08
Jul
Historic Homeowner Fair
Make plans now to attend the second annual City of San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation Historic Homeowner Fair on Saturday, August 28, at Municipal Auditorium! Last year’s fair was a great success and this year’s will be even better. This event is free and open to the public.
Discover the best ways to care for your older home and preserve its value for future generations to enjoy. Learn why old is the new green. Get information on tax incentives and financial assistance available to owners of historic properties. Talk with professionals specializing in historic homes. Meet other San Antonians who understand the challenges and pleasures of owning an older home with historic character. Bring the kids! This family-friendly event will include fun activities for children of all ages.
If you are interested in becoming a Historic Homeowner Fair exhibitor or sponsor, please contact Amy Unger at the City of San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation for space availability and reservations.
Tell your neighbors, friends and family about this great opportunity for anyone with an interest in older homes and neighborhoods, green living, or San Antonio’s rich architectural history. We look forward to seeing you August 28!
For more information call (210) 207-1496, email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or visit our website at www.sanantonio.gov/historic/
And don’t miss your chance to register for the upcoming Window Restoration Workshop, to be held August 20-21. Call Elizabeth Porterfield at (210) 207-3327 for more information.
— The City of San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation Staff
Discover the best ways to care for your older home and preserve its value for future generations to enjoy. Learn why old is the new green. Get information on tax incentives and financial assistance available to owners of historic properties. Talk with professionals specializing in historic homes. Meet other San Antonians who understand the challenges and pleasures of owning an older home with historic character. Bring the kids! This family-friendly event will include fun activities for children of all ages.
If you are interested in becoming a Historic Homeowner Fair exhibitor or sponsor, please contact Amy Unger at the City of San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation for space availability and reservations.
Tell your neighbors, friends and family about this great opportunity for anyone with an interest in older homes and neighborhoods, green living, or San Antonio’s rich architectural history. We look forward to seeing you August 28!
For more information call (210) 207-1496, email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or visit our website at www.sanantonio.gov/historic/
And don’t miss your chance to register for the upcoming Window Restoration Workshop, to be held August 20-21. Call Elizabeth Porterfield at (210) 207-3327 for more information.
— The City of San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation Staff
Email this
Comments
(50)
Show/hide comments
...
written by Patriot , July 22, 2010
written by Patriot , July 22, 2010
Never was a 5 mill plan just more hot air that people bought into
...
written by Isosceles , July 19, 2010
written by Isosceles , July 19, 2010
Anyone notice how that 5 mil plan just faded into oblivion?
...
written by Matt D , July 19, 2010
written by Matt D , July 19, 2010
In a Hurry
Sorry for the miss post, Should have read: Matt here, Common Sense who is this Architect/Builder?
Looks like Maxwell 312 answered my question.
Sorry for the miss post, Should have read: Matt here, Common Sense who is this Architect/Builder?
Looks like Maxwell 312 answered my question.
...
written by Maxwell312 , July 19, 2010
written by Maxwell312 , July 19, 2010
I think Architect Builder is the guy who said the facilities could be built for 5 mil - not a lot of real world experience. Wanna bet he's a professor? The phrase 'sustainable arguments" is a dead give away.
...
written by TJW , July 19, 2010
written by TJW , July 19, 2010
Matt D - Is there another Matt? Good post by JAK44 and Common sense. Bungalow Betty (love the name) I could not agree with you more, very good point. I see AH Voter has not changed their ways.
...
written by Lawyer Lucy , July 16, 2010
written by Lawyer Lucy , July 16, 2010
BB, what does your daughter think about the demolition issue in AH?
...
written by BUD , July 15, 2010
written by BUD , July 15, 2010
The A/B guy seems to have forgotten that it wasn't the City that approved the 25 mph. It was the citizens who made that choice.
...
written by Bungalow Betty , July 15, 2010
written by Bungalow Betty , July 15, 2010
I know this conversation is about Demolitions, MacMansions,Preservation, restoration and the law. I do not want to change the conservation because I am enjoying reading everybody's points of view. However there was one remark that Architect/bulider said that I can not let pass -"(like the most annoying 25 mph limit on AH Blvd – but that’s another story). Shame on you A/B. We had one child that I know was hit and killed by a truck on a residential street. I don't mind driving 25mph on any AH residential street if it will make the street safer for children. So I get home 45 seconds later, big deal. It is worth it for safety.
Sorry I am a rookie at this but I did find the remark very upsetting.
Sorry I am a rookie at this but I did find the remark very upsetting.
