COMMENT OF THE DAY: THIS IS THE LAND OF MY ANCESTORS “The lot is two 3,000 sq ft lots. The old house sat right in the middle on the West side of the property, so it would not have permitted construction of another building unless it was moved to the back of the lot. That’s not really economic use of the property. By the time the building was moved and renovated, costs would have been very high. There was a carport attached on one side as well, which didn’t help. In any case, the structure was gone when I drove by at 5 [yesterday] evening. . . . that’s the way it goes sometimes. Almost every home my ancestors lived in is gone. None of my Mom’s childhood homes exist any more – they are all open fields.” [Ross, commenting on Daily Demolition Report: Waterfall Fall]
Sign up for the Newsletter
Someone call the Whaaa-mbulance.
Well, you family should have never sold the property then.
Last year I found out that the house my grandparents lived in was gone. I’d spent the last 10 years trying to find it. Turns out the entire neighborhood was demolished due to flooding. I was hoping to drive by and see it one more time. There are a lot of things that are more important than keeping an old house around for sentimental reasons though. I’d much rather live in a world where I’m free to do what I want to with my property than one where I can drive by my ancestors house.
My mother’s house she grew up in exists, about 10 miles from where she grew up in it. Sometime in the 90’s, a family bought the house and relocated it to some land outside of town. Unfortunately, you cannot move slab houses easily (her’s was piered) so most houses people grew up in simply wear out and are torn down.
“so most houses people grew up in simply wear out and are torn down.”
But some don’t. My 1920 bungalow is so over engineered and well built that it is structurally sound and level even though a lengthwise beam has rotted. Even if you hate preservation and historic homes, you have to admit there is a lesson in the craftsmanship of the old homes that needs be passed on to the homebuilders of today.
I wasn’t actually complaining about houses disappearing, just pointing out that housing stock isn’t static, especially in Houston and South Texas, where wood frame houses predominate, and climate makes preservation occasionally difficult.
My Mom grew up in Humble camps, which were all demolished by 1960. Many of my ancestors lived on farms and ranches, and most of those places were torn down in the early 1900’s, few were worth saving, at least from the pictures I’ve seen.
A few places have survived. My Great -grandparents owned a house on W 17th that’s still there, I was able to see it during an open house last year.
The real point I’m trying to make is that it’s not useful to cry over disappearing houses in Houston. This city has always torn down the old to make way for new. If we ever have the money, our 1952 Timbergrove ranch will disappear for something with more room that’s much better built.
“Even if you hate preservation and historic homes, you have to admit there is a lesson in the craftsmanship of the old homes that needs be passed on to the homebuilders of today”
========
.
Totally agree. My guys work on places that were built in the 20s and they are typically SOLID. One property they had to toss out blade after blade from trying to cut out a section of wall. Shooting nails into that wood would cause a spark.
.
Forget the fact that its often brick, the wood inside and how it’s put together is very strong.
.
Only downside is the ‘tech’ used when it came to electrical, insulation, windows, etc.
That old lumber is tough. I’ve had to drill holes to put in screws in my garage, and it’s only 60 years old. This is somewhat related to better trees in the old days, but is mostly age – the wood gets drier and tougher as it gets older. The downside is that it burns very hot and very fast. I’ve seen a couple of old house fires, and it’s not pretty.
“most houses people grew up in simply wear out and are torn down.”
Oy. That is such a… I dunno… Texas mentality. Houses are not meant to wear out and typically, if they are well constructed, don’t. My mother’s house was built in the late 1800s. It’s not fancy, not a show place at all. In fact, it was turned in to a duplex many years before my mom bought it and has retained little of it’s original charm BUT it’s damn solid and will never just “wear out.” It’s not a pair of sneakers or tires. Even the house my mom grew up in, a late 50s ranch, has weathered many New England winters and is still strong and habitable. My grandfather built the little 2/1 house and he did so with great care. The problem isn’t houses getting old; the problem is stuff being built like crap.
Houses don’t just “live” forever. They need maintenance too. Maintenance costs money and sometimes folks can’t afford to replace like with like when like is 5 or 6 times the cost of comparable “new” stuff.
That’s what I don’t like about HD. There is no consideration for what folks can afford. Only for what other folks think should be done to a person’s property.
There is no consideration for old folks who have paid off their homes and live on a limited income and would have a hard time replacing their old wooden windows.
Oy. That is such a… I dunno… Texas mentality. Houses are not meant to wear out and typically, if they are well constructed, don’t
and
Houses don’t just “live†forever. They need maintenance too. Maintenance costs money and sometimes folks can’t afford to replace like with like when like is 5 or 6 times the cost of comparable “new†stuff.
I don’t think its a Texas mentality. Its just that in other places rebuilding can be more expensive and more difficult. We don’t have to worry about winter weather interrupting the building process. We don’t have issues like “attached” structures like many northeast residents have. Houses from our past can suffer from neglect even more than northern houses (more moisture in the ground means more potential for rot, and lack of solid ground means slabs are subject to shift and cracking). Now granted the old gets torn down for the new regardless of condition in many cases, but I think more often its because the old has simply too much work that needs to be done to it and it was simply built as poorly as some of that which is thrown up today. Look at the ’40’s shotgun houses and some of the 50’s mini-ranches and you’ll see some of the same sloppy workmanship we see today. They wee simply the spec homes of that era. Those homes just don’t meet the needs today and probably have suffered most from neglect. Its just not worth it to preserve one eras sloppy work simply because its from another era.
I would say it’s a myth that somehow homebuilders today are incapable of building homes with craftsmanship … in the same way as it’s a myth to say that trees were somehow better in the old days.
Modern quality controls and materials allow for significantly better construction than a century ago. Modern construction methods and abilities similarly allow for significantly improved final build quality.
The fact that many homes are built to a price is what sometimes causes shortcuts to be taken in both materials and methods that can lead to a poorer quality product. However this was also the case in the 20s. There are far more homes built in that time period that have not survived than have survived. To use the survival of some as an indication of an across the board decrease in standards is a bit of a stretch imho.
Lost_In_translation: Good comments. Thank you.
Pyewacket2:
Same could be said for non-HD where there is a ton of new construction. Many anti-HD ppl claim that HDs will drive property values down b/c new construction brings them up. That means more taxes for ppl who might not otherwise be able to afford them. Also, a bungalow wedged between 2 large new homes may have flooding issues due to run off (this happened to my roofer when he lived on Alexander), or other things that are detrimental to their homes which they will not be able to afford to fix. Same argument, other side of the issue.
In Norhill, we have been a HD for 25 years. I have lived here for 6. While our price per sq ft is in line with, or sometimes even more than, the rest of the Heights, smaller homes in this area are keeping Norhill accessible to lower income/younger couples and also allowing older couples to stay in their homes.
#13
I had a nice long response all typed out and ready to post but then I deleted it all.
I decided that you wouldn’t understand. Or care.
@Heightslife, presumably, if Norhill’s “price per sq ft is in line with, or sometimes even more than, the rest of the Heights” then smaller homes in Norhill are less affordable than smaller homes in other Heights neighborhoods. Similarly, if the price per sq ft is the same then the property taxes on similar size properties would be the same in both locations.