Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have to live here to notice. Many old commercial buildings have been torn down, the lots redeveloped. You just have to search old historic photos of Houston. But the main change is the neighborhoods, especially those close to downtown which by nature, tend to be the oldest.
In the Midtown/Montrose area for example, where one standard 5000 sq ft lot once stood, you will find at least two 3 story modern, stucco structures, often next to a 1920 bungalow. It is a mix and match when you go down the street. There are historic neighborhoods that are protected, so those are safe from the likes of Urban Development, who seem to do the most building.
Good points; however, have many cities in the Northeast, for example, like New York, have gone through such gentrification. Have they not torn down some old buildings to make room for the new from time to time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Ag 93
Well, I am one of those in the camp that feels like Houston does, indeed, have a pattern of turning a rather blind eye to its history. At the same time, I think that can be a positive- this ability to constantly be looking forward, not backward, and I think that mindset is one of the things that helps the city weather economic downturns.
I think some of this is just due to the fact that Houston is a young city, even by U.S. standards, and the vast majority of development didn't even take place until the past 50-60 years. If you spend time in any of the large cities in the NE or even in the South, you will see great historical cities. Cities in the West do not have this as much, though I will say some of them seem to have much larger, older historical homes and architecture compared to Houston. Denver (where I am currently living) does. San Fransisco certainly does.
But the leadership in Houston has always seemed loathe to try and preserve these areas, though I do agree with OP that there is a lot more here than many of us give credit for. You just have to look.
True; not only is Houston a young city relative to other cities in the country, it also developed quite recently compared to those other cities. For example, Denver is a younger city than Houston, having been established in 1861 (vs 1836 for Houston), but by 1900, Denver's population was over 100,000, while Houston didn't get over that mark until 1920. With a larger population at an earlier time, Denver was able to construct enough of the stock to accommodate the population, which, in turn, means more historic buildings from the era in Denver compared to Houston. Same goes for San Francisco, which exceeded the 100,000 mark in 1870.
But nevertheless, Houston does have a decent amount of historical architecture left in both the commercial districts, and in the neighborhoods, especially given its circumstances. Even some of the suburbs (Sugarland especially) have a sense of history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipuck
What do you mean we don't keep historical structures intact?
There is a huge cockroach hotel by South 610.
Jack Lance, our local #1 Houston CD Booster, would probably give you a personal tour if you ask nicely (provided you sign a liability waiver due to the hazardous material you will encounter). You will probably need to wear a HAZMAT suit too.
Actually, I agreed with the fact that Houston does indeed have a decent amount of intact historical structures. I'm just wondering about the reputation, and why it came to be, in spite of such magnificent architecture present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scientific
Freedman's Town, as far as it's structures is concerned, is a shadow of what it once was. I think something like 90% of it's homes have been destroyed the last time I read something on it. Given it's history, i think a lot of people feel like the area should have been better protected. The poorest areas suffered from neglect, and while you may see some of what's left, a lot of it in recent years has been destroyed. The areas ITL that remained well kept, managed to fend off the kind of destruction Freedman's Town saw. Even then, a lot of homes have been torn down to make way for town homes.
Houston is a "new city" compared to the rest. It is what it is with the new development.
Freedman's Town seems like an interesting area as it pertains to the history of Houston, especially the streets paved with bricks. Preservation, and then revitalization, will make the area an important centerpiece for one who wants to learn about Houston's history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
I think the charge that Houston doesn't preserve its history comes mainly from three things:
Until just recently we didn't have a historical preservation ordinance that prevented building demolition.
Houston has been infamous for many years for parking lots covering large amounts of land within Downtown - most of those lots used to be buildings of one sort or another. Hopefully as we build new development on the empty lots this factor will lessen.
The Shamrock Hotel, which before the Astrodome was the city's most significant building in terms of showing that we were "big time," was torn down when it was less than 50 years old.
Some might also put the plans to redo 800 Bell (Exxon Building) in this category, as many are attached to the existing mid-century mod design.
I'm not generally in favor of mandatory historic preservation regulations, though I concede that they can give a city a patina of "authenticity."
Very good points.
This reputation though, is all very intriguing to me. Did the tearing down of old structures not happen in other cities? From the way people around the web talk about it, especially in those websites I listed, you would think that such a process is unique to Houston, and much of Texas and the South (sans historic cities like New Orleans, San Antonio, Charleston, etc).
This reputation though, is all very intriguing to me. Did the tearing down of old structures not that happen in other cities? From the way people around the web talk about it, especially in those websites I listed, you would think that such a process is unique to Houston, and much of Texas and the South (sans historic cities like New Orleans, San Antonio, Charleston, etc).
I don't know, I think it's multifactorial. Some things that come to mind include:
- The previously mentioned realization that while Houston was technically founded in the 1830s, its growth really didn't occur until the 20th century, primarily due to A). The 1900 storm that wiped out Galveston and allowed Houston to emerge from Galveston's shadow and B).The city becoming the energy capital, which didn't really happen until arguably around WW II.
- A city situated geographically such that there was empty land in nearly all directions, so growth patterns resembled sprawl and creep outward, rather than ever needing to focus on the city center.
- City leadership that allowed for this sprawl and the oft discussed lack of zoning.
