Jump to content
HAIF - Houston's original social media

Museum of Fine Arts Houston Expansion


Recommended Posts

I'm delighted to see a conservation center is part of the plan. MFAH once owned a handsome Carl Milles fountain that suffered internal damage due to corrosion and was no longer on view. According to a former museum staffer, "no one could be found to repair it. so they got rid of it". I've always wondered if this is true, or if it still languishes in a dusty storeroom corner somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 935
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Went yesterday and it was amazing.  Very well done. The architecture, the exhibits, everything.  Here are some photos:            

A couple of pics of the ceiling in the main atrium, taken from the third floor. As you can see, there’s tons of natural light augmented with some artificial light. I can’t wait to see this building on

Posted Images

What will be great for this building is to help relieve the Mies Addition from having to rotate different collections. From what I have read it's always been a challenging environment to house art especially if it doesn't work with the space. Maybe once this building is finished they won't be pressured to figure out how to fill the Mies Addition with rotating collections and instead start selecting more permanent pieces to fill the galleries that also complement the buildings vast spaces.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This was an announcement from Ellen Cohen today:

Council approved an Economic Development Agreement, also known as a “380 agreement," between the City of Houston and the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (MFAH). Thisagreement allows the City to give a portion of Roseland St. (between Barkdull St. and Berthea St.) to MFAH in exchange for an expanded public Sculpture Garden which will be maintained by the museum. MFAH is currently undergoing a privately funded $350 million expansion which will include new space for galleries, an auditorium, a restaurant, a new building for the Glassell School of Art (including a walkable green roof), a conservation center, an underground parking garage, and the expanded sculpture plaza.

My question is does the MFAH own the property to the north of the Glassel all the way to Barkdull along Montrose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a museum parking lot.. Right?

No, actually I drove by there yesterday and its got two 30's brick apartment houses on it so I can see that the MFAH probably does own this and will start the Glassell farther North

than the existing Glassell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What will be great for this building is to help relieve the Mies Addition from having to rotate different collections. From what I have read it's always been a challenging environment to house art especially if it doesn't work with the space. Maybe once this building is finished they won't be pressured to figure out how to fill the Mies Addition with rotating collections and instead start selecting more permanent pieces to fill the galleries that also complement the buildings vast spaces.

 

It would be interesting to hear what local architects think of the Mies Addition.  Back in the 80s (I think) MFAH had a director with distinguished credentials, but who apparently hated it ... I remember that he compared it to an airport terminal.

 

I didn't like hearing that, but perhaps he had a point.  Despite that, I always liked the view of the facade from the street, very Miesian international style, good to have an example of that in Houston.  

 

I wonder how many people know that the current "Mies Addition" actually extended an earlier one.  As I recall, the earlier one was similar but set back further from the street, with white-painted steel instead of black.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Mies Addition.  While not his greatest work, its still Mies.  I mean Frank Lloyd Wright didn't design Fallingwater every day, but his work still trumps 99.999999% of all others.  Even his throwaway work.

 

Its kind of funny - we may finally see the Mies addition(s) used in the manner that they were probably intended when Mies designed them back in the 50s and 70s.

Edited by arche_757
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

... Its kind of funny - we may finally see the Mies addition(s) used in the manner that they were probably intended when Mies designed them back in the 50s and 70s.

 

Good to get some feedback!  How do you think they were intended differently than we see them now?

 

I don't really know the sequence of events, but my recollection is that the current Mies facade was a design that was not implemented until years later (after his death).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Arche on that the Mies Addition by far not his best (this is coming from a guy who was able to experience the New National Gallery in Berlin one of his more praised buildings), but it's still a fine piece of architecture that like many of it's brethren is simply misunderstood by a current generation that run things today who simply can not appreciate it's simplicity and rigor in regards to form and space.

 

The building really plays with level changes and like many modernist buildings from Mies to Corb a big idea was progression through space which is very important in a museum and how you can make that interesting. Immediately when you walk into the main Foyer you see these level changes it beckons you to explore more of the space. Probably the most important aspect which has seems to have frustrated past curators is the verticality of it's interiors which makes filling up the space rather difficult. I imagine that the building wasn't really designed with rotating pieces in mind and more of a place to house selected permanent collections. Large modern art pieces that fill whole rooms and large canvas art would serve very well here.

