Comments on: Comment of the Day: Inventing the Heights Teardown

By: d

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:25:22 +0000

the cost of the land requires a higher building density than people feel fits the ‘character’ of the old neighborhood. regaurdless, private development always goes in the direction of economic viability.

By: ArlingtonSt

ArlingtonSt — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:06:37 +0000

Jimbo - Yeah, I’d rather see a new construction of whatever style that respects the visual flow of its block and size constraints of its lot than another oversized neo-Vic on a block of 1920’s homes, hands-down. I might even like it better than an oversized new construction in an appropriate period style - it would probably depend on how oversized we’re talking.
And I personally don’t have an issue with most renovations that involve even major add-ons, if the add-ons are away from the front of the lot.
I also love the diversity of the Heights, though I tend to see the new constructions as a threat to that diversity given what’s happened in other inner-loop neighborhoods. If there’s a perceived need to increase Houston’s architectural diversity, I just don’t see how that goal is furthered by the continued dilution of the historic character of the Heights - to me, our historic neighborhoods are an irreplaceable element of our city’s architectrual diversity.

By: Cosmo Topper

Cosmo Topper — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:47:57 +0000

I have lived in (and loved) my little old (100+ year old house) for the last 22 years. My biggest complaint with the teardowns and McMansions is that they change the streetscape dramatically without regard to the existing property owners. While my home is not home tour quality - I wouldn’t trade my 12X12 sills and solid wood walls for a house three times the size. I, too, think the time is coming when small will be preferred — and remember, the greenest house is the one that is not torn down. I shudder to think of all the building debris that goes straight to landfill each time an old Bungalow (or a 1960’s Tanglewood ranch) is torn down to build a new McMansion that will be expensive to heat and cool in the coming decades.

By: DMc

DMc — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:11:47 +0000

JT: I’d dare say that if the teardowns in the Heights were replaced with homes of similar size and scale to what was torn down with repect to height, position on lot, and lot lines most would have no problem. There are some great examples of ‘camel back’ additions that expand the sq footage, but don’t tread on the edges of the lot, or monkey with the view from the street. Ever hear anyone complain about those?

However, when someone erects a 4-story refridgerator box that blocks the sun from the neighbor’s yard and ruins the view from their windows there is going to be some kickback.

Why do people feel like they have to buy a house in the Heights? If you don’t want a 1200 sf bungalow for the price, don’t buy it! Live somewhere else. Leave that house for someone that does want to buy it. If you want large there is plenty of inventory ITL like that, especially right now.

bagby: I rent an old bungalow in the Heights. I know all my neighbors. Had a couple of cold ones with them last night. My grass is cut very nicely. There is NO fast food on my porch. Got any other offensive stereotypes you’d like to trot out?

By: Jeromy Murphy

Jeromy Murphy — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:54:29 +0000

For a 5000 sf lot you can fit a 1-1/2 story, 3b/2b house without difficulty. But the lots are being subdivided and giant homes are being squeezed in.
Personally, I am a fan of contemporary and modern designs. But regardless of the style, the scale of the house should respect the neighborhood.

By: JT

JT — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:47:14 +0000

With all due respect to Arlington St, I have driven all over the Heights and on your street as well. Again how can you reasonably expect anyone outside of a single person or couple to pay the price for a 1200 square foot frame home of little distinction and keep the same footprint? Many of the houses are small and by today’s standards (whether they are unrealistic or not) cannot accomodate a family regardless of whether they did in 1920. On your street plenty of homes basically are dumps with chain link fences,porches used as storage facilities, no landscaping, etc…..How is not an improvement even if you get a 2 1/2 story Faux Victorian next door? Welcome to Houston. Is it somehow better to have a “Bungalow Revival” project that dresses up an existing home with gingerbread and doubles or triples the size of the home and consumes all of the lot? Perhaps the actual Historic District and Woodland Heights/Norhill has more homes worthy of saving but I will still say that the blight that has been replaced in the West Heights and outlying areas is better than what was there. It is unfortunate that this city has no real protectionfor its neighborhoods but until the citizens make a revolution at City Hall, this will just be the “Houston” way.

By: EMME

EMME — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:30:40 +0000

I am in complete agreement with you Jimbo.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:26:48 +0000

You’re right, it was wrong of me to use a term like ludicrous. I would also agree that scale is the biggest problem we face. I would have no problem with an ordinance that limited percentage of lot size that could be built on or overall height of structure. My personal preference is not for building all new construction so that matches the Victorian or Arts & Crafts styles. What I love about the Heights is the community spirit and sense of diversity and I believe that trying to create an architecturally limited future for the neighborhood would just be trying to recreate something that really only ever existed in the original developers promotional material.

By: Jeromy Murphy

Jeromy Murphy — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:03:50 +0000

When we renovated our Sunset Heights home, we started with a 1920s “cracker-box” house. There was not much special or unique about it. We added a 1-story addition and created the “bungalow” that we wanted. Our friends would comment about how much they loved the old homes without realizing that most of the details were things we had added.

I agree with ArlingtonSt that the biggest problem is scale, not style.

By: ArlingtonSt

ArlingtonSt — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:02:13 +0000

Jimbo, I respect your preference for variety in architectural styles for new constructions in the Heights. But your preference alone doesn’t make conflicting points of view “ludicrous”, does it?
Houston may not be as progressive when it comes to historic preservation as many other cities - but, even here, the notion that new construction in a nationally-significant historic neighborhood should ideally reflect that of the neighborhood is hardly extreme.
Those buildling and buying new constructions in the Heights have obvious interests in saying that the historic integrity of the neighborhood is not important to its residents. The hard work that has gone into getting a large number of Heights blocks landmark protection is, in my opinion, more compelling evidence of the majority view.

By: Bagby3365

Bagby3365 — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:53 +0000

People rent these old bungalows and dont cut their yard or associate with others. People with the newer homes use their porches for other things than storing fast food trash and keep up their yards. Dont beleive me? Drive around.

By: EMME

EMME — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:21:30 +0000

Jimbo, I never said everyone was “obsessed with saving the bungalows.” I was simply disagreeing with the point that few were interested in saving bungalows in general and that nobody listened. If a bungalow is in great disrepair, I would agree with tearing it down. If it is a bungalow in disrepair, but with historical value or with architectural interest I would encourage restoration. While I may be vocal about it and do all I can to support restoration, I also know that in the end it is up to the property owner to do what he wants with it within the limits set by the city.