37 replies to this topic

[John T Roberts]

The Andrew Fuller House was completed in 1953 by A. Quincy Jones, an architect of the stars in Hollywood, California. This is one of two homes in Fort Worth designed by Jones. It may possibly be demolished. I've known about the possible demolition for about three weeks, but I decided not to put out the information until the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article. My fellow Board Members and staff at Historic Fort Worth, Inc. have been on this since 2010, around the time HFW did the Designers Show House at the former Eddie Chiles Residence, also designed by Jones. I was very impressed by the Chiles Residence, but I have been told the Fuller House was even a better example of Mid-Century Modern Architecture.

I'm providing a link to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article written by Chris Vaughn so you may learn more about the house, it's history, and why it may be demolished.
http://www.star-tele...hitectural.html

[John T Roberts]

The comments on the house from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's web site have been pretty brutal this morning. Most people here in the city do not appreciate historic preservation.

[John S.]

The comments on the house from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's web site have been pretty brutal this morning. Most people here in the city do not appreciate historic preservation.

Perhaps the greatest understatement you've ever made, John. That's why we are determined to go somewhere else at an age when most people are thinking about settling down for retirement. The Metroplex in general is not a good environment for preservation but, assuming future generations appreciate Mid Century Modern as much as we seem to, in another century saving all of the late 20th century architecture might be considered worthwhile. The same can't be said for 19th century architecture which has almost disappeared completely from the local urban streetscape.

[Keller Pirate]

I read the article, haven't seen the comments, but you will probably lump me in with them. My first reaction was that it was too bad someone didn't take better care of the home so they could reasonably expect a good price for it without the new owner spending $500K to $1M to fix it up. Also when I saw the house it struck me as ugly. When I lived in California I sometimes drove through Beverly Hills and there were lots of this style of home, maybe even by the same architect, I thought they were ugly 40 years ago. My simple mind wondered why such rich people lived in those ugly houses. The other item in the article that caught my attention was the past owners talking about how spread out the floor plan was and how it was inconvenient to live in. Maybe A. Quincy Jones wasn't a great architect of timeless buildings, he just filled a nitch at a time of butt ugly homes from the 1950's.

[Phil Phillips]

I read the article, haven't seen the comments, but you will probably lump me in with them. My first reaction was that it was too bad someone didn't take better care of the home so they could reasonably expect a good price for it without the new owner spending $500K to $1M to fix it up. Also when I saw the house it struck me as ugly. When I lived in California I sometimes drove through Beverly Hills and there were lots of this style of home, maybe even by the same architect, I thought they were ugly 40 years ago. My simple mind wondered why such rich people lived in those ugly houses. The other item in the article that caught my attention was the past owners talking about how spread out the floor plan was and how it was inconvenient to live in. Maybe A. Quincy Jones wasn't a great architect of timeless buildings, he just filled a nitch at a time of butt ugly homes from the 1950's.

Funny!
When someone sold off the surrounding land for development in the 90s, it really messed up this property. Looking at old aerial photos, it was out by itself. Now, it is surrounded by new homes and really doesn't fit in at all. I'm not real sure why Amon III wouldn't take 600k with house when he probably will get a lot less for just the land if he demolishes.

[hannerhan]

Funny!
When someone sold off the surrounding land for development in the 90s, it really messed up this property. Looking at old aerial photos, it was out by itself. Now, it is surrounded by new homes and really doesn't fit in at all. I'm not real sure why Amon III wouldn't take 600k with house when he probably will get a lot less for just the land if he demolishes.

Exactly. Based only on what I read in the article, it seems as though Amon is most to blame here. He has left the house abandoned for the past 4 years and he won't sell it for a reasonable price. If he really cared about the house, neither of those things would be true.

[Owen]

To think, I lived all those years in Ridglea (1956-67} and never knew of that house.

