Tag: Historic Districts

Boulevard Oaks
08/28/12 1:36pm

This Old House on the Edge of the Edgemont Esplanade

by
Edgemont, Historic Districts, Home Decor, Home Design, Interiors
34 Comments

As Federal-style homes go, this ivy-clad example on North Blvd. in Edgemont has a pedigree that earned it a place on the National Register of Historic Places. An understated bronze plaque displayed discreetly beneath a demilune portico says so, but doesn’t elaborate. The 1925 home’s design is reportedly the work of C.B. Schoeppl & Co., whose efforts can also be found in a NRHP pair on Westmoreland Ave., as well as in a few other older Houston neighborhoods. Listed a couple of weeks ago for $1.9 million, this green-roofed home at the eastern end of the Boulevard Oaks Historic District sits back from — and a bit above — the tree-lined esplanade along North Blvd. But its corner-lot address is a tad shy of the double-allees of live oaks found a half-block to the east, in Broadacres.

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , , , ,
Comments
01/04/12 10:08pm

Comment of the Day: Ballad of the Fourth Ward

by
Fourth Ward, Historic Districts, Historic Preservation, Houston History, Quicklink
26 Comments

COMMENT OF THE DAY: BALLAD OF THE FOURTH WARD “Freedman’s town is not a historic district under the City’s historic preservation ordinance. In fact, it is an excellent example of why historic districts are needed. Freedman’s town was where freed slaves settled after emancipation. The land was crap due to the flooding from the bayous. The residents built roads out of brick made by hand and constructed utilities. They basically built a thriving community out of swampland with their own hands. The area decayed and turned into crack town in the 1980s. In the late 1980s, Residents and activists were able to put over 500 buildings on the national register of historic places. Today, less than 30 of those buildings remain. And the effort to preserve the shot gun shacks was based on the historic and cultural value of the buildings, not just for the architecture. Had Freedman’s town had the protection of the current historic ordinance and a fraction of the kind of tax assistance that goes to stadiums, grand parkways and Walmarts, a significant piece of American history could have been saved and become a national tourist destination along the lines of Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. . . .” [Old School, commenting on Daily Demolition Report: Dixie Chuck]

, , , , ,
Historic Districts
06/29/11 10:52am

Three New Historic Districts Approved

by
Historic Preservation, Quicklink
62 Comments

THREE NEW HISTORIC DISTRICTS APPROVED Glenbrook Valley, Heights South, and the Woodland Heights are the city’s newest historic districts, after city council voted to approve their long-lingering applications this morning. The votes were 9-5 for Woodland Heights and Heights South, and 10-4 for Glenbrook Valley. [Previously on Swamplot]

, ,
Historic Districts
06/28/11 3:59pm

Singing It to the Council

by
Historic Preservation, Quicklink, Real Estate Marketing
2 Comments

SINGING IT TO THE COUNCIL In advance of tomorrow’s scheduled vote on the fates of historic districts in Heights South, Glenbrook Valley, and Woodland Heights, supporters and opponents of historic designation in those neighborhoods have been pulling out all the stops at today’s city hall public comment hearing. [Justin Concepcion, via Twitter] Photo: Daniel

, , , ,
Glenbrook Valley
06/23/11 5:43pm

Inside the Historic Battle for Glenbrook Valley

by
Historic Districts, Historic Preservation, Neighborhood Disputes, Quicklink
18 Comments

INSIDE THE HISTORIC BATTLE FOR GLENBROOK VALLEY The color-coded maps, the front-yard tombstones, the shivering naked women, the Ranches and MCMs, the prayer nooks, the free tacos, the threatening drive-by waves . . . it all comes out (well, some of it anyway) in Steve Jansen’s Glenbrook Valley exposé. [Houston Press; previously on Swamplot]

, , , ,
Development Restrictions
03/24/11 7:46pm

Salon Stefano: The One That Got Away

by
First Montrose Commons, Historic Districts, Historic Preservation
3 Comments

Yesterday’s city council vote makes the status of 4 more historic districts much clearer. Avondale West, Norhill, Boulevard Oaks, and First Montrose Commons will now officially join 10 other existing districts under the protection of new preservation restrictions that don’t allow owners to do whatever they want if they just wait 90 days. The new preservation ordinance described a multi-step “reconsideration” process that might have led to the dissolution of any of the districts or redrawn their boundaries. But that didn’t happen here: These 14 districts will stay the same — well, almost. There is one property that got away.

It’s this 1929 building, home to Salon Stefano and an adjacent parking lot, at 3802 Roseland St. Last year, the property was included in the new First Montrose Commons Historic District. And now it’s out, scot-free. How did it manage to escape?