...
written by Common Sense , July 15, 2010
written by Common Sense , July 15, 2010
Good one Bud! The Menger house was not a particularly good example to use. The owner was the son of the owner of the Menger Hotel. It's like a second cousin once removed from any significance. For those of us who remember the house, the landscaping was so overgrown you couldn't even see the house from the street.
Checking back on the case it was surprising to find
"Mrs. , Primrose Place, telling Council she had no problem with the demolition of the house, although she was sad to see it go; however, she was concerned about the increased traffic on the street during construction. She asked that the City monitor the traffic during this time."
The City tried to work with the owner to alter his plans to meet both the City's desires and the owners desires. Ultimately, the owner had a right to do whatever he wanted within the scope of the building ordinances in effect at that time.
Checking back on the case it was surprising to find
"Mrs. , Primrose Place, telling Council she had no problem with the demolition of the house, although she was sad to see it go; however, she was concerned about the increased traffic on the street during construction. She asked that the City monitor the traffic during this time."
The City tried to work with the owner to alter his plans to meet both the City's desires and the owners desires. Ultimately, the owner had a right to do whatever he wanted within the scope of the building ordinances in effect at that time.
...
written by BUD , July 15, 2010
written by BUD , July 15, 2010
So if I make up a story or put up a plaque that Robert E. LEE slept at my place, it would be historic? Didn't think so.
...
written by JAK44 , July 15, 2010
written by JAK44 , July 15, 2010
Matt has hit it on the mark. The laws we have TODAY are the ones that matter. Council is stuck unless they push forward with changes in the law.
However, there are some dangers to changing the law for those who purchased their home many years ago when the laws were different. It's like changing the rules in a football game after the third quarter.
There are two schools of thought. One is that a historic district can lower property values because they severely restrict what and how you work on your home and can significantly increase the cost of alterations. These restrictions can reduce potential demand for the properties.
Others think that it can raise the value of the property by controlling the changes but I am sure some would be unhappy to discover that their property has higher taxes because of the designation as historic.
Let those without sin go first - like Fred Prassel. He has an old house, his father and uncle were prominent many years ago in Olmos Park. Let's see him go after a Historic Designation as an example of what others can do.
However, there are some dangers to changing the law for those who purchased their home many years ago when the laws were different. It's like changing the rules in a football game after the third quarter.
There are two schools of thought. One is that a historic district can lower property values because they severely restrict what and how you work on your home and can significantly increase the cost of alterations. These restrictions can reduce potential demand for the properties.
Others think that it can raise the value of the property by controlling the changes but I am sure some would be unhappy to discover that their property has higher taxes because of the designation as historic.
Let those without sin go first - like Fred Prassel. He has an old house, his father and uncle were prominent many years ago in Olmos Park. Let's see him go after a Historic Designation as an example of what others can do.
...
written by Matt D , July 15, 2010
written by Matt D , July 15, 2010
Sonny boy, you may want to brush up on Texas law and Texas Municipal law. For one your comparison of property rights to cars and speed limits would not even get your foot in any court room door. AH has a Demolish ordinance READ IT - the city is controlling what can be demolished - it is set out in the guidelines. You are making a huge assumption on your point of "legal reasonable restrict". The Menager house qualified under several categories but again READ the demolition ord. If you do not want a house to be demolish then buy it or have some group buy it and fix it up and resale it. But don't tell an owner after the fact he can not demolish it when he is following the law. The last time I checked AH is not a historic district. Which is more in line with the laws you are referring to. I would like to know how many people in AH have put one of those historic makers on their homes. Quit googling and go to the state sites and read TEXAS LAW.
...
written by Architect/Builder , July 14, 2010
written by Architect/Builder , July 14, 2010
Sorry Matt D, but you are really misinformed. Property rights aren’t absolute, even in Texas. It’s like saying “It’s my car and I’ll drive it how I want.” You just run smack into all the laws that control the use of your auto (like the most annoying 25 mph limit on AH Blvd – but that’s another story). Your actions are already restricted by zoning ordinances, building codes, etc. Many cities in Texas go further and have the authority to control how, when and what is demolished by creating the enabling legislation. Too bad AH isn’t one of them. Now if you are going to respond about “takings,” let me set the record straight. So long as the City makes exceptions for proven economic hardship, then it is legal to reasonably restrict what can be demolished, assuming ordinances allow for that. The perfect example right here at home is the Menger house, which would have qualified under several criteria – i.e., architectural significance, age, prominent inhabitants, etc. That the City of AH could only delay that demolition is a sad commentary about Council’s lack of commitment to the preservation of the quality of the built environment.
