Annunciation Catholic Church At 1618 Texas Ave.

[OjazosNegros]

On 9/30/2015 at 6:56 PM, 102IAHexpress said:

 

 

Yes the old rectory was torn down. But the plan from the beginning was to refurbish it not raze it. For lots of reasons i won't get into, the refurbishment plan was no longer viable. But i will say that one complexity that did not exist a hundred years ago is that today there has to be a much more defined space that seperates the living/sleeping space of the pastor and the church offices. The eventual plan is to have a seperate rectory and a seperate church office. Our pastor is a saint and would never hurt or abuse anyone but the seperated space is a must in today's world and the new plan accomidates that better.

 

Once the decision of razing the old rectory was made then the Foley House plan made a lot of sense. Foley house gets preserved, that city block gets cleared away for future city of houston development. The church gets a new office, etc...

 

The parish could have razed the old rectory and built new construction instead, but it should be noted that they chose instead the harder task of litteraly moving a building and restoring it that otherwise would have set empty.

 

Yes, we are not HISD indeed.

Was trying to recall if it was at the Foley house or the Cohn house where Annunciation preschoolers attended class back in the early 80s?

[Nate99]

Work is underway. Doesn't look like much of the old house was salvageable. 

 

[Texasota]

"was not salvaged" does not necessarily equal "not salvageable"

[Nate99]

14 hours ago, Texasota said:

"was not salvaged" does not necessarily equal "not salvageable"

Perhaps. Doesn’t seem like enough is left to have bothered at this point. Maybe the columns are being restored off site, but they looked very rotten, along with the rest of the exterior wood. 

[H-Town Man]

5 hours ago, Nate99 said:

Perhaps. Doesn’t seem like enough is left to have bothered at this point. Maybe the columns are being restored off site, but they looked very rotten, along with the rest of the exterior wood. 

 

Siding on a house is a short-lived component, good for replacement about every 30 years. The remainder of the structure is very well worth salvaging as it was most likely built out of longleaf pine, which is 20-30% stronger than yellow pine used today, not allowing for the frequent knots in modern lumber which widens the gap. And the dimensions of the original lumber are larger than current (full 2" thick studs versus 1 1/2" today, 6x6 or larger sills, etc.), widening the gap even further. Obviously there would be some decay and insect damage to the old lumber but probably less than one would think - longleaf pine is much more decay resistant than modern yellow pine.

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by H-Town Man

[Nate99]

3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Siding on a house is a short-lived component, good for replacement about every 30 years. The remainder of the structure is very well worth salvaging as it was most likely built out of longleaf pine, which is 20-30% stronger than yellow pine used today, not allowing for the frequent knots in modern lumber which widens the gap. And the dimensions of the original lumber are larger than current (full 2" thick studs versus 1 1/2" today, 6x6 or larger sills, etc.), widening the gap even further. Obviously there would be some decay and insect damage to the old lumber but probably less than one would think - longleaf pine is much more decay resistant than modern yellow pine.

 

 

I agree, the framing that is left does indeed look fine. I suppose I meant to say, if they weren't of a mind to salvage as much as they could on this project for the sake of preservation, they wouldn't have left the framing either.  Modern quality aside, I'm fairly sure they could have replicated the structure that is left for much less cost than they have in the project thus far.  

 

They did add some new temporary framing on the interior to shore things up. Will be interesting to see how they work around the old structure. 

[Texasota]

If that siding had been white pine then replacing it every 30 years would be reasonable, but it was either cypress or longleaf. This house also probably had cedar interior shiplap. 

 

I do not understand why they wanted this house if this is what they're doing to it.

[H-Town Man]

16 hours ago, Texasota said:

If that siding had been white pine then replacing it every 30 years would be reasonable, but it was either cypress or longleaf. This house also probably had cedar interior shiplap. 

 

I do not understand why they wanted this house if this is what they're doing to it.

 

You are right, cypress or longleaf would last much longer, but even they deteriorate eventually, after a century of rains. I did not see the condition it was in so can't really judge.

 

[H-Town Man]

16 hours ago, Nate99 said:

 

I agree, the framing that is left does indeed look fine. I suppose I meant to say, if they weren't of a mind to salvage as much as they could on this project for the sake of preservation, they wouldn't have left the framing either.  Modern quality aside, I'm fairly sure they could have replicated the structure that is left for much less cost than they have in the project thus far.  

 

They did add some new temporary framing on the interior to shore things up. Will be interesting to see how they work around the old structure. 

 

It may indeed have cost less to build new two-story frame houses than to transport and renovate these. But when you do a "Sunset Coffee" and rebuild an old building new, you lose an intangible. There is a reason the world flocks to southern England with its crooked, leaning old homes and inns with uneven floors. The interesting question for me will be if they restore these so much that they effectively lose their character anyway.

 

[Naviguessor]

I'm writing these old buildings off.  Maybe I'll be surprised.  But,I have little faith in this. 

[UtterlyUrban]

Houston has trouble wrapping its collective mind around preservation, IMO.

[bobruss]

I tend to agree. The church already showed their lack of  interest or concern in historic architecture, and the restoration of the Clayton building. So why would they care about those houses. 

I can't wait to see what they replace the siding with. Hope it's not Hardee plank. There was plenty of room for the building they replaced the Clayton building with, to have gone in this site where they have deconstructed the Foley house. They could have used the Clayton building for a museum or a visitor center or an outreach office for community development.

 

[Texasota]

Not to mention, they had to tear down an existing building to make room for the Foley House. None of this makes any sense at all.

 

And it will be hardieboard. I absolutely guarantee it.

[Nate99]

This approach seems to have the downside of preservation without any of the upside.  They will be able to tell people that the frame of their office was built 100 years ago, despite everything that you see, touch, and smell being brand new. 

 

Preservation is not really high on my own list of things to pay extra for, but I can completely understand why people like it and I appreciate that many people and organizations spend the extra money to do it. This approach doesn't seem to do anyone any good. 

Edited April 26, 2018 by Nate99

[Nate99]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Not to mention, they had to tear down an existing building to make room for the Foley House. None of this makes any sense at all.

 

And it will be hardieboard. I absolutely guarantee it.

 

The building they took out (the rectory, I think) looked to be in only slightly better condition than the Foley House.   All of these seemed to be victims of many grand plans deferred. 

[H-Town Man]

I'll wait and see.

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by H-Town Man

[Nate99]

The columns are back...

 

[Texasota]

I do not understand why they wanted this building if this is what they were going to do to it. Why not just build from scratch?

[Luminare]

On 7/23/2019 at 7:27 PM, Texasota said:

I do not understand why they wanted this building if this is what they were going to do to it. Why not just build from scratch?

 

While a good majority of it is completely new, the fact of the matter is that the soul of the original is still infused with whatever is left. At the end of the day, that does mean something, and for an organization that deals with the spiritual it seems fitting that they would want it.

[Texasota]

Well, no, by definition that is not a "fact." They may very well believe that, and that might be the explanation though.

 

It's not really them I blame for this anyway; it's the city. This was public property, and they gave it to an organization without any assurances that it would be treated as a historic building.

 

At the end of the day, is the the biggest architectural tragedy in the city? Of course not. I still don't believe that this was the best option available to the city though.

[Avossos]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Well, no, by definition that is not a "fact." They may very well believe that, and that might be the explanation though.

 

It's not really them I blame for this anyway; it's the city. This was public property, and they gave it to an organization without any assurances that it would be treated as a historic building.

 

At the end of the day, is the the biggest architectural tragedy in the city? Of course not. I still don't believe that this was the best option available to the city though.

 

There is still one more very interesting home that needs a home!