That's the question I have on the heels of this Moises Mendoza story outlining the Mayor's new plan to strengthen the City of Houston Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Are structures older than 30 years historic? How about 40? 50? Or is the requirement going to be that they are sorta, kinda old and somebody wants to make some money by tearing them down and building ?
And what about modern architects? Do those guys suck now? Are they only allowed to build on the sites of depressed properties where the graffiti is particularly ugly and not street art made by one of the cool kids on the block?
It's not that HCA has a problem with historic ordinances it's that, in a City as relatively young as Houston, it sometimes seems that the definition of historical is as murky as bayou water. Oft-times its used by politicians to mean: "Stop mucking around in my safe, segregated voting district!"