Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Should the Bewley-Ellison House be Saved?


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

Poll: Should the Bewley-Ellison House Be Saved? (29 member(s) have cast votes)

Should the Bewley-Ellison House Be Saved?

  1. Yes, since it is only one of seven remaining houses in Quality Hill (24 votes [82.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 82.76%

  2. No, houses don't belong on Summit Avenue (2 votes [6.90%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.90%

  3. I have no opinion on this subject. (3 votes [10.34%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.34%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 04 July 2005 - 11:05 AM

Posted Image

The above photograph is the Bewley-Ellison House, located at 1301 Summit Avenue. It was built in Quality Hill, Fort Worth's earliest luxury neighborhood as one of the later homes, in 1915. It was renovated for office use in 1963 and again in 1991. It was constructed for Edwin Bewley, president of Bewley Mills. He sold the house in 1929 to Robert Ellison, who was the son of T.B. Ellison, owner of Ellison's Furniture Company. Robert and his wife Margaret lived in the home until both of them passed away. Robert's mother and father lived in a home directly across Summit Avenue. The parent's house was demolished in the 1960's for the construction of the Summit Towers.

The home is planned for demolition for construction of a medical clinic. Do you think it should be saved? Quality Hill was the city's first real luxury neighborhood with many of the homes constructed on the Trinity River bluff being the finest in the neighborhood. This house is only one of seven that remain in the entire area, and one of only three surviving homes south of Lancaster Avenue. It is the only remaining home on Summit. This home is not the finest architectural example in the area. It is rather plain, but it is a reminder of days gone by here in Fort Worth. What do you think? Please vote and express your opinions. The case will be heard by the Historic & Cultural Landmarks Commission on July 11th at 2:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton.

Edited by John T Roberts, 16 July 2005 - 02:24 PM.


#2 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 04 July 2005 - 11:34 AM

Only 7?!?!? I think this should be a definite YES, save the building. The demolition of Quality Hill is something Fort Worth should truly be ashamed of, and not allowing any more of the houses to be destroyed would be a great start in restoring some sense of how things used to be on that stretch of Summit. Save it!

#3 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 04 July 2005 - 04:47 PM

So they are going to discuss it's fate during peoples Summer vacations. Hmmmmm, not good. I just can't figure why a medical clinic is penciled in to take it's place.

Ahhh, HELLO! There is FW Medical CENTER just 3 minutes down the road.

GENIUSES! :angry:

This is absolutely a no brainer here people. Please show up and speak for it's supporters. I'll be out of town to vent at ESPN HQ's over the TMS fiasco. :swg:
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#4 jenidallas

jenidallas

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Location:Arlington Heights
  • Interests:A FW native who is happy to be back home finally!

Posted 04 July 2005 - 09:51 PM

Ahhh, HELLO! There is FW Medical CENTER just 3 minutes down the road.

View Post


Medical clinic is a fancy word for doctor's offices. Not a hospital.

I'm mixed on this one - I've been involved in a lot of the medical planning for Tarrant County - at present, the county is understaffed by a couple HUNDRED physicians and with an aging physician population and high growth predicted, we need somewhere to put those doctors. Doctors want to be located near the hospitals - and yet there are not a lot of places right now to put them. Without new clinic construction, access to medical care is going to get worse.

I would say I'm neutral on this one without knowing the details of the proposed MOB. If its offices for one or two doctors, I think that is a waste - if it is going to house 30 or 40, a different story.

#5 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 04 July 2005 - 09:54 PM

I now have added a third choice of, "I have no opinion on this subject."

#6 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 04 July 2005 - 11:24 PM

Ahhh, HELLO! There is FW Medical CENTER just 3 minutes down the road.

View Post


Medical clinic is a fancy word for doctor's offices. Not a hospital.

I'm mixed on this one - I've been involved in a lot of the medical planning for Tarrant County - at present, the county is understaffed by a couple HUNDRED physicians and with an aging physician population and high growth predicted, we need somewhere to put those doctors. Doctors want to be located near the hospitals - and yet there are not a lot of places right now to put them. Without new clinic construction, access to medical care is going to get worse.

I would say I'm neutral on this one without knowing the details of the proposed MOB. If its offices for one or two doctors, I think that is a waste - if it is going to house 30 or 40, a different story.

View Post


I know it's not a hospital, but just drive down Henderson or Summit South and you will run into hundreds of those medical offices with numerous disciplines. This is totaly going to be a wasted effort to just open up a KClinic or Health Care Now (Not) or a group shared physicians clinic. I mean why can't they move into the MW or some exisitng abandoned modern building along 7th? Then do a fixer upper.

Have they no sense of FW's history? I don't get it that this location is THE only option for a medical clinic to serve that area of DTFW.

