Jump to content

JW Marriott At 806 Main St. & Expansion Into Battlestein’s - 812 Main St.


Houston19514

Recommended Posts

eh, i still wouldnt put it like that.

 

Not that I'm not happy to see this happen, but it's an approximation and simplification of the building's original appearance.

"Reversal" suggests that the damage of the midcentury remodel is being reversed, but that can never happen. The damage was permanent; the vast majority of historic material is lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eh, i still wouldnt put it like that.

 

Not that I'm not happy to see this happen, but it's an approximation and simplification of the building's original appearance.

"Reversal" suggests that the damage of the midcentury remodel is being reversed, but that can never happen. The damage was permanent; the vast majority of historic material is lost.

 

Yes, but it is overall all an excellent approximation.  The original facade was enameled white brick, like the Stowers Building, and it doesn't look like they are replacing that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but it is overall all an excellent approximation.  The original facade was enameled white brick, like the Stowers Building, and it doesn't look like they are replacing that. 

 

You sure it wasn't beige brick?  Granted I've only seen b&w pictures, but I had the impression that it was beige.

 

I was a bit disappointed that they're going with faux brick or "brick sliced thin," since it won't hold up and look nearly as good down the road as real brick, but I seem to be in the minority on here in feeling this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sure it wasn't beige brick?  Granted I've only seen b&w pictures, but I had the impression that it was beige.

 

I was a bit disappointed that they're going with faux brick or "brick sliced thin," since it won't hold up and look nearly as good down the road as real brick, but I seem to be in the minority on here in feeling this way.

 

In some of the pictures on this topic, both new photos and old postcards, it looks white.  It is interesting though that in the rendering of how the completed project is supposed to look they are going for beige on the ground floor and the upper stories that were later additions to the building.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a bold statement, do you work for the spec manufacturers? How do you know it's future patina or ceramic integrity?

 

 

theyre using eifs detailed to look like brick. only the first 3 floors will actually even have real masonry.

Of course, that's all youll really be able to perceive from the sidewalk anyway.

Hell, the Romans did it. 

 

I guess the Romans should have built their aqueducts out of thin panels that look like bricks instead of actual bricks?  Maybe then they'd survive even longer than the 2,000 years they have survived.

 

I don't want to be rude but this is common sense. The classic rectangular shape of a real brick is what it is because of its superb structural integrity. If a thin panel standing on its end was more durable than the conventional brick, I'm sure the Egyptians or whoever invented brick would have figured it out and shaped their clay molds accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Romans built (some) temples clad with marble up to a certain height, Above that it was plaster etched to look like marble. 

 

Also, whatever they do use here, it's not going to be "structural." All it has to do is hold itself up; the building is in no way reliant upon it. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really defending what they're doing here. Is it better than tearing it down or leaving it the way it was? Yes.

This is *not* responsible historic preservation/reconstruction though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Romans built (some) temples clad with marble up to a certain height, Above that it was plaster etched to look like marble. 

 

Also, whatever they do use here, it's not going to be "structural." All it has to do is hold itself up; the building is in no way reliant upon it. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really defending what they're doing here. Is it better than tearing it down or leaving it the way it was? Yes.

This is *not* responsible historic preservation/reconstruction though.

 

I think we can agree that overall the project is a good thing, and going for higher quality probably gets into a law of diminishing returns.  And you make a good point, that the brick is at any rate not structural.  But even if it's not structural, it still has to hold up to wear and look good.  A brick facade with dents, chips, scratches, etc. looks a lot better than a faux-brick panel facade with dents, chips, scratches, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...