Houses such as mine are not good examples of any architectural style and are not suitable for the square footage needs of the modern family, because it is only 960 square feet with extremely small rooms. My house is technically a cottage but a poor example of one. My house is poorly constructed and would be impossible to expand in a cost effective and satisfactory manner because of numerous structural deficiencies. The roof rafters are 2" x 4" and badly sagging.  It is an all sheet rock house with no interior ship-lap lining and has 8 ft. ceiling heights with modern stud lengths. The floor beams are creosote-soaked soft pine, resting on concrete blocks which have no piers or pads beneath them. I checked and the concrete blocks supporting the are simply floating on the ground with no solid foundation. The sagging floor joists and band boards are mis-cuts from the saw mill (7-1/4" tall) making them difficult to replace or infill. All framing is on 24" centers and consisting of soft, probably second growth pine. There is a serious flaw in the facade of the house which has a window bank which is not centered in the street-facing gable, a feature which no architect or quality builder would have approved in any period. The flaw was likely the result of an ad hoc modification to the house plan, potentially during construction to give the front bedroom a small closet at the expense of the porch square footage and symmetrical considerations.  Also, the house is listed in HCAD as being built in 1930 when this is definitely a post 1940 and most likely post WWII era construction based on the materials used, construction techniques, and ceiling height. Finally, there is a notation in the garage floor that the floor was poured in 1948 - the materials and style of the garage are exactly the same as the main house, indicating that they were likely built at nearly the same time. Yet my house is listed as "Potentially Contributing" to an Historic District, which is historic on the basis of it's pre-1940 Craftsman and Victorian style architecture. Nevertheless, my house will be subject to the new restrictions if enacted. This historic designation for my property seems inappropriate given that it was not built in a Craftsman or Victorian style or even in the time periods when these styles were predominant and my house is not well built by the standards of any era.

 

When I purchased my house it was not located in a historic district and I specifically purchased it with the plan to demolish and replace it when my square footage needs increased, fully recognizing the structural and aesthetic deficiencies. The house is big enough for only one or two persons. However, when my family expanded, I planned to replace the existing house with an appropriate Craftsman style house on drilled piers that was big enough for a family. However, the rules have changed and are threatening to prevent me from pursuing my plans for the property. My plans would increase the home values in my block. In contrast, preserving a poorly-built small house with no architectural value would continue to suppress property values in the area. An addition to my house would be structurally unsatisfactory or else very expensive because of the existing rafter and floor joist design, a lack of an adequate foundation, small room dimensions and low ceiling heights. The historic preservation rules as currently written for the Houston Heights will preserve poorly built and aesthetically poor structures simply because they are old. This will in my opinion will suppress property values and is not good historic preservation practice. I do not support the recently enacted Historic Preservation rules but would support rules that encourage the construction of compatible structures and that encourage preservation of homes which are outstanding architectural examples. The new rules should allow the demolition and replacement of homes which although they may be old are not outstanding examples of the predominant architectural style which gives the neighborhood it's historic character or which have serious structural deficiencies such as poor foundations.  

Sincerely,