...
written by Matt D , July 14, 2010
written by Matt D , July 14, 2010
WEll if I buy it then it is my property and I will do what I want. It is my property not my neighbors!
"Even if you aren’t convinced by the sustainable arguments about throwing perfectly good homes into the trash heap (like the Browning house on Patterson)"
"Even if you aren’t convinced by the sustainable arguments about throwing perfectly good homes into the trash heap (like the Browning house on Patterson)"
...
written by Realtor Rosie , July 13, 2010
written by Realtor Rosie , July 13, 2010
And remember most people moving here are not thinking how little can I do this for.
...
written by JAK44 , July 13, 2010
written by JAK44 , July 13, 2010
Architect has just proven the point several of us have made in these posts. Under certain circumstances, it is cheaper to remodel than to tear down. It depends on what your expectations are and the result you are trying to achieve.
However, I take issue with the point on taxes that Architect made. Taxes do not necessarily go up when a house is torn down because the entire sale value isn't assessed or transferred on to the land.
An example is a lot on my street which sold several years ago. After the house was removed, and the lot did not sell, the owner went back to BCAD, proved there was no longer a structure on the lot and had his taxes reduced by the value of the former home. Both his land/lot and his neighbors were assessed at the same value. It did not impact his neighbor at all over what BCAD was assessing everyone.
I'm glad Architect had the building expertise to know where he could effectively use his money to the best advantage and how that work could be done.
It's a shame that AHVOTER didn't call you before making his blanket statement that it was cheaper to tear down than remodel.
However, I take issue with the point on taxes that Architect made. Taxes do not necessarily go up when a house is torn down because the entire sale value isn't assessed or transferred on to the land.
An example is a lot on my street which sold several years ago. After the house was removed, and the lot did not sell, the owner went back to BCAD, proved there was no longer a structure on the lot and had his taxes reduced by the value of the former home. Both his land/lot and his neighbors were assessed at the same value. It did not impact his neighbor at all over what BCAD was assessing everyone.
I'm glad Architect had the building expertise to know where he could effectively use his money to the best advantage and how that work could be done.
It's a shame that AHVOTER didn't call you before making his blanket statement that it was cheaper to tear down than remodel.
...
written by Architect/Builder , July 13, 2010
written by Architect/Builder , July 13, 2010
I’d like to add a professional perspective to the exchange about remodeling versus new construction as someone who has designed, built and remodeled a lot of single family homes in the last 35 years in San Antonio, Alamo Heights, and elsewhere. My experience is that remodeling has always been cheaper when the house is habitable. Let the facts speak for themselves. I recently bought a 1926 bungalow in AH which one of my neighbors referred to as a “tear down.” Not being the tear-down type, I set about totally renovating it, including: new electrical, plumbing and hvac; new kitchen cabs w/stone countertops and stainless appliances; two new bathrooms; new doors; fully insulated; refinished floors, etc. This cost less than $80/sf. There is no way to build a comparable home for this price, especially one with 9 ft + ceiling, long-leaf pine floors, etc. While I totally rebuilt the interiors and reconfigured the rooms making it fit for contemporary living, yet I preserved the architectural integrity of the exterior so as to strengthen the neighborhood fabric.
Besides the sheer economics of it, here’s why you should hope no one tears anything down in AH – your property taxes. Every time there is a tear-down it affects everyone’s property taxes adversely. As an example, let’s say you and your neighbor have similar homes, each worth $460,000. The lots are appraised at $260,000. Your neighbor decides to sell his home for the appraised value and the new owner tears down the house. The appraisers now value that land at the full $460,000 purchase price. Next time they get around to reappraising your home, the comparables will show a neighbor with a lot just like yours but worth almost double, so your appraisal will go up (assuming your values aren’t frozen). The tear-down factor in AH has been part of what is driving the land values through the roof.
Even if you aren’t convinced by the sustainable arguments about throwing perfectly good homes into the trash heap (like the Browning house on Patterson) or the by the deterioration of the built environment in Alamo Heights brought about by all the incompatible new construction going on (too many examples to cite here), think about your own economic self interest and your property taxes.
Besides the sheer economics of it, here’s why you should hope no one tears anything down in AH – your property taxes. Every time there is a tear-down it affects everyone’s property taxes adversely. As an example, let’s say you and your neighbor have similar homes, each worth $460,000. The lots are appraised at $260,000. Your neighbor decides to sell his home for the appraised value and the new owner tears down the house. The appraisers now value that land at the full $460,000 purchase price. Next time they get around to reappraising your home, the comparables will show a neighbor with a lot just like yours but worth almost double, so your appraisal will go up (assuming your values aren’t frozen). The tear-down factor in AH has been part of what is driving the land values through the roof.