Access to medical care will get worse OUTSIDE OF DTFW. When living there I never knew of any medical care access problems. In fact Summit had already established a DT HC access for the DT population. There are a number of buildings along Summit just north and south of Lancaster dedicated for HC/Emergency care access.

I think this is more of a case where this business (which happens to be involved with HC) wants the benefit of maximizing profits with GREAT location, location, location.

If they want to build new then build right alongside the Cowboy Museum (which may close down), or by Reilly's piece of land on the corner of 7th and Summit (another bank movin in), or smack between Texas St. and 7thSt. (just west of Henderson) where the abandoned parking lots stand. :angry:


There has to be something else behind this acquisition and demolition about to unfold. Just doesn't feel right.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#7 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fort Worth Texas
  • Interests:History, Historic Preservation, Art, Antiques

Posted 05 July 2005 - 08:37 AM

I believe it should be saved. Like we need another plain jane building along summit ave.....I just dont agree with tearing down those things that define us as a city..and while one little pink house may not make our city it shure is pleasing on the eye..

#8 SouthSideAllan2000

SouthSideAllan2000

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Location:Southhills

Posted 06 July 2005 - 04:23 PM

It should be saved, there are a lot more places for a clinic to be built.

#9 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 07 July 2005 - 12:36 AM

"This home is not the finest architectural example in the area."

Hey John, I think it's a fine example of what it is: a Prairie style house. Prairie style is plain compared to Richardsonian Romanesque or Queen Anne, but this house has some nice detail. Are those terra-cotta panels between the second story windows? Isn't that twin-column entry kind of a Tuscan thing? It's Greco-Prairie! This house has style!

How's the interior?
WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#10 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 07 July 2005 - 06:05 AM

Kip, I was trying to make a comparison between it and the Eddleman-McFarland House and the Pollock-Capps House. I probably should have clarified my statement more.

I agree with you in that it is a good example of a Prairie style house. I believe those are terra cotta panels adjacent to the second story windows. It is just unfortunate that they have been painted.

As for the interior, I have not been inside. Maybe someone here on the forum has been in there and they could comment.

#11 hipolyte

hipolyte

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Interested in history, art & architecture, classic automobiles, good food, music & live theater.

Posted 07 July 2005 - 07:21 AM

I sure wish I had seen Quality Hill when it was intact. It must have been wonderful.

#12 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 07 July 2005 - 07:35 AM

I'm not necessarily in favor of demolition, but it all depends on what is put in its place. If it is just another little box don't do it. But if it would be well thought out and designed, I'm ok with it. The neighborhood was destroyed years ago and there isn't really anything left to save (except on the bluff). It's not an ideal building for offices. No one would want to live there now. At some point, it will just be too expensive to leave as it is.

I don't think anyone will ever drive by and say "Wow, what a great prairie style home." It is attractive in many ways, but the design is simple, clean and subtle and just doesn't elicit that kind of "wow" response. As more buildings go up on Summit, it will not add to the overall aesthetic beauty of the area, it will just be more and more out of place.

That said, if someone really took an interest in the appearance of the home, the landscaping and the exterior, it could still work. As it sits today, I don't think the beauty of the home is apparent to most people. It just looks like a non-descript painted brick house with an inappropriate composition shingle roof.

Is there some sort of tax break available for preserving a home like this even though you use it for offices?

#13 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fort Worth Texas
  • Interests:History, Historic Preservation, Art, Antiques

Posted 07 July 2005 - 11:59 AM

How can you say that no one will drive by and say "wow, thats a great prairie style house" I believe that alot of people know what it is and know its former beauty....It will NEVER be out of place because of what it is...it would be the same as tearing down Thistle Hill, Eddleman-McFarland, the Junior League house...etc... As I have said over and over again.....These homes, buildings and other historic or "old" structures are what make our town what it is...Would you go in and take out all of the houses in Waxachie, because they are old or out of place? Each person has their opinion on every subject that has ever existed...I think it would be a crime to see it torn down....I guess we could drive by then and say "Wow, a great prairie style house use to sit there...but now its just an old dumpy, square medical building" I feel strongly on the subject.

#14 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 07 July 2005 - 12:18 PM

I tend to lean towards the "if the replacement is better, OK" side on historic buildings like houses and bland structures, but that's only when it's the best option and I'm not sure that's the case here. The block this house sits on is HUGE and is all parking and I don't really see why whoever wants to build the clinic can't just incorporate the house into their design, or bypass the house and build around it. There's certainly enough space, and of course they could build UP (a crazy concept in Fort Worth, I know), but IMO this is just demolition for demolition's sake.

