domus48

So we can put this one to bed: I spoke to the owner of 12923 Memorial with respect to the incident noted above. He said that late Tuesday afternoon -- no roof work was being executed as it was or had been raining -- a rogue lighting strike hit the tar shuttle which remained on the roof. Several million volts of electricity coupled with industrial tires and tar, well there was a fire but it was totally superficial. no evidence of any heat issues could be discerned from the interior. The only tell tail indication that anything happened was the now wheel-less tar shuttle and a slightly warped skylight. He stated further that the roof work picked up Friday where it had left off and by mid-day Saturday the roof was completed. "The only 'serious cash' associated with this project -- stated the owner -- was that going into the restoration/renovation effort itself." Hope this clears this item up.

This one has a somewhat stealth quality as there is no "For Sale" sign posted. The HAR listing possesses no interior images and the property is listed as "Lot Value Only". Built in 1957 -- owner possesses architectural drawings -- this one is a flat roof modified building as is evident on the Memorial Bend Architecture site. Listed at 270K I would venture to guess this is a high price for only lot value -- but it's also a high price for the building as well. There have been at least two offers to date, neither accepted. Chances are, this one is a goner. http://www.har.com/9958541

Post deleted.

Well, I have been in the 12851 Memorial location (that's another story). It's difficult to tell if the floorplans are the same as I cannot discern the layout of the 8715 McAvoy via the HAR images. If you attended the aforementioned location, you can verify the following: Entry to the house is via the right side toward the rear. One enters a living area -- with large floor to roof windows facing the backyard -- a dining area is off to the side. Immediately off the dining area is a large kitchen opening to a family room. All bedrooms at the Memorial location were on the street side with a through corridor spanning the length of the house. Bathroom near the center of the corridor with the master bath abutting a corner of the main bath, Master bedroom to the right as you face the street. Now the layout noted above may not be the same as the McAvoy location as the Memorial location may have been extensively remodeled. I would say that the most curious aspect of the design is the location of the bedrooms on the street side. So, are the two floor plans similar?

I would say without a doubt that it is a William Floyd design as it is nearly identical to 12851 Memorial (go to: www.memorialbendarchitecture.com).

If somebody wants to do something about this situation -- and I agree something should be done -- then they have to do more than post on this site. It's not all that difficult either. Simply contact Randy Pace (randy.pace@cityofhouston.net) and inquire about a Landmark designation. Even if this is secured, (and I believe with proper documentation HAHC can designate such) it will not protect the structure from being torn down -- which is likely a foregone conclusion -- but at least it will send a message. Or we could continue to whine about noteworthy architectural structures continually being demolished. Anyone want to step up to the plate? Kinda quiet out there...

I'm sure there is a moderator for this forum so it's somewhat puzzling that the term "idiot" has not been called-out as inappropriate when referring to others and their choices. Use of these types of terms is less than professional and certainly not courteous. Certainly there are ways in which to express one's disdain and/or disagreement with terms more appropriate for a forum in which written words may be directly linked to an individual. One should be able to express oneself but there are ways to do so which are far more sophisticated and less overtly judgmental than with inflammatory terms. This is an forum specifically for discussions regarding post-war modern architecture with benefits being enlightenment, historic documentation and perhaps even historic activism. What this forum is not is a "star chamber" -- though it occasionally borders on such. Let's strive to keep pejorative terms out of the "discussions".

Would this do: http://www.archive.org/index.php Try it and see what comes up. Works like a charm... good thinking.

This is one of the most intriguing and well done posts in some time. Captivating and informative to boot. Kudos to those involved. Hope to see more of this sort of dialog in the future.

Nice... and I mean r-e-a-l-l-y nice images of the Singleton House -- real estate staging shots: http://www.architectureforsale.com/printab...p?property_ID=9

With respect to the lecture last night: Nicely done, balanced and well presented. Not overly detailed with a thorough back story as well. What I wasn't anticipating was the original interior design (in this case decorating) by Charles James. While I think it's valid to live how one desires within the confines of ones home -- and in the case of the De Menil's, you can't expect otherwise from this dynamic and progressive couple -- I personally do not care for that type of interior fit-out regardless of the "container". If I were presented with images of the interior of the house independent of knowledge of the occupants I would maintain that the interior is overwrought and garish. And while I recognize the fit-out as tasteful, it's just not my taste. People should live how they want and the Menil's certainly did -- about eight years ago The New Yorker magazine published an incredible article about the couple. They are in my opinion, the type of people to aspire to. This juxtaposition of interior to architecture as well as the courtyard canopy intervention must have the purists incensed. Cool. But the Menil's commissioned a home by a modernist and then lived in it as it suited them. Can't argue with that. The one single aspect that was broached last night -- which is an issue near and dear to anyone who conducts due diligence -- was William Stern's reference to "deferred maintenance" when referring to the somewhat sorry state of portions of the house. There is no such thing as deferred maintenance when it comes a home that is lived in, it's simply neglect.

