Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 765
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The sign is up (iPhone night quality is poor):     Also, I am eternally grateful to the JW for improving the view from my loft:     806 Main before pic from HAIF:  

New signage/graphics on Rusk side...  

From street level. Porte Cochére has recessed LED lighting.

Posted Images

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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Let me help you with reading comprehension.  The statement says nothing about the attitudes of developers.  Rather, it refers to people on HAIF who post comments which imply that someone's opinion on architecture is silly or unimportant, because they're not the mighty developer with the money to actually do the project.  You made such a comment earlier on this thread (post 342), and it's a common sentiment on HAIF among people who don't like architecture or maybe don't know much about it, but enjoy saying to the people who do, "Who are you to criticize the mighty developer? Get the money to do it yourself if you don't like it."

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My stars, but people seem to be getting worked up easily today.  On to an easier question...

 

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. 

 

I work nearby and have watched this up close and personal on a daily basis.  The tar like coating was there underneath the glass and stone facade, I assume as some sort of waterproofing layer so that the stone work didn't need to be sealed up all that tightly.  My guess is that it was impractical, if not impossible, to remove.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me help you with reading comprehension.  The statement says nothing about the attitudes of developers.  Rather, it refers to people on HAIF who post comments which imply that someone's opinion on architecture is silly or unimportant, because they're not the mighty developer with the money to actually do the project.  You made such a comment earlier on this thread (post 342), and it's a common sentiment on HAIF among people who don't like architecture or maybe don't know much about it, but enjoy saying to the people who do, "Who are you to criticize the mighty developer? Get the money to do it yourself if you don't like it."

 

 

 

"Hold accountable", "Walmart",  "They always do this to us", "smdh", "mediocre Texas historicist architect". I find it all to be delightfully overwrought and so entirely predictable an outrage over something so small, or more succinctly, self parody. Criticize all you like, it makes this place enjoyable.  

 

If you think these stars are that serious and important, more power to you, I'll be enjoying the discussion while you are here for whatever smug satisfaction you get from knowing more about architecture than me but still having the exact same amount of impact on the actual architecture being discussed. My post in #342 just pointed out the obvious, they like the stars so on they go. It must be my lack of reading comprehension that precludes me from seeing where I implied that all should be silent on their choice. 

 

I'll be danged if it doesn't look to my uncomprehending self like I criticized them too, in post #342 of all places. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hold accountable", "Walmart",  "They always do this to us", "smdh", "mediocre Texas historicist architect". I find it all to be delightfully overwrought and so entirely predictable an outrage over something so small, or more succinctly, self parody. Criticize all you like, it makes this place enjoyable.  

 

If you think these stars are that serious and important, more power to you, I'll be enjoying the discussion while you are here for whatever smug satisfaction you get from knowing more about architecture than me but still having the exact same amount of impact on the actual architecture being discussed. My post in #342 just pointed out the obvious, they like the stars so on they go. It must be my lack of reading comprehension that precludes me from seeing where I implied that all should be silent on their choice. 

 

I'll be danged if it doesn't look to my uncomprehending self like I criticized them too, in post #342 of all places. 

 

So are we agreed that I never said "developers hate poor people"?  Just for the record...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So are we agreed that I never said "developers hate poor people"?  Just for the record...

 

Agreed, you didn't say that. Your particular phrasing sounded like a unfairly negative hyperbole though. 

 

If you had characterized my position as, "Your opinion is not important because you don't have money in the project" I would have agreed with your characterization, because that's pretty much what I think.  Importance is relative. You may have meaningful thoughts on the matter, but less pragmatically so than people with actual skin in it, again, my opinion. If it's not going to matter, it's not that important of an idea, I think we look at this completely differently.

 

But I don't equate someone holding an unimportant opinion to the person being unimportant, that's just an ugly way to phrase something. It's that you said "You're not important because you don't have the money that they do".  That sounds like "shut up poor people you have no value" to me, but that could be an incorrect inference on my part and its not what I think. 

Edited by Nate99
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, you didn't say that. Your particular phrasing sounded like a unfairly negative hyperbole though.

If you had characterized my position as, "Your opinion is not important because you don't have money in the project" I would have agreed with your characterization, because that's pretty much what I think. Importance is relative. You may have meaningful thoughts on the matter, but less pragmatically so than people with actual skin in it, again, my opinion. If it's not going to matter, it's not that important of an idea, I think we look at this completely differently.

But I don't equate someone holding an unimportant opinion to the person being unimportant, that's just an ugly way to phrase something. It's that you said "You're not important because you don't have the money that they do". That sounds like "shut up poor people you have no value" to me, but that could be an incorrect inference on my part and its not what I think.

Fair enough. I hate making enemies on here so I won't push that one any further, but I still think your comments on self parody were meant to antagonize.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I hate making enemies on here so I won't push that one any further, but I still think your comments on self parody were meant to antagonize.

