Comments on: Timbergrove Manor’s Biggest Price Cut Ever

By: txsanguine

txsanguine — Sat, 23 May 2009 01:58:16 +0000

I actually like the house and loked at it, but it’s wayyy too close to some train tracks and overbuilt for the neighborhood. And a decent sized lot but somehow manged to end up with no fenced yard.

By: kjb434

kjb434 — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:06:35 +0000

GoogleMaster,

Some developers may not have the correct feel for the market. Which could be the reason they are still building. Some developers are already in the middle of owning a piece a property and involved in the permit process, so they may just go ahead and finished building the project out. They most likely already have the construction loan taken out if they aren’t building with cash on hand.

The developers that don’t play the market right may go under and the ones they play it right will be successful.

And there is never nothing wrong with trying to get the most bang for your buck. The reason people buy a house from a developer with all the markup is for the convenience of not doing it themselves.

By: HOUREB

HOUREB — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:39:33 +0000

They won’t get any bang for their buck if they don’t sell. If there was no market for this product, developers would stop building them. Building townhomes on formerly single family lots is not a new trend.

By: GoogleMaster

GoogleMaster — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:21:59 +0000

HOUREB says:

Some like older homes with yards, others like three story townhomes. Maybe especially three story townhomes in The Heights. Developers build them because people buy them.

I thought the developers built them because they can get the most bang for their buck that way, assuming they can even sell them? They don’t seem to be selling that well, at least in Montrose anymore. I look at the HAR open houses for 77006 and have seen the same townhouses on there every weekend for months.

By: HoustonRealtor

HoustonRealtor — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:32:31 +0000

This home was indeed built by Flatiron, but it was intended to be the owner’s personal residence. He felt that Timbergrove was the next Bellaire, West U, Heights, etc. And he loved the lot because of the trees. He worked hard to make sure this house and pool fit on that lot. His wife was all for it and they were going to move here to a much bigger home and lot from Rice Military.
I believe that he and his company suffered some financial setbacks that required him to try and sell this home. While it’s an interesting house, I would agree that it’s unusual for the area. I must say that I do feel better knowing that it was to be his own home, rather than building something as unusual as this on a speculative basis.

By: HOUREB

HOUREB — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:39:53 +0000

Here is the bottom line. Certain rules exist. They exist when a property is purchased and they should not be changed based on neighborhood protests or based on divergent tastes.

Some like older homes with yards, others like three story townhomes. Maybe especially three story townhomes in The Heights. Developers build them because people buy them. When there is not market for their product, developers fold.
As long as properties are being purchased from willing sellers, and then redeveloped within the guidelines that exsist at closing, there is no villain.
The solution, rather than critisizing the structures that some happily call home and the developers that build them, is to pursue a change in guidelines or move to a neighborhood that has them.

By: DMc

DMc — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:26:41 +0000

I was thinking more hypothetically, how would you carft an ordinance that limits home scale?
- - - - - - - -
Good question. I *think* the city calculates minimum lot size, where enacted, based on existing stock?

I’m not comfortable that I detest out-of-scale development, but don’t have an objective definition as I’d like. The ‘ol “I know it when I see it” doesn’t make an acceptable guideline. But I also know that there are people much smarter than me!

If the numbers you posted earlier are correct this property likely isn’t a scourge. Perhaps some dislike the style. In my opinion, style is waaayy to subjective to regulate. When you dictate style, you end up with…(pick your favorite MPC suburb) *snore*

By: kjb434

kjb434 — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:01:37 +0000

Jimbo,

Unless it is done on an older neighborhood that has little changes and all similar housing, it would be hard.

You are right, there are plenty of large old homes in heights. Just look at Bayland Street. There are others throughout as well. Some of these were tear downs of bungalows and new construction 70 years ago. Some of the large homes are native first builds. I guess it’s only recently that people grip about scale because it’s more prevalent.

The very restrictive rules are possible on a neighborhood level after it’s first built, but as someone mentioned before that one of the deed restrictions in the heights does have a height limit of 40-ft. 40-ft is quite high and most three story town homes still fall under. If the height restriction was say 25-ft, then two story may be the biggest you see, of course you may end up seeing two story homes that cover the entire 5000 sq-ft lot versus three stories taking less space.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:54:28 +0000

I was thinking more hypothetically, how would you carft an ordinance that limits home scale? Take thei heights for instance, you would almost have to do it on a block by block basis as homes of greater than 5000sqft have existed in the neighborhood as a whole since its inception.

By: EMME

EMME — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:21:14 +0000

Jimbo, couldn’t regulate against it’s existence, but certainly can rail against it! :)

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:09:43 +0000

Looks like this conversation has now completely left behind the original property in question. That house has maybe a 3000sqft footprint on a 12000sqft lot, far from obscene. It is also probably not more than 40ft high. It also does not infringe on any minimum setback from the front back or sides. So there is really no argument that can be made against its construction apart from the rather qualititative “not in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood”. Given that this home does not contravene any of the planning restrictions that have been raised how would you regulate against its construction?

By: DMc

DMc — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:16:45 +0000

kjb434: My point was, the blocking of sunlight from one property by another could happen just as easily from a tree as a house.
—-
Very different time scales. Trees don’t grow up in a matter of days. And trees large enough to impact the neighbors are rarely transplanted. If an adjacent tree is existing, one can reasonably predict (but not with certainty) whether they will eventually become shaded based on the species of tree, and the age of the tree in it’s current state, and it’s pattern of growth (pinlike for pines branchy for oaks). Try that with an adjacent house! Of course, hurricanes and lightening can alter any tree predictions! ;0)