[cberen1]

I read the article, haven't seen the comments, but you will probably lump me in with them. My first reaction was that it was too bad someone didn't take better care of the home so they could reasonably expect a good price for it without the new owner spending $500K to $1M to fix it up. Also when I saw the house it struck me as ugly. When I lived in California I sometimes drove through Beverly Hills and there were lots of this style of home, maybe even by the same architect, I thought they were ugly 40 years ago. My simple mind wondered why such rich people lived in those ugly houses. The other item in the article that caught my attention was the past owners talking about how spread out the floor plan was and how it was inconvenient to live in. Maybe A. Quincy Jones wasn't a great architect of timeless buildings, he just filled a nitch at a time of butt ugly homes from the 1950's.

I'd like to start by saying I've never taken a class on art or architecture, so if I mis-speak on something, please correct me. It won't hurt my feelings at all.

For me, good architecture is a lot like art. There are plenty of artists in the world who can paint a vase of flowers that is more or less indistinguishable from everyone else's paintings of vases of flowers (think Keller). There are some who paint exceptional vases of flowers (think Southlake). And there are those who turn the proverbial vase of flowers on its head. Sometimes it inspires critics and falls flat with the public and sometime it rolls the other way.

I don't think that broad and enduring public appeal can be the only criteria for judging art or architecture as being "good". In the case of this house, it seems like a very clean, "cool" place. It's not the style of home that I want to live in, but I'd love to go to a cocktail party there. I can easily see contemporary art on the walls, waiters with trays of various exotic meats and cheeses and pretty people wearing clothes meant to impress other pretty people. I know there are people who love that style of home. Some art just isn't univerally loved. That doesn't make it bad art.

Also, to further the art analogy, that period of archtecture to me is a little like the cubism movement. As I understand it (and there are people much more well versed in this than I am on this forum) cubism attempts to rethink the way we conceive art by throwing out several almost universally accepted assumptions about what makes art good. I don't think anyone ever thought cubism would wholesale improve upon and eventually replace more conventional styles. But rather that by completely rethinking how art is approached artists could explore concepts that conventional styles simply didn't allow. Similarly it looks to me like that period of architecture freed people to design homes in a whole new way, elements of which endure today, even though the flat unadorned exteriors haven't.

Here's where I see it. (I said up top that I've never taken an architecture class or an art class, so I probably need a little help here)

1. It seems like the work of this period popularized the open floor plan concepts that Frank Lloyd Wright pioneered. Those open floor plans dominate residential architecture now. So, while that house may seem ugly on the outside when viewed through the lense of what is popular today in the suburbs, it and its contemporaries are partially responsible for the way homes are designed today.

2. It seems like this was the beginning of broad use of really large windows in residential spaces. The windows themselves have changed quite a bit, but it seems like even on revival architecture the windows used today are much larger than what was used 100 years ago. More natural light. Incorporating the outside areas as extensions of the inside space. All good stuff.

Anyway, that's what I see in that house. I'm sure I've revealed yet again my genuine ignorance of architecture. Mostly, I just like looking at buildings.

It looks like a cool place to me. Hate to see it go. But it's private property. Imagine if I had a Picasso in my house and I just decided to burn the darn thing because I didn't like to look at it. It would be a shame, but there's not much anyone could do to stop me.

[Keller Pirate]

I don't have any educational background in architecture either. I did look up A. Quincy Jones on Wikipedia and I was too harsh on him. According to Wiki he didn't always stick to this stye of home and he built his home with steel framing and hoped it would catch on because he was worried about forest depletion because of home construction. As far as this style house goes, my opinion is mine alone and you can have it rather cheaply. The style we are talking about always reminded me of a WWII concrete bunker, I guess it is the lack of a roof pitch. What ever one's opinion, it seems unfortunately, this Picasso is worth less than its frame.

[Doohickie]

"Demolition looms for architectural wart in west Fort Worth"

Fixed the ST headline. I am no trained architect, just a casual reader of this forum. I do have an appreciation of historical preservation. However, I don't see this particular property as being the best of anything, except maybe as a bad example of mid-20th century architecture.

