Does Houston's newer architecture stink?

[Gary]

After reading a few threads (Pavillions, etc) about how some view Houston's current trend of architecture, I thought it might be a good idea to start a new topic.

Is our architecture that bad, and is it really built on the cheap when comparing to other cities of similar size? Also, have we taken a dive into the architectural abyss when comparing our current boom to that of the late 70's/early 80's boom?

[Subdude]

I've mouthed off about it in numerous topics already, but I wouldn't say our major public architecture is overall bad as mediocre. Not that we were architecture heaven in the boom days of the 1970s-1980s, but we were certainly well-respected for the quality of local architecture. Examples include Pennzoil, Tenneco, Four Leaf Plaza, Post Oak Central, Menil, Astrodome and Transco, each of which I have seen in various architecture books. Others like the Mies wing of MFAH, Wortham Tower, Bank of America might not be considered classics but at least imo were still excellent and left their mark on the city.

Since the bust of the 1980s I just don't see quite the same commitment to quality that was common in large projects back then. It is especially disappointing for projects that really could have been great, such as Hobby Center, the cathedral, and the Beck, but the developers seemed to go the easy or cheap route.

I don't mean this as a blanket condemnation of local architecture. Certainly 95% of what is built will never be considered great. Still I would love to see Houston perhaps make more of an effort in that direction.

[Gary]

I've mouthed off about it in numerous topics already, but I wouldn't say our major public architecture is overall bad as mediocre. Not that we were architecture heaven in the boom days of the 1970s-1980s, but we were certainly well-respected for the quality of local architecture. Examples include Pennzoil, Tenneco, Four Leaf Plaza, Post Oak Central, Menil, Astrodome and Transco, each of which I have seen in various architecture books. Others like the Mies wing of MFAH, Wortham Tower, Bank of America might not be considered classics but at least imo were still excellent and left their mark on the city.

Since the bust of the 1980s I just don't see quite the same commitment to quality that was common in large projects back then. It is especially disappointing for projects that really could have been great, such as Hobby Center, the cathedral, and the Beck, but the developers seemed to go the easy or cheap route.

Funny that you mention the "Cathedral", it was what really inspired my thoughts here. Although I've seen some very nice interior photos, the design is lackluster, and really uninspiring.

I'm not sure that I agree with your 70's and 80's boom days quote though. I find a lot to like from that era.

[Subdude]

Funny that you mention the "Cathedral", it was what really inspired my thoughts here. Although I've seen some very nice interior photos, the design is lackluster, and really uninspiring.

I'm not sure that I agree with your 70's and 80's boom days quote though. I find a lot to like from that era.

I was complementing our architecture from the boom days. Houston seemed to have been considered somewhat of an architectural leader back then.

Agree 100% on the cathedral. I haven't been inside, but from the outside it looks totally nondescript.

[houstonmacbro]

It's not bad, it's just that it seems common. In the 80s we were leaders (good or bad) and that made us unique. Now, the stuff going up looks like it could be downtown Anywhere USA.

It's just kinda bland.

[Gary]

Now, the stuff going up looks like it could be downtown Anywhere USA.

It's just kinda bland.

Not to oversimplify, but why is it bland? Is Houston built on the cheap because of a lack of civic pride?

Not to jump on the "why do other cities get the good designs" bandwagon, but I was recently in Atlanta, and their new bulding designs leave Houston's in the dust.

[houstonmacbro]

If I recall, the Wortham was built mostly with donations (or a large part of donations) and was built on the cheap, but looks wonderful.

When I say bland, I am just saying in comparison to buildings like Transco (sorry, it will always be that to me!) and Republic Bank Tower.

Those were GREAT ... even outlandish! And they say HOUSTON!

[crunchtastic]

When I say bland, I am just saying in comparison to buildings like Transco (sorry, it will always be that to me!) and Republic Bank Tower.

Those were GREAT ... even outlandish! And they say HOUSTON!

I've always considered the Republic Bank and Pennzoil towers to be 2 very different structures (and my 2 faves DT) that really show off what can be great about Houston building. Maybe OHP can do that for us again.

