Bank Of The Southwest Building

[TheNiche]

Appreciate the compliment.

None intended.

[desirous]

It would seem that your opinion and mine of bad design differ. Oh well. No surprise there.

That's where my qualm kicks in - that such as important issue as whether a street-front is useful or not, gets reduced to such a grossly arbitrary, philosophical term as design. It feels too much like an armchair-general version of urban planning. The Stalinists did a great job of upholding their design philosophy; according to speculative theory, it was beautiful and functional. In the end, it was neither. No offense meant. My assertion is simply that we need to kick the elitist, "schools-of-art" attitude (where obscene pencil sketches can be "inspirational") out of the construction of our urban spaces, and use judgments that actually matter for potential residents and merchants. I sit here, looking out my window at the (Dallas) Bank One Tower plaza, sheathed in granite, graced with trees and fountains... and ultimately, besting the best of Pyongyang in bleakness. The only retail is a newspaper stand at an unshaded bus stop. People wouldn't have anything to do with this entire block, even if they got paid for it - that's what it boils down to.

Edited March 27, 2007 by desirous

[TheNiche]

My assertion is simply that we need to kick the elitist, "schools-of-art" attitude (where obscene pencil sketches can be "inspirational") out of the construction of our urban spaces, and use judgments that actually matter for potential residents and merchants.

I actually agree. This is ironically why I favor tunnels, skywalks, and other enclosed venues over outdoor streetscapes. There are just so many clear advantages that matter to potential residents, employees, and merchants of downtown.

[desirous]

I actually agree. This is ironically why I favor tunnels, skywalks, and other enclosed venues over outdoor streetscapes. There are just so many clear advantages that matter to potential residents, employees, and merchants of downtown.

Yes, that is quite admirable. My rant was based on the fact that design choices are made independently of such considerations. That is, with or without skywalks and tunnels, we would've gotten the same ol' desolate plazas. Houston has coped well against those shortcomings.

[dbigtex56]

That's where my qualm kicks in - that such as important issue as whether a street-front is useful or not, gets reduced to such a grossly arbitrary, philosophical term as design. It feels too much like an armchair-general version of urban planning. The Stalinists did a great job of upholding their design philosophy; according to speculative theory, it was beautiful and functional. In the end, it was neither. No offense meant. My assertion is simply that we need to kick the elitist, "schools-of-art" attitude (where obscene pencil sketches can be "inspirational") out of the construction of our urban spaces, and use judgments that actually matter for potential residents and merchants. I sit here, looking out my window at the (Dallas) Bank One Tower plaza, sheathed in granite, graced with trees and fountains... and ultimately, besting the best of Pyongyang in bleakness. The only retail is a newspaper stand at an unshaded bus stop. People wouldn't have anything to do with this entire block, even if they got paid for it - that's what it boils down to.

Gee, I've never heard the word 'design' described as grossly arbitrary. It seems pretty all-encompassing to me.

I'm also puzzled as to what in the "elitist, "schools-of-art" attitude" and "obscene pencil sketches" (whatever they are) is intrinsically offensive; they seem to address the very issues on which you place great importance. Certainly it's a superior method of planning and designing public spaces than the old model of "I am your God, The Architect, looking down from on high."

Sure, it's fun to look at scale models of buildings, but it gives a false perspective. To plan from the perspective of street level (and multiple points of view) requires the architect to consider how a space will actually be utilized, not as a mere design element to offset a single building.

Open plazas in urban settings can be a blessing or a curse. Jane Jacobs did time/usage studies of some of the more prominent ones around New York City, and her findings are still relevant. I recommend reading that chapter of The Death and Life of Great American Cities; she explains their dynamics more clearly than I, and in greater detail than belongs here. Some of these rants could use a good editing.

[desirous]

Gee, I've never heard the word 'design' described as grossly arbitrary. It seems pretty all-encompassing to me.

I'm also puzzled as to what in the "elitist, "schools-of-art" attitude" and "obscene pencil sketches" (whatever they are) is intrinsically offensive; they seem to address the very issues on which you place great importance. Certainly it's a superior method of planning and designing public spaces than the old model of "I am your God, The Architect, looking down from on high."

Sure, it's fun to look at scale models of buildings, but it gives a false perspective. To plan from the perspective of street level (and multiple points of view) requires the architect to consider how a space will actually be utilized, not as a mere design element to offset a single building.

Open plazas in urban settings can be a blessing or a curse. Jane Jacobs did time/usage studies of some of the more prominent ones around New York City, and her findings are still relevant. I recommend reading that chapter of The Death and Life of Great American Cities; she explains their dynamics more clearly than I, and in greater detail than belongs here. Some of these rants could use a good editing.

I own the book. New York evolved from a dense urban foundation, a density almost unique among American cities. Here, we already have deserted streetscapes, and (tunnels notwithstanding) architects never seem to get tired of building more.

[Trae]

Damn, I would have loved it if this thing was built. Something this tall doesn't seem to far off in Houston though.

[houstonmacbro]

Let me ask. Are designs ever re-animated? I mean, theoretically, could someone else come along, buy the designs and build the tower even though it was cancelled by the original builder?

[editor]

Let me ask. Are designs ever re-animated? I mean, theoretically, could someone else come along, buy the designs and build the tower even though it was cancelled by the original builder?

