Red river county courthouse

[greengoose]

I stopped by Clarksville Thur (12/16) to check out the newly remodled Red river county courthouse. Looks like they did a great job, a few years ago that beautiful clocktower was a crumbling eyesore.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f237/a17greengoose/100_0879.jpg

[Tourmeister]

I love the old architecture. The new stuff is just so bland and lowest bid looking.

[mary111]

Such a shame for the county to allow contractors to mar a historical building.:doh:

[kurt]

Such a shame for the county to allow contractors to mar a historical building.:doh:

What did they do wrong?

[kurt]

Can you believe they tore down this:

http://www.cets.sfasu.edu/SmithCoGIFs/1909CHsm.gif

To build this:

http://www.reynoldsrecords.com/texas/chouses/smith.gif

[mary111]

I feel a darker colour would've been more suitable; I'm just partial to dark brick on the historicals. And, the newer court house that followed; I can't believe the county would destroy the original stucture to "rebuild" the newer one. What a terrible thing! Even if the old court house contained asbestos, surely the county could've implemented removal or encapsulation.

[kurt]

IIRC, the old one sat in the middle of Broadway, and they tore it down in the mid 50's so as to have a straight shot through the downtown area. What a waste. It was a done deal by the time I was born, so I have to go off of the recollection of my 95 year-old grandfather.

[scratch]

http://www.reynoldsrecords.com/texas/chouses/smith.gif

That has all the charm of a grain elevator. To think that they used to pay architects for this stuff. :scratch:

Oh well; bet the contractors liked it - all right angles sure must have simplified the construction. ;-)

[Tourmeister]

Even if the old court house contained asbestos, surely the county could've implemented removal or encapsulation.

This is no small thing. You have to bring in EPA certified Abestos removal companies (expensive). They have to encapsulate the asbestos source to ensure none gets out once they start tearing into the stuff. Disposal is expensive as well. Remodelling old buildings is very expensive. I bet they spent less bull dozing the old one and building the new one than it would have cost to upgrade the old one. As much as I like the old architecture, I like seeing the government spend LESS instead of MORE ;-) Let private people spend the bucks if they want to see pretty architecture.

[mary111]

Tourmeister, you think like my son!

[kurt]

This is no small thing. You have to bring in EPA certified Abestos removal companies (expensive). They have to encapsulate the asbestos source to ensure none gets out once they start tearing into the stuff. Disposal is expensive as well.

The thing is that it doesn't matter if you tear it down or remodel it. Asbestos is there and has to be removed in a legally prescribed manner (darned politicians at work driving up prices). Somehow, I doubt this figured into the 1955 rebuild of the Smith County Court House though. :-P

I am glad that I don't have to go down to the log cabin on the square and fill out forms to get plate tags on a shovel with a piece of coal simply because it would be cheaper than a computer. ;-)

[D'artagnan]

This is no small thing. You have to bring in EPA certified Abestos removal companies (expensive). They have to encapsulate the asbestos source to ensure none gets out once they start tearing into the stuff. Disposal is expensive as well. Remodelling old buildings is very expensive. I bet they spent less bull dozing the old one and building the new one than it would have cost to upgrade the new one. As much as I like the old architecture, I like seeing the government spend LESS instead of MORE ;-) Let private people spend the bucks if they want to see pretty architecture.

Wouldn't they have to do the asbestos removal thing before bulldozing anyway? If you go in and raze the place without getting the asbesto out first, you're just going to spread it everywhere.

It's a shame to lose such a lovely old building. However, I am sure the people who work there eight hours a day appreciate the newer structure.

[Tourmeister]

:tab Rereading my post, I noticed that the comment about the "cost to upgrade the NEW one," should have said "cost to upgrade the OLD one." :roll: The point being that tearing down the old one and building the new one is cheaper than doing asbestos abatement and all the other required upgrades to bring the old building up to modern standards.