[Subdude]

Not to oversimplify, but why is it bland? Is Houston built on the cheap because of a lack of civic pride?

Not lack of civic pride, but lack of recognition that great architecture has historically been a way of demonstrating civic pride. I think we kind of lost that during the bust years.

If I recall, the Wortham was built mostly with donations (or a large part of donations) and was built on the cheap, but looks wonderful.

Funny, to me the Wortham is one of the prime examples of local crap architecture. Even at the time it was built it was criticized as drab and cheap. The plastic "sculpture" on the interior stairs didn't help anything. I understand the state of the economy at the time it was built, but to me it is still poor architecture.

[houstonmacbro]

Funny, to me the Wortham is one of the prime examples of local crap architecture. Even at the time it was built it was criticized as drab and cheap. The plastic "sculpture" on the interior stairs didn't help anything. I understand the state of the economy at the time it was built, but to me it is still poor architecture.

Now see, that's just wrong ... LOL

I like the brickness of it. Kinda like a giant brick building. And I really like the oval shaped arches. I have only been in it a couple of times though.

[rsb320]

I've always considered the Republic Bank and Pennzoil towers to be 2 very different structures (and my 2 faves DT) that really show off what can be great about Houston building. Maybe OHP can do that for us again.

Thank you Philip Johnson (rest in peace) and John Burgee for both of those buildings. They were certainly on a roll in the 80's.

Not lack of civic pride, but lack of recognition that great architecture has historically been a way of demonstrating civic pride. I think we kind of lost that during the bust years.

Funny, to me the Wortham is one of the prime examples of local crap architecture. Even at the time it was built it was criticized as drab and cheap. The plastic "sculpture" on the interior stairs didn't help anything. I understand the state of the economy at the time it was built, but to me it is still poor architecture.

I've always liked the Wortham and it was built TOTALLY with endowments and donations. Hell, it was used as the front of Robo Cop 2 headquarters, with floors added so it looked like a skyscraper.

[houstonmacbro]

Thank you Philip Johnson (rest in peace) and John Burgee for both of those buildings. They were certainly on a roll in the 80's.

I also like that cigarette lighter looking building out on San Felipe. Always thought it would look better somewhere else though.

[Subdude]

Now see, that's just wrong ... LOL

I like the brickness of it. Kinda like a giant brick building. And I really like the oval shaped arches. I have only been in it a couple of times though.

Well, yes, it is indeed just like a giant brick building. For it IS a giant brick building.

Last time I was inside the interior was noticeably worse for wear. It's way past time for some rehab for that pup.

[houstonmacbro]

Well, yes, it is indeed just like a giant brick building. For it IS a giant brick building.

Last time I was inside the interior was noticeably worse for wear. It's way past time for some rehab for that pup.

When I say 'brick' I mean contractor bricks. Is that what you meant?

I never seriously looked that close.

[Gary]

Not lack of civic pride, but lack of recognition that great architecture has historically been a way of demonstrating civic pride. I think we kind of lost that during the bust years.

Ok, but isn't it also true that even out of town developers seem to build on the cheap here, while saving their best for other cities?

[houstonmacbro]

Ok, but isn't it also true that even out of town developers seem to build on the cheap here, while saving their best for other cities?

Would love to have this guy develop some of our skyline:

http://www.murphyjahn.com/english/frameset_intro.htm

They know style!

[Pumapayam]

Is our architecture that bad, and is it really built on the cheap when comparing to other cities of similar size? Also, have we taken a dive into the architectural abyss when comparing our current boom to that of the late 70's/early 80's boom?

I think this is a good example. St. Martin's Church in uptown.

Although it is much better than most "warehouse" designed super churches, it comes off as modern architecture trying to mimic classic architecture.

It is not ugly at all, but at the same time, it does have a sense of a fake imitation of what a classic church should really look like.

[Gary]

I think this is a good example. St. Martin's Church in uptown.

Although it is much better than most "warehouse" designed super churches, it comes off as modern architecture trying to mimic classic architecture.