Even if you aren’t convinced by the sustainable arguments about throwing perfectly good homes into the trash heap (like the Browning house on Patterson) or the by the deterioration of the built environment in Alamo Heights brought about by all the incompatible new construction going on (too many examples to cite here), think about your own economic self interest and your property taxes.
...
written by FL WRIGHT , July 13, 2010
written by FL WRIGHT , July 13, 2010
OMG! please attend the workshop. French drain could be considered part of restoration project if it is protecting the house foundation from water. However wiring is meeting code and new sewer lines is maintenance. Never heard of a restoration project on sewer( most sewer repair is just that demo and replace with a new pipe which is not restoration). Certainly, have never heard of a sewer line that was marked historic. Sewer is something we all have to content with just like a new roof.
...
written by Smugger than thou , July 13, 2010
written by Smugger than thou , July 13, 2010
The "Founder" allows no dissent which is why when we don't agree with him he takes to name calling.
...
written by BUD , July 13, 2010
written by BUD , July 13, 2010
My mind works faster than my fingers but you all got my drift anyway! Great minds think alike.
...
written by Intolerantly Smug , July 12, 2010
written by Intolerantly Smug , July 12, 2010
AH why don't you take a vacation? Come back refreshed, you need a break. I know a great travel agent.
...
written by Jeepers , July 12, 2010
written by Jeepers , July 12, 2010
I wonder how tolerant the "Founder" would be for opposing points of view on his webpage? If you can't stand the heat, there are too many cooks in the kitchen!
...
written by Bubba , July 12, 2010
written by Bubba , July 12, 2010
If you stand the heat stay out of the sun? Dunno about yo Mama sometimes, Bud.
...
written by BUD , July 12, 2010
written by BUD , July 12, 2010
Anyone else ever notice that voter always resorts to a tirade about his/her hurt feelings and how mean we are?
Like Mama says, if you stand the heat stay out of the sun.
Like Mama says, if you stand the heat stay out of the sun.
...
written by Maxwell312 , July 12, 2010
written by Maxwell312 , July 12, 2010
Yes, I do understand owner rights and the law, Matt. The group that rails against it the loudest doesn't seem to understand that the City's hands are tied. They live in a bubble and spread false information about the City's authority. It serves no purpose.
You should keep your eyes open to what they expect the new council members to do for them. If the 3 new council members majority vote against any demo, the taxpayers will be eating the cost of the lawsuits to follow.
That's what they really don't understand.
You should keep your eyes open to what they expect the new council members to do for them. If the 3 new council members majority vote against any demo, the taxpayers will be eating the cost of the lawsuits to follow.
That's what they really don't understand.
...
written by AH Voter , July 12, 2010
written by AH Voter , July 12, 2010
Maxwell you are correct- property rights are paramount. We were not discussing property rights were we. It's dawned on me that you are all experts and that my ideas are not welcome here. Builder Bob, thankyou for calling me a fool. As a matter of fact all my restoration has been very expensive - new sewer lines, French drains, rewiring. Too bad I didn't know you could do it cheaply. But saddest of all is the smug intolerance of those of you who 'own' this site or is it that you own this city?
...
written by Matt D , July 12, 2010
written by Matt D , July 12, 2010
Maxwell 312 glad to see someone on here understands property rights,
...
written by Builder Bob , July 12, 2010
written by Builder Bob , July 12, 2010
I sure hope that the Voter guy calls me when it's time to work on his house. In this economy, I could use a client who doesn't have the sense to know any better. They don't come along very often.
...
written by Maxwell312 , July 12, 2010
written by Maxwell312 , July 12, 2010
If it were cheaper to tear down rather than renovate, there would be far fewer remodels.
Sounds like the voter person hasn't done anything to his home in years.
The simple fact is that legally, the city cannot keep people from tearing down homes. Owners have property rights.
If you want to save a house, get a foundation together and buy the property. Then you can save the structure.
Sounds like the voter person hasn't done anything to his home in years.
The simple fact is that legally, the city cannot keep people from tearing down homes. Owners have property rights.
If you want to save a house, get a foundation together and buy the property. Then you can save the structure.
...
written by JAK44 , July 12, 2010
written by JAK44 , July 12, 2010
In other words, you can't back up your statement.