I was being acerbic with my reference to

Though not located in Houston, this link: http://www.architectureforsale.com/printab...?property_ID=60 provides an opportunity to view both a significant MCM home as well as field a question. That question being: Is an updated kitchen acceptable within a preserved/restored structure? Assuming that even the MCM purists would find upgrading of infrastructure acceptable -- I'm sure there are a few out there that would consider removal of a period correct, historically "significant" two wire electrical system as a sacrilege -- is an upgraded yet historically significant MCM of dimished historic value? I would argue that visiting an historic structure and living in one are two quite different things. Finally, the Menil House Presentation this evening should be of value to both camps.

I was merely making a point as there are often posts here that defy definition. I won

It

Say "goodbye" to this one, demolition began Saturday and currently only about 1/4th of the structure remains. Walking the site yesterday I observed the following: Many original floor finishes remained -- some curious ones indeed. House possessed an intercom system (main panel with interesting clock) remains Documents laying about possessed dates from the 50's(!) Roman brick used at exterior also utilized selectively within structure The house was pretty much doomed to it's current fate given it's location. Which renders what could possibly be built there even more paradoxical -- hopefully deed restrictions/zoning (whatever that is in this town) will not allow a gas station or worse, a convenient mart. It's probably safe to say that there will be more tear-downs in that neighborhood.

"This is a fallacy. The home is already priced based upon the market of those people seeking homes in neighborhoods with crummy schools. If you don't have kids, then don't pay for something you aren't going to use. When it comes time to sell, you'll just continue to discount...but you got it for a discount. Hence, no loss. In fact, because there isn't much for the schools to do but get better, there's upside potential." I was speaking in general terms -- and perhaps I was stating the obvious. Take "The Heights" for example, while there are appealing (not to me) neighborhoods in "The Heights", for the most part the schools leave something to be desired (it all depends on what you value in this regard). I think the strategy of home buying is to have your investment gain in value -- though this investment is not as rock solid as it once was. So I'm not sure that you would want "to discount" because of the neighborhood, school district, etc. once you've dumpted money into your investment. All I'm suggesting is that one has to go into these things with open eyes... not just a desire to own a MCM. Call me a naysayer.

It often comes down to the quality of the schools... at least for families. For that matter, anyone purchasing this home without children needs to carefully consider who may want this property once it's listed after improvements -- again, tieing into the schools. 80K for 2000 s.f. ought to send up a flag of caution. I don't know anything about the area but that price seems low. Also, if it is in a floodplain it should be avoided at all costs. I should know having once had 4'-0" of water in my "100 year floodplain" townhome -- since sold (amazingly). The house itself has a certain appeal but the garage does seem a bit "agressive". Backdating? Maybe... but would one ever re-coup their investment? It often comes down to the quality of the schools... at least for families. For that matter, anyone purchasing this home without children needs to carefully consider who may want this property once it's listed after improvements -- again, tieing into the schools. 80K for 2000 s.f. ought to send up a flag of caution. I don't know anything about the area but that price seems low. Also, if it is in a floodplain it should be avoided at all costs. I should know having once had 4'-0" of water in my "100 year floodplain" townhome -- since sold (amazingly). The house itself has a certain appeal but the garage does seem a bit "aggressive". Backdating? Maybe... but would one ever re-coup their investment?

It may be too late as this is a somewhat old posting/question. Nevertheless, I have been conducting a fair amout of research on this issue. You do not want to skimp when it comes to your roof. This is your primary envelope against the elements. You will need to thoroughly research the type of roof you have and then consider the types of roofing availible for the type. A company with a successful track record is a given. Once you've made your selection of a company, you should meet with the installation supervisor and review how the work will be performed and what is and what isn't included in the scope of services. Understand what the warrenty covers -- labor only or material only or both? How much repair work will be necessary to the facsia and sub-strate and what's included in the base bid? I've already stated it but I cannot over stress gaining an understanding of the roofing process. Good luck!

Site is (nearly) everything. So if there is in fact a pawn shop nearby as well as zooming traffic... well, that does not bode well for the sellers. The house certainly appears staged as it's just too nicely fit out with tasteful trappings. Do the nearby comps support the asking price? Did these folks watch "Flip This House" too many times and say to themselves: "I bet we can do that." Well, that can be a dangerous assumption if you don't do your homework or prevent yourself from becoming emotionally connected to the project. This one really looks fussy with respect to finishes which leads me to speculate they put their energy in "lipstick" and not other significant issues. I mean, (as has been observed) what's up with that kitchen exhaust fan?

Too much "lipstick" on this one... lots of superficial finishes trying to make this property appear high end. Simplicity is something to aspire to. When you layer on too much of anything you deminish the architectural value and increase the all show but no substance quotent. I'm not sure if there is any modernist value in this one as one would not want to back date it nor would one want it as a modern home. Overdone and over priced.

"Who? What? Where?" Not the flipper but a flipper. Sorry for the confusion.

"I wish I had the kind of money to fix it up--it's got great potential." It does appear to have potential... though I would conservatively estimate a 50 to 70K renovation expenditure -- assuming its done correctly and one wishes to return it to its former integrity. This one may have "flipper" written all over it given the foreclosure issue.

More pics & info please... this is an interesting structure.

Thanks Jason.