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , , , ,
Historic Districts
03/23/11 12:20pm

Four Brand New Old Historic Districts Approved; Heights East and Heights West Batted Back for More Study

by
Historic Preservation, Quicklink
49 Comments

FOUR BRAND NEW OLD HISTORIC DISTRICTS APPROVED; HEIGHTS EAST AND HEIGHTS WEST BATTED BACK FOR MORE STUDY Votes by city council this morning mean Norhill, Avondale West, and Boulevard Oaks will remain historic districts with their existing boundaries governed by the city’s new preservation ordinance. First Montrose Commons — minus a single property removed by the recommendation of the planning director — will remain a historic district as well. But by a 7-to-8 vote, the council rejected the planning director’s recommendations for Heights West and Heights East. They’re still governed by the ordinance, but the reports have been sent back to the planning department for “further review.” Still to come up for votes: Heights South, Glenbrook Valley, and Woodland Heights. [Previously on Swamplot]

, ,
Glenbrook Valley
03/02/11 10:57am

Knocking Out a Few Properties from the Woodland Heights and Houston Heights South Historic Districts

by
Historic Districts, Houston Heights, Woodland Heights
4 Comments

Planning director Marlene Gafrick is recommending that city council shrink the boundaries of the proposed Houston Heights South and Woodland Heights historic districts before approving them — but only slightly. In this morning’s meeting, Gafrick presented a map of Houston Heights South with “squared off boundaries” in the southeast corner and western edges of the district, and that excludes a number of residences on Oxford St. For Woodland Heights, her map cuts out some properties on Omar St. She proposed making no changes to the proposed boundaries of the Glenbrook Valley district. The actual designation and boundaries of the districts will be up to city council.

Photo from 800 block of Columbia St.: Swamplot inbox

, , , , , , ,
Historic Districts
02/23/11 12:34pm

Your Map to the Folks Who Wanted Out of the Houston Heights Historic District East

by
Historic Preservation, Houston Heights
48 Comments

Planning director Marlene Gafrick’s recommendation that only one property be excised from just one of the 6 existing historic districts up for reconsideration (a 7th, Heights South, is going through the same process even though it hasn’t officially been approved yet) is just that — only a recommendation. Houston’s city council can still decide to alter the boundaries of any of those districts. And you can bet the maps provided by the planning department that show the repeal-survey responses and where they came from will be a major focus of attention as council members discuss the issue. Plus, hey — isn’t it fun to be able to see how your historic-district neighbors came down on the issue? Here’s the map for Heights East:

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , , , , ,
Historic Districts
02/23/11 10:07am

Planning Director Recommends Excluding Only a Single Property from All Existing Historic Districts

by
Historic Preservation
16 Comments

Swamplot will have more details later, but here’s the news all you historic-district junkies and haters have been waiting for, just out this morning: The official tallies and maps of the repeal surveys from historic districts that went through the process, plus planning director Marlene Gafrick’s recommendations to city council for changing their boundaries. The gist? As reported earlier, none of the existing districts were able to muster owners of 51 percent of their tracts to send in repeal slips, which would have dissolved the districts. For Norhill, Avondale West, Boulevard Oaks, Heights West, and Heights East, Gafrick notes that “surveys requesting repeal . . . were dispersed throughout the district,” and is recommending that the districts maintain their current boundaries. For First Montrose Commons, Gafrick is recommending “changing the boundary to exclude a tract of land where the owner is the sole tract in the blockface on the edge of the district. The community has stated that they never intended for this tract to be included within the district.” That’s it. What happened to Heights South, the 7th district facing possible dissolution? That’s a “pending” district, planning department spokesperson Suzy Hartgrove tells Swamplot, and its status will be addressed at another date. Mayor Parker is presenting the recommendations to city council at today’s meeting.

, ,
Historic Districts
02/15/11 1:57pm

We’ll Still Have the Norhill Historic District To Kick Around

by
Historic Preservation, Norhill Historic District, Quicklink
49 Comments

WE’LL STILL HAVE THE NORHILL HISTORIC DISTRICT TO KICK AROUND The planning department has tallied all the surveys from property owners in the Norhill Historic District — the last of 7 historic districts subject to the one-time “reconsideration” provisions of the revised preservation ordinance city council passed last year. Department spokesperson Suzy Hartgrove says the number of surveys returned was below the 51 percent threshold that would have dissolved the district, but she hasn’t provided the actual percentage. Planning director Marlene Gafrick “has been meeting with council members whose districts are affected” by the reconsideration process, Hartgrove tells Swamplot. “We should have maps ready when this goes to council which may be as early as next week. The Planning Director is still working on her recommendations.” [Previously on Swamplot]