It is not ugly at all, but at the same time, it does have a sense of a fake imitation of what a classic church should really look like.

Yeah I've got nice photos I've taken of the church. Unfortunately it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

[Subdude]

Ok, but isn't it also true that even out of town developers seem to build on the cheap here, while saving their best for other cities?

It would be hard to say. I doubt developers exactly save their best for other cities as a rule, but I suspect in Houston they may sometimes be held to a lower standard. Exhibit A: the architecturally significant garage on Main by Hines.

I think this is a good example. St. Martin's Church in uptown.

St Martins is nice. So is St Lukes Medical by Pelli. I'm not saying there are no good buildings around. I think this is more about the overall quality of architecture in Houston.

[banking214]

If I recall, the Wortham was built mostly with donations (or a large part of donations) and was built on the cheap, but looks wonderful.

When I say bland, I am just saying in comparison to buildings like Transco (sorry, it will always be that to me!) and Republic Bank Tower.

Those were GREAT ... even outlandish! And they say HOUSTON!

Wortham looks wonderful? It is a red big red box.

Would love to have this guy develop some of our skyline:

http://www.murphyjahn.com/english/frameset_intro.htm

They know style!

I agree with you on this one. His works really are impressive and make a real statement. I have always though of European architecture as more cutting edge. Again, that can be good or bad.

[Pumapayam]

How about this church off of the Eastex freeway.

I don't know the name of this church, but it looks like it was made from left over parts no one wanted from Ceasar's Palace.

[houstonmacbro]

How about this church off of the Eastex freeway.

I don't know the name of this church, but it looks like it was made from left over parts no one wanted from Ceasar's Palace.

There was a thread on here not too long about this church. I remember because I got into an 'argument' (not ugly, just testy) with one of the members. Apparently, the men sit on one side, and the women sit on the other maybe because 'heaven' is still sexist?

Not sure what kinda church that is, but hey ... whatever works.

[VelvetJ]

Well guess what I'm going to say.

I'm going back to the architectural tone that is set in Houston right now. Many of the developers who have built projects in Houston over the past 10 years have built in other cities. But it seems that when they get to Houston, many times quality takes a back seat....and we, meaning citizens, business owners, and city leaders, don't seem to care....and I think the developers are aware of that. Excellence appears to no longer be demanded here in terms of architecture or designs.

I have wondered if the 'Mercer' design would have even been CONSIDERED, let alone built, in Buckhead in Atlanta, or Uptown Dallas, or Downtown Chicago? Would the design of the new Memorial Hermann building on I-10 with it's "off-centered" crown have even been considered for Chicago? If it were announced today that Los Angeles would be getting a new performing arts center, (barring it already exists in Houston) I wonder if the Hobby Center design would have even made it to the top 10, let alone top two? IMO, the answer to all of those questions is no. But in Houston there seems to be something going on where the developers seem to think quality isn't as important.

I am not suggesting everything in Houston should be a billion dollar spectacle, but like I've mentioned before, a lot of things in recent Houston history could have been a lot better. My brother recently commented to me that he thinks the Astrodome is more visually appealing than Reliant Stadium and I agree with him. I am not questioning Reliant's functionality or interior asthetics, however the exterior design is just blah. It's mediocre. There is no 'x' factor to it at all in terms of architectural design. The same is true of Hobby Center, The Hilton Americas, the Beck Building, at least 5 of the latest condo towers in the Galleria Area, Memorial Herman on I-10, Toyota Center, The Cathedral, HP Pavillions, Park 8, and the majority of the new designs going up in the Energy Corridor.

Look at the most recent rendering release for a new building for Houston...3100 Post Oak. It's in a GREAT LOCATION, boasting a lake, restaurant and right on the rail line. And while I would NOT describe the design as awful, again it is mediocre at best. With that location and the ability to boast those types of amenities, that design should have been much better than a squatty box. Personally, I thought the Terminus 100 in Buckhead Atlanta would have been FANTASTIC for that location. 3100 Post Oak will be 26 stories, Terminus 100 is 27 stories and they both are similar in size. Why couldn't 3100 Post Oak been a bit more dramatic?