 

Even though it isn't the best Mies building, like Arche said it's still better than most things that get built, period. What's even more interesting is that this building gets through into a much larger conversation about the value and worth of Modernist architecture and whether many are worth saving or should be put on the national register. That's for another thread.

 

@Cloud  Museum directors honestly could care less whether they show their art in a multi-million dollar building or in a warehouse! Because at the end of the day the one thing that matters is the art and many past Directors have made the conclusion that the building robs the spotlight from the art.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Arche on that the Mies Addition by far not his best (this is coming from a guy who was able to experience the New National Gallery in Berlin one of his more praised buildings), but it's still a fine piece of architecture that like many of it's brethren is simply misunderstood by a current generation that run things today who simply can not appreciate it's simplicity and rigor in regards to form and space.

The building really plays with level changes and like many modernist buildings from Mies to Corb a big idea was progression through space which is very important in a museum and how you can make that interesting. Immediately when you walk into the main Foyer you see these level changes it beckons you to explore more of the space. Probably the most important aspect which has seems to have frustrated past curators is the verticality of it's interiors which makes filling up the space rather difficult. I imagine that the building wasn't really designed with rotating pieces in mind and more of a place to house selected permanent collections. Large modern art pieces that fill whole rooms and large canvas art would serve very well here.

Even though it isn't the best Mies building, like Arche said it's still better than most things that get built, period. What's even more interesting is that this building gets through into a much larger conversation about the value and worth of Modernist architecture and whether many are worth saving or should be put on the national register. That's for another thread.

@Cloud Museum directors honestly could care less whether they show their art in a multi-million dollar building or in a warehouse! Because at the end of the day the one thing that matters is the art and many past Directors have made the conclusion that the building robs the spotlight from the art.

The building robs the spotlight from the art? I don't think the building is very exuberant. Just a classic timeless design by one of the most famous architects of the 20th century. I agree it's likely hard to show off exhibition in the larger auditorium spaces of the Mies, but hopefully they can figure out a decent presentation layout with those spaces now that they have a new auditorium space.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mies addition has always seemed crowded - during exhibitions.  Maybe it was just me?  I think its a fun space though, and look forward to the rest of the campus opening up here before the dawn of the next decade.  Which we are already half-way to!  Hard to believe!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Arche on that the Mies Addition by far not his best (this is coming from a guy who was able to experience the New National Gallery in Berlin one of his more praised buildings), but it's still a fine piece of architecture that like many of it's brethren is simply misunderstood by a current generation that run things today who simply can not appreciate it's simplicity and rigor in regards to form and space.

 

The building really plays with level changes and like many modernist buildings from Mies to Corb a big idea was progression through space which is very important in a museum and how you can make that interesting. Immediately when you walk into the main Foyer you see these level changes it beckons you to explore more of the space. Probably the most important aspect which has seems to have frustrated past curators is the verticality of it's interiors which makes filling up the space rather difficult. I imagine that the building wasn't really designed with rotating pieces in mind and more of a place to house selected permanent collections. Large modern art pieces that fill whole rooms and large canvas art would serve very well here.

 

Even though it isn't the best Mies building, like Arche said it's still better than most things that get built, period. What's even more interesting is that this building gets through into a much larger conversation about the value and worth of Modernist architecture and whether many are worth saving or should be put on the national register. That's for another thread.

 

@Cloud  Museum directors honestly could care less whether they show their art in a multi-million dollar building or in a warehouse! Because at the end of the day the one thing that matters is the art and many past Directors have made the conclusion that the building robs the spotlight from the art.

I never said it was bad!  Mies is Mies is Mies is Mies.

 

It may not be the IIT Architecture School - but its a fine building.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it was bad!  Mies is Mies is Mies is Mies.

 

It may not be the IIT Architecture School - but its a fine building.

 

What the hell? I didn't say it was a bad building. I was simply giving it a critical analysis and no matter how much I like the building or any building it doesn't mean I can't be critical about it. Mies never designed bad architecture. His scale was from Super awesome to Simply Good. This is an example of Great and really demonstrates how distinct the International Style was and as some have said is very important that the city of Houston has such a fine example from that time period since at one point we were essential america's example of "The Modernist City".

