Swamplot’s Daily Demolition Report lists buildings that received City of Houston demolition permits the previous weekday.
Absolutely crushing it this morning. Big time.
***
Residences
- 701 Algregg St. 77008 (Ridgewood; new construction by Ridgewater Homes)
- 1025 Fisher St. 77018
- 3849 Inwood Dr. 77019
- 1704 Capron St. 77020 (Chapmans; new construction by Burghli Homes)
- 5119 Dewberry St. 77021 (MacGregor Terrace)
- 5622 Braesvalley Dr. 77096 (Maplewood North)
Photo of 3849 Inwood Dr.: HAR
77019 sure is taking a beating these days.
Hold me. That Inwood mansion…god damn this city, sometimes.
Everything you would want to know about Houston real estate is encapsulated in today’s demo list and the next story immediately after it. A beautiful, classic River Oaks home in outstanding (if not spotless) condition and with plenty of sq ft is going to be demoed in order to build some gaudy lot line monster. Then, a tiny turn of the century Victorian bungalow in terrible condition is put on a truck, moved to another location, and lovingly restoring inch by inch into a wonderfully creative and artistic work space for a small architectural firm.
And here was me thinking that the Fisher Ding was what happened to your property value when a certain developer starts construction next door
If there’s always been a mix of people in River Oaks who are either “money” or “more money than sense” … I think the balance has recently tipped full over into the “more money than sense” category. It’s sickening.
Brian for comment of the day. That home was beautiful.
@Old School, what’s your point? Maybe the new owners don’t like classic, and want something new. Why is it any of your concern?
Good one Jimbo!
to be fair though, both stories end with the same conclusion with owners maximizing the values of their lots and land to the fullest potential. the architecture firm was able to find value by moving the bungalow to a smaller lot and restoring it to be fit for office space. I would certainly expect someone buying a 300k home for 2MM to maximize the potential of their land/investment in the same manner. even rich people don’t have that kind of money to waste.
Interesting that the median age of homes (now) in this area is 69yrs! (built 1946)
@Ross- What is your point? Do you really feel the need to interject PROPERTY RIGHTS or IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT YOU SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT into every discussion? This is a real estate website. If you don’t want to read people lamenting the loss of a beautiful old house or commenting on how wasteful it is to destroy a wonderful home just because it doesn’t have a wine cellar, media room, his and her closets, mud room, big game room (not to be confused with a room for playing games), etc… then you should just ignore the comment section altogether.
@doofus:
Maybe you should just focus on whether each real estate move maximizes profit or not. That would be fun.
It is a beautiful house, apparently well maintained, and a shame that the community is going to lose it. At a time when virtually everyone is making big $ on re-sales, it is a nice dream there would be a way to establish some kind of preservation.
But for real, you guys. There was no reason to buy the house. If you don’t like it and it doesn’t have what you want, DON’T BUY IT! It’s a waste of money, time, resources, and way worse for the environment and history to demolish.
You shouldn’t demolish a beautifully restored 1946 Tudor mansion to put up your gaudy, cookie-cutter, shit.
If you think the only way to maximize profits is to tear down and rebuild bigger, then it is you that needs a lesson in real estate. You might also need to check and see what sells in certain areas of town. The only properties not moving are ugly, builder-grade mcmansions in well established neighborhoods.
My parents live on that block of Inwood.
If you google maps the demo address, you’ll see big oak trees in the front yard.
Well, they sheared all the oaks to the stumps a few weeks ago. As my dad said, “They must not have violated any deed restrictions because they were pretty brazen about it.”
It’s a lovely house, and it’s a shame to see it go. I get that the owners can do what they want with it. You can buy a Fabrege egg and throw it against a wall. I’ll still call you an idiot.
Yes, the house on Inwood is lovely, recently remodeled and perfectly liveable. If that house (or one of similar size and condition) sat in the Heights, and sold for $1.2M, it would probably still be standing. However, this house was in River Oaks, and sold for $2.5M. And the universe of buyers for $2.5M, 3000 s.f. houses is not large. In fact, it’s probably smaller than the universe of buyers of $4.5M, 6000 s.f. houses, which is what this will probably end up being.
So, for all you lamenters, what would you have someone who wants to live in River Oaks, but needs more than 3 bedrooms do? Is it more important in your eyes that your aesthetic vision be satisfied, rather then maximum utility for the new owners? I’m guessing that your preferred approach would be for the new owners to buy a few acres in Magnolia to build, hidden by trees so your eyes aren’t made to suffer at what you perceive to be subpar design.
How did they get away with cutting down the beautiful trees in the front yard – they are no where near where the new house will be built
“… hidden by trees …”: that sounds like the beginning of wisdom, Ross.
@ross They presumably have at least $3-4 million to spend on the house ($2M for the “lot” and $1-2M at a minimum for the demo and rebuild). There are a number of RO homes in great shape with more than 3 bedrooms in that price range. Tearing down a home in good condition just to build something “custom” is narcissistic and wasteful. The fact that they have the legal right to do this (which no one contests) does not mean that it is good for the city or this specific neighborhood, even in an economic sense. HOAs do not have “character of the neighborhood” clauses solely for aesthetic reasons, you know.
Wow. I’m shocked. There really wasn’t anything wrong with it. It wasn’t even horribly outdated.
The only way this could possibly end aesthetically well for the neighborhood is if Curtis and Windham (www.curtisandwindham.com) design the replacement mansion. Otherwise, we’ll end up with a lifeless, soulless pile of sheetrock and spray-on stucco like the faux Spanish Colonial Revival ones at the corner of Kirby and San Felipe or the side-by-side $4,000,000 monstrosities on Del Monte between Shepherd and Chilton. At this rate, River Oaks will be Royal Oaks in ten years.
@Jake, so your argument is that it is unnecessarily narcissistic and wasteful to build a home that meets your desires and wants, in a location you desire, and that the owners should settle for what someone in 1949 wanted? Am I narcissistic and wasteful in wanting to tear down our 2BR 1 bath Timbergrove house for something larger and more modern? Especially since remodeling and adding on costs more than half of what a new build would cost?
@Ross Apples and oranges. Tearing down and rebuilding a home that you’ve outgrown and has accumulated wear and tear is a different situation entirely, and by all accounts this house was not in need of major remodeling.