Jump to content

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


Houston19514

Recommended Posts

"Why design something complicated when you can just put stars?"

---Every mediocre Texas historicist architect

Ugh stars, really! I don't know...this building is starting to throw me hints of the hideous Harris County Civil Courhouse building.

They always do this to us, smdh

Ahhh, stars. The walmart touch!! This keeps getting better and better

Wow.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm an apologist for hokey Texas stuff, but the stars don't bother me. Once it is all done, from street level, they may not even be that prominent.

 

Not that it will bother me either way. 

 

Unless we get more stars at the bottom.

 

The problem with stars, aside from the fact that they're a kitschy substitute for real design, is that it marks this building out as part of the 1990's-2000's (hopefully waning now) star fad in Texas architecture.  This building was built in 1912 in Houston.  It was not part of the Texas star obsession.  It was not built in Austin or Fort Worth.  We have an architectural tradition here that is independent of and transcends the state of Texas.  Main Street is not Sundance Square.  We are not aiming to be featured on Texas Highways for our candied jalapenos and homemade ice cream and soda pumped by hand from a real old-fashioned soda fountain.  Our trajectory is higher than this.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nits will be picked, but this thing is turning out to be so much better than it what it was. The differences are now just in terms of personal preference. Prior to BG Place going up, that block was as sketchy as they come. 

 

I'm wondering if the original exterior brick might have needed restoration prior to the installation of the glass curtain or if the tar like coating on the outside was just to seal it up to keep mold or whatever from getting in to the building. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nits will be picked, but this thing is turning out to be so much better than it what it was. The differences are now just in terms of personal preference. Prior to BG Place going up, that block was as sketchy as they come. 

 

I'm wondering if the original exterior brick might have needed restoration prior to the installation of the glass curtain or if the tar like coating on the outside was just to seal it up to keep mold or whatever from getting in to the building. 

 

Yes, this is far better than what it was, but in this case it isn't just a matter of personal preference.  There is an objective standard they can aspire to - the pre-1965 facade.  By that standard, the hokey stars don't belong.  I can accept that damage to the original facade might preclude an exact replica, but they've chosen to move beyond the original replication and create some sort of stylistic mishmash.  

 

 

 

What is the freakin' deal with stars anyway?  The old Bank of the Southwest building (919 Milam) was also speckled with them when it was remodeled.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is far better than what it was, but in this case it isn't just a matter of personal preference.  There is an objective standard they can aspire to - the pre-1965 facade.  By that standard, the hokey stars don't belong.  I can accept that damage to the original facade might preclude an exact replica, but they've chosen to move beyond the original replication and create some sort of stylistic mishmash.  

 

 

 

What is the freakin' deal with stars anyway?  The old Bank of the Southwest building (919 Milam) was also speckled with them when it was remodeled.  

 

Everything associated with setting any standard in architecture, objective or not, is a matter of personal preference. The strong preference around here for keeping old things unchanged borders on self parody, but the people paying for it liked the stars, so stars we shall see.

 

They seem unnecessary to me, but I can't get too fussed about it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strong preference around here for keeping old things unchanged borders on self parody, but the people paying for it liked the stars, so stars we shall see.

 

So does the reflexive defense of every decision any developer makes, along with the implied "You're not important because you don't have the money that they do."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does the reflexive defense of every decision any developer makes, along with the implied "You're not important because you don't have the money that they do."

 

If you base "importance" on someone's opinion of architecture preservation, you've got problems that more money won't solve. 

 

I said that the stars seemed unnecessary, but I guess that doesn't meet the "holding them accountable" standard. Inferring (there's a difference between that and someone else implying something) ill motives from everyone that disagrees with you is silly.

 

 

I see something there, can't really say if it's stars....

 

And if they are, do you retroactively dislike the original styling? 

 

Edited by Nate99
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see something there, can't really say if it's stars....

 

Let's say they are stars for the sake of this restoration. I wont ask any more questions. They are stars. :)

 

Now lets add some top detail.

 

Off topic: I refuse to allow anymore older buildings downtown to be demo-ed. These postcards show how many beautiful buildings downtown had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you base "importance" on someone's opinion of architecture preservation, you've got problems that more money won't solve. 