To simply rewire or replumb no one would tear down the whole house. How ludicrous.
Anyone who believes that the hassle of permits to replumb or rewire warrants a complete tear down, is a fool who will soon be parted from his hard earned money.
To simply rewire or replumb no one would tear down the whole house. How ludicrous.
Anyone who believes that the hassle of permits to replumb or rewire warrants a complete tear down, is a fool who will soon be parted from his hard earned money.
...
written by AH Voter , July 12, 2010
written by AH Voter , July 12, 2010
BTW, I happen to believe in preservation and restoration. I was pointing out that most people will go for tear down rather than deal with the permits and headaches of rewire, replumb,foundation and roof reinforce for second floor or to stop roof sag.
...
written by AH Voter , July 12, 2010
written by AH Voter , July 12, 2010
You don't rip out trusses for wiring. I am so glad that you were able to restore without too much expense. The code and insurance have changed. There are reinspection fees. Read the building code.
...
written by Common Sense , July 12, 2010
written by Common Sense , July 12, 2010
I renovated a few years ago and didn't have to tear out the trusses to redo the wiring.
And it was definitely cheaper to renovate rather than demolish, inspections included.
And it was definitely cheaper to renovate rather than demolish, inspections included.
...
written by BUD , July 12, 2010
written by BUD , July 12, 2010
Reinspection fees only occur when you hire a third rate contractor who doesn't get it right on the first round. It pays to check out a reliable builder.
...
written by AH Voter , July 12, 2010
written by AH Voter , July 12, 2010
JAK, that should be obvious. If you have to rip out walls and tear up floors and ceilings to renovate electricity, plumbing and bring roof truss system into code (many homes built before 1950 have insufficient trusses) then it is usually cheaper to demolish. Remember there are permits at all the stages of restoration. Sometimes there are reinspection fees. It is definitely more efficient and usually less expensive to start from scratch. Of course if you are restoring merely to look cool and you don't care about overloaded electric circuits, leaky plumbing and insufficient foundation, then restoration might be the route you choose. Have you remodeled lately? People I talk to say it is a nightmare.
...
written by JAK44 , July 12, 2010
written by JAK44 , July 12, 2010
What is the basis for the statement "it is far less expensive to demolish rather than restore"?
...
written by AH Voter , July 11, 2010
written by AH Voter , July 11, 2010
KJ, some of us don't sit in front of a computer all day. I am not sure what is historic. I own a small non descript house from the 30s. Is that historic? A house on Primrose was demolished that was also built in the 30s. It was owned by a prominent family in SA history. Is that historic? I don't know.
But I do know what tear down and restore mean.
How many definitions for restoration are there. To restore means to bring it up to original condition, but given our laws and codes, you have to bring the plumbing and electrical into modern era code and there are often other changes required. On a 75 year old house, it is far less expensive to demolish rather than restore.
Did that answer your question?
But I do know what tear down and restore mean.
How many definitions for restoration are there. To restore means to bring it up to original condition, but given our laws and codes, you have to bring the plumbing and electrical into modern era code and there are often other changes required. On a 75 year old house, it is far less expensive to demolish rather than restore.
Did that answer your question?
...
written by Matt D , July 11, 2010
written by Matt D , July 11, 2010
KJ you will not get a response. They like to tell everyone what to with their property.
...
written by KJ , July 11, 2010
written by KJ , July 11, 2010
I guess I will have to wait till H freezes over before I get an answer or response to my post.
...
written by KJ , July 11, 2010
written by KJ , July 11, 2010
I would say it depends. Depends on what your definition of "Historic" is
what the incentives are, and what your definition of "restoration" is
what the incentives are, and what your definition of "restoration" is
...
written by AH Voter , July 11, 2010
written by AH Voter , July 11, 2010
Are you interested in preserving historic homes or all homes? Do you feel there should be incentives for restoration of homes?
...
written by JAK44 , July 11, 2010
written by JAK44 , July 11, 2010
Don't get me started about the holier than thou's who would dictate to others what they will not practice themselves.
...
written by Maxwell312 , July 11, 2010
written by Maxwell312 , July 11, 2010
Matt makes a very good point. Those who make the biggest noise about being anti tear down are the same people who live in newer homes, have altered their homes beyond recognition or have homes so architecturally insignificant that they could be removed and no one would notice.
Some members of THAT group could use a lesson in simple home maintenance.
Some members of THAT group could use a lesson in simple home maintenance.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register (free) if you do not have an account yet.
