COMMENT OF THE DAY: LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS “Humanity’s job is to cover over everything and rebuild every 100 years. That’s why we have archeologists.” [Bill Shirley, commenting on Comment of the Day: Must Have Lost Something in There Somewhere]
Sign up for the Newsletter
Historic Preservation
COMMENT OF THE DAY: MUST HAVE LOST SOMETHING IN THERE SOMEWHERE “It’s depressing to see that little house in the Bing aerial view, ready to be swallowed by a sea of parking lots, overpasses and beat-up Crown Victorias. All its neighbors are gone, the once residential area turned into a decaying urban Houston at its worst. I guess I’m nostalgic for a past I never lived in and wasn’t really all that great without today’s comforts, but oh well. Why didn’t the city ever just tear it down to build a more cohesive tarmac? When/who was the last inhabitant?” [Rodrigo, commenting on Ready To Be Hauled Away: Under the Freeway, in the Back of the Parking Lot]
How about another go of it? The auction of the 1872-vintage former home of Gottlieb Eisele, now a vacant and dilapidated former HPD office surrounded by parking lots and the Gulf Freeway, ended last night with no bids. But today it’s back on the block, with a brand-new item number and a new closing-gavel time of 8 pm tonight. For a minimum bid of $1,000, the opportunity to partially demolish, jack up, repair, move, restore, and then register this property can be yours.
Why isn’t there an address given in the auction listing for the “1872 Bungalow Cottage” near the former police headquarters at 61 Riesner the city is trying to get rid of? Because the streets it used to be on have all faded away. The home is tucked almost under the Gulf Freeway at the eastern edge of the surrounding city parking lot. Museum of Houston director (and GHPA staffer) Jim Parsons tells Swamplot the home is all that’s left of an old residential area at what used to be the eastern tip of the Sixth Ward. According to Parsons, the original address was 34 South, and later 22 Artesian Place. Now it isn’t visible from any street.
The final deadline for bids is 8 pm tonight.
COMMENT OF THE DAY: WILL NO ONE RID ME OF THIS TROUBLESOME BUNGALOW? “Can we tear down during ‘Reconsideration’? Please? Please!” [tcp IV, commenting on 8 out of 16 Houston Historic Districts Are Now Up for “Reconsiderationâ€]
8 OUT OF 16 HOUSTON HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE NOW UP FOR “RECONSIDERATION” Planning department spokesperson Suzy Hartgrove tells Swamplot the city has received petitions from 8 of the city’s designated historic districts: Avondale West, Boulevard Oaks, First Montrose Commons, Houston Heights East, Houston Heights South, Houston Heights West, Norhill, and Westmoreland. The department is currently verifying them. Do they all meet the 10-percent threshold that’ll trigger balloting and possible dissolution? “Our initial glance tells us that they probably do but we must conduct a thorough check,” writes Hartgrove. Okay, who’s left? Audubon Place, Avondale East, Broadacres, Courtlandt Place, Freeland, Shadow Lawn, and West Eleventh Place, carry on: You may continue to live in the past. [previously on Swamplot]
TIME’S UP! Yesterday at 5 pm was the deadline for opponents of 14 of the city’s 16 designated historic districts (there’s no going back for the Old Sixth Ward or Main St./Market Square) to submit petitions calling for their oldish neighborhoods to return to the good ol’ days of unrestricted demolition and less-restrictive development. The threshold to trigger actual balloting in any of the districts is pretty low: All they need are the signatures of owners representing 10 percent or more of a district’s total tracts. So who’s in — er, heading for an out? [previously on Swamplot] Update: We’ve got the answer!
COMMENT OF THE DAY: BATTLE HYMN OF THE INNER LOOP “Obsolete is obsolete. Out with the old. In with the new. That’s the Houston way. Forget living in the past. I want progress. I want Houston’s core to continue to grow and thrive. Bring in the bulldozers. What if West U was still filled with crappy little termite infested cracker boxes? Would Houston be a better place? I say No. Progress is good. Rich people want to live in big houses. If Houston refuses to accommodate them, the suburbs will gladly accept them. Let’s send the rich packing. Then we’ll let the high paying jobs and commercial development follow them outside the city limits. Houston will rot from the inside out.” [Bernard, commenting on Comment of the Day: How We’re Building the Heights]
Over the weekend, city officials posted the simple petitions that owners of properties in designated historic districts will need to sign if they want to un-designate their neighborhoods. Which means the 30-day clock for the one-time-only opportunity for districts to free themselves of the burdens of history (and the newly revised historic-district regulations) has already begun ticking. Really, though, the bar’s been set pretty low. What neighborhoods (besides the Old Sixth Ward and Main St./Market Square, which are both excluded from the process) won’t be able to rustle up the signatures of the owners of a measly 10 percent of tracts in their districts who want out? (That’s the threshold designated by the new law for triggering a re-vote.) The petitions describe the process as “reconsideration”; if that term doesn’t mean anything to you, you might find yourself halfway through the petition before you get a real sense of what it is you’re being asked to sign.