:tab Regarding the cost of abatement, the State and Federal regulations for demolition have quite a few exemptions that allow for demolition with the asbestos still in place. The disposal of the remains are still regulated but you can forgoe the expense of bringing in teams of highly paid techs to remove it from the building while leaving the building intact.

[D'artagnan]

[QUOTE=Tourmeister

Regarding the cost of abatement, the State and Federal regulations for demolition have quite a few exemptions that allow for demolition with the asbestos still in place. The disposal of the remains are still regulated but you can forgoe the expense of bringing in teams of highly paid techs to remove it from the building while leaving the building intact.[/QUOTE]

:huh: OK. I' admit I know zippity about building demolition, except that it's cool to watch the ones they implode with explosives come down. My knowledge of asbestos is limited to what the fear mongers on 60 minutes dole out.

But I fail to understand how it is cheaper (or safer) to dispose of an entire pile of rubble contaminated with asbestos vs. taking it out before the building is taken down.

Not tryin to throw down on anyone here, just hoping someone can explain it.

[Tourmeister]

:tab Sending in people to remove it while leaving the building intact is labor intensive and very expensive. Then the building is demolished. In the second case, the building is demolished with the asbestos in place. We are not talking about explosive demolition, that is not one of the exceptions that I know of. Generally, demolition is by heavy quipment. In this case, the asbestos is not pulverized and airborne as much as it would be in explosions. In both cases, the asbestos still has to be disposed of; however, in the second case, you don't have the added expense of the prior labor intensive removal.

:tab Despite government/media hysteria, asbestos is not some kind of radioactive or poisonous substance. The problem comes when it is pulverized or made into dust. Then it still has to be inhaled in sufficient concentration to cause damage.

[Teeds]

How did I miss this? ;-)

:tab Sending in people to remove it while leaving the building intact is labor intensive and very expensive. Then the building is demolished. In the second case, the building is demolished with the asbestos in place. We are not talking about explosive demolition, that is not one of the exceptions that I know of. Generally, demolition is by heavy quipment. In this case, the asbestos is not pulverized and airborne as much as it would be in explosions. In both cases, the asbestos still has to be disposed of; however, in the second case, you don't have the added expense of the prior labor intensive removal.

Scott:

There is no way to inexpensively remove hazardous materials from a building, but let me assure you that you pay by the pound and/or volume for all materials carried to a clasified dump. If you demolish a building containing hazardous materials, you have to keep it wet throuughout the entire process and despose of the entire soggy mess in a classified dump. This is as, if not more, costly as removal in situ.

Regarding the point about the colors of the tower, those were likely the original colors. When doing historical restoration (all courthouses in Texas are), color determination becomes a large part of the process.

Regarding the point about not spending tax money on removal of materials, there have been many more dollars expended by private developers in order to comply with governmental regulations than have ever been spent by government. ABM is but one issue, you probably don't want to get me started. ;-)

As a historical preservation architect, I have butted heads with the best, from the National Park Service to the "Local Experts", aka "Taste Police". It is never an easy process and usually takes me about 5~10 years to complete each project. The last one I completed, that is on the National Register, is the Hotel Wooten in Abilene. I first walked in the building in 1994. We completed restoration and adaptive reuse in the fall of 2004.

I am just getting started on my next big project now. I hope to finish it quicker, as the owner does not have to seek financing.

It is fun working on old buildings and trying to find people experienced in the crafts of old. Anyone know someone capable of making adobe blocks and repairing the walls of the Annie Riggs Museum, circa 1900?

:tab Despite government/media hysteria, asbestos is not some kind of radioactive or poisonous substance. The problem comes when it is pulverized or made into dust. Then it still has to be inhaled in sufficient concentration to cause damage.

True, the histeria was driven primarily by the slip and fall liability attorneys. Beaumont is a hot bed ...
The insurance industry learned a lesson and "mold" became a non-starter for the liability attorneys, as a result.

The means and methods of removal will always be labor intensive, but as we move farther from the date asbestos was removed from the general marketplace, the less we have to deal with.