[WestGrayGuy]

Everytime I return back to Houston from another city, I look for this building first. This is most distinctive building in our skyline.

To add to its lore, there is the unfortunate story of the woman in the basement during Allison.

[Talbot]

yeah our good ole whataburger copy.

[SpaceCity]

It is a beautiful building. Definitely my favorite too.

[Montrose1100]

Our skyline plays with our imaginations...

The contrast, and connection between the BOA and the JP Morgan Chase Tower, is awesome. I love our "Diverse" Skyline of colors, and shapes. Its all molds in so perfectly, like the song of the century. But we could fill up the space, around the JP Morgan Chase Tower, and from the Calpine to Chevron (tower) and from the Chevron to the Kellogg...

[UrbaNerd]

Also, the wells fargo..ooh.. AND, don't forget the former Enron buildings!

[J.A.S.O.N.]

I think this building is the most distinctive of the Houston skyline.

[DaTrain]

I like the BofA spires that stick out. The unique thing about is the three-level spire roof too.

[HoustoniaNYC]

It's Republic Bank, just like it's Transco Tower, it's Texas Commerce, it's HOUSTON Intercontinental Airport etc., but I digress....

I'm no post-modernist, but I've always appreciated that building. Houston is definitely a "gothic" place in spirit. I think of our beloved downtown skyline as a composition of beautiful objects, and I've liked how the Republic Bank played off of it's decidedly modern counterparts.

What I've never understood though is why Johnson didn't equally stagger the 3 volumns of the building. The difference bewteen smallest(North) and the middle volume is greater than the difference between the middle and the tallest(South) volumns. Was it purely economical or programmical, or was Johnson trying to play with perspective? Impressive if he was since he apparently got away with it, except it doesn't really work in my opinion. It just looks wrong, like they meant to make the staggering equidistant but didn't.

[dbigtex56]

HoustoniaNYC, on Tuesday, December 14th, 2004 @ 1:18am, said:

What I've never understood though is why Johnson didn't equally stagger the 3 volumns of the building.  The difference bewteen smallest(North) and the middle volume is greater than the difference between the middle and the tallest(South) volumns.  Was it purely economical or programmical, or was Johnson trying to play with perspective?  Impressive if he was since he apparently got away with it, except it doesn't really work in my opinion.  It just looks wrong, like they meant to make the staggering equidistant but didn't.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Local legend has it that an influential person who had an office in Pennzoil Place didn't want his view obstructed, which partially influenced the shape of Republic Bank.

Another factor was the Western Union building. Due to the number of telegraph cables which would have had to be rerouted at great cost (in those pre-internet days), Western Union refused to sell. Instead, the banking hall portion of the building now completely engulfs this ugly little concrete block building, hidden in the northeast corner of the banking hall.

I worked across the street (at HL&P) and watched the construction of this building from start to finish. The amount of bracing that went into shoring up that corner of the building was quite an amazing engineering feat. That it works aesthetically as well is nearly miraculous.

[bachanon]

i read somewhere that philip johnson did not want to obstruct views of the pennzoil building(s) which he also designed.

[Subdude]

Quote

What I've never understood though is why Johnson didn't equally stagger the 3 volumns of the building. The difference bewteen smallest(North) and the middle volume is greater than the difference between the middle and the tallest(South) volumns. Was it purely economical or programmical, or was Johnson trying to play with perspective? Impressive if he was since he apparently got away with it, except it doesn't really work in my opinion. It just looks wrong, like they meant to make the staggering equidistant but didn't.

Interesting point. My guess is that the massing of the volumes was driven by all of the above. Economics in maximizing net rentable area by having the tallest section (to the south) also be the deepest. But I think it was also an aesthetic decision to not make the three sections equally deep. Varying the relative height and depth arguably lends itself to a more visually interesting composition.

[bruce_oneal]

HoustoniaNYC, on Tuesday, December 14th, 2004 @ 1:18am, said:

It's Republic Bank, just like it's Transco Tower, it's Texas Commerce, it's HOUSTON Intercontinental Airport etc., but I digress....

I'm no post-modernist, but I've always appreciated that building.  Houston is definitely a "gothic" place in spirit.  I think of our beloved downtown skyline as a composition of beautiful objects, and I've liked how the Republic Bank played off of it's decidedly modern counterparts. 