I don't think anyone will ever drive by and say "Wow, what a great prairie style home." It is attractive in many ways, but the design is simple, clean and subtle and just doesn't elicit that kind of "wow" response. As more buildings go up on Summit, it will not add to the overall aesthetic beauty of the area, it will just be more and more out of place.


It might not carry the same architectural majesty as Thistle Hill for example, but that's not the point of saving it. You said it would look out of place and that would be bad, but I think it's out of place-ment would be the best thing for Summit. Imagine 20 years from now driving down Summit and let's say it's full of swanky condos and modern office buildings, and all of a sudden you come upon this modest 1930's house. I would be thinking "wow, look at what Summit used to look like long ago, and now look at how much it's changed!" It might even prompt some people to really look into the history of the area and see how it used to be.

Quick thought on Summit: I hope one day Summit really is a cool avenue so the senseless demolition of Quality Hill will have some justificiation. In its present state it reminds me too much of suburbia :eek:

#15 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 07 July 2005 - 12:58 PM

Maybe another way to say it this:

Most people do not have the training, patience or eye to appreciate the house for what it is. Most people who drive down Summit won't notice that it is gone. That's not to say that it should be gone, but like a lot of subtle things, its absence will go un-noticed by the majority. Thistle Hill is easy to appreciate. It's big. It's beautiful. It really pops out at you. It takes a more refined architectural palate to appreciate the Bewley-Ellison house.

It's kind of like how it's a whole lot easier to save baby seals than an obscure dung beatle. It's just hard to rally support for buildings that aren't glamorous.

If someone were to spend the money to return the house to its original condition, it might be easier to point it out as an architectural gem. As it sits today it just looks like a house converted into offices where there are not really any other houses around. It is not particularly attractive as is. Not that it couldn't be, but it isn't. Odds are that it won't be either. The economics of the situation probably don't justify spending much money to preserve the building.

I would really like to see something architecturally significant built in its place. The reality of the situation though, is that most buildings aren't built for architects, artists and enthusiasts. Buildings are designed by architects for people/businesses with needs and means. If those needs don't dictate something significant or the means don't allow something significant, then you're stuck hoping that the business has some other motivation for building something meaningful. And based on the kinds of buildings you see going up, it's a real crapshoot when start relying on someone's benevolent artistic predisposition.

Hey, I'm all for saving the house, but I won't be at all surprised if it gets torn down. There's just a whole lot working against it.

#16 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fort Worth Texas
  • Interests:History, Historic Preservation, Art, Antiques

Posted 07 July 2005 - 05:34 PM

But the house that is plain, the house that is bland, the house that could look better is exactly the house you want to save. Yes some, I wont say most but some people wouldnt remember it or even care about its existance...but something Johnny said about 20 yrs from now......take a look around you...look at the house, look at the design....the simplistic design, tells a story of a different time and place...whywould we want to erase that..we could never build another just like it...I believe its important that we preserve our past so we know where weve been......Its important to save it.....not because its grand...but for the fact its our past. I think some people would feel different if it were Thistle Hill or Eddleman-McFarland... in question..but it isnt is it? Its an obscure pink house..that to the naked eye is plain...I see so much more...would you like to take a look though my glasses..... :D

#17 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 10 July 2005 - 11:35 AM

Have they no sense of FW's history? I don't get it that this location is THE only option for a medical clinic to serve that area of DTFW.


Greetings from clear sky 80 degrees Chicago. :mellow:

We don't need a Doc in the Box over there. If that house is big enough I would consider persuading a business to build a B&B or a small family style restaurant in it. What are the dimensions?
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#18 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 16 July 2005 - 11:19 AM

I cannot believe it is even possible to get a demo permit for this. Do we not have some protection in place for buildings like this? What lever do we have (as citizens) to prevent this and future demolition of our historic structures?

#19 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 16 July 2005 - 02:22 PM

Safly, I will try to get you the overall dimensions of the house.

Urb, this has been one of my city pet peeves over the years that I have alluded to several times on this forum. Most of our "historic buildings" are only designated "Demolition Delay" by the City of Fort Worth. That means they file for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the structure with the Landmarks Commission. The commission hears the case and then at their option can impose a 180 day demolition delay on the property. The owners and interested parties then have that time to come up with a way to save the structure. These individuals are required to meet to discuss the possibility of saving the structure some time within the 180 days. This is the only obligation the applicant has to make. The 180 day ticker starts the day of the application to the Landmarks Commission.

I think you can see the problem with this Demolition Delay designation. If the property owner really wants to tear down the structure, he can set an unreasonable price on the property, making it impossible to purchase. He can also have the meeting with the interested parties on the 179th day of waiting; thereby, giving no information to the interested parties until the last minute.

