D.6.2 - 2501 Inwood Pl - Presentation VGA — original pdf

Backup

Vincent Gerard & associates, inc. McMath House Property Evaluation 1) Age: Building permits put the construction of the house and the addition in the year 1948 and 1952 respectively, making this a 74-year-old home. 2) The buildings structural integrity has degraded quickly since McMath’s death in 1992. There are Trees that lean on the structure, patio support beams that have rotted and water damage on the garage I beam as seen in photos. (See structural engineer John McIntyre report exhibit B) 3) In our opinion this property meets one of the four proposed criteria for it to be determined for landmark designation. a. The architecture is a mix of three or more architectures and does not conform to the styles of International or Mid-century Modern as shown below. b. McMath and his wife Frances Marian, were a beloved member of the local University community hosting student study abroad trips to Monterey where the majority of Hugh’s study and design took place. Hugh makes note that the majority of his work was on documenting the influence of American Architecture on Mexico, not the other way around. Hugh was the interim director of the school of architecture during its transition from the school of engineering but was not the author of the movement merely the acting director and then the official director for 1 and for 5 years respectively. During McMath’s LAND PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT & ZONING CONSULTANTS 1715 SOUTH CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY • SUITE 207 • AUSTIN, TEXAS 78746 VINCENTGERARD.COM • (512) 328-2693 tenure there were no news articles we discovered exhibiting his architectural prowess like what are seen by other Deans of the school of architecture, Deans who became Titians of the local Austin community. An example of a peer would be the following; c. There are no known prehistoric features on this .4-acre site located at the city’s core. d. The building does not possess a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character image or cultural identity of the city, the neighborhood, or a particular demographic group. This building is barely visible to those off site. e. The landscape is very natural and has a great deal of erosion due to poor drainage of the property.  Features of Mid-century Modern Architecture* • Glass and Large Windows • Straight and Flat Lines • Open and Split-Level Spaces • Minimal Ornamentation and Furniture with Many Built-Ins • Immersed in Nature * https://www.thespruce.com/mid-century-modern-architecture-5072981 Mid-century Modern: Conforming and Nonconforming Features • This home has only one wall of floor to ceiling glass. The window is a 9 pained grid form which is in regular for Midcentury Modern as it separates the occupant from nature which is the opposite goal of the floor to ceiling window design. o Nonconforming • This home would have straight lines if not for the materials it was used to be built from, irregular shaped stone and neglected wood siding does not help retain its clean lines that define midcentury modern. The roof is a jarring combination of Dutch Gable, Skillion Lean To/Clerestory, and Flat Roof. o Nonconforming • There are no sunken living rooms, walkout basements, or half stairs anywhere in the home. A split-level home must include at least three distinct levels separated by short flights of stairs, because there are no half stairs this home also does not qualify as a bi-level home. The connectivity to the outside is distinctly lacking with the faux double doors leading to the highly ornamented back patio creating separation from nature antithesis to Mid- Century Modern. o Nonconforming • There are quite a few built in cabinets in the home creating open space. There is a plethora of Vintage Spanish Gothic Wrought Iron chandeliers that ornament the home one nearly every corner of the building, with noncomplying electrical work exposing holes in the soffit. This is not only architecturally not congruent with Midcentury Modern but also a potential code violation. o Nonconforming • There is no doubt that this home is immersed in Nature, it is barely visible from the road, but the amount of overgrown foliage has allowed for damage to the roof and foundation in certain areas where a tree is resting its load on the building. There is also a great deal of erosion from lack of grass, the property is in desperate need of demolition and rebuild with close attention o Conforming, deteriorated conditions due to neglect, is not conducive to existing trees. for restoration. International* • Visible Steel Frame • Large Panes of Glass • Flat Roof • No Applied Ornament *https://abeautifulmess.com/design-style-101-international-style/ *https://www.architecture.org/learn/resources/architecture-dictionary/entry/international- International: Conforming and Nonconforming Features • There is no Steel frame or industrial feel to this building • There are only grid pattered pains of glass, not the sweeping floor to ceiling glass houses one would expect from the austere international style • This roof is flat, but has several different pitches on the North West side and a Dutch gable running the length north to south where it dead ends into a Clerestory pitched roof. It is very apparent are three competing styles in the o Nonconforming o Nonconforming roof alone. o Nonconforming • There is the Spanish Gothic Wrought Iron chandeliers and much south western styled paint on the outside making it very different than the international adherence to no ornamentation. o Nonconforming style/ Final Analysis • This home is an eclectic mix of architecture and does not conform with midcentury modern or international’s “Must-Have” Elements. This theme while quaint is not conforming to two types or styles of architecture and is very bohemian in theme. The owner, Hugh McMath, while endeared by the community at the university, he does not register as an influential director of the school of architecture especially when compared to his peers. The assumed builder Ned Ansel Cole had a very notable career and was a veteran who built infrastructure for the military was also a successful home builder building many homes in many different cities in Texas and Louisiana. His notable work on the superdome is balanced out by his later work in infrastructure on oil pipelines. He, in our humble opinion did not spend enough time on this house to genuinely cause us to see it as a special project in his long career. Example of nonconforming floor to ceiling glass windows of 2501 Inwood, the lack of glass elsewhere and split level/ Clerestory pitched roof  The irregular stone work, deteriorating wood siding, Spanish Gothic ornamentation, and 9-grid windows are strikingly different from the featured Mid Century Modern homes single pain floor to ceiling glass, and clean, minimal exterior features   The back addition has a little connectivity to the outside with one working door and no floor to ceiling windows. There are what seem to be international windows but lacks the feel of “architecture of the machine age” that industrial steel or any other supporting critical features would have provided.  On the rear addition of this building applied for in 1954 there was added a flat roof with Dutch gable running its length strangely enough. Exhibit A – Hugh McMath Reference   Exhibit B – McIntyre Structural Report Tree’s placing extra load on walls and roof.  Extensive erosion into detached garage due to lack of landscaping. Self-installed lighting, code violation  Cracked mortar indicates foundation movement or mortar failure Siding from the addition  Detached garage water damage of main support cross beam.  Wiring and Roof extension Addition’s foundation next to chimney is built of stone and mortar, must be demolished