I think my opinion is relevant in that it probably represents the "John Q. Public" view. I think most people who are not architects would look at this house and go, "Ew."

[pmburk]

Funny!
When someone sold off the surrounding land for development in the 90s, it really messed up this property. Looking at old aerial photos, it was out by itself. Now, it is surrounded by new homes and really doesn't fit in at all. I'm not real sure why Amon III wouldn't take 600k with house when he probably will get a lot less for just the land if he demolishes.

Exactly. Based only on what I read in the article, it seems as though Amon is most to blame here. He has left the house abandoned for the past 4 years and he won't sell it for a reasonable price. If he really cared about the house, neither of those things would be true.

ITA with this completely.

I live in Ridglea Hills not far from the house, and I have always thought it was neat.

The problem in this scenario seems to be Carter's abandonment & lack of maintenance on the home, and refusal to sell for a reasonable price. In the article he is quoted as saying, "I did everything I could to preserve the house." Eyeroll.

[pmburk]

Any updates on this story?

I read back in March that the home was listed for sale around $700K. I tried looking it up today and the MLS listing is no longer active. Anyone know if it sold or if demolition is still on?

[John T Roberts]

I don't have any new information. The last I heard was that everything was in limbo.

[Dismuke]

This is the first time I have seen this thread - and, unfortunately, the "view photo" link on the Star-Telegram article no longer works (at least the story is still up - which is more than what usually happens when I click on S-T links in old threads). So all I have to go by is the tiny picture that is still there. And, in the name of full disclosure, this is NOT my favorite period of architecture - though, oddly enough, certain types of mid-century architecture have kind-of sort-of grown on me over time which is something that, in years past, I would not have thought possible.

With that out of the way - here is my question for those who are upset over the house's possible demolition: Would there be a similar level of concern or even any concern at all if the exact same house had, in fact, been designed by someone other than A. Quincy Jones?

Let's say that, instead, it was designed by Horace Groober a World War II vet who landed a job as an assistant to an obscure, undistinguished local architect whose main work was drawing up plans for warehouses and inexpensive cookie cutter tract homes. In 1950 Groober saved the life of the first owner of the house who, in gratitude, turned away A. Quincy Jones and gave Groober the commission in order to further his career. Shortly afterwards, however, Groober sold a patent he developed to make wrapping toilet paper around the cardboard tube more efficient for which he received $1 million. Groober immediately retired and bought a large ranch with a small lake and a trailer house and spent the rest of his life happily fishing in the lake and puttering in his vegetable garden. The only other buildings he designed were a root celler and a cinder block chicken house.

If that had been the story behind the house would its fate be any more significant than some other random house of a similar size and style from the period? If so, why?

[John T Roberts]

Dismuke, I have not been inside, or even very close to the house, so answering your question will be a little difficult. I would say that there would probably be about the same level of concern if it were designed by another architect who was totally unknown. According to some friends at Historic Fort Worth, who have been inside the house, it is an architectural masterpiece. From what I have been told, each major room is designed to a different geometric shape and the house has some really unique features. I have even been told that it is a better example of Mid-Century Modern than some of the more well known examples (A. Quincy Jones Eddie Chiles Residence).

As you know I get very passionate when the city, state, or country is losing one of a limited number of structures. Fort Worth has 2 A. Quincy Jones homes, and we may be losing half of our building stock from this architect. In my opinion, this is not acceptable. For the record, I have been inside the Eddie Chiles House, and it really made me appreciate Jones' talents as a designer and architect.

Below is a link to the house description on Historic Fort Worth's Most Endangered List. This may offer a little better photograph.
http://historicfortw...75/Default.aspx

[Dismuke]

Where is the Eddie Chiles house at? I would be interested in driving past it to take a look. I do remember Chiles being a very famous local figure.

