13 Comment

  • Density=destruction.

  • Somedays I don’t like the Daily Demo Report. We could buy that house on Hyde Park in 5 years.

  • Too bad, that place was adorable

  • Slap in the face that it’s a Tricon mess going up, too.

  • The Hyde Park house looks cute on the outside, but if the pictures are any indication, the interior was a mess, and any charm it had looks to have been removed in the 80s or 90s :(.

  • There are pics of the recent Hyde Park house sale on har – http://www.har.com/HomeValue/1207-Hyde-Park-Bl-Houston-77006-M40174004.htm. The interior needed some work, but I hate to imagine what will replace it.

  • I do wish there were greater interest in renovating these cute bungalows. There will always be a market for small spaces like these.

  • I wish there was more interest in these properties too — but there isn’t. We can all talk about how cool the house is/was but bottom line is no one wanted to buy it in order to live in it.
    Personally I think it’s a shame it’s going to go, but if no one buys it as an existing home, you can’t blame someone that wants to build something new to buy.

  • Or a developer with deep pockets was willing to go over asking because of the anticipated profits, thus pricing out those who might have wanted to live there. I don’t know that to be the case with this property, but it happened to me, repeatedly, when I was on the hunt for an originsl condition bungalow in 2009. I understand it’s even worse now. Unless we slap these developers on the nose and do something to protect these houses, we should put bungalows like this on the endangered species list. Yes- I am hostile.

  • I do not know if I would call this house a bungalow when it is 2800sqft. 2800sqft home on a 5000sqft lot just sound wrong you need a yard

  • Mel: A developer is at a “disadvantage” in a way because to build a new home he has to buy the existing home for more than another buyer would pay, spend the $ to blow it up, and spend $ to build a new one. Then there are carry costs, risks, and $ to market and sell the new home.
    So if they’re paying more, that means that ANOTHER (new) home buyer wants a new home on that land MUCH more (to the tune of many hundreds of thousands of dollars) than you do.
    So while you were willing to spend $x, someone else was willing to spend a whole lot more for a new property. How do you stop that? It’s not right to limit how much someone can sell their home for. It’s not right to tell someone they can’t buy a new home, and it’s not right to tell the 100’s of construction workers, plumbers, electricians, and suppliers that they can’t work.
    I sympathize with you. I live in a 100+ year old home and have historic homes all around me. I like it. I have the “advantage” of being in an area where the economics of buying one of the homes around here and building new wouldn’t be practical so it doesn’t happen. However that’s not the case in all areas. So if you find another place for sale that you want, you have to make sure you want it more than a new home buyer (read: Developer). You have to put your money where your mouth is rather than asking the seller or someone else to take a loss for your benefit.

  • @mel, are you arguing the current property owner ought to accept less money from you than a developer would pay, just to keep the house intact?

  • The house on Crocker is interesting. It is a small bungalow that was significantly renovated within the last year. Surprising that they tearing it down.