This property was zoned Demolition Delay and has no other protection than this. Most older structures and homes in the city that could qualify as historic buildings aren't even designated Demolition Delay. Therefore, no protection is offered.

In 2003, the City Council approved a Historic Preservation Plan for the city. They have been slow to implement this plan, but gradually things are beginning to change. We now have a Designation Committee that are working under the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission (H&CLC). Their charge is to nominate structures and areas for citywide designation. They have been in existance for two years. Their work will be continuing. The city's zoning ordinance spells out the way a structure can be landmarked.

As individual citizens, we are limited as to how we can get a building or a house landmarked here in Fort Worth. Our City Council has always been pro-property rights, so only the property owner, the Landmarks Commission, the City Manager, or the City Council can nominate a property for designation. As you can see, the Designation Committee will present their nominations to the H&CLC, and that will be the proper procedure. After the nomination is presented, then the H&CLC must approve. At that point a designation is sent to the Zoning Commission, and if they approve, it finally must be voted upon by the City Council. As you can see, this is an involved process.

Urb, I have a suggestion for you and anyone who are interested in saving our historic buildings. I would contact your City Council person and visit with them in detail about these issues. I have never used this board as a promotional tool for Historic Fort Worth, Inc., but I would also suggest that you consider joining our organization and becoming involved. I'm currently on the Board of Directors. We are constantly working on preservation issues around the city and we have many committees that could use some help.

#20 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 17 July 2005 - 10:17 PM

I have a wonderful pic I snapped up the other day while in DT Lee, MA. It is of a "prairie-style"- slash colonial looking 2 story house which was revamped into an Arizona Pizza Co. diner. I IMMEDIATELY thought of the Bewley-Ellison house. It seems like in these small towns in the Berkshires, businesses of all sorts are revamping these old historic looking homes along major roads, and it certainly helps create some vibrancy and connection with the old and the new Berkshire Co. area. And these places are ancient, like colonial era ancient.

What would be the best way to transfer these pics onto the forum page?
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#21 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 19 July 2005 - 08:13 PM

Safly, you have to place the photo at a host site and then provide a link to it.

I have the dimensions of the house. It is approximately 40 x 57 feet and is two stories.

#22 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 20 July 2005 - 10:46 PM

Safly, you have to place the photo at a host site and then provide a link to it. 

I have the dimensions of the house.  It is approximately 40 x 57 feet and is two stories.

View Post

cool, thanks. any suggestions on a host site to use?
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#23 FWMike

FWMike

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Swimming, painting, antiques, gardening...

Posted 25 July 2005 - 03:20 PM

There are two old homes on Ballinger just behind the Bewley-Ellison House. They are currently used for commercial use, and each quite beautiful. Were they not considered to be part of the Quality Hill neighborhood? They look to have been built around the same time as Bewley-Ellison.

#24 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 25 July 2005 - 05:03 PM

Yes, they were part of the Quality Hill neighborhood and are the other two houses south of Lancaster that remain. The Swayne House at 1319 Ballinger was constructed in the late 1800's, so it is a little older than the Bewley-Ellison House.

#25 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 29 July 2005 - 04:34 PM

Again, any suggestions on using a host site for pic's?
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#26 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dirty suburbs

Posted 29 July 2005 - 07:59 PM

Webshots, pbase, Photobucket, I believe a basic Yahoo account might offer some space with image hosting.

#27 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 02 April 2006 - 08:22 PM

The Bewley-Ellison House was demolished the week of March 27th.

#28 tricoastal

tricoastal

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Location:dfw

Posted 03 April 2006 - 08:57 AM

QUOTE(John T Roberts @ Apr 2 2006, 09:22 PM) View Post

The Bewley-Ellison House was demolished the week of March 27th.



What a shame. I do not live in Ft. Worth but love the city very much and one of the most important reasons I have always cared about the city is because of its rich architectural heritage. But, it seems that bit by bit, building by building, this is being lost. Those places which make FW unique are disappearing rapidly as the city jumps on the growth bandwagon. I'm all for growth but even though FW leaders give a lot of lip srvice to the city's heritage, they are blinded by the bucks of developers and they look they seem to eager to look the other way while the demolition derby kicks into high gear.

I just got back from another business trip to southern California and I've gotta say that even with all the sprawl and booming growth which seemingly never abates here, you see far more examples of the areas architectural past everywhere you look than you do here in N. Texas.

Maybe for most Texans, faux downtowns in the burb's and rebuilt replicas in the center cities is enough--but IMO we seem to love the myth of this place more than the physical brick and mortar reality that we have had and so willfully destroyed.

#29 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 03 April 2006 - 08:51 PM

Tricoastal, I see that you have been a member here for nearly two years, yet this is your first post on this board. Welcome to the forum. I agree with you on your comments above. I do want to say that every effort was made to preserve this house, and the only good news that I have is the owner allowed it to stand longer than the demolition delay period.