As for the Fuller house, I would be the very last person in the world qualified to judge whether the thing ought to be regarded as a masterpiece of mid-century residential architecture. If you had asked me ten years ago, I would have seriously doubted that such a masterpiece could be possible. Today I am a bit more open to the notion. Let's just say that compared to some of the pretentious yet shabby houses they are putting up today the mid-century stuff suddenly starts to look better in my eyes than when I was a kid and the stuff was as commonplace as dirt.

And I am rather sympathetic towards saving even relatively undistinguished mid century commercial structures because examples that have not been unrecognizably altered have suddenly become quite rare. When I was a kid they were still very commonplace though, perhaps, in the early stages of showing some age. But anymore - besides a few smallish office buildings, how many in Fort Worth are left? And it is in the realm of the commercial structures where my appreciation for mid-century stuff started taking root.

On the other hand, houses from that era are still very common - probably because there is not the same pressure to stay "up to date" and competitive with a house as with a commercial building. Those who want a more "up to date" house will probably move to a different house than radically alter an existing one. So, on that basis, I would say the standard of what is worthy of special recognition and saving should be somewhat higher for houses of that era than commercial buildings.

[Dismuke]

A somewhat on topic article in the Detroit Free Press that was just lined to by Instapundit:

Blog writer helps owners restore their midcentury homes

[McHand]

Ridglea Hills has some beautiful mid century homes. Is the house in a neighborhood with others? Because if so, I would be concerned with what would go up in its place if it is demolished. That alone is reason enough for neighbors to have an opinion.

[pmburk]

^ The home is in Ridglea Hills, but the actual street that it is on is a very small cul-de-sac with newer "McMansion" 1990s type homes. I believe it is the only mid-century home on that street. I doubt the other homeowners on the street know the home's history or care one way or the other.

[John T Roberts]

It is the only Mid-Century Modern home on the street and in that part of the neighborhood. All of its neighbors were built after that portion of the property belonging to the house was sold off and subdivided. When originally constructed, the house even had a completely different street address, both by number and by name.

[hannerhan]

Another lesson that should be learned here, especially if you're planning on building a masterpiece of a home and would like it to last several generations, is to build it in the right location. If this home was built in Westover around the Chiles house it would have very likely been maintained to a better standard and would be a great show home for some wealthy family. But what multi-millionaire wants to live right there where the home is? Nobody.

There are lots of examples of this type of thing happening, where the owner eventually takes a bath on the home and it falls into disrepair because it was built in an area of static or declining land values where wealthy people don't want to live. There are a few great homes in East Fort Worth around Woodhaven CC, and it's a shame that they will ultimately end up trashed and worth a fraction of what they ought to be. But in the end those owners bet on the wrong neighborhood, just like the builder of this home did. Eddie Chiles made a much more shrewd decision.

Look at the Lasseter house or the Ann Bass house. The latter of those in particular would be destined for the scrap heap if it wasn't located where it is, but the high value of the land under those homes ensures that someone capable of maintaining it will be the next owner. Of course you might still get someone that wants to scrape a home like that on expensive dirt (happens a lot in old Highland Park), but the odds of a home sticking around would likely be better in the better neighborhoods I think.

[Dismuke]

I am guessing that when the house was built, there were few, if any neighbors - which, if so, was probably why the location appealed to the owner. Some people just don't want neighbors at all - wealthy or otherwise.

[mmmdan]

I am guessing that when the house was built, there were few, if any neighbors - which, if so, was probably why the location appealed to the owner. Some people just don't want neighbors at all - wealthy or otherwise.

Exactly. A quick look at historicaerials shows that it wasn't until the late '70s that the neighborhood started closing in around the house. This house is also close to the abandoned country club. The neighborhood could have been very different had the country club been built.

http://www.historica...22362&year=1979

[hannerhan]

I am guessing that when the house was built, there were few, if any neighbors - which, if so, was probably why the location appealed to the owner. Some people just don't want neighbors at all - wealthy or otherwise.