(I hope you guys don't come out swinging for this) As a whole, look at the designs of the buildings that have gone up in Atlanta in the past 10 years. There are a couple that I think are clunkers, but as a whole it appears the approach to the architectural choices for that city have been different than that for Houston. Quality appears to have been a major consideration when planning. It seems many of the developers were very much aware of how tall the buildings would be and that they would impact the skyline in a very visible way. The current architectural tone in that city seems to be on a completely different level than Houston. The tone there seems to be a bit more progressive than in Houston. Unfortunately it seems as if 'trendiness' and 'nonconformity' are curse words in this city nowadays and they are relished in Atlanta.

I don't know, I think it will have to take a few consistent excellent projects to "break the mold" on the overall current architectural tone in Houston. Maybe that day is coming.

*note* I have to admit, one of the things that both Dallas and Atlanta have is the lighting and crown penchant. It seems like it's some sort of rule that before a architectural design is complete, some form of lighting or crown has to be included. I wouldn't mind that rule for Houston for about 3 years, then we can go back to normal. There is such a thing as too much, and I think Atlanta is just about there in terms of lighting and crowns.

[totheskies]

Hmm, we may have been going through a "blue period" for architecture, but we're on the way back up. 2727 Kirby is a phenomenal project, and One Park Place, although in a completely opposite style, is equally impressive. The crown jewel of Houston's 21st century architecture (at least through 2012) will be Main Place if everything goes well. Once people are exposed to these projects, they'll start demanding excellence again.

[Gary]

Hmm, we may have been going through a "blue period" for architecture, but we're on the way back up. 2727 Kirby is a phenomenal project, and One Park Place, although in a completely opposite style, is equally impressive. The crown jewel of Houston's 21st century architecture (at least through 2012) will be Main Place if everything goes well. Once people are exposed to these projects, they'll start demanding excellence again.

While it's true that 2727 and Main Place are very cool projects, and are high profile, it's still only two structures.

Hopefully your correct about the "blue period" we've been experiencing.

[memebag]

I'm only hearing comments about the appearance of buildings in this thread and nothing about the underlying construction techniques and materials. Appearance is all about fashion, so maybe you folks are just out of step.

[Gary]

I'm only hearing comments about the appearance of buildings in this thread and nothing about the underlying construction techniques and materials. Appearance is all about fashion, so maybe you folks are just out of step.

Why are we "out of step"? When I started the thread I was asking a direct question about asthetics, and everyone seemed to understand that.

It's certainly true that there are other considerations when designing a building, and if you can enlighten us please do.

[memebag]

Why are we "out of step"?

I didn't say you were, I just suggested it as a possibility. The people funding these buildings like their looks enough to pay for them. Perhaps they are applying a different aesthetic than the posters here. How people feel about the appearance of buildings is largely subjective.

[Subdude]

I didn't say you were, I just suggested it as a possibility. The people funding these buildings like their looks enough to pay for them. Perhaps they are applying a different aesthetic than the posters here. How people feel about the appearance of buildings is largely subjective.

Well yeah, but I don't buy the line of argument that since tastes are largely subjective all viewpoints are equal, and we should therefore have no standards and accept everything (everyone join hands and sing). Some buildings are recognized as great, and some buildings do stand the test of time. Of course opinions are subjective, that goes without saying, but If I'm wrong about Houston architecture I would like someone to explain their subjective opinion of how, for instance, the civil courts building is great architecture that students will study for years, instead of a cheap bit of kitsch. If you want to defend local architecture then fine, have at it, but just sitting back and pointing out that tastes are subjective doesn't make much of a point.

No big fan of relativism here.

[memebag]

Of course opinions are subjective, that goes without saying, but If I'm wrong about Houston architecture I would like someone to explain their subjective opinion of how, for instance, the civil courts building is great architecture that students will study for years, instead of a cheap bit of kitsch.

It's pretty.

No big fan of relativism here.

Some are, some aren't.