What I've never understood though is why Johnson didn't equally stagger the 3 volumns of the building.  The difference bewteen smallest(North) and the middle volume is greater than the difference between the middle and the tallest(South) volumns.  Was it purely economical or programmical, or was Johnson trying to play with perspective?  Impressive if he was since he apparently got away with it, except it doesn't really work in my opinion.  It just looks wrong, like they meant to make the staggering equidistant but didn't.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if i'm not mistaken, the republic bank tower was built on top of another building. in fact, i think the lobby is that of the older building. could that have had something to do with it?

[luvarch]

This one is my favourite building. The gothic arches give the skyline a european feel. I love the lobby..it reminds me of something. If I remember, I will post.

[longcat]

I've got a question that has bugged me for some time. How many floors of the top of each arch segment are actually usable? The very top portion of each segment is too narrow to do anything with (unless you wanted a single long thin office I guess). Even a few floors down from the top of each segment would still be a very much narrower space than is typical of office building layouts.

[Montrose1100]

 longcat, on Monday, October 6th, 2008 @ 3:59pm, said:

I've got a question that has bugged me for some time. How many floors of the top of each arch segment are actually usable? The very top portion of each segment is too narrow to do anything with (unless you wanted a single long thin office I guess). Even a few floors down from the top of each segment would still be a very much narrower space than is typical of office building layouts.

I think the top 2 are not used, you can kinda tell from the Observation Deck.

[Subdude]

 longcat, on Monday, October 6th, 2008 @ 2:59pm, said:

I've got a question that has bugged me for some time. How many floors of the top of each arch segment are actually usable? The very top portion of each segment is too narrow to do anything with (unless you wanted a single long thin office I guess). Even a few floors down from the top of each segment would still be a very much narrower space than is typical of office building layouts.

One of the top peaks is indeed a long thin room, like a conference room. I have no idea what, if anything, it is used for.

[infinite_jim]

Ah, the edge conditioning aesthetic of downtown.

All the above reasons would fly for Johnson, that was his legend, anything goes...
I find a strange kinship of this bldg to the lipstick building in NY. Either way, we find a state of modernism that wears a mask harkening back to the dutch gothic aesthetic for ethereal reinforcement. How does this mask play into the imaginations of Houstonians? or could this building be anywhere?

Sadly this building's statement is cynical and merely a hallmark card to market a decontextualized image of Houston, not it's authenticity or character. You are fooling yourself otherwise.

[Northwood]

The top two floors (55 & 56) are actually the building's cooling tower. Below that (54) is a mechanical space which contains elevator and HVAC equipment. Level 53 is the highest occupiable floor and it does indeed have offices.

[longcat]

 Northwood, on Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 @ 8:37am, said:

The top two floors (55 & 56) are actually the building's cooling tower. Below that (54) is a mechanical space which contains elevator and HVAC equipment. Level 53 is the highest occupiable floor and it does indeed have offices.

Thanks. Does the same hold true for the 2 lower peaks as well? Or are there floors that are part normal layout, part one long thin room?

[Subdude]

 infinite_jim, on Monday, October 6th, 2008 @ 11:58pm, said:

Sadly this building's statement is cynical and merely a hallmark card to market a decontextualized image of Houston, not it's authenticity or character. You are fooling yourself otherwise.

Fair enough, but that decontextualization (how's that for a word?) was part and parcel of postmodernism. It was about the rediscovery and reuse of historical design references that had been lost during the high modern period. Cynical it frequently was, but I think it was a necessary reaction to the generation of soulless buildings that came before it.

[cottonmather0]

I had a meeting in an office there last week. The first time I had ever been up past the lobby and it was really cool, in particular the "balconies" which I couldn't tell are usable or not (I assume not).

[houstonmacbro]

I heard that the bottom portion was built over (around?) another building. Instead of tearing it down, they incorporated it into the structure.

Any truth to that?

[infinite_jim]

 Subdude, on Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 @ 2:21pm, said:

Fair enough, but that decontextualization (how's that for a word?) was part and parcel of postmodernism. It was about the rediscovery and reuse of historical design references that had been lost during the high modern period. Cynical it frequently was, but I think it was a necessary reaction to the generation of soulless buildings that came before it.