 

Once again I really like the building, and now hopefully with this new building future directors will give the Mies Addition a second look into how it should be best utilized because instead of being a place that has passing collections it could be become a really distinctive location for a very particular collection of art which could give the building the attention it deserves.

Edited by Luminare
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fan shaped nature of the site combined with the need to maximize space made it difficult for Mies to put a really satisfying building there I think. It seems like a building that, if it were a painting, scholars would guess was done "in the workshop of Rembrandt can Rijn" rather than by the master himself.

I also think its facade could benefit from the rule of thirds. Two stories of glass above one story of masonry would be ideal.

But as Mayor Daley said of criticism of the Picasso sculpture commissioned for a plaza in downtown Chicago, "I don't care what it looks like, I just care that we have a Picasso!"

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the MFAH, and part of the reason is that it really is one of the least "Mies-y" Mies buildings. It's not built on an orthagonal grid; it partially obscures its structure from the street; it's actually pretty sectionally dynamic. It's ultimately distinct and specific to its site in a way that makes it more than just another Mies building.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the MFAH, and part of the reason is that it really is one of the least "Mies-y" Mies buildings. It's not built on an orthagonal grid; it partially obscures its structure from the street; it's actually pretty sectionally dynamic. It's ultimately distinct and specific to its site in a way that makes it more than just another Mies building.  

 

I can understand how at first glance the fact that it is fan shaped would mean that it wasn't built on an orthagonal grid, but this just isn't the case. It wouldn't be very Miesian if it wasn't designed with a grid in mind (as are most modern architecture). A key feature in almost all modernist architecture is the strict adherence to a grid system however, and wherever the system is derived from. In this case it isn't a simple orthagonal grid, but instead it's a radial grid emanating from a distant point just like you would do if you were setting up a drawing in 2-point perspective. Miesian architecture is creating the grid, executing architecture within that grid and populating it with forms and space to create rooms or program. In this case the radial grid was first created and then all the spaces were placed onto the grid, but it still adheres to it.

 

You second point isn't exactly correct as well as the main structure of the building is fully exposed. The spine which runs long the roof of the building is fully exposed and runs from the very back, up the wall, over the roof, and then terminates down in front of the building. Sure it doesn't expose some of it's architecture like Philip Johnson's St. Thomas Campus, is one example, but it still reveals its structure to the public.

 

I will give you created for saying that it is sectionally dynamic! That is a very good way to describe it's interior architecturally.

 

Finally in countering your point about it being site specific, it only accomplishes this through it's exterior shape and nothing more, but it maintains it's International Style aesthetic meaning that theoretically this building could be grafted onto a similarly shaped building anywhere in the world and it would fit onto it.....though a bit awkwardly sure. The architecture though would be at home anywhere thus it being a clear example of International Style.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was not that it wasnt based around a grid, just that it wasn't orthagonal. The difference between an orthagonal grid and a radial grid might not seem like much, but exactly how many buildings did Mies design with a radial grid? (this is actually a genuine question; I'm curious if it's something he played with elsewhere) It creates a fundamentally different effect with the building receding from the entrance, and it's a choice forced by the site. No, that's not much a concession to site, but it's more than I would otherwise expect.

 

But yes, my second point was just wrong. I remembered the structure disappearing into the stone, which it clearly does not. Still there's stone on the outside as a major exterior feature.  Sans German/Barcelona Pavilion, that's somewhat unusual. It also seems to echo/reference the original building somewhat by carrying its materiality, stripped of detailing,  all the way through to Bissonet. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great lecture...never heard of an "orthagonal" grid before.

 

The three finalists were Holl, Snohetta and Morphosis

 

Here's a link to the Morphosis design: http://morphopedia.com/projects/museum-of-fine-arts-houston

 

Glad you liked the conversation.

 

Orthogonal (we both misspelled it lol) is thrown around a lot in Architecture. In laymen terms its something that is linear and so an orthogonal grid is a linear grid. Most often its a grid of squares or rectangles, but can be more than that. Frank Lloyd Wright did all kinds of crazy grids from triangles to hexagons, as an example.

 

MORPHOSIS!!!!! UGH. Now I want that design :( They just recently finished a new Museum (The Perot Museum) in Dallas! Oh well......I'll still take Steven Holl >.<

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We got the best design. Less is more, and a somewhat rectangular building with only modest touches of unusual geometry is better than a design that really tries too hard to make a big splash.

