These are now cleared for taking off:
- 1709 Ruth St. 77004
- 2602 Commonwealth St. 77006 (Hyde Park Main)
- 4411 Rose St. 77007 (new construction by Tricon Homes)
- 2502 Willowby Dr. 77008 (more info)
- 910 Kern St. 77009 (garage; photos)
- 1346 Candlelight Ln. 77018 (garage only)
- 2411 Woodhead St. 77019 (new construction by Tricon Homes)
- 3714 Tartan Ln. 77025 (Braes Heights; photos)
- 4110 Underwood St. 77025 (Ayrshire; new construction by BAS Concepts)
- 16615 Bentshire Way 77058 (University Green; swimming pool)
- 2014 Wavell St. 77088
Photo of 2411 Woodhead St.: HAR
RE the 2411 brick cottage coming down. G-R-O-A-N. Note to self: must win lottery
Sad to see 2411 Woodhead drop off the block – a very cute house, the perfect candidate for costmetic improvements. Let me guess: another Urban Living POS TH or oversized country French single family Flinstone by Keller Williams? FN greedy developers ..
2602 Commonwealth is a beautiful house as well.
Per above, Tricon Homes is getting ready to build new construction at 2411 Woodhead. Unfortunately, a rendering does not yet appear to be available on the website. I think that is a new developer trick, keep the actual plans secret and hidden from the neighbors (i.e., the people most affected by it) until it is too late. Anyway, I am surprised that the owner of 2411 Woodhead was willing to sell to a developer, this home and the garden are very personalized, it looks like a home that was well loved and cared for. Sad.
What color is the sky in your world, Mel? Surprised? really?
Sellers sell to the highest bidder. That’s how the world works.
If it is Tricon than it will be some quickly built POS townhomes.
I agree it is cool little house and i am sad to see it go.
So the old homeowner should have taken half(?) the money.
So who is greedy, the old homeowner for not insisting that the house has to stay at the cost of however much extra money, or the new homeowner for wanting more house? The developer paid the old owner an amount greater than or equal to the amount at which the old home owner valued the property. The developer will have to accept an amount which is less than or equal to the amount at which the new homeowner values the redeveloped property. If we didn’t have greedy developers either the old homeowner or the new homeowner (or both) also lose.
Wow, Bernard. What a wonderful comment. It adds so much to the discussion. Again, I am surprised that someone who seemed personally invested in their home would sell to a developer, because it was likely unnecessary considering how hot the market is right now.
awp, why do you assume that builders are the only ones willing to pay top dollar? That may have been true five years ago, but not anymore. The real issue is that developers have the inside track with realtors and are able to swoop in before anyone else gets a chance or because they are a cash offer, it is probably more appealing to a seller. But that doesn’t change the fact that for sellers in this market are not forced to sell to a developer- there is certainly going to be a family looking for a home zoned to a good school. I agree it is the seller’s choice, but I am surprised by that choice when the seller (such as this one) obviously poured so much of themselves into their home. For the record, I will NEVER sell to a developer. Ever. I like my neighbors too much to do that to them.
The issue about this owner selling to a builder or someone who would want to live in the home, seems to me to have been determined when the POS TH next door got put up. If I lived there I would want out as soon as that POS went up and If I was looking to live in that area I would never move next to a POS TH. I would avoid the area altogether since it is obvious that they do not have any deed restrictions that are worth a damn. Therefore, property values are basically at lot value no matter what the existing older homes are like.
Gee, what happened to the comment that I posted?
Well, I will try again. The value of the home and potential market for the home was determined as soon as the 3 story POS TH went up next door. Who would want to live next to that? Plus, it is obvious that the deed restrictions allowing such a thing are not worth a damn. So, the value is basically at lot value and the market is for the builders. I do not think that folks are moving to Woodhead and Mandel for the schools, HISD and all.
Sorry about posting twice. Wierd timing – refresh. Ach – computers.
Well the Woodhead house is already next to a bank of townhomes, directly across the street from a vacant lot which is sure to be townhomes and also has the view of the side of a dry cleaners. She owned the house for almost twenty years and sold it last September. I would guess that the homeowner could see that handwriting on the wall and probably now has a nice little chunk of change in the bank. And anyone who is familiar with Tricon already knows their three stock in trade facades of side by side townhomes.