Right, but new Westover was the same way at the time...there was plenty of opportunity over there to buy 5+ acre tracts where one could have lots of privacy. Turns out that one location did really well over time and one did not.

[Doohickie]

...and how would the original builder know that one area would remain a wealthy area while another wouldn't? It's a crap shoot and it depends on more than the immediate neighborhood. It also depends on the development of the surrounding area.

[hannerhan]

...and how would the original builder know that one area would remain a wealthy area while another wouldn't? It's a crap shoot and it depends on more than the immediate neighborhood. It also depends on the development of the surrounding area.

Yes it depends on lots of things. But it's definitely not random/chance/a crap shoot. One can look at the proximity to jobs and to other nice areas of town and have a pretty good idea of what a safe investment will be.

If you ask me, a $750k lot on River Crest CC or across from Colonial CC is basically guaranteed to increase in value over the next 20 years, but I don't know if a similarly priced lot on Mira Vista CC will do so as well. The central city and proximity to the arts, jobs downtown, Dallas, higher education centers, etc all comes with the first 2 locations. Mira Vista was thought of 20 years ago as the heir apparent to Westover, but in the end are people really going to want to live out there enough to justify the land premiums? Hulen Mall and that general area seem to be going downhill by the year. Traffic in Cityview is terrible. What new/trendy store has opened South of I-20 in the past 5 years? If I was in the market to build a $3 million home, I would be thinking about these things VERY carefully.

I know this isn't exactly apples to apples, but my argument is that it's not just random, how neighborhoods turn out.

[Dismuke]

Right, but new Westover was the same way at the time...there was plenty of opportunity over there to buy 5+ acre tracts where one could have lots of privacy. Turns out that one location did really well over time and one did not.

That is absolutely correct. But as mmmdan pointed out, back in the early 1950s, it would have been impossible to know which location would have fared better decades into the future. Also keep in mind that the house and its original property was located literally across the street from Ridglea Country club which opened a year or two later and, presumably, was in the planning stages when the house was built. In the '50s, one might have thought that the area could have become the next Rivercrest while being suspicious about the long term prospects for Westover Hills due to its proximity to Carswell, Westworth Village and River Oaks.

The other thing, of course, is that most people who build a house don't put much, if any, thought into what might happen to it and its neighborhood too far beyond their family's expected use of it - especially given that it is difficult or impossible to predict.

Finally, the people of that generation who advocated for and built the sort of houses we are talking about here tended to NOT be at all sensitive to issues regarding historical preservation - and, I would go so far as to suggest that many had outright disregard for older buildings. People, of course, are individuals, and I may be entirely wrong about the particular individuals in question, but I suspect that there is a very good chance that the person who built that house was most likely NOT inclined to have been at all sympathetic towards the plight of endangered 60 year old Victorian mansions which were being knocked down right and left during that period.

By the way, the above is one of the reasons I have a certain ambivalence when it comes to the preservation of post World War II structures. When I was a kid, full of passion and enthusiasm for the beauty and aesthetic grandeur of pre-war structures, I found myself in countless arguments over the desirability of preserving such buildings with adults who were advocates of post war modernism. I was told that I was "out of step with the times" and that the buildings I admired were "out of date" and that my arguments regarding the aesthetics of older verses newer buildings were "not practical." And, sometimes those arguments could be especially annoying because, when one of the parties to the argument is a child, the person on the other end of the argument sometimes takes that as license to be condescending.