 

I'm also a little wary of buildings that try so hard to create a public space, sort of like the architecture is telling you, "stand here and feel you're in an awesome spot." The Audrey Jones Beck building kind of does this with the grand entrance hall (with the escalator on one side), but the entrance hall has a functionality that keeps it from feeling too desperate. The High Museum in Atlanta tries over and over to make great spaces, and it all collapses under its own sense of earnest. Steven Holl's design basically says, "We are putting a building here - if you want your grand space, you may have either the street or the sculpture garden."

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great lecture...never heard of an "orthagonal" grid before.

 

The three finalists were Holl, Snohetta and Morphosis

 

Here's a link to the Morphosis design: http://morphopedia.com/projects/museum-of-fine-arts-houston

Wow... I am speechless. I almost forgot to breath. Would have had a real presence on Main. I'm almost angry that this wasn't chosen, but I can't be angry, those renderings/models make me happy.

 

I guess this design was too exciting, and Snohetta's design was too boring. Holl's was just right?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo the Morphosis design works in Dallas with the MoN&S(?) because of the tacky architecture in Dallas, and the fact that it's not an art museum. You don't want the building to take away from the art inside of it...

Edit: while the Morphosis design would have been cool, I think the Holl design does the campus more justice. I'd like to see a Morphosis design in Houston someday.. Just not as part of the MFAH. A stand alone building would be sweet, or an addition to a museum that isn't art related.

Edited by cloud713
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Montrose I think you hit the nail right on the head. It's the medium of the two extremes that flank it.

 

Due to my current architectural sensibilities I would have gone with Morphosis. The digital revolution in architecture is upon us and Morphosis is one of the firms leading the way in the US. They really challenge how we perceive form and space and the geometry they create is quite radical for american architecture. What is great about Morphosis is they live and breath the Process. You can see that in their diagrams as they layout each step in how the building was forged or crafted into the shape you see. There is a logic about their work that gives justification to every design decision. There was another thread about that one lab building going in at the St. Thomas campus and the disappearance of the canopy. With a Morphosis design they always get exactly what they want because each element is integral to the whole. Another element which can be seen in the sections and renderings is the "big move". They do a lot of civil and art buildings and they understand that most of the building has to be dedicated to program and so they will assemble the building together and then put a large amount of design attention to a particular area of the building that is the WOW part. The one gives the building its character and uniqueness.

 

@H-Town Man I understand the sensibility for buildings to be a little more subtle or even passive in regards to forming space, but in a city so spaced out devoid of a lot of crafted/intimate spaces I think it's essential for buildings in our context to form or direct people to certain spaces or places. Some buildings do it more than others, but a great building is able to create a new environment within itself and create views to the outside which weren't noticeable before.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Luminare, I know what an orthogonal grid is. I was sarcastically trying to point out your error but as it has many times before, sarcasm doesn't translate well through text.

 

Anyway I think they chose the right architect for the project. All three of those are some of my favorite firms and do great design work. The Snohetta entry in this case was uninspiring to me. I love nearly everything Morphosis designs but I wasn't crazy about this one. The scale almost seemed too small for them and the work they've done recently. I think it also came down to the way the building was presented in the renderings..very conceptual and faint. Their plans and sections, because of the way they design, were probably a little hard to read for people not used to looking at them.

 

I think Holl has the right balance of conceptual and at the same time presenting something that 'looks' like a museum; the plans and sections posted of the building are very clear. At the end of the day though they couldn't have gone wrong with any of the three.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Luminare, I know what an orthogonal grid is. I was sarcastically trying to point out your error but as it has many times before, sarcasm doesn't translate well through text.

 

Anyway I think they chose the right architect for the project. All three of those are some of my favorite firms and do great design work. The Snohetta entry in this case was uninspiring to me. I love nearly everything Morphosis designs but I wasn't crazy about this one. The scale almost seemed too small for them and the work they've done recently. I think it also came down to the way the building was presented in the renderings..very conceptual and faint. Their plans and sections, because of the way they design, were probably a little hard to read for people not used to looking at them.

 

I think Holl has the right balance of conceptual and at the same time presenting something that 'looks' like a museum; the plans and sections posted of the building are very clear. At the end of the day though they couldn't have gone wrong with any of the three.

 

Well...sorry.