There are efforts to get more buildings designated in the city. The H&CLC has a designation committee that is working on getting over 80 structures within the Fort Worth South TIF designated as Demolition Delay. As most of you know, DD is a very weak designation. About the only thing is does is to keep a building standing for those 180 days. However, city laws do not allow a historic property to participate in a TIF and get its historic tax exemption. (That would be a double tax break.) Therefore, if you have a pre-existing TIF and you want to designate a historic property, then you either opt out of the TIF or the highest designation level you get is DD. Members of Fort Worth South elected not to have the TIF become a swiss cheese selection of properties. Hopefully, a few of these property owners will later opt to raise the designation on these properties.

#30 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fort Worth Texas
  • Interests:History, Historic Preservation, Art, Antiques

Posted 13 April 2006 - 08:48 PM

What a shame, just another peice of FW history being torn down to be replaced with something more modern and chic..makes me sick sad.gif

#31 hipolyte

hipolyte

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Interested in history, art & architecture, classic automobiles, good food, music & live theater.

Posted 15 April 2006 - 05:06 PM

Some people have no sense of shame.

#32 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 15 April 2006 - 05:16 PM

This is just an excellent example of our Demolition Delay designation is almost worthless. It extended the presence of this house for more than 180 days. That was the minimum, but the owner did agree not to demolish it immediately after the 180 time frame was up.

#33 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 17 April 2006 - 04:25 PM

Who again is behind this demolition? At a minimum, we (anyone who cares about saving old buildings) should voice our dissapointment to the people involved (especially those who own something that hasn't been torn down yet) - AT A MINIUM, LET's JUST CALL OR WRITE TO TELL THEM HOW WE FEEL. Otherwise, our moans and groans are unproductive and don't inform the key players to the community's opinion.




QUOTE(John T Roberts @ Jul 4 2005, 12:05 PM) View Post

IPB Image

The above photograph is the Bewley-Ellison House, located at 1301 Summit Avenue. It was built in Quality Hill, Fort Worth's earliest luxury neighborhood as one of the later homes, in 1915. It was renovated for office use in 1963 and again in 1991. It was constructed for Edwin Bewley, president of Bewley Mills. He sold the house in 1929 to Robert Ellison, who was the son of T.B. Ellison, owner of Ellison's Furniture Company. Robert and his wife Margaret lived in the home until both of them passed away. Robert's mother and father lived in a home directly across Summit Avenue. The parent's house was demolished in the 1960's for the construction of the Summit Towers.

The home is planned for demolition for construction of a medical clinic. Do you think it should be saved? Quality Hill was the city's first real luxury neighborhood with many of the homes constructed on the Trinity River bluff being the finest in the neighborhood. This house is only one of seven that remain in the entire area, and one of only three surviving homes south of Lancaster Avenue. It is the only remaining home on Summit. This home is not the finest architectural example in the area. It is rather plain, but it is a reminder of days gone by here in Fort Worth. What do you think? Please vote and express your opinions. The case will be heard by the Historic & Cultural Landmarks Commission on July 11th at 2:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton.



#34 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fort Worth Texas
  • Interests:History, Historic Preservation, Art, Antiques

Posted 17 April 2006 - 07:08 PM

seriously what good would it do us to write or call them and express our dissapointment? Its all about one thing and one thing only...CASH..have you looked around FTW lately? Everywhere you look something has been demolished and something posh and ritzy put in its place. I thought that the idea of FTW was "small town feel" It seems we as usual are succomb to the "power of the almighty dollar" It really angers me in a way because its sad to see our city have this happen but it makes it grow. I dont know what is worse having our city grow at the expense of our identy or having a city that does not grow and just remains the same.

#35 hipolyte

hipolyte

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Interested in history, art & architecture, classic automobiles, good food, music & live theater.

Posted 18 April 2006 - 01:16 PM

Things change...and so will our sense of identity. Maybe a hundred years from now, people will be wailing about the demolition of whatever nightmare replaces this house.
I agree that it's too late to speak our minds to the landowner.
Even if we made our dismay felt by boycotting any business that appears in that location, we are such a small percentage that our wrath would go unnoticed.
And the ultimate business owner would probably not be the responsible party anyway.
Where our letters and voices need to go is to the city leaders, demanding better protections for historic structures.

#36 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 18 April 2006 - 02:28 PM

QUOTE(courtnie @ Apr 13 2006, 09:48 PM) View Post

What a shame, just another peice of FW history being torn down to be replaced with something more modern and chic..makes me sick sad.gif

So no one knows what's going to be built there.? I've seen FW's idea of modern and chic, so what will go there will probably be another unimaginative bland box with lots of surface parking. I hope I'm wrong, though. I always did like the the old house.