Sometimes. But not usually in the same city.

[marc]

^^^^

YES. As a matter of fact, look at Chicago and Philidelphia. Both cities got various versions of this beautiful building.

Those of you who look at my other posts know i am relentless about wanting a tower in DT with a spire. I think it would add so much to the skyline. I am disapointed the BoSW did not get built. I remember seeing an old magazine from maybe '83-'84, i think it was TIME or it could have been TX Monthly, which featured this building. Anyway, as all know, many grand visions for Houston during that time were tabled due to the oil bust. But i keep praying to the architectural gods that if Houston is once again smart (as it was in the late 80's) and diversifies its interests to focus on "alternative to fossil fuel" energy, i think we will see something we can all be proud of in the next few years.

m.

[ChannelTwoNews]

An article on height concerns about the then proposed tower...

What I found interesting was in another article written four months prior to this one on the demolition of the 60's "Southwest Tower" was the sense of certainty of the writing about this building. Seems so odd reading it with the advantage of hindsight. Was it really a forgone conclusion at the time that the building was going to be built or was it just a lot of spin from the business community which influenced the columnist in that story?

Edited September 1, 2007 by ChannelTwoNews

[Montrose1100]

An article on height concerns about the then proposed tower...

What I found interesting was in another article written four months prior to this one on the demolition of the 60's "Southwest Tower" was the sense of certainty of the writing about this building. Seems so odd reading it with the advantage of hindsight. Was it really a forgone conclusion at the time that the building was going to be built or was it just a lot of spin from the business community which influenced the columnist in that story?

So I'm not crazy, and the tower could have been built?

[Trae]

____ you Hobby Airport. Why couldn't it be located maybe 13 miles outside of Downtown?

[TheNiche]

____ you Hobby Airport. Why couldn't it be located maybe 13 miles outside of Downtown?

Did you not read the article? That the proposed tower would've been a considered a flight hazard by FAA would NOT have prevented the developers from going forward.

[Daniepwils]

Wells Fargo Plaza has three levels of parking underground. I use to park there for about 300+ a month. My mother was at a different firm in the same building and paid 400+ for reserved a month.

[flyingman]

The landing pattern for runway 12R (the only part that would be affected) would NOT be affected. The planes as today fly the pattern to the west of the high rises. The new tower would have been happily in the bunch out of the way. It wouldn't be hard to change airspace rules around downtown high rises anyway for whatever reason, just as they were after 9/11. Takeoff being affected is ridiculous as you're up above 1000 ft well within a couple seconds after takeoff, way before nearing downtown.

Those findings were so 1980s. It even states that it'd just be something new for pilots to look out for, as any mountain, radio tower, or building is.

Edited September 28, 2007 by flyingman

[TxDave]

Let me ask. Are designs ever re-animated? I mean, theoretically, could someone else come along, buy the designs and build the tower even though it was cancelled by the original builder?

Someone could probably build that building, but I imagine that there are a lot of egos involved in any project of that size. Any new developer and architects would likely want to design and build something of their own.

[LTAWACS]

We need something like this.

[ChannelTwoNews]

Considering a few early articles regarding this building mentioned that the entire 79th floor would be an observatory which you could pay a small fee to access... That would've been awesome.

[Trae]

We need something like this.

Wow, your back. Did you decide to move to Dallas or Atlanta?

[plumber2]

This building was designed to have a gyroscope in the upper floors. It would have anticipated wind force and leaned the building in the direction of the wind. Real cool stuff. Sorry it didn't get built.

[Urbannizer]

This was SOM Architects concept for the tower.

1,370 FT.

[/

[citizen4rmptown]

This was SOM Architects concept for the tower.

1,370 FT.

[/

im not exactly sure of your intent to post these pics....

is this a different plan for the tower by another architect?

[Urbannizer]

im not exactly sure of your intent to post these pics....

is this a different plan for the tower by another architect?

Yes. Well it 'was' a different plan...

[citizen4rmptown]

Yes. Well it 'was' a different plan...

it would've been a nice alternative, but the original is better

[Subdude]

I always liked the winning design, but I have to admit that the runner up might well have aged better and not looked so obviously mid-1980s.

[ChannelTwoNews]

I heard there was a book or at least a few articles that chronicled the design competition. If either is true, does anyone know what they are or if they could be found? I know the structure is profiled in compilation books about several of the architects, but that's it.

I've been thinking of compiling a bunch of the period articles together so people could have a better understanding of what exactly was going on during the time. Certainly one of the more interesting planning phases that I've seen, and just the fact that even when BOtSW fell through, the later owners of the land (Senterra) maintained that a highrise was still planned for the lot. Even if it was a lot of blown smoke, its still kinda hard to think it wound up as surface parking in that context.

Edited July 19, 2009 by ChannelTwoNews

[houstonmacbro]

I always liked the winning design, but I have to admit that the runner up might well have aged better and not looked so obviously mid-1980s.

The winning design rocked!

[Urbannizer]

I found renderings of a different design for this tower.

Here was KPF's idea:

Edited January 17, 2011 by Urbannizer

[Urbannizer]

Six, additional design proposals for the Bank of the Southwest Tower! By Helmut Jahn.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Urbannizer