B-11 (C14H-2021-0180 - Casa McMath; District 10)_Part2.pdf

Planning Commission – Feb. 22, 2022

B-11 (C14H-2021-0180 - Casa McMath; District 10)_Part2.pdf — original pdf

Backup

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF — Page 1 of 71 pages

Figure 21. Patio 1 of 71B-11 Figure 22. Retrofitted lighting is not hardwired and does not meet code 2 of 71B-11 Figure 23. Garage has rotten fascia 3 of 71B-11 Figure 24. Interior of garage exhibits extensive rot resulting from site grading and drainage challenges 4 of 71B-11 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas Architects and Designers The following architects and designers are presented in order of prominence relative to the Austin Air-Conditioned Village. Ned A. Cole helped select Austin as the site of the experiment through his role as chairman of the National Association of Home Builders air-conditioning subcommittee, served as project manager for the construction, and designed seven of the houses. H. D. Powers designed five houses, J. Eugene Wukasch designed two, and Fred Winfield Day, Jr., W. R. Coleman, and Oran Vaughan each designed one home in the Village. While some found more critical acclaim in their careers than others, collectively their work is representative of mid-century residential design in Austin’s middle class, suburban neighborhoods. Ned Ansel Cole (1917–2008) Ned Ansel Cole was born in Ferris, Texas. He earned a degree in architecture with honors from the University of Texas at Austin in 1939 and subsequently began building houses and teaching in the architecture department. Drafted into the U.S. Army in 1941, Cole served in the South Pacific building infrastructure on Guam and in the Philippines.215 Cole returned to Austin after World War II and with three other veterans founded Fabricon, Inc. The firm designed and produced innovative prefabricated wall storage units that would serve as a centerpiece of Cole’s residential architecture. The founders constructed their factory building in modular sections in a rented garage, before the ultimate site of the facility at 4601 East Fifth Street in Austin had been selected and obtained. The hand-cast concrete block cornerstone of the building reads, “Fabricon, built by four soldiers with their bare hands, 1 June 1946.” In place of traditional site-built, load-bearing walls, the Fabricon wall units turned room dividers into organized storage with built-in sliding doors and drawers. An Austin Statesman article characterized the units as a modern space-saving measure in contrast with outmoded storage methods—“Room-consuming closets, cabinets and trunks are completely out.” 216 Cole’s role in the company was designing the product as well as many of the homes that used it. In response to Austin’s postwar housing shortage, he also designed a four-unit apartment building at 805 W. Tenth Street, replete with Fabricon products, that he and his family occupied along with the other founders. In 1952, Cole designed a demonstration home for the Coleman Company, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas (Figure 41). Prompted by increasing construction of air-conditioned housing, the home provided a training ground for dealers and distributors through nearly fifty copies built in various locations. Though comparable in size and remarkably similar to Cole’s later designs for the Austin Air-Conditioned Village, the house was estimated to sell for $14,000 to $15,000, not including the cost of land; at $1,900, the air-conditioning equipment constituted a high percentage of the price. The same year, Cole also worked with Houston builder P. S. Luttrell on increasing the efficiency of an air-conditioned model intended for large-scale construction.217 Cole was awarded a citation by the ACRI in 1953 for his “initiative and noteworthy leadership in increasing public interest in the use of residential air conditioning.”218 Cole rose to national attention with his design for the NAHB Trade Secrets house (Figures 42–43). Operation Trade Secrets, initiated in 1951 by NAHB president Bill Atkinson, provided a forum for the nation’s leading builders to share innovative cost-cutting strategies and ideas for improving the quality of their product. The initial venture in October was met with such enthusiasm that a series of regional meetings were scheduled later in the year, and a second round of more 215“Ned Ansel Cole,” The Advocate, Sept. 16–18, 2008, accessed Sept. 13, 2020, https://obits.theadvocate.com/obituaries/theadvocate/obituary.aspx?n=ned-ansel-cole&pid=117526971. 216“4 Ex-GI’s Pull New Idea and It Spells Sensation,” The Austin Statesman, Feb. 27, 1948, 15. 217“Air Conditioning Demonstrated,” House & Home 2.4 (Oct. 1952): 140; “Operating Costs are Lower Than You Think…” House & Home 5.3 (Mar. 1954): 110; and “What are the Plans of the Merchant Builders?” 86. 218AAHB and NAHB, Austin Air-Conditioned Village Plan Book, n.p. Section 8 - Page 54 SBR Draft5 of 71B-11 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas than twenty conferences held in 1952.219 As a means of showcasing some of the most notable ideas that surfaced during the meetings, the organizers sought to coalesce the various methods into a single Trade Secrets house to be built throughout the U.S. Of the coordinating committee members, Cole’s status as both architect and builder placed him in an ideal position to design the house, in which he incorporated some of the signature features of his own practice. Tilt-up walls utilizing precut lumber and modular windows, recommendations of the conferences, significantly decreased construction time. Atop these, Cole placed preassembled roof trusses to eliminate the need for interior bearing walls. The resulting open interior provided a notable advantage: sub-contractors could finish walls and flooring without obstructions or the need to cut materials to fit, thereby expediting the process and reducing waste. The trusses also permitted the use of prefabricated or site-built partitions and storage walls, which occupied less floor space and provided more adequate storage than traditional closets. Early in 1953, models of the 1,332 square foot, three-bedroom house were constructed simultaneously by twenty-three builders in fourteen states. Openings drew record crowds, and by May, over 200 builders in the U.S. and Canada had ordered plans for the house. If put into large-scale production, the anticipated selling price of the house was $15,000.220 Cole incorporated a number of planning ideas and construction methods from his earlier work into the house he designed and built with Fabricon for Austin’s Parade of Homes in 1953, itself near-identical to the seven houses he designed for the Austin Air-Conditioned Village. The predominantly rectangular plan, the same from house to house with minor variations, represents a simplification of the L-shaped layout of the Trade Secrets house. Each made use of roof trusses, storage walls, and a new Fabricon item: prefabricated metal gable ends, corrugated to provide attic ventilation (Figures 44–46).221 Despite these commonalities, Cole achieved remarkably diverse exterior appearances in the Air-Conditioned Village homes. Cladding materials included brick, asbestos, and stucco. Variations in massing were effected through the orientation of each house, with its long or short façade facing the street, and the location of its garage or carport, whether abutting the house or connected by a breezeway. The resulting stylistic treatment ranged from a side-gabled Ranch house, with low, horizontal lines, to a front-facing Contemporary dwelling, with exposed beams and columns supporting the gable and detached carport (see Figures 36–37 and 47–48). Cole’s designs for Fabricon were built throughout the state, in Austin, Houston, Fort Worth, and smaller central Texas communities. In 1961, he moved to Baton Rouge to work for another homebuilding company. Shortly thereafter, he founded a consulting firm, ushering in “a second long career as a researcher and consultant for a myriad of projects, including the Superdome in New Orleans, pipelines, geothermal power and many legislative and regulatory issues.”222 In his chronicle of the building of the Superdome, Dave Dixon gives Ned Cole exclusive credit for identification of the site for the stadium as a researcher for Gulf South Research Institute.223 Cole retired in 1983 and died in 2008. 