City officials have decided to give the owner of the original 1906 Savoy Apartments building on Main St. Downtown an extra week to knock down the structure before going ahead with their own emergency demolition plan. The building’s owner — listed in Harris County records as Michael Nassif — will now have until midnight next Friday, October 2nd, to have a contractor of his own choice begin dismantling the structure. If that doesn’t happen, the city-selected contractor will complete the demo that weekend — and leave the property with a lien for the $448,600 cost.
While negotiations have focused on how quickly work can begin, residents of the Beaconsfield across Pease St. may be more interested in how long the demo will take — and how it will be done. Architect David Hall, who has studied the building for several developers, spoke to abc13 reporter Gene Apodaca about the asbestos embedded in the building’s crumbling interior plaster:
“It’s full of environmental issues. There are pathogens that are a result of the pigeon droppings, there are areas of the building I measured where pigeon droppings were six inches thick,” said Hall.
***
The city is aware of the hazardous materials and that’s why the contractor chosen Wednesday, Cherry Environmental Services, had to meet certain qualifications. To start, it had specialize in large demolitions like this one and be preapproved by the city in dealing with asbestos.
“We’re not telling anyone, ‘Hey take it down regardless of the environmental consequences.’ Usually these people, if they are an experienced firm and I hope they are, they know what to do with an older building with some of the materials in it,” said Houston Mayor Bill White. . . .
While Hall agrees that tearing down the building is necessary, he’s still concerned what will be left behind.
“Personally I wouldn’t want to be within a mile of this building and I would not want to be there until there’s been a very hard rain for a long time,” said Hall.
We did talk to the contractor who told us that every precaution is being taken, including wetting the building from keeping the asbestos from going airborne. The Texas Health Department will be on the scene to monitor the situation.
- Savoy demolition pushed back one week [abc13]
- City, Savoy owner agree to delay demolition of crumbling building [11 News]
- The latest, official, Savoy Hotel demo plan! [Houston Political Blog]
- Previously on Swamplot: Emergency Demo: The Savoy Hotel’s Final Weekend Stay Downtown
Photo of 1906 Savoy Apartments building (foreground), 1616 Main St.: Sarah McLean
Wow, another building another middle eastern slum lord!
Actually the owner’s address in HCAD is in Clear Lake which would make him a Bay Area Slum Lord unless we’re making the sweeping gerealisation that anyone with a non Anglo-Saxon name is not an American.
The asbestos issue has been known for some time.
Part of the reason the building could never be flipped to someone to remodel.
This building and the old Days Inn building are close to the same situation. I think the savoy may be a little worse.
With all that pigeon sh*t, where are they going to go now? The largest bird house in the country is coming down!
“where pigeon droppings were six inches thick”
mmmmm… kinda like a surprise casserole!
Talk about infinity poo….
Hellsing — yours is indeed the comment of the day. Swamplot humor at it’s finest!
Why do we allow owners to just let properties go to ruin?
Well, unless you want to live in a authoritarian state where the government tells you what to do with your property, instances like this will happen.
The mechanism for the intervention is public safety.
Well it’s a good thing someone brought up the “environmental issues” before they just rushed in and imploded the building.
If there’s asbestos, it will be awhile. It has to be removed before the building can be demolished in any way, shape or form.
And given the apparent condition of the building that isn’t going to be easy.
And if the city knew about the asbestos and did nothing to force the owner to “contain” it which obviously it hasn’t been if the roof caved in, the city may face some liability down the road if people who have lived near the building or have walked by the building come down with any number of nasty little diseases caused by asbestos exposure.
I really think we should all write in “Mickey Mouse” for mayor in November. I think we would do far better with whoever Disney sent to play the part.
“Why do we allow owners to just let properties go to ruin?”
because that’s the way it is in these parts.
maybe dubya can get a jet to fly into it???
kjb434 writes:
Well, unless you want to live in a authoritarian state where the government tells you what to do with your property, instances like this will happen.
The mechanism for the intervention is public safety.
———————————–
I think the many cities which have real preservation laws and mechanisms probably can’t be described accurately as “authoritarian state(s).” From where I sit, for example, a moratorium on the demolition of structures over a certain age wouldn’t be a terrible burden on our society’s freedom. Nor even some kind of ordinance requiring some kind of minimal structural maintenance on historical properties. Even I admit the Savoy is way too far gone to save, and has been for years. Still, I have a hard time defending the “freedom” to just let your property sit and deteriorate until it becomes a hazard and the city has to step in for safety reasons.
Just because you’re allowed to do something doesn’t mean you should do it.