Therefore, it was a bit strange years later as an adult when I started to hear people make the exact same arguments that I made when I was a child with regard to the same sorts of post war buildings advocated by those who completely poo-pooed everything I said. The people who put up a lot of mid-century structures - particularly urban commercial structures - tended to be the very same people who gleefully bulldozed our cities out of much of their late 19th and early 20th century beauty and charm and left a far more bland and antiseptic world in their place. These weren't just people who failed to appreciate the architecture and aesthetics of the past - they often spoke of it in very denigrating terms and those who failed to "keep up with the times" and buy into the new stuff being put forth as "progress" were looked down upon as well. So, quite frankly, now that THEIR buildings are considered "old" and "out of date" there is a part of me that finds it very difficult to grant THEIR buildings and THEIR aesthetics the same sort of respect that they refused to grant the buildings and aesthetics of the period that I admired.

I should be quick to point out that my emotional sentiments described above do NOT constitute a valid argument against the desirability of preserving worthy structures from that period. But it is an emotion that I definitely feel from time to time given my context of having become interested in pre-World War II buildings at a very early age long before anybody coined the term "mid century." And, as I have become older, my own views towards certain aspects of the post war world have mellowed and become somewhat more nuanced. As a child, I saw the post war world in sharp contrast to the pre-war world and, given my passion for the pre-war world, found the post war world lacking. I still find it lacking. But, today, I am also able to contrast the post war world with what came afterward which adds a new perspective to it. And, finally, over time, I realized that to appreciate something, you have to be able to so so on its own terms. To appreciate the 1950s one cannot do so if one's mind is focused on some other period in history that one prefers.

Still, there is a part of me that cannot resist the emotion of a certain sense of petty payback and justice when a post war building whose primary virtue over the older structure demolished to clear way for it was claimed to be that it was trendy and "new" and "modern" and "up to date" and "practical" is unceremoniously knocked down on grounds that it is old fashioned, out of date, obsolete and impractical.

[Doohickie]

If you ask me, a $750k lot on River Crest CC or across from Colonial CC is basically guaranteed to increase in value over the next 20 years, but I don't know if a similarly priced lot on Mira Vista CC will do so as well. The central city and proximity to the arts, jobs downtown, Dallas, higher education centers, etc all comes with the first 2 locations. Mira Vista was thought of 20 years ago as the heir apparent to Westover, but in the end are people really going to want to live out there enough to justify the land premiums? Hulen Mall and that general area seem to be going downhill by the year. Traffic in Cityview is terrible. What new/trendy store has opened South of I-20 in the past 5 years? If I was in the market to build a $3 million home, I would be thinking about these things VERY carefully.

I know this isn't exactly apples to apples, but my argument is that it's not just random, how neighborhoods turn out.

That is absolutely correct. But as mmmdan pointed out, back in the early 1950s, it would have been impossible to know which location would have fared better decades into the future.

Applied to hannerhan's scenario above, let's throw the Chisholm Trail Parkway into the mix. One scenario is that the parkway leads to overdevelopment in the area nearby Mira Vista and property values plummet because no one wants to live in the overbuilt area. OR, the CTP brings people from out of the area into that part of the city, making it prosperous but not overcrowded, and Hulen Mall, the new development on I-20 & Winscott become the commercially viable bookends that help support an enclave of trendy shops along Bryant Irvin (the shops being attracted to buyers of fine cars in that area- look at all the high-end dealerships there already). Either scenario has some likelihood to play out; how could someone planning to build a house in or near Mira Vista now figure out which will occur? Only time will tell.

That, by the way, is something that vexes me from time to time. I will see an area that is doing rather well, but project back in time and wonder what seeds led to that? Look at Fairmount: Thirty years ago, you'd be nuts to buy into that slum. Now it's on an upward swing and homes there are sought after.

[Dismuke]

That, by the way, is something that vexes me from time to time. I will see an area that is doing rather well, but project back in time and wonder what seeds led to that? Look at Fairmount: Thirty years ago, you'd be nuts to buy into that slum. Now it's on an upward swing and homes there are sought after.

And who would have thought in the early 1990s that West Seventh between University and downtown would become a trendy residential/restaurant/entertainment/shopping district?