Fair enough in respect to the time period's value set, however Khan's work IMO is the conception of true postmodernism, the fallout of postmodernism was the breaking of established symbolism through the practice of historical quotation. It has confused me for many years. The loss of humanitarian values in the high modern was a failure of architects to scale their work on surface and in deeper context. Seagrams is an expression of classical purity but it encapsulated itself from the responsibility of architect to it's greater site context (despite the presence of the Lever house). To further elaborate in case study, I mentioned Yamasaka in another thread and the destruction of the WTC was a profound statement towards high modern ideals versus the "lay of the land," specifically it's isolationist stance towards the surrounding environment. Architects need to learn from these philosophical ramifications or else the profession will further be invalidated as architecture for architecture's sake.

The cynicism was cloaked and today all but forgotten.
Being reactionary is not a legitimate artistic expression, it inherently lacks vision due to it's relationship with real control.

I do like Philip Johnson's late late work, where he accepts his postmodernism as the deconstructionism it truly is. I also appreciate the ethos he left on the profession, manifested in some of the questions posed in this thread.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

[Deut28Thirteen]

I love this building. When I was a little kid I used to think the Chinese owned the building because of the spires. IDK why i thought that.

This post has been edited by Deut28Thirteen: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 11:26 PM

[cosmic08]

 cottonmather0, on Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 @ 6:26pm, said:

I had a meeting in an office there last week. The first time I had ever been up past the lobby and it was really cool, in particular the "balconies" which I couldn't tell are usable or not (I assume not).

As far as I know (I used to work in this building) the balconies are not usable. I've looked at them many times out of my window and always wondered what purpose they served. They are very small with a tiled floor. The only time I saw them utilized was by a window washing crew.

[rsb320]

 houstonmacbro, on Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 @ 6:41pm, said:

I heard that the bottom portion was built over (around?) another building. Instead of tearing it down, they incorporated it into the structure.

Any truth to that?

The shorter, side building was built around the former Western Union Terminal. It had something to do with not disturbing the wiring infrastructure.

[kylejack]

FYI this building has public access up to the 50th floor or so, whatever the top floor is from the first set of elevators. There's a sign up there that says "No public access beyond this point" for the next set of elevators, so I take that to translate to "Public access UNTIL this point" haha

Anyway, its not a big observation deck or anything but there is a window you can look out and over Allen Parkway. Its a pretty neat view!

[Daniepwils]

Quote

As far as I know (I used to work in this building) the balconies are not usable. I've looked at them many times out of my window and always wondered what purpose they served. They are very small with a tiled floor. The only time I saw them utilized was by a window washing crew.

Film crews use them as well to take views of the city I guess.

Quote

FYI this building has public access up to the 50th floor or so, whatever the top floor is from the first set of elevators. There's a sign up there that says "No public access beyond this point" for the next set of elevators, so I take that to translate to "Public access UNTIL this point" haha

Anyway, its not a big observation deck or anything but there is a window you can look out and over Allen Parkway. Its a pretty neat view!

You are correct. That is a transfer floor for the 51,52, and 53 floor. My mom use to have a lawfirm on those floors. If I remember correctly there is also an Arab Bank on the 50th Floor where you have to be buzzed in.

This post has been edited by Daniepwils: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 4:04 PM

[gargoyle_dreams]

I love the Bank of America building !
When I'm watching tv and a skyline in a program/movie is supposed to be Houston's....it is the one building I look for first.

My dad's office was in the Neils Esperson Building.
There's a building with an interesting history and Esperson's wife had her own building as well.

When I was little we went to my dad's office to watch the livestock show and rodeo parade go by right under the window.
I can't remember what floor he was on....4th or 5th maybe.

Fastest elevators I've ever been on (with people who had a membership) were the ones in the Exxon building that are only for the 43rd (or was it the 34th) floor, which was/is the Petroleum Club at the top of the building.
Your ears would pop several times going up and also down.
Loved their windows -floor to ceiling and wrapped around most of the top floor which had the height of 2 floors.
You could walk right up to the glass with your toes touching it and look almost straight down.

[gargoyle_dreams]

WestGrayGuy -
Sorry to ask about something sad, but did you mean the story of a woman who thought it was safe to go down to the floor her car was on, but the floor was flooded ?
God, that was horrible....and I thought that happened at a garage in the Medical Center....didn't know it was Bank of America....maybe this is a different story.

The sad, haunting photos of the flooding in buildings just stayed with me.

This post has been edited by gargoyle_dreams: Monday, June 8, 2009 at 11:42 PM