219“Operation Trade Secret,” Architectural Forum 95 (Nov. 1951): 213; “Top Builders Reveal More Trade Secrets,” Architectural Forum 95 (Dec. 1951): 130; and “‘Operation Trade Secrets’ in Full Swing Again,” House & Home 2.2 (Aug. 1952): 108. 220“$15,000 ‘Trade Secrets’ House,” Life 34.1 (Jan. 5, 1953): 8–15; “Is This 1953’s Most Influential House?” House & Home 3.1 (Jan. 1953): 99–107; “First Trade Secrets Houses Attract Record Crowds,” House & Home 3.2 (Feb. 1953): 41; “The Trade Secrets House and the U.S. Builder,” House & Home 3.3 (Mar. 1953): 114–19; and “Trade Secrets Houses Begun in 40 States, Canada, Hawaii,” House & Home 3.5 (May 1953): 55. See also “Ned Cole’s Idea Factory,” Architectural Forum 95 (Aug. 1951): 162–65, 240. 221Cole’s 1953 Parade of Homes entry is located at 4906 Westfield Drive. See “One Big Room Idea Provides for Convenience and Economy,” The American-Statesman, Sept. 20, 1953, E-10 and “What Can You Learn about Summer Cooling from NAHB’s Air- Conditioned Village,” 132. 222“Ned Ansel Cole.” 223Dave Dixon, The Saints, The Superdome, and The Scandal: An Insider’s Perspective (Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing, 2008): 101. Section 8 - Page 55 SBR Draft6 of 71B-11 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas Figure 19. Pictured from left: Ned Cole, Len Haeger, Earl Smith, and Dick Hughes of the National Association of OMB No. 1024-0018 Home Builders at Austin Air-Conditioned Village Information Center, 2501 Twin Oaks Drive. Photo by Dewey G. Mears, “What Can You Learn About Summer Cooling from the NAHB’s Air- Conditioned Village,” House & Home 6.2 (Aug. 1954): 129. Figures - Page 88 SBR Draft7 of 71B-11 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas Figure 36. Utility Home, Ned A. Cole (architect) and George Maxwell (builder), 2602 Park View Drive. OMB No. 1024-0018 Photo by Dewey G. Mears, “Air-Conditioned Village Report,” House & Home 7.3 (Mar. 1955): 152. Figures - Page 102 SBR Draft8 of 71B-11 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas Figure 37. Utility Home, Ned A. Cole (architect) and George Maxwell (builder), 2602 Park View Drive. OMB No. 1024-0018 National Association of Home Builders Research Institute, Residential Air Conditioning: A Summary Report of the Austin Air Conditioned Village Project (n.p., n.d.), 40. Figures - Page 103 SBR Draft9 of 71B-11 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas Figure 41. Coleman Co. Demonstration House, Ned A. Cole (architect), Wichita, Kansas, 1952. OMB No. 1024-0018 “Air-Conditioning Demonstrated when Architect Joins with Manufacturer to Present $15,000 Builder’s House,” House & Home 2.4 (Oct. 1952): 140. Figures - Page 106 SBR Draft10 of 71B-11 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas Figure 42. Trade Secrets House, Ned A. Cole (architect), built in 14 states across the U.S. in 1953. “The Trade Secrets House and the U.S. Builder,” House & Home 3.3 (Mar. 1953): 114. Figures - Page 107 SBR Draft11 of 71B-11 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas Figure 43. Trade Secrets House, Ned A. Cole (architect), built in 14 states across the U.S. in 1953. “The Trade Secrets House and the U.S. Builder,” House & Home 3.3 (Mar. 1953): 119. Figures - Page 108 SBR Draft12 of 71B-11 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas Figure 44. Roof trusses create an open interior in a Ned A. Cole-designed house in the Austin Air-Conditioned OMB No. 1024-0018 Village, 1954. Dewey G. Mears Photograph Archive (AR.2014.029), Austin History Center, Austin Public Library, Texas, May 4, 1954, C-19599. Figures - Page 109 SBR Draft13 of 71B-11 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas Figure 45. Built-in wall storage unit manufactured by Fabricon. Utility Home, Ned A. Cole (architect), George OMB No. 1024-0018 Maxwell (builder), 2602 Park View Drive. Photograph by the author, 2005. Figures - Page 110 SBR Draft14 of 71B-11 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas OMB No. 1024-0018 Figure 46. Prefabricated metal gable vent manufactured by Fabricon. Utility Home, Ned A. Cole (architect), George Maxwell (builder), 2602 Park View Drive. Photograph by the author, 2005. Figures - Page 111 SBR Draft15 of 71B-11 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas Figure 47. Bryant Heater Home, Ned A. Cole (architect), Wallace L. Mayfield (builder), 6602 Nasco Drive. OMB No. 1024-0018 Photo by Dewey G. Mears, “What Can You Learn about Summer Cooling from NAHB’s Air-Conditioned Village,” House & Home 6.2 (Aug. 1954): 136. Figures - Page 112 SBR Draft16 of 71B-11 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places REGISTRATION FORM NPS Form 10-900 Austin Air-Conditioned Village Historic District, Austin, Travis County, Texas Figure 48. Bryant Heater Home, Ned A. Cole (architect), Wallace L. Mayfield (builder), 6602 Nasco Drive. OMB No. 1024-0018 National Association of Home Builders Research Institute, Residential Air Conditioning: A Summary Report of the Austin Air Conditioned Village Project (n.p., n.d.), 8. Figures - Page 113 SBR Draft17 of 71B-1118 of 71B-11Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: High Vincent Huebinger Wednesday, August 18, 2021 3:17 PM Sadowsky, Steve; Allen, Amber Dane Wilkins RE: Item D-6 2501 Inwood Demo Hugh McMath 1.JPG Steve, just left you and Amber a VM. It is indeed a very interesting house but we are not finding the Mid‐century modern aspects on 2501 Inwood based on the industry (architectural) standards. Yes there are some pronounced windows but no lines and angles established in this front elevation or roof. Most mid‐century modern houses built in 1950‐60’s had had lines with open spaces and pronounced split level roofs. The exterior wood is an odd combination and is not repairable. We are preparing some backup material for Landmark commissioners to try to emphasize the lack of element for this agenda. I have another hearing on Monday evening in Grand Prairie, therefore Dane Wilkins out of our office will be on the live line of the meeting. I am assuming that the postponement policy by staff will be granted (since it always is) and this is the last item on the agenda. Knowing the process, I believe you will be requesting postponements at the beginning of the hearing? We did find 2502 Inwood went to your landmark commission in 2018 and was allowed to be demo’d and rebuilt as a combination of mid‐century and eclectic. Others on that block were also demo’d. Regarding Hugh McMath, he was a very impressive tenured professor and acting director for a few years. The most we have found on him are his international trips to Monterrey, his thesis at MIT and some other articles. We can agree to postpone in light of your mention of Ned Cole and Plan con, which we did not discover in our research. The only thing we know about Ned Cole is that he may have been a student of Professor McMath. We also need to finish the structural walk Monday morning for the interior. From the exterior, Mike McIntyre has already found very disturbing damage & conditions, to be documented by the next hearing. We can include his preliminary exterior findings sometime tomorrow morning in the backup. According to his daughter, Hugh did not design the house. Let us know the best way we should proceed and your thoughts on if Laura Burkhart would benefit on having some architectural renderings available next month? She may be able to get someone to prepare something for that time frame. Thanks Vincent G. Huebinger Vincent Gerard & Assoc. Inc 1715 S. Capital Texas Hwy, Suite 207 Austin, Texas 78746 From: Sadowsky, Steve <Steve.Sadowsky@austintexas.