 

I said that the stars seemed unnecessary, but I guess that doesn't meet the "holding them accountable" standard. Inferring (there's a difference between that and someone else implying something) ill motives from everyone that disagrees with you is childish. 

 

Wow. It looks like you haven't let that old argument go, even though you said at the time that you were done and I gave you the last word. Now you're bending my words really hard in order to call me childish.

 

I'm going to keep voicing my opinion on architecture as this is an architecture forum. If that upsets you, I don't really have anything to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. It looks like you haven't let that old argument go, even though you said at the time that you were done and I gave you the last word. Now you're bending my words really hard in order to call me childish.

 

I'm going to keep voicing my opinion on architecture as this is an architecture forum. If that upsets you, I don't really have anything to say.

 

Childish was too strong, I changed my wording. 

 

I bent nothing, you assume ill motives to people that disagree with you on something trivial. 

 

Either way, the argument continued fresh with the usual arm waving over something that might actually be faithful to the original. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And if they are, do you retroactively dislike the original styling? 

 

 

If they are, then it makes the decision to employ them in the restoration a lot more palatable. Because it's my opinion that a restoration should aim at, you know, restoring the original, and that the original provides an "objective" standard for how it should look. (But that's just my opinion, don't want to upset anyone.)

 

As far as whether I like or dislike (or retroactively dislike) the original, I was never in love with it, mainly because of the number of cornices, and the pilasters floating 15 stories above the ground. The 1912 was better composed than the 1920 alteration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I bent nothing, you assume ill motives to people that disagree with you on something trivial. 

 

Either way, the argument continued fresh with the usual arm waving over something that might actually be faithful to the original. 

 

Different argument, I let the old one go.  Trying not to start a personal feud here.

 

I assume ill motives?  Was I wrong in thinking you had me in mind when you said that the opinions of preservationists on here "borders on self-parody?" Sounds like you were looking for a fight...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are, then it makes the decision to employ them in the restoration a lot more palatable. Because it's my opinion that a restoration should aim at, you know, restoring the original, and that the original provides an "objective" standard for how it should look. (But that's just my opinion, don't want to upset anyone.)

 

As far as whether I like or dislike (or retroactively dislike) the original, I was never in love with it, mainly because of the number of cornices, and the pilasters floating 15 stories above the ground. The 1912 was better composed than the 1920 alteration.

 

You can either call it a pure restoration, or look at it like your trying to make the building look good. 

 

If you value originality above all else, I guess that's what you like, I'm more of the opinion that either you like it or you don't, regardless of how long it has been there. 

 

Someone thought it looked bad enough to spend a lot of money and cover it up completely back in the 60's, or whenever that happened. It could happen again.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was I wrong in thinking you had me in mind when you said that the opinions of preservationists on here "borders on self-parody?" Sounds like you were looking for a fight...

 

That was not meant to be personal to you, just an observation on the general tone of things like this thread that I find humorous, but perhaps I'm easily amused.

 

I could write the replies myself as a joke, and many have, it's fun with stereotypes, certainly nothing serious like "developers hate poor people". 

Edited by Nate99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was not meant to be personal to you, just an observation on the general tone of things like this thread that I find humorous, but perhaps I'm easily amused.

I could write the replies myself as a joke, and many have, it's fun with stereotypes, certainly nothing serious like "developers hate poor people".

Pretty obvious that the comment on "self-parody" was meant to antagonize, but I guess you need to backpedal now that you made such a fuss of my "attributing ill motives."

 

Please quote where anyone suggested anything like "developers hate poor people."

Edited by H-Town Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please quote where anyone suggested anything like "developers hate poor people."

 

Here you go...

 

... along with the implied "You're not important because you don't have the money that they do."

 

 

 

You're going to see what you want to. 

 

The histrionics over a small feature seemed over the top to me, and parodies are funny, not antagonistic.  If I am itching for an argument, you certainly seem itching to oblige. I'm not. It's all opinion and there is no perfect or objective. 

Edited by Nate99
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...