#37 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dirty suburbs

Posted 18 April 2006 - 02:55 PM

It's going to be a medical office building.

#38 ochona

ochona

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 18 April 2006 - 05:49 PM

I am very much saddened that this house is gone. It is a shame.

The house (to me) was reminiscient of very early Frank Lloyd Wright / late Prairie School architects like George Maher, which is understandable given the 1915 construction date. No info on the builder, I imagine, but he probably had some knowledge second- or third-hand of the Prairie School.

Some of the characteristics of the homes of followers of Wright such as Maher include profoundly simple expression of mass in masonry (look at the corners), use of platonic geometries in facade composition (the porch opening is divided into three squares by the columns; the window bays above are also squares), rigid symmetry, hip roofs, and simplified classicist details (the columns).

The house had a quiet, confident simplicity that to me would not look out of place in a neighborhood such as you would find in the Chicago suburb of Oak Park, the suburb that made Frank Lloyd Wright famous. I am sure this house could have at least been moved to a more suitable location...you know, Texas' best house movers (H.D. Snow) are out of Fort Worth.

Surely something could have been done. This is an utter shame. I could hardly believe it when I read down the thread to see its demise. I could quote Joni Mitchell, but Counting Crows already ruined that song for me.

#39 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 19 April 2006 - 08:08 AM

QUOTE(ochona @ Apr 18 2006, 06:49 PM) View Post

I am sure this house could have at least been moved to a more suitable location...


I see two extremely important points in your statement. First, the idea that the house needed a more suitable location is important. Second, that there were alternatives to demolishing the house that were available to the people that cared about the house.

The number one rule in real estate is "Location, Location, Location". This house just wasn't in the right location. That was bound to catch up to it in time. 90 years ago it was the right location, but things have changed. It's remarkable that the house made it this long. You just can't violate the first rule and expect it to work out. The first rule of restaurants probably has something to do with not having bad food. Eventually restaurants with bad food pay the price. The first rule of banking is to charge higher interest than you pay. Evenutally banks that charge insufficient interest pay the price. That just wasn't a good place for a house. Or even a historical monument for that matter.

The second thing is that the people who really cared about the house could probably have saved it if they could have come up with the money to move it. What would that have cost? $50,000? If it is that important to you, right the check. Or at least go out and try to raise the money. How fair is it to say, "Hey, I like your building. Now, I personally won't help you defray the cost of owning it, but I sure think you should keep it like it is regardless of how much that may cost you."

If you liked the building, you should have tried to find a way to make it economically viable for the building to continue to exist. Time spent complaining is time wasted.

#40 ochona

ochona

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 19 April 2006 - 10:08 AM

Unfortunately for me I had only found out about the demolition after the fact...in other words, I only opened this thread up yesterday.

It's up to the community to decide what the value of its buildings are, and whether they're worth keeping or not. Personally, my impression is that this was a building that Fort Worth as a whole didn't think was worth saving. Whether or not that's a good thing, I can't say, I'm only one person.

My impression is also that Fort Worth decided it was better to have an Arabian Nights-style shopping center at Hulen and I-30 instead of the beautiful grassy lawn that used to be in front of Fay Jones' Leonard Chapel. Economics drove that decision, too. Is it good or not? I can't say, I'm only one person.

And so on and so on. I can say that these types of decisions are what convinced me that Fort Worth is not the best place to practice architecture.

#41 ochona

ochona

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 19 April 2006 - 11:19 AM

More to say about this: for someone or a group of people to say, "Hey, you better keep this house here, and no, I'm not going to pay one cent to help you do it" is indeed a taking and presumptuous. It certainly violates the very basic notion of property rights. And despite my attempts at mellifluosity in defense of the house, it probably wasn't the strictly economic best use of the site.

Sure. But just from a community standpoint, you have to ask: do we need another just-a-medical-office-building in place of something that is a reminder of our past?

If the community had been interested (and it wasn't) then some deal could have been struck. You try to tear down a 1915 house to build a medical office building in Austin, you better get the demo permit on a Friday afternoon when everyone is on the bike trails and then demo it that same night. Because otherwise you WILL be confronted.

Frankly I am sure this house could have been folded into any new use or moved if the effort had been expended on all sides. Justifying this move by saying that, hey, money talks is to throw up your hands in defeat. "The free market" works only in its own (short-term) interest. You could justify the loss of a historic house as a market failure. That's where government comes in.

Last point: I might also be the only one on this forum to aesthetically defend the old Ripley Arnold housing projects. While they were certainly very much neglected they were somewhat safe, accessible to downtown, and frankly with a nice coat of paint and some effort to make them mixed-income, they could have been very nice. But instead the residents were unceremoniously moved elsewhere and RadioShack got the land. Look where RadioShack is now. In five years will the company even be in business?