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 1:55 PM To: Vincent Huebinger Cc: Dane Wilkins Subject: RE: Item D‐6 2501 Inwood Demo 1 Allen, Amber <Amber.Allen@austintexas.gov> 19 of 71B-11Steve Sadowsky Historic Preservation Officer City of Austin, Texas 974-6454 From: Vincent Huebinger Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 1:47 PM To: Sadowsky, Steve <Steve.Sadowsky@austintexas.gov>; Allen, Amber <Amber.Allen@austintexas.gov> Cc: Dane Wilkins Subject: RE: Item D‐6 2501 Inwood Demo I will let the owner know. Thanks Steve. ; Allen, Amber <Amber.Allen@austintexas.gov> From: Sadowsky, Steve <Steve.Sadowsky@austintexas.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 1:37 PM To: Vincent Huebinger Cc: Dane Wilkins Subject: RE: Item D‐6 2501 Inwood Demo Vince: I am going to recommend postponement of your application to September. There was a lot more to the history of this house than I thought. Steve Sadowsky Historic Preservation Officer City of Austin, Texas 974-6454 From: Vincent Huebinger Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 5:12 PM To: Allen, Amber <Amber.Allen@austintexas.gov>; Sadowsky, Steve <Steve.Sadowsky@austintexas.gov> Cc: Dane Wilkins Subject: RE: Item D‐6 2501 Inwood Demo Yes Ma’am, Dane received it. I will get you our info as soon as possible. ; Sadowsky, Steve <Steve.Sadowsky@austintexas.gov> From: Allen, Amber <Amber.Allen@austintexas.gov> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 3:16 PM To: Vincent Huebinger Cc: Dane Wilkins Subject: RE: Item D‐6 2501 Inwood Demo Hi Vincent, I just sent out an email with this information and more about the upcoming HLC meeting on Monday to all applicants. Let me know if you did not receive it. Otherwise, all backup material is due as soon as possible so both staff and the Commissioners can review them prior to the meeting. I will be uploading all received backup first thing Thursday morning online. The last deadline to upload backup documents is Sunday, August 22nd at noon. 2 20 of 71B-11Amber Allen Planner II, Historic Preservation Office City of Austin – Housing & Planning Department T: 512.974.3393 E: Amber.Allen@austintexas.gov From: Vincent Huebinger Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 12:05 PM To: Sadowsky, Steve <Steve.Sadowsky@austintexas.gov>; Allen, Amber <Amber.Allen@austintexas.gov> Cc: Dane Wilkins Subject: Item D‐6 2501 Inwood Demo *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Steve/Amber – when Is our deadline for us to get all our info to you for the backup material and our presentation? Thanks Vincent G. Huebinger Vincent Gerard & Assoc. Inc 1715 S. Capital Texas Hwy, Suite 207 Austin, Texas 78746 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 3 21 of 71B-11Historic Landmark Commission September 27, 2021 Proposed Demolition Permit 2501 Inwood Austin Texas Prepared for By Vincent Gerard & Associates, Inc. Land Planning, Development & Zoning Consultants 1715 South Capital Of Texas Highway, Suite 207 Austin, Texas 78746 Vincentgerard.com | (512) 328-2693 22 of 71B-11Architectural Summary *Structure – “Midcentury Modern” by Definition MidCentury Modern Preservation Society- Glass and large windows (some), straight flat lines (no), open and split level Spaces (no), minimal Ornamentation & furniture with many build-ins (shelves), immersed in nature (Yes). Residential Structure does not meet Typical Midcentury Modern Further – numerous additions and extensions occurred post 1948 Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood 23 of 71B-11Examples of Midcentury Modern Multiple Lines/Windows/Open Space/Levels Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood 24 of 71B-11Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood 25 of 71B-11Hugh McMath UT School of Architecture Deans, Past & Present Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood 26 of 71B-11Hugh McMath Chairman 1946-50, Acting Chair 1955-56. Would make may trips to Monterrey Mexico Developed courses in the Pre-Hispanic and colonial architecture of Mexico, Is listed as a consultant/Architect for the Instituto Tecnologico of Monterrey Mexico Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood 27 of 71B-11Ned Cole Builder & Developer, President of Fabricon in 1950’s. He was an officer (Treasurer) along 4 others in Plancon (builders) Sold Hugh McMath two Lots on Inwood Place. Started a Prefabrication Company (Fabricon) in East Austin – cabinets and shelves, Key player in developing the “Air Conditioned Village” in Austin Moved to Baton Rouge LA in the 1961. Is 2501 Inwood His best example of architecture? What other Ned Cole Homesites been restored/preserved? Plancon had 3 other partners, did Ned Cole actually build this? Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood Antenna Configuration 28 of 71B-11Fabricon Shelves The current owner Would like to donate the existing shelves & closet in the McMath House To the Austin Historical Society Or the University Of Texas. Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood 29 of 71B-11John McIntyre PE Report Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood 30 of 71B-11Summary *2501 Inwood Does not meet all the criteria for a Historic Structure, *Interesting homesite - 1 Bedroom House, but does not fit into Midcentury Modern, Numerous add-ons and additions, Hugh McMath was certainly a mainstay in the UT School of Architecture however he was not a TITAN as some of the others who came afterward, Ned Cole was a substantial builder in Austin and Key Figure in Air Conditioned Village His Fabricon company, pre-manufactured shelves and cabinets were being introduced all over the country, His work product, McMath’s Cabinets and shelves, have been offered to be preserved by the owner, John McIntyre PE Report unquestionably opined that the structure. is not restorable. Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood 31 of 71B-11M│M│I McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Architects + Engineers + Consultants 9807 Brandywine Circle │Austin, Texas 78750-2803 512.219-9200 │ www.mmibuildings.com │ TBPE #F4730 McMath Residence 2501 Inwood Place Austin, Texas 78703 Condition Observations MMI Job #: 21031 Report Date: August 19, 2021 32 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 2 / 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3 SCOPE OF REPORT ........................................................................................................ 3 EXISTING SITE AND SOIL CONDTIONS ..................................................................... 3 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................... 4 DISCUSSION OFISSUES .............................................................................................. 5 5.0 Site................................................................................................................................. 5 5.1 Garage........................................................................................................................... 6 5.2 House Foundation ....................................................................................................... 6 5.3 House Superstructure................................................................................................. 7 5.4 Electrical........................................................................................................................ 8 5.4 Plumbing ....................................................................................................................... 8 5.5 HVAC.............................................................................................................................. 9 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 9 REPORT LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 10 PICTURES ....................................................................................................................... 