Am I the only one that thinks that kjb is a AI program stocked up with key phrases like “authoritarian state” that are chosen according to analysis of the text of other comments?
I’ve been seeing comments like kjb434’s more and more lately. Maybe he IS an AI program of some sort.
Why is it that some people think that any government rules or regulations automatically equal a police state?. There definitely needs to be a balance, but of course some regulations are beneficial to society. Just as a police state isn’t the ideal situation, neither is complete anarchy. THe ideal situation is a balance between the two extremes.
“Why is it that some people think that any government rules or regulations automatically equal a police state?”
Because a lot of people don’t like to think too hard.
“Why is it that some people think that any government rules or regulations automatically equal a police state?â€
What rules and regulations could have saved this building? Does anyone have any suggestions?
jgriff writes:
What rules and regulations could have saved this building? Does anyone have any suggestions?
——————
Well, the one I always mention is the moratorium on demolition of historic structures. According to _Cinema Houston_, we actually had one during the Jim McConn administration, and its expiration in 1991 allowed the demolition of Mackie and Kamrath’s Village Theatre and the beginning of the national-chainization of the Rice Village. But that is not the answer to the question you asked about the Savoy. Why couldn’t there be city-ordered minimal repairs on historic structures before they get to the point of condemnation, using the same mechanism we now have for condemnation and demolition of unsafe structures? I really don’t see any moral difference between forcing a property owner to pay for keeping his building from becoming unsafe and forcing a property owner to pay for the demolition of his unsafe building. Except with the former, you preserve, at least minimally, a building which someone might want to restore and reuse and keep several tons of building materials out of a landfill. Admittedly, this would have had to happen about 1985 to have saved the Savoy Apartments.
I really don’t see any moral difference between forcing a property owner to pay for keeping his building from becoming unsafe and forcing a property owner to pay for the demolition of his unsafe building.
The demo that is happening to this building is because of a public safety issue. We could not operate as a society without rules to protect public safety. A law to force maintenance on a building because it is historical would protect the aesthetics of downtown, not public safety. We can operate as a society without forcing our opinion of aesthetics on others.
I don’t neccesiarly think that all rules on historical structures are bad but one mans junk is another mans treasure. The owner of this building obviously didn’t place as much value on the historical signifigance of it as some people did. To me the fact that he owns it gives him a lot more authority to decide what is done with the building than anyone else. When it became a public safety issue he forfeited those rights.
jgriff writes:
The demo that is happening to this building is because of a public safety issue. We could not operate as a society without rules to protect public safety. A law to force maintenance on a building because it is historical would protect the aesthetics of downtown, not public safety. We can operate as a society without forcing our opinion of aesthetics on others.
—————————
It would be dishonest of me to say that this is wrong, although I meant it more in the spirit of preventing a potential public safety problem and in the practical sense of preserving the possible future value of a structure. In the case of the Savoy, it’s possible that it might have been redeveloped someday had it not been so far gone. Other historic hotels have been. Now no one will have the chance.
We can agree to disagree about the value of historic preservation, of new vs. old architecture, even about the balance of property rights vs. the society’s interest. But a decrepit, crumbling, vacant building is almost by definition a blight on the area which goes beyond my, or anyone’s, aesthetic opinion.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t pretty much all other major cities have some kind of protection for historic structures to some degree? Of course most other large cities, even in the US, are a LOT older than Houston, and their historic buildings are correspondingly older. Maybe there’s a kind of tipping point (19th century, maybe?) that makes their worth more obvious than, say, an Art Deco or Googie building here.
Looks as though we’ll have a demolition by the light of the (nearly full) moon!
In the wee hours of Saturday AM?
From Doofus:
“Why do we allow owners to just let properties go to ruin?”
Because as long as it’s standing, the city gets property and school tax money by the square foot for as long as it’s standing. It’ doesn’t matter if anyone gets killed by falling bricks.
It is 5 months later and this building is still standing — does ANYONE have an update on this?
The “new” building is still standing. The “old” building bit the dust.
Obviously the city wanted this early 20th century building down, and would be willing to spend over 200,000 to raze it, and they created a lot of hooey to justify doing it. Since when is pigeon crap an environmental issue? Asbestos? That’s what asbestos abatement companies are for. This is the biggest load of propaganda I’ve ever read to justify razing a perfectly good building that could be re-purposed. Notice that there’s not one word of any structural deficiencies, just a lot of overblown BS couched in rhetoric to sound like serious “environmental” issues. Really? Bird dropping and peeling plaster? Wonder how many pigeons roost in the trees outside city hall? They don’t seem too worried about those environmental issues. And asbestos? That’s what asbestos remediation is for. Give me a break.