16 Comment

• PaulP June 18, 2012 at 10:20 am

  I’m a huge proponent of letting market forces dictate how land is used, but it just breaks my heart when I see a structure like the Crocker house fall victim to those forces. I wonder if the next thing built on the property will last 102 years.
• Colleen June 18, 2012 at 10:46 am

  It’s a shame about Crocker. But look what surrounds it. That’s the real shame. Ugly boxes. Ugly condos.
• GlenW June 18, 2012 at 1:56 pm

  Maybe the Crocker house will get relocated. Would be nice, but doubtful :(
• JTM June 18, 2012 at 2:19 pm

  I used to get worked up about these teardowns, but it doesn’t do any good. Besides, I’m not originally from Houston, I don’t have any roots here, and with any luck, a year from now I’ll be living elsewhere. If a few Houstonians can trash this city and get away with it, then the city deserves it.
• Bernard June 19, 2012 at 5:17 am

  I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That Crocker house looks like an eye sore to me. The new stuff, on the other hand, looks grand.

  And yes, I am from here, since 1970.
• Jimbo June 19, 2012 at 6:03 am

  In a city of over 2 million people there were 7 residential structures slated for demo yesterday. I fail to see how that is the orgy of demo that you do. If you think our City is that bad JTM then maybe you should skip waiting for a year and just leave now :)
• Confused June 19, 2012 at 8:08 am

  I don’t understand why everyone on this website gets so worked up about the demolition of these blighted old houses. Houston is actually fortunate that people want to move out of the suburbs into the city center. There are too many reasons why these out-dated houses should go. But practically speaking, old houses are inefficient (usually) and a poor use of space (one story takes up the same space as three). I’ve lived in other places that could USE a bit of urban renewal. Houston is lucky the builders are willing to spend the extra money to clean up the eyesores.
• Lynn June 19, 2012 at 9:08 am

  I really do hope they get a house mover to remove the Crocker house instead of tearing it down. That front door reminds me of my great grandmother’s door. This home deserves to be moved to the country where it will be cherished. I wish I could get it. It is from a time when you knew your neighbors and your street was a community. The boxes next door are hideous and are totally unhospitable. All you have is a door and garage doors. Reminds me of a back alley.
• mel June 19, 2012 at 9:34 am

  The Crocker house is not *blighted* or an eye sore!!! What moronic comments. The house appears to be in good and livable condition- it has a functional roof, a good coat of paint, is surrounded by an expensive looking metal gate and a nice looking car is parked in the driveway. Assuming the foundation is in good shape, that house will stand another hundred years. I get it if the Crocker house is not your cup of tea, but to call it blight or an eye sore just because it is old is ridiculous. Hopefully the house will be moved. I think it is darling!
• Amber June 19, 2012 at 11:08 am

  Unfortunately, the Crocker house will not be moved. It was torn down to rubble yesterday. Such a waste of a beautiful home, and for what?…More ugly boxes.
• Old School June 19, 2012 at 11:57 am

  As a lover of the historic homes, I will take a moment to point a finger at myself and the many Houstonians who share my affection for some of the great historic architecture in Houston. Preserve Houston f/k/a Greater Houston Preservation Alliance has not done enough to mobilize resources to save these gems or at least salvage re-usable architectural objects and interior elements prior to demolition. Galveston Historical Foundation operates a salvage warehouse, monitors “at risk” historic properties, saves houses from demolition and puts protective covenants on houses the foundation saved and preserved. Preserve Houston does nice advocacy and education work, but has not done enough to mobilize resources to actually save some of these buildings. Shame on me.
• Jimbo June 19, 2012 at 1:09 pm

  @Mel, I must get you to do my next home inspection by Google Streetview. It must be much cheaper than actually inspecting the property and I’m sure no less thorough!
• CAHBF June 20, 2012 at 8:03 am

  Contrasting Colleen’s comment, I went and looked at one of the “ugly boxes” on Crocker, which was listed at 980k if I recall. It was gorgeous – even if you don’t like that style on the outside the inside was amazing – but I didn’t think it was worth it because the streets around it, including this house, were so dilapidated an uncared for. I couldnt spend $1M to live in what appeared to be a ghetto. And let’s face it, there is nothing particularly special about that house. If you love preservation for preservation’s sake, fine, but those blocks around Crocker are screaming for density and development.
• mel June 20, 2012 at 9:49 am

  Jimbo, I am so very happy to help you out. You seem like a really nice person, and I truly enjoy reading your knowledgeable thoughtful posts. A few other posters refered to the Crocker house as an eyesore and “blight”. Perhaps you might want to get their advice as well?
• BrioDeGandhi June 20, 2012 at 11:29 am

  @CAHBF, “And let’s face it, there is nothing particularly special about that house. If you love preservation for preservation’s sake, fine, but those blocks around Crocker are screaming for density and development.” First of all, it’s ‘special’ because it WAS well made–with REAL wood, with REAL 2x 4s, from hardy, insect-resistant cypress, not today’s cheap particle board (which expands and discolors in moisture– Hmmm, Houston – moisture? Duh…) The windows were REAL glass (mouth-blown windows, an art form in itself that is almost lost) Preservation IS for preservation’s sake. 100 years ago, people made things to last; they did not have a ‘throw away’ or tear-down mentality like we do now because they couldn’t afford to. They re-purposed everything (Re-purposing and recycling is not a new concept, by the way). This house could have been re-purposed by keeping it as a home, but modifying it somewhat to have an extension added to the back or second story added on, making practical use of the space it sits on (while still maintaining as much of the original structure as possible), without having to tear it down. May I ask you, CAHBF, what part of ‘density’ appeals to you? Do you actually like living where people are piled on top of you? Do you abhor green space? I don’t wish to see our cozy, green neighborhoods turn into blocks of concrete and steel monoliths—lifeless, droid buildings with no character. If you want density, move to New York City.
• sophie June 27, 2012 at 7:24 pm

  I lived in this house for three years when I first moved to houston. It was full of light, with high ceilings, old wood floors, and beautiful architectural details. We drove by the other day to look at the old house, and my jaw dropped to see total obliteration of the old neighborhood. not only was the house scraped, but every tree on the adjoining empty lot, which was like our little piece of woods, was bare to the ground. If there was anything worth moving, it was this house, which had a great deal of charm and character.