Here in Austin we have a concrete frame where Intel said it was going to build a research center. 2001 hit and no mas -- they stopped framing four floors up. To give them the land the city destroyed one of the very hearts of Austin's music scene, the Liberty Lunch nightclub. Good in the economic short term -- but the city made more money on tax revenues from that club than they ever made from Intel.

#42 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 19 April 2006 - 12:12 PM

QUOTE(ochona @ Apr 19 2006, 11:08 AM) View Post


Fort Worth is not the best place to practice architecture.



You just figured that out???? Take a look around.

#43 ochona

ochona

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 19 April 2006 - 12:26 PM

I figured it out the day they put a Styrofoam facade on the Civil Courts Building back in the 80s.

#44 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 19 April 2006 - 02:07 PM

I have a couple of things to say about the demoltion of this house. I'm sure many of you know from this forum, I am almost a pure preservationist. (I would have fought the demolition of the Landmark Tower if the previous and current owners had not convinced me that it was better to implode it.)

Although I think the owner of this home would have probably torn it down anyway, I do feel that the failed efforts to save this house fall on the Demolition Delay ordinance as is it currently written in the City of Fort Worth. There is another thread here on the forum that quotes important sections of the Demolition Delay designation. I will add the regulations to this thread after I post this reply. Here are the problems that I see with the ordinance:
  • 180 timer starts ticking the day the Demolition Permit is filed
  • It could be up to one month before the case is heard by the Landmarks Commission
  • A consultation meeting between the ower, city, and interested parties is required; however, the point in time within the 180 days is not regulated. This meeting could occur on day 180 if the owner really didn't want the parties to be able to do anything.
  • The owner is not required to have a development plan in place when seeking the demolition.

With an owner using these four items to his advantage, I think you can see that anyone with a preservation plan for a structure could be left out in the cold after this meeting.

The next thing that I want to say is that through Historic Fort Worth, Inc., I was involved in trying to save this house. The first strike against us was that the meeting was held rather late in the 180 day period. We found a few purchasers that were possibly interested in buying the property. However, it was pretty apparent that the owner really wished to clear the lot and the only true alternative was moving the house.

OK, let's look at moving costs. For an average house, they do run around $50,000. This home was large, two story, and had brick on all four sides. That ran up the costs; however, I can't remember the exact numbers. I think is was more like $75,000 to move it. As many of you know HFW is/was involved with taking Thistle Hill as a gift and having to raise all of the money we need for that home will be a large enough task as it is. The next problem we had as an organization was no raw land to physically move the house. That is one of the biggest dilemmas that we face when people offer us houses. That is also the same problem individuals face if they want to take a house like this. I actually own a vacant lot, in which I could move a historic home. The problem in my case is that it very narrow and a house from Summit Avenue wouldn't physically fit on the lot.

In a couple of parting comments, the owner did agree to leave the home on the site longer than 180 days, giving the interested groups a little more time. He was also under no obligation to let the parties know actually when that demolition would occur. It was up to them to notify the owner if they had a workable plan that fit within the owner's parameters.

This situation is also reminiscent of a recent preservation/demolition event like XTO and the Baker Building/Landmark Tower situation. I'm not going to tell anyone who the owner is, any forum member can do the research if they wish, but the owner of this building has been or is involved in preservation of another major Fort Worth landmark. I guess one could look at this as a trade off.

#45 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 19 April 2006 - 02:28 PM

Here are a few of the rules and regulations regarding Demolition Delay Designations:

D. General Criteria for Designation
The criteria to be applied in order to determine whether sites or structures qualify for designation as Highly Significant Endangered, Historic and Cultural Landmark, Historic and Cultural Landmarks District and Demolition Delay are as follows:
1. Is distinctive in character, interest or value; strongly exemplifies the cultural, economic, social, ethnic or historical heritage of the City of Fort Worth, State of Texas or the United States.
2. Is an important example of a particular architectural type or specimen in the City of Fort
Worth.
3. Has been identified as the work of an important architect or master builder whose individual work has contributed to the development of the City of Fort Worth.
4. Embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant architectural innovation.
5. Bears an important and significant relationship to other distinctive structures, sites or areas, either as an important collection of properties of architectural style or craftsmanship with few intrusions, or by contributing to the overall character of the area according to a plan based on architectural, historic or cultural motif.
6. Possesses significant archeological value, which has produced or is likely to produce data affecting theories of historic or prehistoric interest.
7. Is the site of a significant historic event.
8. Is identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City of Fort Worth, State of Texas or the United States.
9. Represents a resource, whether natural or man-made, which greatly contributes to the character or image of a defined neighborhood or community area.
10. Is designated as a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark or State Archeological Landmark, or is included on the National Register of Historic Places.



