Jump to content

Demolished: 509 & 517 Louisiana St.

Urbannizer

By Urbannizer
in Downtown

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 340
  • Created
  • Last Reply
BigFootsSocks

BigFootsSocks

Posted
Posted

Aw man you're not gonna post their response? Lame, they have a point, but the real issue here are sub-500 employee companies with social media accounts. Who is going to follow them?

"Oh man, just got home from my 9-5 job at the Oil Manufacturing plant, can't wait to check what wacky updates the company's posted since I left! LOL!"

It just goes to show middle-aged capitalism does not understand social media. At least they have a Twitter page and not just a Facebook account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Montrose1100

Montrose1100

Posted
Posted

Aw man you're not gonna post their response? Lame, they have a point, but the real issue here are sub-500 employee companies with social media accounts. Who is going to follow them?

"Oh man, just got home from my 9-5 job at the Oil Manufacturing plant, can't wait to check what wacky updates the company's posted since I left! LOL!"

It just goes to show middle-aged capitalism does not understand social media. At least they have a Twitter page and not just a Facebook account.

Yeah I would be nice to see the whole conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
IronTiger

IronTiger

Posted
Posted

Alright Iron, I'll bite. What's your point?

Because in general, density and historic preservation don't go hand in hand. I'm sure there are many who would like to see the low-rise mish-mash of old houses, gas stations, restaurants, and one-story buildings in Midtown go away in favor of trendy mid-rise apartments, but "historic preservation" would dictate otherwise and force one or two story buildings to stay where they are as land values skyrocket and the only affordable housing (that's not government subsidized, of course) is on the fringe parts of the sprawl. Start running out of realistic space, and you get a situation like the entire Bay Area.

 

I'm not saying that demolishing these buildings is going to make a difference in land value or whatever or that I expect you to start shedding tears for every S/F house torn down in the Inner Loop, but there are two sides of this argument and it needs to be balanced carefully to avoid looking like a hypocrite.

 

As for those crying "Structural integrity is BS", according to HCAD, the buildings (well, 509 Louisiana at least) was built in 1900, but looking at some of the HCAD results.....that at least looks like a candidate for tear-down. (source)

 

Building Data

 

Element                              Details

Cooling Type                      Central / Forced

Construction Type             Wood / Steel Joist

Functional Utility                 Poor

Heating Type                    Hot Air

Partition Type                     Normal

Physical Condition              Poor

Plumbing Type                  Adequate

Sprinkler Type                  None

Exterior Wall                     Brick / Stone

Economic Obsolescence Very Poor

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
H-Town Man

H-Town Man

Posted
Posted

Because in general, density and historic preservation don't go hand in hand. I'm sure there are many who would like to see the low-rise mish-mash of old houses, gas stations, restaurants, and one-story buildings in Midtown go away in favor of trendy mid-rise apartments, but "historic preservation" would dictate otherwise and force one or two story buildings to stay where they are as land values skyrocket and the only affordable housing (that's not government subsidized, of course) is on the fringe parts of the sprawl. Start running out of realistic space, and you get a situation like the entire Bay Area.

 

I'm not saying that demolishing these buildings is going to make a difference in land value or whatever or that I expect you to start shedding tears for every S/F house torn down in the Inner Loop, but there are two sides of this argument and it needs to be balanced carefully to avoid looking like a hypocrite.

 

As for those crying "Structural integrity is BS", according to HCAD, the buildings (well, 509 Louisiana at least) was built in 1900, but looking at some of the HCAD results.....that at least looks like a candidate for tear-down. (source)

 

Building Data

 

Element                              Details

Cooling Type                      Central / Forced

Construction Type             Wood / Steel Joist

Functional Utility                 Poor

Heating Type                    Hot Air

Partition Type                     Normal

Physical Condition              Poor

Plumbing Type                  Adequate

Sprinkler Type                  None

Exterior Wall                     Brick / Stone

Economic Obsolescence Very Poor

 

I understand your wanting balance in the argument. And I agree that, in an extreme scenario, preserving everything would be an obstacle to increased density.

 

However, I don't think that's the case here. When you are talking about century-old commercial buildings, there are only a few dozen in the whole 628 square mile landscape of Houston. Preserving all of them would not be an obstacle to densification in downtown or any other neighborhood.

 

Also, I think the conversation is pretty balanced already. The past few years have seen several historic teardowns downtown: the Ross Sterling building where 609 Main is going up, the old Foley's, the Hogan-Allnoch building, the 1870 Nicholas Clayton-designed building at Incarnate Word, the Ben Milam Hotel, and the Houston Club building. While all of them elicited grumbles here and there, the only two that brought a really vociferous outcry on this forum were 509-517 Louisiana and the Nicholas Clayton building. Both cases seemed exceptionally wasteful and short-sighted. For the rest of the cases, I think most people accept the arguments of functional obsolescence, bad structural condition, etc.