Small house large lot.
Where are all these buyers that are willing to pay more than the developers to buy small cute houses and save them from redevelopment? There are some, but as we see with all the townhouses, not enough.
Of course people are moving to Woodhead for the schools, I know I did. Lanier and all are some of the best schools in the entire city (HISD or not) with quick acess to all the amenities in town.
I really wonder what older homes all of you live in, because everyone I’ve been in that hasn’t been extensively/expensively remodeled and refinished all come with some very real and different living conditions that require some tradeoffs from that of a modern home. but regardless, folks in the sub $500K price range in this area are not interested in buying property, they want a home. buying an older home comes with a large tab on the backend that most won’t be able to afford without taking a serious hit to their retirement or kids’ college savings. when you buy those type of places you’re buying the land and a home you know will have to be fixed up at great expense if expecting to get another 80yrs life span out of it.
perhaps we all wish the montrose was nothing but families earning $200K a year and could afford to buy whatever they choose based on preserving the character of the neighborhood rather than prioritizing better living conditions for their families, but that’s just not the case and there’s not enough folks earning that kind of money to prop up an area as dense and large as the montrose. there are plenty of hoods that meet that description in the Houston area though and I don’t see why all hoods should fall under that category either.
I agree with you. BUT it takes only one POS 3 story TH to ruin a good neighborhood. I would much rather live in a small renovated older home in one of these neiborhoods. I would NEVER want to have a 3 story monster looming over my home. If the HOA, deed restrictions cannot protect from that, then that is not a place I want to live.
I don’t know why developers can’t or won’t create designs that complement an old neighborhood (though I agree this neighborhood’s character left long ago) as it can’t cost that much more. Look at some of the concepts developed for the Mueller Austin development. Many innerloop builders’ designs are mundane, pedestrian repeats of the same thing they’ve built multiple times – case in point: Look at Tricon’s projects. Where are the architectural details? Why not mix it up by creating something unique instead of another stucco box with cheap windows and boring facades. Ever heard of gables or dormers? Eaves or ornamentation? Color or texture (like the Shaker-style shingles found in abundance throughout Cherryhurst – they make them in hardi-plank). A porch? Not everyone wants or needs a huge space. Another case in point: Croix. Do they know anything other than big French Country, big Mediterranean or big Modern?
Sadly, I am seeing a similar trend in Mandell Place and Winlow Place where we have deed restrictions (height, setback, minimum lot size etc). The restrictions are certainly working, but we are witnessing the parade of the big white porte-cochered stuccoed “Fabulous Country French by Croix” boxes hawked by the same gang of realtors that have all but plundered the neighborhood north of Westheimer .. Rinse, repeat. Talk about a racket. The only thing worse would be if Urban Living were to enter the single family fray.
I agree with Bubba – it only takes one TH to ruin a neighborhood. I chose to renovate my 1926 bungalow to bring it to modern living standards. Yes, it’s expensive to do and painful to endure but SO much better than this new shit which only has SIZE going for it.
Unfortunately it probably made no difference who bought the house, it would be torn down anyway. The picture says a lot; the big bore of a building bullying the brick bungalow…cute runts like that really don’t stand a chance right now.
@ Bubba/Joel: +1 on moving to this neighborhood for schools, we did last year.
We outgrew our Norhill bungalow, which we lived in for 14 years, and wanted our kids to be zoned to Lanier/Lamar. We looked at this house when it was on the market. It was super cute but I can confirm there were some serious compromises to living there. For instance, the back deck was pretty much in need of replacement. The garage was not in good shape. The laundry wasn’t even in the house, it was in a little tiny addition off the back that had visible rot issues.
None of these things would be insurmountable, but for somewhere north of the $450K they were asking, it takes a special kind of buyer to want to deal with that. And the observations that it was bordered by townhomes and soon-to-be townhomes are correct too. Trust me – for the same money, you could have gotten a bungalow at least as good as this one in the Heights, or at least Norhill.