Here is some information about designation of Demolition Delay:

G. Designation as Demolition Delay (“DD”)
1. Designation. A structure may be designated Demolition Delay if it satisfies one or more
of the following qualifications:
a. Designated as a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark;
b. Designated as a Texas State Archeological Landmark;
c. Designated as an American Civil Engineering Landmark;
d. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or
e. It meets two or more of the criteria set out in Paragraph D above, and is identified as
a resource within a defined survey district of the historic resources survey or within
a Targeted Plan Area adopted by the City of Fort Worth.
2. Designation of Demolition Delay Property as Highly Significant Endangered or Historic and Cultural Landmark.
a. Owners of structures designated Demolition Delay who have filed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition are subject to a delay in issuance of the permit of up to 180 days. It is the governing body’s intent that owners of such property who have sought a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition shall not be frustrated in their efforts to demolish or sell such property by extension of the
delay period through nomination of property designated Demolition Delay as Highly Significant Endangered or Historic and Cultural Landmark.
b. Accordingly, if an owner of a structure designated Demolition Delay has filed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition or if a demolition permit has been issued to an owner of such structure within the preceding three year period, such structure shall not be nominated for designation as Historic and Cultural Landmark or Highly Significant Endangered. However, an area which includes such structure may be designated as a Historic and Cultural Landmarks District.



Best definition in the Fort Worth Zoning Ordinance of Demolition Delay:

d. Delay of Demolition of Demolition Delay Property: The Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission may not deny an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of property designated or pending designation as Demolition Delay. However, the Certificate of Appropriateness may provide that issuance of a demolition permit may be delayed for up to 180 days after submission of the application in order to permit the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission, City staff, local preservation groups and other interested parties to explore alternatives to demolition or relocation with the owner and persons or entities who have executed a purchase contract or option contract for the purchase of the property, or their representatives. The delay period, which shall not exceed 180 days, shall commence on the date on which an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness is filed with the Historic Preservation Officer. In determining the length of any such delay, the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission shall consider whether delay of such Certificate of Appropriateness will cause unreasonable economic hardship to the owner. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section to the contrary, in no event shall issuance of a demolition permit for property designated or pending designation as Demolition Delay be delayed for more than 180 days after submission of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
5. Consultation Concerning Alternatives During Delay Periods. During any period for which demolition has been delayed, the owner, all persons or entities who have executed a sales contract or option contract for purchase of the property and the developer, or their representatives, shall meet with the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission and City staff, in consultation with local preservation groups and interested parties, in order to explore any alternatives to demolition or relocation which may provide economically
viable uses for the structure or property. The burden shall be on the City to recommend a plan to alleviate the unreasonable economic hardship. City staff shall assist the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission and the owner by performing the studies required to develop a viable alternative plan. Such plan may include, but is not limited to, property tax relief, loans or grants from public or private resources, acquisition of the property by purchase or eminent domain, building code modifications, changes in applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions, including a transfer of development rights, or a variance from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow reasonable beneficial use of the structure or property. At the end of any delay period, if a suitable alternative plan acceptable to the owner has not been approved by the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission, the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission shall issue the Certificate
of Appropriateness for demolition or relocation.


The entire Historic Preservation section can be downloaded as a part of the Zoning Ordinance from the City of Fort Worth's web site.

#46 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 08 February 2007 - 11:18 PM

QUOTE(tricoastal @ Apr 3 2006, 10:57 AM) View Post

QUOTE(John T Roberts @ Apr 2 2006, 09:22 PM) View Post

The Bewley-Ellison House was demolished the week of March 27th.


What a shame. I do not live in Ft. Worth but love the city very much and one of the most important reasons I have always cared about the city is because of its rich architectural heritage. But, it seems that bit by bit, building by building, this is being lost. Those places which make FW unique are disappearing rapidly as the city jumps on the growth bandwagon. I'm all for growth but even though FW leaders give a lot of lip srvice to the city's heritage, they are blinded by the bucks of developers and they look they seem to eager to look the other way while the demolition derby kicks into high gear.

I just got back from another business trip to southern California and I've gotta say that even with all the sprawl and booming growth which seemingly never abates here, you see far more examples of the areas architectural past everywhere you look than you do here in N. Texas.

Maybe for most Texans, faux downtowns in the burb's and rebuilt replicas in the center cities is enough--but IMO we seem to love the myth of this place more than the physical brick and mortar reality that we have had and so willfully destroyed.


Great quote -- and more appropriate now than ever.

WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users