One stumbling block property owners in historic districts might come across in deciding whether to sign the petition: The text of the newly revised preservation ordinance doesn’t seem to be posted anywhere. The petition’s very brief second page includes a link to a city web page about the new ordinance “and proposed amendments,” but as of this morning, you won’t find the new rules — already approved by a vote of city council last week — there. We’ve sent messages to a few city officials asking when they’ll be posted; we’ll let you know when we hear back.
Update, 11 am: Public-affairs manager Suzy Hartgrove tells Swamplot the planning department hopes to have the revised ordinance (including the new “transition” ordinance) posted today, after a legal-department review.
Later Update, 10/20: As of 7:30 this morning, the new ordinances — and a summary (PDF) — have been posted.
A small flurry of last-minute amendments — some of them apparently pushed at the request of builder and Realtor groups — means it may take a little time for everyone to sort out all the details of those changes to the preservation ordinance city council passed earlier today. But here are a few highlights, as we’ve pieced them together: Creating a new historic district will now require the approval of owners of 67 percent of all tracts in the district. Also, decisions by the archaeological and historical commission (the HAHC) will now have more teeth: Property owners whose plans for renovations, new construction, or demolition have been rejected will no longer be able simply to wait 90 days and proceed anyway. However, HAHC rulings can now be appealed to the planning commission, and if that doesn’t work, to city council as well.
But the ordinance’s most exciting feature is the one-time opportunity for all existing historic districts — except for the Old Sixth Ward and Main St./Market Square — to remove the shackles of . . . uh, history. All it’ll take to start the repeal process in one of those districts is signatures of owners of 10 percent of the tracts. (And once the city posts the new petitions, districts will have 30 days to gather them.) For each district where that threshold is reached, there’ll be public meetings and a vote — by mail-in ballot. If owners of 51 percent of the tracts in a district vote for repeal, the planning director will recommend to city council that that district’s historic designation be removed — or that the boundaries be shrunk and redrawn to maintain 67 percent support. For each district, city council will make a final decision.
- Previously on Swamplot: Preservation Ordinance Passes
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE PASSES Houston’s City Council has just voted to approve a new — amended — historic preservation ordinance. We’ll have more details shortly. “We know there are none of you out there that are absolutely happy,” said council member Sue Lovell after the vote. “That means we have a good ordinance.”
COMMENT OF THE DAY: MAKING HISTORY IN GALVESTON 
“what’s equally funny is that the sign on the [pier] now reads ‘[coming] soon: galveston’s historic pleasure pier’. i guess on this island, things are now considered historic even before they’re built.” [JC, commenting on Landry’s Kicking Galveston’s Flagship Hotel Off the Pier, for Amusement] Photo: Ellen Yeates
HISTORIC DISTRICTS VOTE: NEXT WEEK Yesterday’s scheduled city council vote on the latest version of revisions to Houston’s preservation ordinance was postponed for a week — but not before 7 council members offered their own separate amendments. Among them: a proposal by mayor pro tem Anne Clutterbuck that would allow historic districts to keep their current rules — or submit an application to be governed by the new stronger protections. But Mayor Parker doesn’t want a tiered system: “The mayor argued that leaving the ordinance unchanged would allow districts to be weakened ‘one house at a time,’ such as when owners legally could proceed with demolition even after their request to do so was denied. ‘We may lose some of the footprint of existing historic districts, but we’ll have an ordinance that actually protects them,’ she said.” [Houston Chronicle]
Note: Planning and development weighs in. See update below.
Tonight’s 6:30 meeting at the George R. Brown is the only public meeting scheduled to discuss the latest round of proposed changes to Houston’s preservation ordinance, dubbed the “final draft” in some documents. The planning department came out with this revised set of proposed amendments last week, but figuring out what’s in them isn’t so easy. The department hasn’t created any summaries of the new proposal — thought it did for the last round — and it hasn’t specified what’s different from the earlier proposed amendments either. Even more fun: The new amendments have only been released as image scans, making text searching — and what should be the simple task of comparing one set of amendments to the other — a not-so-simple task.
So what’s in the latest round of proposed changes? Swamplot outlined the new proposed method for existing historic districts to “reconsider” — and possibly shed — their historic designation last week. But since then, the department has only released a presentation given by the planning director. Working from that, here’s the best summary of the rest of the provisions we can piece together:
Got an answer to one of these reader questions? Or just want to be a sleuth for Swamplot? Here’s your chance! Add your report in a comment, or send a note to our tipline.
- River Oaks: A reader wants to know how River Oaks or the City of Houston could “get away with not replacing the 30+ trees they destroyed when resurfacing River Oaks Blvd. [(above)] . . . Isn’t there an ordinance requiring trees to be replaced?”
- Houston Heights: Another reader has joined the saga of the traveling 1903 Perry-Swilley House (photo below) on the northwest corner of Heights Blvd. and 11th St., already in progress: “[They] moved the house across the lot and [then] raised the house by building brick columns underneath. I’m not sure what the point was.” Why, more strip centers and more parking — isn’t it always? The house was moved from the corner so the project’s developer might be able to fit in a small shopping strip with Heights Blvd. frontage; 2 years ago the city historical commission approved plans to raise the house so that parking could be fit underneath. But . . . what’s the current status of this project?
