Houston In The 1920s

[Vertigo58]

I do not know what they called that photo procees above (the split pic) but I found a box of these kinds of other cities and countries somewhere very close to Downtown if anyone wants to know. Some of Paris, France, etc.

[FilioScotia]

I do not know what they called that photo procees above (the split pic) but I found a box of these kinds of other cities and countries somewhere very close to Downtown if anyone wants to know. Some of Paris, France, etc.

They were done in visual stereo like that to produce a 3-D effect when viewed through one of those old hand-held stereoscopic viewers.

It was precisely the same effect produced by one of those old Viewmasters we all got for Xmas when we were kids.

[northbeaumont]

They were done in visual stereo like that to produce a 3-D effect when viewed through one of those old hand-held stereoscopic viewers.

It was precisely the same effect produced by one of those old Viewmasters we all got for Xmas when we were kids.

When I was a kid I had a toy called a View Master. This is what they look like they were made for. I think that View Masters are still made.

[Vertigo58]

They were done in visual stereo like that to produce a 3-D effect when viewed through one of those old hand-held stereoscopic viewers.

That is incredible!

Which means a whole 2-3 generations have missed out on some real entertainment! Back when these were used there obviously wasnt anything but silent film and these for amusement/research or whatever.

Now I want to go back and get the ones I found, but to get the stereoscope viewer is the problem.

Most of the ones I found were (after sifting thru box after box) of a person or couple that travelled around Europe in the 1930's and 40's. There are even pics of bombed out buildings in Paris. I was reeling!

[FilioScotia]

That is incredible! Which means a whole 2-3 generations have missed out on some real entertainment! Back when these were used there obviously wasnt anything but silent film and these for amusement/research or whatever. Now I want to go back and get the ones I found, but to get the stereoscope viewer is the problem.

Not really. Old ones are still around. Here are some genuine antique stereoscopes on eBay, and they're surprisingly inexpensive.http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?f...&category0=

Here's an outfit that sells them in kit form.http://cprr.org/CPRR_Discussion_Group/2005...-kits-gift.html

[Vertigo58]

Not really. Old ones are still around. Here are some genuine antique stereoscopes on eBay, and they're surprisingly inexpensive.http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?f...&category0=

Here's an outfit that sells them in kit form.http://cprr.org/CPRR_Discussion_Group/2005...-kits-gift.html

Wow! Will check into thanks,

It surprised me when I found my two Victrola's in almost mint condition for so little. One 1912 the other 1919 and work fine. Was able to find records of the era too, ie; 1906-1925 (even Al Jolson & Rudy Vallee) at a give-away.

Oops new topic I guess. Thanks again

[icepickphil]

For those that don't have this...maybe this has been posted here before. Scroll down the page until you come to it:

http://blogs.chron.com/bayoucityhistory/2007/12/

"Available now -- for the first time in more than 80 years -- is the Houston Chronicle's 1924 guide to Houston. This 77-page publication, designed mostly for business interests, contains photographs of the city, facts and figures concerning various industries, and a Houston-Galveston business directory."

[sevfiv]

Very neat - thanks for posting.

[HarrisCountyEx]

Whoa! I see the KKK met on Thursdays at Capital and Milam. That is freaky weird!

[Vertigo58]

There's my beautiful "Grant's" in the background. Toys and hamburgers!

[Subdude]

Cool, thanks! Great shot of Montrose when it had an esplanade, and it even has photos of Plants Employing Female Labor.

[gonzo1976]

Glad everyone enjoyed it. I bought it off eBay a few years ago and only recently scanned it as a PDF. I posted it because I hoped researchers and historians would get some use out of it.

[icepickphil]

So you're the one! Thanks for posting it. Like your blog too...keep up the good work.

Glad everyone enjoyed it. I bought it off eBay a few years ago and only recently scanned it as a PDF. I posted it because I hoped researchers and historians would get some use out of it.

[inthehotsun]

Okay. I'm in education so when I bought my house in the Heights four years ago, I could only afford this itty-bitty one-story 1920's bungalow (~1000 sq. ft.) in the Heights on an itty-bitty lot (~2300 sq. ft.). I have been wanting to add an extra bedroom and storage/washroom in the back, which basically will take up my entire backyard.

I used to live in the east coast and it was not uncommon for homes to have no yard and all the "outside" entertainment occurred on the roof.

So, instead of buying a new house with a larger lot that I probably cannot afford, I thought I should make use of the house I currently own and on the addition, make a rooftop deck on it. Given that other parts of the roof would be around it, potentially could be an ugly view but I have found some nice sites of chicago roof "gardens" that have quite elaborate privacy structures around it to isolate the roof top living area. However, no downtown views will be visible.

Given the slope/height of the roof on the top part of my house (my bungalow is currently shaped like an L with the bottom part of the L the longer portion of the house), I don't think any structure on the roof would be noticable from the front of the house.