- A history of an economic boom and bust cycle that brings in a new, transient population every couple of decades that has little knowledge of, or emotional ties to the city.
I don't think Houston is unique in this respect, though. I think Dallas falls into the same category. Phoenix, Las Vegas......none of these places conjure up thoughts of cities with great or important history. When you don't have a sense of history, who cares if you tear down a few old buildings?
Freedman's Town, as far as it's structures is concerned, is a shadow of what it once was. I think something like 90% of it's homes have been destroyed the last time I read something on it. Given it's history, i think a lot of people feel like the area should have been better protected. The poorest areas suffered from neglect, and while you may see some of what's left, a lot of it in recent years has been destroyed. The areas ITL that remained well kept, managed to fend off the kind of destruction Freedman's Town saw. Even then, a lot of homes have been torn down to make way for town homes.
Houston is a "new city" compared to the rest. It is what it is with the new development.
The residents were given options to purchase brand new housing at dirt cheap interest rates and values well below market, when their units were essentially condemned. Lets not confuse 'historical significance' with 'not taken care of'.
the neighborhood where I grew up is a perfect example of this attitude..... Westlane Place runs between Richmond and Westheimer a few blocks inside of 610.... although MidLane does extend on down to San Felipe.... When my parents bought our house on Bash Place in 1960, the neighborhood consisted of mostly 2 and 3 bedroom ranch houses built around 1950 with a couple of apartment buildings sprinkled in, one by us, more down by the intersection of MidLane and West Alabama.......
Starting in the early to mid 80's, developers bought these ranch houses and tore them down to build McMansions that literally sat on the lot easement to easement to easement to easement.....
Our mom sold our house in about 1992 or 1993 or so.... and it and the house next door are two of the very few originals still standing..... at least they were the last time I drove through in 2013...... it still has the same front door with brass door knocker that my dad installed in the late 60's - early 70's .......
Houston preserves its history a lot better than older Eastern cities. For example, there is a huge collection of historic buildings downtown. Pittsburgh - a city never criticized for tearing down it's history - barely blinked when demolishing the world's first arena made with a retractable roof (and it was even made of Pittsburgh steel), yet Houston still hangs on to the Astrodome. Houston even incorporated Union Station into Minute Maid Park. AND it has the one if the best collections of mid-century and post-modern architecture in the world.
But, nevertheless, I still believe that enough historic constructs, and neighborhoods still stand in this city, and enough old buildings are refurbished, to get a grasp of the sense of place Houston has. Thus, I don't agree with the comments that state, "Houston has no soul," or "Houston tears down anything older than 20 years old."
In college I sat through many History of Architecture classes. Some of the buildings we learned about were extremely impressive and have withstood the test of time. They are still capable of serving the community in some way and have real historic significance. Others I looked at and thought "why the hell are we saving that... let's tear it down and build a Whataburger."
Too many people confuse "historic" with "old." A building should not be preserved just because it is old.
But, nevertheless, I still believe that enough historic constructs, and neighborhoods still stand in this city, and enough old buildings are refurbished, to get a grasp of the sense of place Houston has. Thus, I don't agree with the comments that state, "Houston has no soul," or "Houston tears down anything older than 20 years old."
Older (70+) native Houstonians remember the loss of many fine historic buildings and homes during the city's post-WWII boom years. A couple of decades of neglect due to the Great Depression and the war had taken a toll on many structures and, at that time, very few people here were interested in historic preservation of any kind. Other cities managed to save a larger percentage of their architectural treasures than we did.
Older (70+) native Houstonians remember the loss of many fine historic buildings and homes during the city's post-WWII boom years. A couple of decades of neglect due to the Great Depression and the war had taken a toll on many structures and, at that time, very few people here were interested in historic preservation of any kind. Other cities managed to save a larger percentage of their architectural treasures than we did.
Although quite a few beautiful constructs have been torn down in Houston during the city's boom years, I still believe that there is still a decent enough collection of historic structures, districts, neighborhoods, etc, especially given the recent time the city was founded and boomed compared to many other cities in the country, especially those in the Northeast, and some in the Midwest, South, and even parts of the West. Such structures, in my opinion, exist in large enough amounts that one can grasp a sense of place the city has, as well as clearly see that the city does, in fact, preserve a lot more buildings than people around the web would have you believe. I can just see how interesting historic areas around the city, such as Freedmen's Town, Audobon, and Old 6th Ward, will be once the homes there are refurbished.
I started this thread because I keep reading upon how Houston "always tears-down history, and anything older than 10 years old;" as if tons and tons and tons of buildings were torn down at one point in the city, and as if other cities across the nation haven't torn down some of their buildings in their own histories.
P.S.: A quick drive from Houston will bring you to an entire subtropical island paradise lined with beaches, resorts, and, importantly, large collections of historic architecture, including some of the largest amounts of remaining Victorian architecture in the US. In addition, even some of the outer areas of the metro, in places like Sugar Land, history is being honored; Sugar Land still has the old sugar factory still standing, and is making investments towards developments revolving around the immortalization of the area's past revolving around the commercial sugar cane plantations, and operations.
Last edited by Yn0hTnA; 03-20-2015 at 02:58 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