12 McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 33 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 3 / 25 1 BACKGROUND Address: McMath Residence 2501 Inwood Place Austin, Texas 78703 Legal Description: Inwood Park Subdivision Lot 9 and E 37.5 Ft. of lot 8 Prop I.D.: 112823 Jurisdiction: City of Austin / Full Purpose Annexation County: Travis County 2 SCOPE OF REPORT It is the intent of this report to provide a summary of observations and evaluations of the conditions of the residence at 2501 Inwood Place, Austin, Texas 78703. The opinions expressed in this report are derived from site reviews, plans, reports, photographs, reference material, building codes and information provided to McIntyre & McIntyre, Inc. (MMI) as well as professional experience in engineering design and construction. The opinions in this report are based on readily visible conditions and available information at the time of the site visit. Destructive testing is beyond the scope of this report unless specifically noted otherwise. 3 EXISTING SITE AND SOIL CONDTIONS Location: This site is located near the intersection of Exposition and Enfield Roads in central west Austin (photo 0). Orientation: For purposes of this report, the front of the house will be considered as facing Northwest. McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 34 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 4 / 25 Soil present: The NRCS (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service) soil maps for this site indicate the site is located in the Fredericksburg Soil Group on shallow soils underlain by limestone, which is confirmed by visible outcroppings throughout the area. Geology: The site is located in the Balcones Fault zone (photo 00), in the transition area between the east/low side of the fault zone (i.e., part of the ancient seashore) and the uplifted west side of the fault zone. Topography: The TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) topographic map indicates that the general terrain slopes toward the Southeast. Movement potential: Anticipated soil movement at this site is low with shallow topsoil over limestone bedrock. Shelf rock is visible at the bottom of the creek under the driveway bridge. 4 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION The following is a brief description of the construction materials and configurations currently in place: Roof: The existing roof is a blend of modified bitumen (garage and flat portion of house) and shallow slope shingles at rear of house. Foundation: The foundation is a conglomeration of a concrete slab on grade (presumed to be conventionally reinforced because of the age as casting) plus several additions that appear to be composed of (unreinforced) stone rubble masonry (such as under the chimney, for example – photo 15). Exterior walls: The exterior wall assembly (from exterior toward interior) is ¾ lap and gap wood siding, felt paper, 2x4 wood studs and ¼” wood paneling. The presence or rating of wall reinforcing could not be determined without destructive testing (which was beyond the scope of this report). Stem walls at the NW utility room are CMU at the lower portion. Windows: The windows are all single pane clear glass (photo 20) in metal frames with no thermal breaks (aka “industrial style”). One window and door on the southeast side of the family room are jalouse type slatted operable windows (photo 61). McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 35 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 5 / 25 Interior walls: Interior walls are drywall or ¼” wood paneling to either side of 2x4 wood studs. Flooring: The interior floors are Saltillo tile throughout, presumably on a thick set mortar bed. Ceilings: Ceilings are drywall to the underside of ceiling joists. Fireplace: The stone masonry fireplace in the front family room appears to have been added sometime after the original construction, although this is not definitive. 5 DISCUSSION OFISSUES 5.0 Site Bridge: The surface planking at the wooden driveway bridge entering this property is near the end of its useful lifetime and should be replaced. The stone masonry abutments supporting each end of the driveway bridge has missing mortar and erosion and should be repaired prior to imposing loads on the bridge. Steps: Steps from the garage to the front door are not uniform and the handrail is deteriorated (and very loose). The steps do not conform to code uniformity requirements. There is no handrail at the four step fight up to the left rear patio from the left front of the house. Badly rusted bolts protruding from the left side of the left rear patio indicate that the guard rail at the patio to grade drop (over 24” in some places) is missing. The existing bolts are so badly deteriorated, they cannot be reused to a new guard attachment. Drainage: The area rises to the back and right of the property. Drainage is routed from the rear right and rear of property, around the back of the property, through two drainage pipes the exit on the left side of the lot (photo 28). These pipes are easily clogged with debris and in the event of overflow, water may rise above finish floor level. Patio: The patio at the left rear side of the house appears composed of square concrete sections that used to have 2x lumber in the section joints (photo 25). There are holes for what appears to have been column anchors (photo 26) that pose a safety hazard. This creates a very uneven and unsafe walk surface. McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 36 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 6 / 25 Guardrails around the southeast perimeter drop off are missing (photo 53-54). A column at the left rear of the property has already been patched at the base (photo 29), is rotting again and no longer bears on the ground. 5.1 Garage Roof: There is readily visible rot at the center of the garage roof overhang. There was active water ponding in the roof above this rot area. The overhead door is in need of repair as well. From casual observation, it appears that water is ponding at several locations on the garage roof. Garage floor/grade separation: Soil grade is above the finish floor on three sides of the garage (photo 7-8). Water stains on the walls and floor and rot at the base of all walls within the garage (photo 9) indicate long term water infiltration to the garage interior. There is rot at the garage overhead door as well (photo 3). 5.2 House Foundation Additions: The foundation is a combination of several additions. There are no plans to indicate the reinforcing and thickness of the slab on grade foundation. The are no permits listed for the various additions on the City of Austin AB+C permit portal. Several of the foundation additions appear to be DIY “old world” stone rubble and mortar style configurations (photo 36). Floor Level: The finish floor was observed to be over 2” out of level by a rough ZipLevel elevation survey. The grades were generally lower at the outside perimeter of the foundation and higher at the middle. Given the numerous foundation additions and the rubble mortar type of construction, it will be very difficult to raise the foundation edges. Finish floor grade separation: The foundation is not 6” above the adjacent finished grade along the rear and right side of the house as required by code. The tops of exterior planters have been constructed too close to the finish floor elevation (photo 12, 18, 20, 41) – to overflow the planter walls, water will be at finish floor. Chimney: There is settlement and cracks in the fireplace and chimney foundation and stone masonry. The fireplace foundation addition appears to have been built over the concrete planter wall that was in place at the time of this (unpermitted) addition. McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 37 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 7 / 25 5.3 House Superstructure Siding: The wood siding is in poor condition around the exterior of the house from long term neglect (Photo 55, for example). For example, the siding is rotted at the room addition adjacent to the fireplace (photo 14, 16). There is, additionally, a roof leak at this room corner (photo 69). The bottom edge of siding is rotting where it is not held off the adjacent flatwork (photo 47). The older siding is oriented vertically and the newer siding is installed horizontally. Exterior wood columns: The wood column at the rear left bedroom corner is not bearing (it is loose) at the base of the column (photo 29). Left side wood porch columns are bearing directly on concrete without an air space as required by code (photo 27). Roof overhang: The roof overhang on the right side appears to have been extended by scabbing on an additional 3 feet (roughly) to the original overhang (photo 30). The overhang joists are now over-spanned and excessively deflecting (photo 31). Walls: There is rot and a water leak in the room addition next to the chimney (photo 69). There is rot in the wall outside the chimney and there is likely mold present at this location. There is a roof leak at the room to the NW corner of the chimney (photo 69). There are water stains that indicates leaks at the utility/laundry room (photo 63-66) and the hall bathroom (photo 67-68). Since destructive testing is beyond the scope of this report, we cannot verify if the exterior walls are insulated. If present, however, it would be R-11 and would not conform to current R-15 requirements. There are several wall penetrations that are improperly flashed (photo 37, 47) and are allowing moisture penetration. Windows: Windows are all single pane clear lites set in metal frames without thermal breaks (photo 59-60). There are jalouse windows and doors at the left side of the house (photo 61). None of the windows conform to current IECC requirements for a conditioned house space. McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 38 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 8 / 25 A number of the windows do not meet the minimum 20”x24” opening required for safety exit in case of am emergency. Roof / Ceilings: The 2x6 joists at the flat roofs only allow R-19 batt insulation which does not comply with IECC roof insulation requirements over conditioned spaces. Roofs: The sloped and shingled roof at the rear portion of the house has a very low slope. It is likely that this roof was originally installed as a low slope “tar and gravel” roof that was later shingled. The slope appears minimal for shingle application which typically requires at least a 3:12 pitch or steeper. 5.4 Electrical Service Entrance: The electric service enters near the left front corner of the house (photo 43). The overhead service entrance does not comply with current AE requirements and will have to be revised during remodeling (insufficient ground clearance). Grounding Electrode: There is a ground rod and copper wire attached to a hose bibb at the rear of the house (photo 44). This is not in conformance to NEC requirements and can lead to potential energizing of the copper water pipes throughout the house. Wiring: There is much DIY wiring (photo 45-46) and lighting (photo 45, 48) present at the roof soffits that does not conform to NEC requirements. Junction boxes, wiring devices, wiring and fixtures are not damp rated or installed to outdoor conditions (photo 45-48). An outdoor receptacle at the SE side of the patio is badly rusted and does not conform to current NEC requirements (wrong cover, badly rusted box, not waterproof installation). There is no arc-fault protection at the living area outlets as required by current code. 5.4 Plumbing Sanitary Sewer: It is presumed that the sanitary sewer piping is cast iron as PVC was not used until the mid-1970’s. As such, this pipe is at its 50-year service life and may require replacement in the near future. McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 39 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 9 / 25 There is some PVC pipe visible at the exterior of the utility room (photo 47) which is part of an addition after the original construction. Domestic Water: The water lines appear to be copper (from visible stub outs at sinks and hose bibbs). Natural Gas: The gas meter is located at the left front corner of the house in a submerged hole that appears to have no drainage (photo 41). The gas meter configuration indicates that the masonry planter was added after original construction (photo 42). The original foundation edge is visible at the hose side of the gas meter recess. 5.5 HVAC Central air conditioning and heating was added as some point after original construction. The present condensing unit (outdoors) is about 10 years old and nearing the end of its service life (typically 10-12 years). The attic ductwork was not readily accessible. No secondary condensate drain was noted on site and the air handler drain pan was not accessible to determine if there was a float switch. 6 CONCLUSIONS The bridge at the drive entrance requires substantial abutment and deck repair to be safe and serviceable for the intended use. The garage has visible rot at the front side of the roof and fascia as well as at the base of interior walls. The soil around three sides of the perimeter is above finished floor, is not properly waterproofed and had resulted in obvious leaks to the garage interior. In addition, the flat roof is ponding water. Drainage at the rear of the house is subject to clogging and consequent water infiltration. There are several areas with insufficient grade/finish floor separation. Columns supporting roof extensions not bear properly or are not bearing at all. The patio has several safety code violations (guardrails, stairs, rough surface and holes), has a very uneven walk surface and expansion joints have rotted away (leaving trip hazards). McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 40 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 10 / 25 The exterior of this house has been poorly maintained and will require major renovation to restore integrity. A number of wall penetrations are poorly flashed or missing flashing. Several roof/wall conditions are no properly flashed and are leaking. Siding is not elevated from adjacent flatwork and planters, and is rotting. Siding has suffered from long term neglect and is deteriorating. The house has had several additions that bear on foundations of dubious quality. The foundation has settled and would require lifting to restore a flat surface to ASIC Guideline1 recommendations. The problem with leveling operations is that some of the additions are not likely to accept the point support of piers (for example) without causing damage and uneven lifting or increased damage to the various sections. The reinforcement thickness of the original foundation may not be sufficient to withstand jacking forces either. Much of the exterior electrical work appears to be DIY installations that do not conform to code and present safety/fire hazards. The ground rod assembly at the rear hose bibb does not conform to code and represents a possible shock hazard to the domestic water piping system. To perform and substantial renovation to this house would require removing most of the house to bare studs to build back to current codes. Many of the water damaged studs would have to be replaced. Windows and doors would have to be removed and replaced. Siding and WRB (Weather Resistant Barrier – like Tyvek or similar) would have to be replaced. Exterior insulation would be needed to meet current wall insulation requirements. Grading a drainage would need revisions to drain properly. The foundation is likely unable to be easily leveled. Exterior wall waterproofing below grade would need to be excavated and re-installed. Roof overhangs would need additional structure or shortening to comply with structural requirements. In short, there would not be enough of the original structure left to be worth keeping. Our recommendation would be to demolish the existing house and start over with structures of known sound integrity and code compliance. 