Is this a stupid idea?

I probably will live in my house for another five years or so and wondering about resale value.

OR should I just build my addition as a second story to the structure I currently have and make use of the (still) itty-bitty yard I do have?

[musicman]

I don't think it is stupid however you will have to be sure you don't want a back yard. also be sure there is no easement in the rear which would prevent you from building. it is hard to guess, but many times altering a structure can be more work than doing an addition.

as for privacy structures, i personally would be hesitant because it would block some of the breeze. in the summer evenings, stagnant air is hot.

[BryanS]

I wouldn't do this... sounds just about as good of an idea as converting a garage into a living room... think resale...

Also, if you want to see what this could look like, there is a duplex (converted to single family?) on W. Lamar or W. McKinney between Taft and Stanford, north of W. Dallas... 1930's two-story structure with a huge roof-top deck. It looks odd.

...but then again, this is America. This is Houston. Do what makes you feel best, to hell with the others, including me.

[inthehotsun]

i'm trying to think of resale value. and i guess that's what i cannot quite figure out.

is more house or more yard better?

i'm a single woman so yard-work-for-one....not so fun....but at the same time, i do not want to make a potentially stupid decision that will mean i will have a hard time selling my house if i need to sell it.

[Dan the Man]

I would think adding square footage to the house house would add the most resale value. Real-estate agents have told me the best way to increase the resale value of a bungalow is to add another bath and more closet space. How about adding a second story with a screen porch? It would be a good compromise.

[BryanS]

More square footage... but the right kind... For instance, that garage conversion may increase square footage, but put a drag on resale.

When it comes to bungalows, I am a purist. I have seen many, many of them just absolutely molested (Idylwood).

Also... you need consider how much adding square footage will cost you vs. just selling the house and getting a bigger place to begin with - one you won't need to do much work to...

In the end, you may be happier with a nice yard and just live with what you got.

[inthehotsun]

I don't know a lot about what it will take to add a second floor, but I am assuming I will have to do some structural work to the existing building to support a second floor.

My house/lot probably breaks every code imaginable and if I had been a more "savvy" homeowner and had a more honest agent who was more concerned about a quick commission, I probably would not have bought this house.

Basically, one side of my house sits within a foot of the property line and the other side...enough space for a person to get to the back. I think it would be very hard to do any structural work to the foundation given my tight quarters so I thought an addition would be easier/cheaper.

As for as just selling and buying a new place. Yes, I obviously have thought about it but I don't know how long it would take for me to sell this place given its size/lot size...and shouldn't we just try to work with what we have?

I was definitely was leaning towards selling it but then I read an article in The New York Times about a couple living in a 700 sq. ft. loft and thought why we do need so much space in Texas? So many parts of the country/world live with less so shouldn't I be able to live with what I have?

But...I also do not want to do something stupid and something so out-of-character for the Houston real estate market that I will be stuck with this house for the rest of my life.

[TexasP]

Hello HAIF,

My wife and I are considering the purchase of a 1926 bungalow in Montrose and would like to find out more about exactly how these houses were constructed.

Does anyone know why the post 'n' beam foundation was used back then? Was it intended to increase ventilation, or to guard against flooding, or? Are these foundation types notorious for breeding mosquitoes? It seems to me that humid, shady places would guarantee a bumper crop, yet this style seems ubiquitous for homes of a certain age.

How were the walls constructed? Should they be plaster on lath?

Does anyone have experience with the "Nature's Pest Solution" organic mosquito mist system? As per http://naturespest.com/id5.html, they claim it contains only "Rosemary Oil, Cinnamon Oil, Lemon Grass Oil, and Wintergreen Oil". My instinctive reaction is to be skeptical, but if it works...

[cwrm4]

The houses were built on "block-and-beam", usually meaning beams placed on top of above-ground pilings, usually built of brick. People will often call the houses pier-and-beam, but technically pier-and-beam means the footings have been sunk into the ground (ala piers on a boat dock).

This method of construction makes the home very easy to work on and build, nevermind the fact that no one was very adept at pouring concrete slabs before WW2. Today it means that replumbing/rewiring is a cinch compared to a 50s ranch house.

The walls in the older houses are usually lath, sometimes with plaster on top, and sometimes with just a wallpaper or a similar surface on top. Many have been drywalled over. The earliest houses may have what is known as "balloon framing", meaning there is a clear gap from the ground all the way to the roof. This is not ideal for either fire protection or keeping creatures out. Most people will close up the gaps between the studs on these types of houses. Very few of the houses have had insulation put between the studs in the walls. However, with cypress or brick siding + a layer of lath + plaster + drywall, most are insulated enough. The ceiling/attic is where you need to worry about insulating.

You will not have mosquitoes under your house unless you get standing water or lots of vines/debris under the house. Mosquitoes must have moisture to live. Water under the house will cause a whole host of other problems, so it is definitely something to address early on if you have it.