, , , , ,
First Montrose Commons
02/11/11 10:27am

First Montrose Commons Historic District Won’t Be Going Anywhere

by
Historic Districts, Historic Preservation
18 Comments

City officials have informed the president of the First Montrose Commons neighborhood association that the recent historic-district reconsideration survey of residents has fallen “well short” of the 51 percent needed to dissolve the district. Under the terms of the recently revised preservation ordinance, city council could still vote to shrink the size of the district — which fits between Richmond and West Alabama just west of Spur 527 in Montrose — in order to exclude some properties whose owners favored repeal. But association president Jason Ginsburg considers that unlikely: “A brief review of the repeal surveys that were returned shows that most of the dissenting property owners are sprinkled throughout our historic district, as opposed to being clustered in one particular area,” he wrote in a post on the FMC website last night. First Montrose Commons became the 16th historic district just last year.

Map: First Montrose Commons Neighborhood Association

, , ,
Comments
01/05/11 6:28pm

Comment of the Day: Without All That Demolition and New Construction, the Heights Wouldn’t Be the Historic District It is Today

by
Historic Districts, Historic Preservation, Houston Heights, Quicklink
43 Comments

COMMENT OF THE DAY: WITHOUT ALL THAT DEMOLITION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE HEIGHTS WOULDN’T BE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IT IS TODAY “What do you think was driving the value of the property in the Heights up? It was the builders, and their extensive work improving the area! It certainly was not the pleasant atmosphere the preservationist[s] created in the neighborhood. The average homeowner has no interest in the headaches of an expansive remodel. The builders took the risks and improved the area…all of a sudden the area became safer, and the preservationist[s] roll in, now – everyone gets to play under their new rules becuase someone else did all the hard work and took all the risks.” [Marksmu, commenting on Houston’s Historic Districts Will Remain as They Are]

, , , , ,
Development Restrictions
01/05/11 2:07pm

How Houston’s Historic Districts Could Still Shrink

by
Historic Districts, Historic Preservation
27 Comments

Yesterday Swamplot reported that planning director Marlene Gafrick had signaled to city council that 5 of the 7 historic districts being “reconsidered” had not met the threshold that would have triggered dissolving them (the return of surveys representing owners of 51 percent of the properties in a district). The survey processes in the 2 remaining districts, Norhill and First Montrose Commons, are a little behind the others: Neighborhood meetings required by the revised preservation ordinance have been scheduled, but owners there haven’t received their survey forms yet.

But even if those last 2 districts don’t make the 51 percent cut either, the process spelled out by the new ordinance won’t come to an immediate halt. Once the votes have been tallied for all 7 districts, Gafrick will be required to send a report to city council recommending one of 3 options for each of them. For Heights East, Heights West, Heights South, Boulevard Oaks, and Avondale West, the first option — dissolving the district entirely — is out. But Gafrick can still recommend adjusting the boundaries of a district — even if the returned surveys didn’t reach the 51 percent threshold. (Her third option: recommend city council do nothing — and keep the district as it is.)

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

, , , ,
Development Regulations
01/04/11 5:50pm

Houston’s Historic Districts Will Remain as They Are

by
Historic Districts, Historic Preservation
100 Comments

Update, 1/5: Unless, of course, city council decides to shrink a few of them anyway.

The results are in, and it looks like the great campaign to dissolve Houston’s historic districts has been a bit of a bust. Houston planning director Marlene Gafrick reports that the “survey period” for Heights East, Heights West, Heights South, Boulevard Oaks, and Avondale West historic districts has closed and that the planning department has determined that “none of the districts achieved the 51% threshold that requires the Planning Director to recommend repeal of the designation or, in the case of Heights South, recommend denying the designation.” Neighborhood meetings and subsequent “surveys” for 2 more districts — Norhill and First Montrose Commons — haven’t taken place yet (the meetings are scheduled for January 8th and 18th, respectively). That’s it for the 7 districts where petitions from owners triggered the “reconsideration” provisions of the preservation ordinance changes city council approved last fall. According to the new ordinance, if owners of 51 percent of the lots in any of the districts had returned notices sent to them by the city, the districts might have been dissolved — or, more likely, had their boundaries adjusted.

Opponents of the preservation-ordinance changes had focused their dissolution campaign on the Heights historic districts. But if the 51 percent threshold wasn’t attainable in those districts, it seems less likely their efforts will succeed in Norhill and First Montrose Commons. Meanwhile, the city’s planning commission and archeological and historic commission have both recommended that city council approve 2 additional pending historic districts, in Woodland Heights and Glenbrook Valley.

, , , ,
« Previous Page Next Page »