8 REPORT LIMITATIONS The opinions expressed in this report are the result of readily visible and observable conditions and available information at the time of this report and represent a reasonable 1 ASIC Guideline for Evaluation and Repair of Residential Structures McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 41 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 11 / 25 degree of engineering certainty, based on professional engineering experience with design, construction and installation of similar projects. This report is intended as a general opinion of observations, installations, conditions, consequences and recommendations at the time of the site visit. The opinions are not a guarantee of future performance. Should additional information become available that may affect the opinions expressed in this report, we reserve the right to review such information and if warranted, revise or amend the report accordingly. Should you have additional questions about or require further information concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Submitted for McIntyre and McIntyre, Inc. by: 06/25/2020 John McIntyre, P.E. #52646 Tx / CBP-PHTA McIntyre & McIntyre, Inc. / Architects and Engineers / TBPE #F-4730 9807 Brandywine Circle / Austin, Texas 78750 T: 512-219-9200 / F: 512-219-9399 E: john@mmibuildings.com C:\\MMI\20038\MMI _7730 SpicewoodSpringsPool_U02 McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 42 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 12 / 25 9 PICTURES Subject site 0. Location Map Balcones Fault Zone 00. Geologic Map McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 43 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 13 / 25 Slope 000. Topographic maps Deteriorated mortar Erosion 1. Wooden drive bridge 2. Bridge abutment with erosion McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 44 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 14 / 25 3. Rot at garage front 4. Rot at garage front 5. Rot under garage roof overhang 6. Garge roof ponds water Soil well above door threshold 7. Soil above garage floor grade on 3 sides 8. Soil above garage floor / water leaks McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 45 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 15 / 25 Uneven risers – loose handrail 9. Rotted garage walls - typical 10. Steps and handrail – garage to house Broken rock & coarse mortar wall Planter added after origina construction – no drainage 11. Typical stone rubble wall construction 12. Gas meter at original grade Non-compliant electrical work Rot and interior leak at this corner 13. Varying soffit materials 14. Non permitted addition at fireplace McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 46 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 16 / 25 Rot Existing planter wall Stone rubble foundation – hollow flooring at interior 15. Foundation next to chimney 16. Wall rot & leak at “chimney” addition 17. Chimney at front left 18. Planter extension at chimney Masonry crack Planter above finish floor Planter wall at finish floor 19. Masonry cracks at chimney 20. Deteriorated siding McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 47 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 17 / 25 Stone rubble foundation Planter wall No guardrails Fence falling down Rot at post base 21. Room addition left of chimney 22. Rotted and falling down left side fence 23. No handrail at steps 24. Improper post bearing Unsecured table Missing joint fillers 25. Uneven patio and missing joint fillers 26. Voids at column (?) bases McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 48 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 18 / 25 Column does not bear at base Clog point at rear drainage 27. Improper column bearing 28. Rear drainage channel Scabbed on joist extensions Column base does not bear on ground – base has rotted and been replaced already 29. Rotted column base – no bearing 30. Extended roof overhang Roof sag Buckled flashing No seals at window frames 31. Typical casement windows 32. Single un-insulated frame windows -typ McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 49 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 19 / 25 Tree into roof Typ rubble foundation 33. Shallow pitch roof at rear 34. Typ rubble filled foundation wall Shallow roof slope Tree into roof Rubble foundation 35. Roof sag at extended overhang 36. Utility room – rubble foundation Porous rubble foundation 37. No flashing at wall penetration 38. Rot / leaks at utility room wall base McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 50 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 20 / 25 39. Rot / leaks at water heater closet 40. Roof flashing at flat roof Meter pit No visible drainage Added planter wall 41. Gas meter at added planter 42. Gas meter pit (looking down) Electrical grounding conductor and ground rod 43. Electrical service entrance 44. Ground rod at rear hose bibb McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 51 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 21 / 25 Non-conforming electrical work 45. DIY electrical wiring and fixtures 46. improper joist boring Holes not in middle 1/3 of joist No j-boxes 47. Improper wall penetrations 48. Improper wiring methods and materials 49. Badly rusted j-box at patio edge 50. Kitchen McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 52 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 22 / 25 Windows do not meet 20”x24” opening size 51. No arc fault protection at bedrooms 52. Crack at garage wall Cracked CMU Rusted anchor bolts 53. No guardrail at patio edge 54. Rusted anchor bolts at patio edge Tree growing into structure 55. Tree into roof/wall structure 56. Tree bearing on roof Tree bearing on roof with rot McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 53 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 23 / 25 No sealant No flashing Improper wiring methods and materials 57. Light fixtures not rated for outdoor use 58. improper wall penetrations Roof leak behind wall 59. Settlement at fireplace 60. Single pane uninsulated window 61. Jalouse window and door 62. Water stain in kitchen McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 54 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 24 / 25 63. Water stain in utility 64. Water stain in utility 65. Water stain in utility 66. Water leaks at exterior wall - utility 67. Water leak at bathroom ext’r wall 68. Water damage at bathroom ext’r wall McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 55 of 71B-11Condition Observations / 2501 Inwood Place Page 25 / 25 69. Water leak at room next to chimney 70. McIntyre & McIntyre Incorporated Austin, Texas 56 of 71B-1157 of 71B-1158 of 71B-1159 of 71B-11Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Peter Komassa Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:48 AM PAZ Preservation Re: Historic Landmark Commission Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Hi Amber, please find my statement below: Greetings HLC, as an owner of a house adjacent to 2501 Inwood Pl, I'm strongly in favor of the proposed Historic Zoning designation. The 'McMath House' has a rich history, a celebrated mid‐century aesthetic, and, in many ways, it serves as the cornerstone of the Deep Eddy neighborhood given its prominent positioning on the Possum Trot throughway. This is, unequivocally, a historic landmark that I hope our community can preserve. Thank you for your time. Best, Peter Komassa On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:37 AM PAZ Preservation wrote: 2501 Inwood Place was referred to the Historic Landmark Commission by our office. The demolition item was discussed at the September 27th meeting. The Commission saw that the property had potential of historic designation and has initiated Historic Zoning on the property. This zoning initiation will be open for public hearing and discussion again at the October 25th meeting. If you’d like to participate, the meeting will be held in‐person at Austin City Hall on Monday, October 25th at 6:00 PM. If you cannot attend and wish to make a statement, you may email me a written statement of whether you are in favor or in opposition of the Commission‐proposed Historic Zoning of the property. Let me know if you have any further questions. Hi Peter, Thanks, Amber Allen Planner II, Historic Preservation Office City of Austin – Housing & Planning Department 1 60 of 71B-11T: 512.974.3393 E: Amber.Allen@austintexas.gov From: Peter Komassa Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:24 PM To: PAZ Preservation <Preservation@austintexas.gov> Subject: Historic Landmark Commission Best, Peter *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi there, I'm emailing about the historic home at 2504 Inwood Pl, as an immediate neighbor. Would you be able to share the HLC