I remember in the late 1990s reading articles by futurists predicting the decline of major cities on grounds that emerging digital technology would enable people in high paying jobs to work from anywhere. According to them, large numbers of people would be able to telecommute full time. There have always been lots of people who would love to live in some quiet, picturesque small town but are unable to do so because of a lack of jobs. The prediction was it would become possible - and the result would be that small towns would become viable again and service jobs that cannot be done at a distance would suddenly be in demand in such towns by the telecommuters.

That has yet to happen on any scale that has significantly impacted small towns. And the trend already underway at the time of a revival of the central city has continued. But, given a few more decades, perhaps the shift to small towns will happen.

Predicting the future is difficult - and if a person could do so with certainty, he would soon become very wealthy.

[Owen]

The trend to small towns may not pan out, after all, not because people won't have to travel to get to work in the totally digital age, but they'll still want to travel to be where the press-the-flesh action is. That argues for large cities with one or more lifely centers.

[Dismuke]

The trend to small towns may not pan out, after all, not because people won't have to travel to get to work in the totally digital age, but they'll still want to travel to be where the press-the-flesh action is. That argues for large cities with one or more lifely centers.

You make a very valid point. For many people, small town life even under the best of circumstances would be limiting and restrictive.

On the other hand, there are also many people who live in major metro areas who, besides the employment opportunities, make only minimal use of the amenities that a big city has to offer.

If you are happily married and have a family and spend most of your free time doing things around the house or engaged in activities such as little league sports and if you do pretty much all of your shopping at mainstream grocery and retail stores and going out for entertainment usually consists of perhaps seeing a mainstream first run movie - well, one could very easily live that exact same life style in a small town. And there are a LOT of people in any major metro area who fall into that category.

There are a great many people who find small towns or the thought of living out in the country to be very appealing. As with most things, there are trade offs involved.

[Doohickie]

The trend to small towns may not pan out, after all, not because people won't have to travel to get to work in the totally digital age, but they'll still want to travel to be where the press-the-flesh action is. That argues for large cities with one or more lifely centers.

That's one thing I like about Fort Worth- there isn't just a single downtown area. There is Downtown, the Near Southside, the Stockyards, the West 7th, the Museum District, Camp Bowie, TCU/Colonial area, etc., etc.

[John T Roberts]

Another preservation victory! Is the city beginning to turn the tide on preserving its architectural masterpieces? A buyer has stepped forward and purchased this house. Most people are assuming that it will be restored. Chris Vaughn, who wrote the article about the possible demolition of the house in January has prepared this follow-up on the house.

http://www.star-tele...se-in-fort.html

By the way, I've been sitting on this all weekend. I've known since Friday.

[McHand]

Wow, that looks like something on Mad Men. I hope the kitchen is preserved, or at least the appliances salvaged if the new owner renovates.

[mmiller2002]

Whoa, what a mosquito breeding pool.

The house is so retro cool!

[RD Milhollin]

Renovation of the Fuller House is complete, several photos accompany this S-T article:

 

http://www.star-tele...s-makeover.html

[Mtuggle76]

Wow. A. Quincy Jones designed house here. He did several mid century modern home plans for Joseph Eichler in california. There is/are house/homes by cliff may in Dallas (I know, not Fort Worth, but the metro area), another famous mid century architect with many very nice homes in california.  I guess california has been trying to ruin Texas since probably the fifties.

[John T Roberts]

A few years ago, Historic Fort Worth had an A. Quincy Jones architectural tour.  We toured this house and his other home in the Fort Worth Area.  He also designed the Eddie Chiles House in Westover Hills.  You will need to find the location of the Eddie Chiles House on your own.  We have a policy on this forum not to discuss private residential properties where we can tie the actual address to the current owner, especially if they reside at that address.  We also do not mention the names of the owners of any residential property.  At the time that I posted this thread, the Fuller House was coming up for demolition.  It was also vacant.  Through Historic Fort Worth, newspaper articles, and the news media, the Fuller House was saved.