
Sign up for the Newsletter
Heartbreaking if it’s true. I don’t think I can watch anymore.
Just looked at them on Street View. That makes me sad. Can we just go ahead and have a moratorium on demolition of pre-1960 structures? Have an out (notarized statement by a city inspector, maybe) for obvious public hazards, but not for condition?
But if you do that then who gets to decide what is just poor condition and what is a public hazard? Would you give the property owner an out if the cost of purchase and renovation would exceed the cost of the final property? Or do you try to force people to put more money into a property than it will be worth at the end of the day? The end result of that sort of action would be that the properties would just lie empty until they become health hazards and have to be torn down.
I used to live “next door” in a ca. 1927 four-plex at Roseland and Colquitt. There’s a gigantic four-story parking garage there now. The house at Roseland and Richmond actually had a condemned sign on it at one point in the late 80s. Someone bought it and fixed it up. I had 903 W Main bookmarked in ZipRealty for awhile, but I couldn’t get past the idea of living next to a parking garage.
I will say this though for preserving the trees. I was walking through my neighborhood and I was looking at a house that I didn’t hate, but I normally would. The difference you ask? They had maintained the mature trees. In fact, the place looked lovely.
It may be more cumbersome to clear a lot around trees, but I think it will not only placate the neighbors, it will make the home(s) sell quicker.
Perhaps the sellers (and developer) should first take a drive just across Alabama into Audubon Place and see all the unsold townhomes there. Who thinks we need more townhomes in Montrose?
The original facts are a little off. The owner of both properties sold the two homes to a developer. 903 had been put on the market. 909 never was openly on the market and we were all shocked to find both had gone to a developer. No, our civic club is not happy about this, but it wasn’t until the variance sign went up that we knew anything. The developer had his plans already and, yes, there will be 8 townhomes where the city would have allowed 12. They were going to be built and there wasn’t anything we could do about it. Yes, we are in the process of applying for Historic District designation and currently lack less than a dozen signatures. We’re very hopeful of obtaining that because this area is one of the oldest in Houston, with lovely historic homes and many have been renovated. In front of 909 there is a carriage step which the developer has said he will preserve. Part of the original owners’ name is still showing and we would like to restore that. Not many of those left in Houston. We’re all sad to see these go and understand a demolition permit has been issued for 903. We would love to see someone buy 909 and move it and 903 if they could get to it before the bulldozer. People should remember that even if you are an historic district, a developer can still demolish what is there. (S)he only has to wait 90 days.
Jimbo: City inspectors and current standards for condemnation. Sure, there could be room for corruption, just like there already is, but you deal with that when it happens. There would be no reason why an owner couldn’t sell at market price or whatever they want. Since many historic structures are in places where the land value is high, it seems like renovation and sympathetic expansion would in most cases be financially reasonable. Sure, it would fly in the face of the sacred concepts of “you can do what you want with your land,” and “you have to be able to make money,” and “density is always good and it’s the wave of the future,” but those are not serving us well in terms of our historic structures.
I don’t know who “no history remains” is, but First Montrose Commons is not “ok” with the plans to replace the homes with townhouses. But the fact remains that the homes were bought by a developer for the express purpose of building townhouses, and so townhouses will be built there no matter how much FMC kicks and screams. The only thing FMC acquiesced to was a variance request. The only effects of that variance will be to save a tree on the property and to preserve what little street parking we have around that corner. Townhouses would be built whether the variance passed or not. Furthermore, the two homes at issue would be outside the boundaries of the proposed historic district because there are too many non-historic, non-contributing properties on that side of the neighborhood to qualify for protection. Anyhow, it’s apparent that “no history” has no clue about what’s really going on in FMC.
“Sure, it would fly in the face of the sacred concepts of “you can do what you want with your land,†and “you have to be able to make money,†and “density is always good and it’s the wave of the future,†but those are not serving us well in terms of our historic structures.”
To all of you who say you can should be able to do whatever you want on your property, I have bought the property next to your homes and I am going to put in a nuclear waste dump.
Mary Anne’s response is quite correct. Our Neighborhood Association has fought for more than 15 years now to preserve our special part of Houston’s history. For the majority of that time it has been an always losing battle. The past two years, however, we have begun to forge a new relationship with our City Council Members and Planners. By working with developers when we can, we have had some significant influences on what they wanted to build.
The current developer is no exception. He COULD have built 12 4-story sidewalk-to-sidewalk condos and removed all the trees on these lots. Other developers have done that in our neighborhood and just paid the paltry fine for illegal tree removal.
Instead, he went to great effort to meet with both the Neartown Association and First Montrose Commons, enduring sometimes very pointed and passionate questioning about why he had to remove either of these buildings. In the end, he has agreed to continue to work closely with us as he designs the homes that will replace these two. THAT’S a significant step forwards!
True, the housing market is very weak right now, but the house at 903 West Main has been broken into and vandalized numerous times since it was vacated. Should we have just forbidden its removal and allowed the areas drug dealers and users to move in?
We all chose to live in First Montrose Commons precisely because of its rich and DIVERSE history and tolerance. Our best strategy to preserve that is to work cooperatively with developers and planners so they will want to listen to and respect our concerns.
Those who are serious about stopping the demolition of homes built before 1960 would be most effective if they directed their energy to the Houston City Council and Mayor – Chapter 42, the ordinance that condemned everything inside Loop 610 to be an “Urban Neighborhood” with few restrictions on development, is currently under review and revision. Only with overwhelming citizen input and support will it emerge with better tools to preserve TRADITIONAL Urban Neighborhoods like ours.
I am a former FMC resident, and it will really stink to lose those two structures whether they’re in the proposed district boundaries or not. While FMC has an interesting (?) mix of architecture through the decades (original bungalows and larger homes, conversions to duplexes/fourplexes/the B&B, 1950s and 60s era garden apartments, late 1970s townhomes, HSPVA – blah!, and maybe a midrise on the Bistro Vino property), if this keeps up, there eventually won’t be enough contributing properties to make the case.
I wish all the best of luck to the FMC neighborhood association in the process of applying for Historic District status. Too bad it won’t be protected, but it’s a step in a good direction. I just hope it happens sooner than later!
Those who are serious about stopping the demolition of homes built before 1960 would be most effective if they directed their energy to the Houston City Council and Mayor – Chapter 42, the ordinance that condemned everything inside Loop 610 to be an “Urban Neighborhood†with few restrictions on development, is currently under review and revision. Only with overwhelming citizen input and support will it emerge with better tools to preserve TRADITIONAL Urban Neighborhoods like ours.
_________________________________________
Annise Parker is, or was, very proud of her “contribution” to Chapter 42. Something to remember in November.
903 W. Main is gone as of today.
It is my understanding that Habitat for Humanity came in to 903 and removed appliances for future use. They remarked that, had they known earlier, they would have come in and dismantled the entire house to recycle the wood for their use. Historic Houston will recover what they can from 909 W Main before it, too, is demolished. That is such a lovely house.