assessment/determination of the house as discussed at the 27‐Sep‐21 HLC meeting? I am a neighbor of the house and was traveling during the proceedings, unfortunately. If the house has been approved to be demo'd, would I be able to submit a belated objection? Thanks for your help. CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 2 61 of 71B-11Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tony Woodbury Sunday, October 24, 2021 10:40 AM PAZ Preservation Peter Komassa; Audrey Turner; Pattie Epps Oct. 25 Hearing Historic Zoning for Casa McMath, 2501 Inwood Pl. *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Amber, My name is Anthony Woodbury, and I have owned and lived in the house at 2502 Quarry Rd, 78703, since 2000. I understand from my next‐door neighbor Peter Komassa that there’s going to be a hearing on Monday, Oct. 25, on Historic Zoning for Casa McMath, 2501 Inwood Place. Like Peter, I share a property line (in back) with Casa McMath. Last month, and in August, I sent you short, handwritten notes against a proposal to demolish Casa McMath. I would now like to submit a statement in FAVOR of Historic Zoning for that property. I strongly endorse Peter Komassa’s statement below, where he says: "The 'McMath House' has a rich history, a celebrated mid‐century aesthetic, and, in many ways, it serves as the cornerstone of the Deep Eddy neighborhood given its prominent positioning on the Possum Trot throughway. This is, unequivocally, a historic landmark that I hope our community can preserve.” On the “other side” of this issue, I found a loosely‐written ‘Property Evaluation’ of the McMath House, prepared by an architectual firm called Vincent Gerard & Associates, Inc. (https://vincentgerard.com/about‐us/) that is summarized here: https://bandc.crccheck.com/historic‐landmark‐commission/368302‐d22‐2501‐inwood‐pl‐presentation‐updated/ (I can’t find the original document but would be glad to send it to you if you wish) I’d like to use my comment here to discuss that document, which concludes, on at least three grounds, that the McMath House is not worthy of preservation:  The property is not typical of ‘Mid‐Century Modern’ ("The architecture is a mix of three or more architectures and does not conform to the styles of International or Mid‐century Modern”)  The house is in poor condition  McMath was not considered a ’Titian’ (lol) of architecture, unlike other notable UT architects None of these arguments are valid. Just because a property is atypical of some label (here, ‘Mid-Century Modern’) or shows multiple influences doesn’t necessarily make it aesthetically any less worthy (Bach was atypical of the German Baroque; Picasso was atypical in any of the many movements he joined and was most famous for his “mixing”, which was properly understood as eclecticism). The claim that the house is in poor condition is irrelevant, given that landmark properties, virtually by definition, are meant to undergo restoration efforts. 1 62 of 71B-11 And the claims about McMath’s stature are unsubstantiated, unsupported by evidence, and irrelevant. The essence of the argument FOR preservation is that the property is unique and beautiful, whereas no such case is made for what would replace it if it were demolished. And one final note about Hugh McMath’s cultural significance—something that makes me very proud, since, like him, I’m also a UT professor. He was a very early proponent of cultural diversity in Austin on a number of levels. He was a major exponent of Mexican architecture, especially that of Monterrey (consistently misspelled in the Vincent Gerard document as ‘Monterey’), a city with incredibly striking modern architecture, with such an interest in bringing about awareness of Mexican architecture here in the US that he "was made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts of Great Britain for his work to develop cultural relations with Mexico” ( https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utaaa/00114/aaa‐ 00114.html ). He was not, as the Vincent Gerard document asserts, mainly concerned with the influence of American architecture in Mexico, as shown by his long‐term writing and teaching about Mexico. Likewise, and touchingly, I found this remembrance of a man named John Chase, whose life and historical importance Hugh McMath significantly influenced: 'In 1950, Chase became the first African-American to enroll at UT, just as the landmark Sweatt v. Painter case was heading to the Supreme Court. Chase didn’t know UT was segregated until the Dean of Architecture, Hugh McMath, asked him, “Are you familiar with the case that’s in front of the Supreme Court right now?” "Chase was vaguely familiar with the case—and from his parents’ experience, he was deeply familiar with how often African-Americans got the doors of the ivory tower slammed in their faces. But that didn’t daunt him. With McMath’s encouragement, he submitted his UT application.' https://alcalde.texasexes.org/2012/04/texas-loses-a-trailblazer-john-chase-dies/ In conclusion then, I strongly advocate the preservation and historic zoning designation for Casa McMath on both aesthetic and cultural grounds. Sincerely yours, Tony Anthony C. Woodbury 2502 Quarry Rd. Austin, TX 78703 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 2 63 of 71B-11Brummett, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Subject: James Taylor Sunday, October 24, 2021 11:44 AM Brummett, Elizabeth 2501 Inwood Pl --Opposition to Applicant's demolition request *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Historic Landmark Commission Members: I am writing to you to share concerns about the pending request to demolish the house at 2501 Inwood Place. I have followed the process closely, as my wife and I own the home adjacent to the property. We want to register our opposition to granting the demolition permit on the basis that the structure and landscaping are part of a unique mid‐century era property that could be preserved and treasured, as carefully studied and reported by city staff. I especially want to highlight Mr. McMath’s contributions to education, architecture and relationships with Mexico. My wife and I were next door neighbors to Ms. Quita McMath, daughter of Hugh McMath. And before she sold the property, we had the opportunity to get to know her and hear stories about family travels to Mexico and her father’s appreciation and study of Mexican art and history and his personal connections to Monterrey Tech University (Instituto Tecnologico de Monterrey). Those connections led to academic summer trips to learn about Mexico’s art and culture. But Mr. McMath also worked to bring Monterrey Tech’s nascent architecture program into the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, a first for any Mexico institution at the time. My personal background of growing up in northern Mexico made it easy for me to connect with Quita and her stories and travels to Mexico. While our encounter was brief, her recollections and remembrances of traveling throughout Mexico, and Monterrey in particular, were very vivid. Because of Mr. McMath’s commitment to reaching across international borders to build relationships between the University of Texas and Monterrey Tech, that relationship is even deeper and more vibrant today, expanding into other academic areas like the McCombs School of Business and the School of Engineering. And as it relates to UT’s School of Architecture, McMath’s mission to expose students to Mexican history, culture and architecture, and connect with other universities in Mexico, including Monterrey Tech, remain an important part of the curriculum and are now led by Juan Miró, distinguished teaching professor and internationally renowned architect. We urge the Commission to vote to preserve the historical and architectural significance of “Casa McMath”. James Taylor CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1 64 of 71B-1165 of 71B-1166 of 71B-11From: Sent: To: Subject: PAZ Preservation Tuesday, December 14, 2021 2:32 PM Brummett, Elizabeth FW: Case C14H-2021-0180-Casa McMath: Dec. 14 Planning Commission Public Hearing Brummett, Elizabeth Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged FYI Amber Allen Planner II, Historic Preservation Office City of Austin – Housing & Planning Department T: 512.974.3393 E: Amber.Allen@austintexas.gov ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Peter Komassa Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 9:41 PM To: Tony Woodbury Cc: PAZ Preservation <Preservation@austintexas.gov>; Audrey Turner ; Pattie Epps Subject: Re: Case C14H‐2021‐0180‐Casa McMath: Dec. 14 Planning Commission Public Hearing *** External Email ‐ Exercise Caution *** Thanks Tony. Hi Elizabeth, I own and live in the home at 2504 Quarry Road, and I would reaffirm my prior support for 2501 Inwood Place being zoned as a historic site. In short, the 'McMath House' has a rich history, a celebrated mid‐century aesthetic, and, in many ways, it serves as the cornerstone of the Deep Eddy neighborhood given its prominent positioning on the Possum Trot throughway. This is, unequivocally, a historic landmark that I hope our community can preserve. Kind Regards, Peter Komassa On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 2:32 PM Tony Woodbury wrote: I am responding to your call for written comments on the Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday, Dec. 14. 25, on SF‐ Contact: Elizabeth Brummett, Historic Landmark Commission Re: Case C14H‐2021‐0180‐Casa McMath: Dec. 14 Planning Commission Public Hearing My name is Anthony Woodbury, and I have owned and lived in the house at 2502 Quarry Rd, 78703, since 2000. Dear Elizabeth, 1 67 of 71B-11https://bandc.crccheck.com/historic‐landmark‐commission/368302‐d22‐2501‐inwood‐pl‐presentation‐updated/ To begin with, I strongly endorse this statement by my next‐door neighbor, Peter Komassa, whose back property In August and September, I sent messages opposing a request to demolish Casa McMath, and in October, I "The 'McMath House' has a rich history, a celebrated mid‐century aesthetic, and, in many ways, it serves as the I’d like to use my comment here to discuss that document, which concludes, on at least three grounds, that the On the “other side” of this issue, I found a loosely‐written ‘Property Evaluation’ of the McMath House, prepared For the record, then, let me repeat my October message, in which I lay out my reasons for supporting SF‐3‐H‐NP 3‐H‐NP Historic Zoning for Casa McMath, 2501 Inwood Place. I share a property line (in back) with Casa McMath, and have always admired it. I therefore am now writing IN FAVOR OF HISTORIC ZONING for this property, to be entered into the record for the December 14 hearing. submitted a statement in FAVOR of Historic Zoning for that property. Historic Zoning for Casa McMath (and my apologies if that’s already a part of the record.) line is also adjacent to Casa McMath. Peter wrote: cornerstone of the Deep Eddy neighborhood given its prominent positioning on the Possum Trot throughway. This is, unequivocally, a historic landmark that I hope our community can preserve.” by an architectual firm called Vincent Gerard & Associates, Inc. (https://vincentgerard.com/about‐us/) that is summarized here: (I can’t find the original document but would be glad to send it to you if you wish) McMath House is not worthy of preservation: architectures and does not conform to the styles of International or Mid‐century Modern”) Modern’) or shows multiple influences doesn’t necessarily make it aesthetically any less worthy (Bach was atypical of the German Baroque; Picasso was atypical in any of the many movements he joined and was most famous for his “mixing”, which was properly understood as eclecticism). are meant to undergo restoration efforts. case is made for what would replace it if it were demolished. And one final note about Hugh McMath’s cultural significance—something that makes me very proud, since, like him, I’m also a UT professor. He was a very early proponent of cultural diversity in Austin on a number of levels. He was a major exponent of Mexican architecture, especially that of Monterrey (consistently misspelled in the Vincent Gerard document as ‘Monterey’), a city with incredibly striking modern architecture, with such an interest in bringing about awareness of Mexican architecture here in the US that he "was made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts of Great The house is in poor condition McMath was not considered a ’Titian’ (lol) of architecture, unlike other notable UT architects The claim that the house is in poor condition is irrelevant, given that landmark properties, virtually by definition, The essence of the argument FOR preservation is that the property is unique and beautiful, whereas no such None of these arguments are valid. Just because a property is atypical of some label (here, ‘Mid‐Century And the claims about McMath’s stature are unsubstantiated, unsupported by evidence, and irrelevant. The property is not typical of ‘Mid‐Century Modern’ ("The architecture is a mix of three or more * * * 2 68 of 71B-11 'In "Chase https://alcalde.texasexes.org/2012/04/texas 1950, Chase became the first African‐American to enroll at UT, just as the landmark Sweatt v. Painter Britain for his work to develop cultural relations with Mexico” ( https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utaaa/00114/aaa‐ 00114.html ). He was not, as the Vincent Gerard document asserts, mainly concerned with the influence of American architecture in Mexico, as shown by his long‐term writing and teaching about Mexico. Likewise, and touchingly, I found this remembrance of a man named John Chase, whose life and historical importance Hugh McMath significantly influenced: case was heading to the Supreme Court. Chase didn’t know UT was segregated until the Dean of Architecture, Hugh McMath, asked him, “Are you familiar with the case that’s in front of the Supreme Court right now?” was vaguely familiar with the case—and from his parents’ experience, he was deeply familiar with how often African‐Americans got the doors of the ivory tower slammed in their faces. But that didn’t daunt him. With McMath’s encouragement, he submitted his UT application.' both aesthetic and cultural grounds. CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. In conclusion then, I strongly advocate the preservation and historic zoning designation for Casa McMath on Anthony C. Woodbury 2502 Quarry Rd. Austin, TX 78703 ‐loses‐a‐trailblazer‐john‐chase‐dies/ Sincerely yours, Tony 3 69 of 71B-1170 of 71B-11Brummett, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Tony Woodbury Sunday, February 6, 2022 7:39 PM Brummett, Elizabeth; PAZ Preservation Peter Komassa; Audrey Turner; Pattie Epps Re: Case C14H-2021-0180-Casa McMath: Dec. 14 Planning Commission Public Hearing Why Does the Demolition of a Marcel Breuer House Matter - The New York Times.pdf Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Elizabeth, Thanks very much for the update. FYI, I’ve copied in my earlier comments on Casa McMath, which you probably already have. Also, as “deep background,” I thought I’d share with you, and the commission, this interesting article from today's New York Times about a sad story where a Mid Century Modern house on Long Island, New York, was demolished before anyone quite knew what was happening. The story itself is interesting and compelling, although of course the circumstances and details are different between Long Island and Austin, Texas. But I also think the story places the Commission in an especially good light for the care that they have devoted to the matter of Casa McMath, in contrast to the situation on Long Island. The New York Times article is attached. Best to all, Tony CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. From: Tony Woodbury Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 2:33 PM To: PAZ Preservation <Preservation@austintexas.gov> Cc: Peter Komassa ; Audrey Turner ; Pattie Epps Subject: Case C14H‐2021‐0180‐Casa McMath: Dec. 14 Planning Commission Public Hearing *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Contact: Elizabeth Brummett, Historic Landmark Commission Re: Case C14H‐2021‐0180‐Casa McMath: Dec. 14 Planning Commission Public Hearing Dear Elizabeth, 1 71 of 71B-11