I have a MistAway mosquito misting system, but I am using a pyrethrin chemical. It works great. I never see a mosquito. From my research, the "natural oil" formulations just don't work. The oils will also leave a sticky build-up on lawn furniture etc. over time.

[TexasP]

The houses were built on "block-and-beam", usually meaning beams placed on top of above-ground pilings, usually built of brick. People will often call the houses pier-and-beam, but technically pier-and-beam means the footings have been sunk into the ground (ala piers on a boat dock).

This method of construction makes the home very easy to work on and build, nevermind the fact that no one was very adept at pouring concrete slabs before WW2. Today it means that replumbing/rewiring is a cinch compared to a 50s ranch house.

The walls in the older houses are usually lath, sometimes with plaster on top, and sometimes with just a wallpaper or a similar surface on top. Many have been drywalled over. The earliest houses may have what is known as "balloon framing", meaning there is a clear gap from the ground all the way to the roof. This is not ideal for either fire protection or keeping creatures out. Most people will close up the gaps between the studs on these types of houses. Very few of the houses have had insulation put between the studs in the walls. However, with cypress or brick siding + a layer of lath + plaster + drywall, most are insulated enough. The ceiling/attic is where you need to worry about insulating.

You will not have mosquitoes under your house unless you get standing water or lots of vines/debris under the house. Mosquitoes must have moisture to live. Water under the house will cause a whole host of other problems, so it is definitely something to address early on if you have it.

I have a MistAway mosquito misting system, but I am using a pyrethrin chemical. It works great. I never see a mosquito. From my research, the "natural oil" formulations just don't work. The oils will also leave a sticky build-up on lawn furniture etc. over time.

Thanks very much for the information. Are there are reference books available on the genre of 20s bungalows? The house we're looking at has some leaded glass windows and I'd like to find out if they are original and/or stylistically appropriate.

Are there any pitfalls to mounting heavy objects (say, for example, a big flat screen tv) on a lath wall? Will regular stud finders work?

I'll look into the MistAway system. About how much does it cost per month?

Patrick

[musicman]

Are there any pitfalls to mounting heavy objects (say, for example, a big flat screen tv) on a lath wall? Will regular stud finders work?

if it's plaster and a small picture, nailing will probably be ok. if you're hanging something heavy, drill a pilot hole first otherwise the plaster may crack. if you actually hit a piece of lath as you're nailing, it would probably be best to drill at that point otherwise you may crack the lath and it will disconnect from the plaster in the back. drilling is probably the safest route on plaster. i would say plaster is strong but if you break the lath, it'll definitely be weakened. not sure how a stud finder would work but i'll bet you'll have some difficulty.

for the type of walls where wallpaper was originally used, usually the wall portion is totally wood. i have this and a stud finder doesn't work.

[travelguy_73]

So when did plaster fall out of style? 1930s?

Both of my 1930s homes had shiplap, with sheetrock added on top by previous homeowners. This type of wall construction is a pain for fishing wires, but fantastic for hanging heavy items (my shiplap is so strong that I didn't even have to find studs to mount a 50" TV).

[musicman]

that's probably a good guess. WWII accelerated its use here because things needed to be built quickly. because the plaster installation is so time consuming, sheetrock quickly became the norm.

[jm1fd]

So when did plaster fall out of style? 1930s?

Both of my 1930s homes had shiplap, with sheetrock added on top by previous homeowners. This type of wall construction is a pain for fishing wires, but fantastic for hanging heavy items (my shiplap is so strong that I didn't even have to find studs to mount a 50" TV).

Yeah...plaster went mostly out of style by the time WWII was over. I think only higher end homes down here in the south had plaster...the lower end stuff got shiplap with cheesecloth nailed over it, then wallpaper over the cheesecloth.

[Dan the Man]

Yes, plaster was only in higher quality homes, due to the labor costs for installation. However, I would argue that the shiplap/wallpaper assembly was actually better, since it allowed for foundation movement without cracks in the walls.

[Vertigo58]

Yes, plaster was only in higher quality homes, due to the labor costs for installation. However, I would argue that the shiplap/wallpaper assembly was actually better, since it allowed for foundation movement without cracks in the walls.

Once again, Dover publishing has some fantastic books ie; original plans with pic perfect photos.

http://www.amazon.com/West-Coast-Bungalows...s/dp/0486447189

Mitchell Pub also has some:

http://www.mitchellspublications.com/rep/a.../bb20/index.htm

There are many in original state in many parts of the city.

[IronTiger]

Oh no, those things are awful. My late grandfather owned a pier and beam house with the wooden posts sunken into the ground, and the house was ever so tilted. I don't think it had centralized AC, and despite being "remodeled" in the 1970s (read: enclosed patio, dark brown everything, green shag carpeting) it also had woefully outdated power plugs and questionable water pipe status. I would guess it never had plaster, since it was a farm house long ago.