 

Perhaps I was amusing myself at others' expense, but I certainly do not take it seriously to ever expect to make an enemy. It's just opinions.

 

More pics to come. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, stop arguing about stupid things. You're acting like children. Let's go back to posting photos.

Here's the current progress of the top of 806 Main. The top 5 floors are pretty much done, the mast climbers have been shortened another segment, and now they're just putting the final colored texturing around floors 18-20. They've also painted the southwest side of the penthouse. I still wonder if they will do something about the windows up there, because at the very least they need a coat of paint, yet the scaffolding is gone with no progress (click for a bigger view):

pOqqNzml.jpg

Since I know they are a point of contention, here's a closeup of one of the stars:

10Rl5oM.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 I still wonder if they will do something about the windows up there, because at the very least they need a coat of paint, yet the scaffolding is gone with no progress (click for a bigger view):

 

 

Maybe they will pop them out and replace from the inside? 

 

It might be earlier in the thread, but somewhere I got the impression that this penthouse was for elevator mechanicals. If that were the case, something other than an actual window could be installed there too. Agreed that it seems odd to completely refinish the exterior all around and leave the raggedy old window frames. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I know they are a point of contention, here's a closeup of one of the stars:

10Rl5oM.jpg

 

Thank you for the closeup.  And on closer inspection, this is definitely a star.  I count one, two, three, four... five points.  One on top, two on the bottom.  Whether one likes it or doesn't like it, it's a star.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda chuckling at the "Innovative & Timeless" sign on the fence below. Really--they pretty much destroyed the facade of the building and rebuilt it in something similar to what it originally was. I wonder what restaurants or shops will be in the street level though. And was it ever connected to the tunnels?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is connected to the tunnels, both to BG across Main, and via 801 Travis to the Niels Esperson food court (blink and you will miss the corridor heading east from the Niels).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda chuckling at the "Innovative & Timeless" sign on the fence below. Really--they pretty much destroyed the facade of the building and rebuilt it in something similar to what it originally was. I wonder what restaurants or shops will be in the street level though. And was it ever connected to the tunnels?

 

The facade was pretty much destroyed back in the 60s.  It is unfair to the point of ridiculous to pin that on the current (re)-developers.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The facade was pretty much destroyed back in the 60s.  It is unfair to the point of ridiculous to pin that on the current (re)-developers.

From what I've seen, a lot of facade "improvements" added in the 1950s and 1960s simply covered up the original facade. Are you saying that underwent extensive construction to the extent of basically gutting the building decades earlier?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that picture (#384), whats the building in front of the JW Marriott, with the crown? It looks awesome. I'm still trying to learn all these different buildings

 

That's the Gulf Building (now the JP Morgan Chase Bank Building). It was constructed in 1929 and designed by Alfred Finn, Kenneth Franzheim and J.E.R. Carpenter. Jesse H. Jones served as developer. It is 36 stories, 450-feet tall and was tallest building in Houston from 1929-1963.

 

Source: AIA Houston Architectural Guide, third edition

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you walk through the ground floor it actually looks even better.

 

Definitely. Probably the coolest looking building lobby in Houston. It is what I imagined the Empire State Building lobby would look like.

 

The actual ESB lobby was, as I recall foggily, rather cramped feeling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I figure since it has been a couple weeks since my last update, I'd update you guys again. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a whole lot of visible progress lately.

They finally took down the scaffolding around the penthouse. Also, they put another coat of paint on floors 18 through 20, so those look a lot less splotchy now. Then they shortened the mast climbers/scaffolvators down to the 17th floor. Most recently, they added a little more trim around the 17th floor windows, troweled on the gray stuff, and put a coat of white paint on it. Also I saw a guy putting a little bit of the gray stuff on the right side of the area behind the right elevator, below floors 18, 19, and 20.

Here's a photo from late Friday afternoon, and as usual, click for higher resolution:

xNoSorBl.jpg

Edited by rechlin
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I pulled out an old picture of 806 Main and you're right, there is something there that might very well be stars.  Unfortunately the resolution wasn't high enough to know for sure.  I couldn't rule out stars, but it does seem like someone of an odd touch on structures of that vintage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

They did a lot more painting today. Relief is done everywhere except between floors 15 and 16. Unfortunately the texture still looks really bad, so you can see many of the individual foam pieces that make up the fake stone, especially below the 15th floor in the middle of the building (click for a better view):

rjdnguNl.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

They did a lot more painting today. Relief is done everywhere except between floors 15 and 16. Unfortunately the texture still looks really bad, so you can see many of the individual foam pieces that make up the fake stone, especially below the 15th floor in the middle of the building (click for a better view):

rjdnguNl.jpg

My god they need to do something. I hope they do add that faux brick because that looks terrible.

They absolutely need to do something

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Highrise Tower changed the title to JW Marriott Hotel Downtown

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...