 

Finally, I would not trust a county assessor's report. These conclusions could be the result of arguments by the property owner to get their taxes down. And assessors are not immune to the same cultural attitudes that affect the rest of Houston's population, viz. the attitude that anything old must be functionally obsolete and in poor condition. I'd be interested to see how a Houston assessor would have graded Faneuil Hall Marketplace before it was turned into a shopping center worth nine figures.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kylejack

kylejack

Posted
Posted

Because in general, density and historic preservation don't go hand in hand. I'm sure there are many who would like to see the low-rise mish-mash of old houses, gas stations, restaurants, and one-story buildings in Midtown go away in favor of trendy mid-rise apartments, but "historic preservation" would dictate otherwise and force one or two story buildings to stay where they are as land values skyrocket and the only affordable housing (that's not government subsidized, of course) is on the fringe parts of the sprawl. Start running out of realistic space, and you get a situation like the entire Bay Area.

 

I'm not saying that demolishing these buildings is going to make a difference in land value or whatever or that I expect you to start shedding tears for every S/F house torn down in the Inner Loop, but there are two sides of this argument and it needs to be balanced carefully to avoid looking like a hypocrite.

 

Well, these two are being turned into pavement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nate99

Nate99

Posted
Posted

That tree is in the back - it should be fine to stay unless the Lancaster really wants 50 parking spots instead of just 49

 

I'm surprised that it survived Calpine being built around it and all the sunlight that must get blocked.  It does look way back there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mollusk

mollusk

Posted
Posted

(sigh...)

 

I have no idea how they think they are going to park 50 cars on a surface lot there, unless maybe it's door handle to door handle, bumper to bumper, nothing is bigger than the original Hondas and Subarus, and getting one out of the back requires a helicopter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nate99

Nate99

Posted
Posted

Just happened to be in the neighborhood, eh?

 

I work in the area. I've been watching to see when they had the excavators out.

 

I have no affiliation with the Lancaster (stayed there once, it was ok) or any demolition, development or parking lot operation company, though suspicions would be warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
samagon

samagon

Posted
Posted

Not to inflame further, but I was walking by when they were doing this.

 

 

....

 

 

 

 

ha, I know what Nate99 looks like IRL!

 

I figured that it was a haifer taking those pictures that I stopped and chatted for 15 seconds with, but didn't have the guts to say "Excuse me sir, but have you accepted HAIF as your only resource for Houston architecture information?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nate99

Nate99

Posted
Posted

ha, I know what Nate99 looks like IRL!

 

I figured that it was a haifer taking those pictures that I stopped and chatted for 15 seconds with, but didn't have the guts to say "Excuse me sir, but have you accepted HAIF as your only resource for Houston architecture information?"

 

You were the ~20 year old guy on the bike with a short sleeve shirt and tie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevfiv

sevfiv

Posted
Posted

That tree is in the back - it should be fine to stay unless the Lancaster really wants 50 parking spots instead of just 49

 

"Moving the tree is not an option because of its massive root system. When the tree was uncovered in 2001, an official with the city's urban forestry office told the Chronicle moving it would be a "long shot." Lusk said he tried to find a way to preserve the tree, but the land around it is uneven and the tree would not survive the leveling of the site."

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/100-year-old-downtown-buildings-to-make-way-for-6708623.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nate99

Nate99

Posted
Posted

"Moving the tree is not an option because of its massive root system. When the tree was uncovered in 2001, an official with the city's urban forestry office told the Chronicle moving it would be a "long shot." Lusk said he tried to find a way to preserve the tree, but the land around it is uneven and the tree would not survive the leveling of the site."

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/100-year-old-downtown-buildings-to-make-way-for-6708623.php

 

How was it covered prior to 2001? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevfiv

sevfiv

Posted
Posted

How was it covered prior to 2001? 

 

"It had been hidden from pedestrians and motorists until 2001 when it was exposed when the Rice Rittenhouse garage was demolished to make way for a skyscraper at 717 Texas that later covered it up again after it was built."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IronTiger

IronTiger

Posted
Posted

Iron- It's becoming a surface parking lot. Bricks and mortar, even when empty, do more for perceived density than a friggin' surface parking lot.

I realize that. However, I feel that if it was a parking garage, there would be just as many complaints.

Question: what and when was the last business to occupy this? If they've been locked up for the last decade if not longer, well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...