ARTICLE STIRS UP MORE ANGER
I just read your article regarding neighbors and new construction in the old East Dallas Neighborhoods (‘Neighborly Ways,’ October 2005). I felt like it was very biased. Those of us who simply want to preserve the look and feel of our older homes and neighborhood were depicted as “hostile, lunatic and harassing,” attacking the people who move here and build here.
Then there was that reference to our wanting to keep the neighborhood as it was in 1930. I doubt that one could walk or ride up and down the streets of Vickery Place in 1930 and see the house painting, renovating and landscaping that is going on here today. The name-calling and accusations are ridiculous and should not be encouraged by respected publications like the Advocate.
I know that I, for one, have no qualms with the families who move to our neighborhoods. I was new to the area at one time myself. My concern is strictly that the new construction be compatible with the old so that our neighborhood is preserved, and ends up looking as though it had a plan and some forethought, rather than a potluck hodgepodge like you might find in an area with no building restrictions.
I believe that this article is way off target. We should not be pitting people against each other. We should be working to preserve these history-ridden neighborhoods, (one of the few areas within the Metroplex not around the corner from a super anchor store) and to protect the property rights of all of the residents, not just some.
I guess “neighbor against neighbor” makes for a juicy read, but that is not and should not be confused with the real issue. I think articles of this type are irresponsible journalism and possibly hinder finding a solution to preservation of the neighborhoods and appropriate new construction. — Shelia Huffman
I would like to reverse your posed opinion question from, “Are teardown residents being treated fairly?” to, “Are the residents of historic, established neighborhoods being treated fairly by inconsiderate new construction?”
Over the past 30 years as an East Dallas resident, I have witnessed remarkable restorations to our 70- to 80-year-old homes. And more recently, I have seen some new-builds fit very nicely into our older neighborhoods by keeping in scale and maintaining front porches, broad overhangs and finishing details — but these are the exception. With such an escalating pace of teardowns and new construction infill, I feel our established neighborhoods are being substantially altered with little regard to the long-term stability or the quality of life for residents already living there.
How can anyone build a home not typical to the neighborhood, [a home] that towers over the homes next door, on a grade 18 inches above normal, eliminating the traditional driveway to maximize lot coverage, [and] feel that their home “blends in” and would not affect their neighbors? — Beth Bentley
As a resident in Lakewood Heights, I am not opposed to tearing down houses that truly in fact need to come down. What I object to is the reckless disregard that builders have in our neighborhoods: inflating property values, which subsequently inflate property taxes, and building houses that have no visible design characteristics that even attempt to assimilate with the neighborhood. Lets face it — builders are in it for the money.
As for Mr. Miller, I agree revitalizing a neighborhood is good, but converting it into Plano South is not most people’s idea of revitalization. Many houses being torn down could in fact be remodeled and “revitalized,” but to builders today, revitalized means “tear it down and build a 6,000-square-foot house that blocks out the sun.” Remember bigger is not always better.
And finally, for the residents, the center of the piece, I agree that you should not be attacked or ostracized by your neighbors, and that long-time residents need to give the new neighbors the benefit of the doubt. But know that the logic you apply, of not wanting a “WalMart Supercenter or cookie cutter restaurants,” is how many of us residents view the oversized houses.
That’s the main reason there is support for the pending Overlay Proposal … (we will) not allow our neighborhood to be “revitalized” into a random assortment of monstrous houses. All I think we can ask is that builders consider the neighborhoods and build something that fits in design and style, instead of just slapping up a floor plan that they have on file regardless of the design elements.
If builders want our support, talk to us before you build a house on our block, show us the plans, and get our input. Don’t just build with a blind eye to the neighborhood and the people that have lived there for years. — Patrick Bornhorst
Regarding the story “Neighborly Ways,” at first we were disappointed in how recklessly your magazine approached the other side of the ‘teardown’ issue. Then we realized that the Advocate is loaded with advertising by Realtors who may be a part of the lobbying force that has diverted the Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay plan, which originally sought to bring balance to zoning which has allowed builders more influence over collective groups like homeowners.
If the Advocate would like to investigate further why building has been delayed for one of your subject’s homes, such as the one next door to our kitchen, give us a call and we will describe the drainage problems our home is enduring due to the builder raising the lot 18 inches over ours. Or we will explain what one should do when finding cement or mortar splattered on your own siding, which we’ve just repaired and painted by hand. Why isn’t THE BUILDER held responsible for the delays?
We are doing our best to NOT personalize this fiasco of unrestrained development in our neighborhood, but ask city leadership why zoning allows builders to dominate over the democratic process of vested homeowners determining the future of their neighborhoods. The lack of restraint supports the notion that capitalists will only do what is the greatest profit for the few and that governance that enforces meticulously crafted rules and standards is the way to bring about harmony between individuals and corporations who barely speak to one another.
We could be wrong — but we may be the “lunatic fringe” one of your subjects speaks of. And so be it when all we are doing is trying to protect our own ‘dream home.”’ — Leslie Farrell and Angi Brown