 

I all about sarcasm, but I really didn't get any hit of sarcasm from your post especially since it was your very first post...

 

You clearly know what you are talking about. As long as it didn't come off as me talking down to you then ok.

 

I personally am a fan of Morphosis so after seeing their idea for the Museum I would have loved their design. In response to Texasota if you look at the renderings and have looked into Morphosis other works they are very minimalistic in their approach to presentation layouts.

 

The Steven Holl design is a better fit for the way Houston is right now and I think Morphosis is a kind of architecture I hope becomes more the norm in Houston 5-10 years down the road.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will also say I am not a big fan of the Perot. The building feels significantly smaller on the inside than it appears on the exterior.

 

It was a very difficult site and program they had to develop.

 

I would give this a watch:

 

 

It talks about their process for the Perot Museum. Very interesting. I was actually at this Lecture while at A&M.

 

I wonder if there is a video of Steven Holl (or one of his associates) talking about a recent building he did as to get more of an idea of how his practice designs buildings. I'll have to find one later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo the Morphosis design works in Dallas with the MoN&S(?) because of the tacky architecture in Dallas, and the fact that it's not an art museum. You don't want the building to take away from the art inside of it...

Edit: while the Morphosis design would have been cool, I think the Holl design does the campus more justice. I'd like to see a Morphosis design in Houston someday.. Just not as part of the MFAH. A stand alone building would be sweet, or an addition to a museum that isn't art related.

 

I'm not sure what you were saying with the MoN&S but I don't think Dallas has much more tacky architecture than we have here in Houston. Dallas is the only place in the world where you have six different Pritzker Prize winning architect's buildings within walking distance of each other.

 

I'm not a fan of Dallas just sayin'...

 

I am a fan of the Perot though. I think it's a great building. Thom Mayne is a genius but his designs tend to be very polarizing. The concept for the Perot was to not be a neutral background for exhibits as most museums tend to be but to actively engage visitors which is why they placed it on top of a plinth that creates an artificial ground plane that tries to juxtapose nature and the city. It's meant to be explored not feel like you're walking through room after room of dinosaur bones. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you were saying with the MoN&S but I don't think Dallas has much more tacky architecture than we have here in Houston. Dallas is the only place in the world where you have six different Pritzker Prize winning architect's buildings within walking distance of each other.

I'm not a fan of Dallas just sayin'...

I am a fan of the Perot though. I think it's a great building. Thom Mayne is a genius but his designs tend to be very polarizing. The concept for the Perot was to not be a neutral background for exhibits as most museums tend to be but to actively engage visitors which is why they placed it on top of a plinth that creates an artificial ground plane that tries to juxtapose nature and the city. It's meant to be explored not feel like you're walking through room after room of dinosaur bones.

I believe the "tacky" reputation comes from how many reflective glass and, in particular, gold glass buildings they have. Whereas many Dallasites see Houston's skyline as "boring" because it is less glitzy.

As far as the Perot, if that is a great building then they should take the federal courthouse on Rusk, block out most of the windows but leave select random ones open, and add another "great building" to Houston. There, I said it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you were saying with the MoN&S but I don't think Dallas has much more tacky architecture than we have here in Houston. Dallas is the only place in the world where you have six different Pritzker Prize winning architect's buildings within walking distance of each other.

I'm not a fan of Dallas just sayin'...

I am a fan of the Perot though. I think it's a great building. Thom Mayne is a genius but his designs tend to be very polarizing. The concept for the Perot was to not be a neutral background for exhibits as most museums tend to be but to actively engage visitors which is why they placed it on top of a plinth that creates an artificial ground plane that tries to juxtapose nature and the city. It's meant to be explored not feel like you're walking through room after room of dinosaur bones.

I didn't mean the Perot was tacky. I just think it's oddball/over the top style fits in better with the rest of Dallas.

What/where are these 6 priztker prize winning architects buildings within walking distance of each other?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean the Perot was tacky. I just think it's oddball/over the top style fits in better with the rest of Dallas.

What/where are these 6 priztker prize winning architects buildings within walking distance of each other?

 

I know you weren't referring to the Perot when you said tacky.

 

The buildings are

 

Winspear Opera House - Norman Foster

Wyly Theater - Rem Koolhaas

Perot Museum - Thom Mayne

Morton H Meyerson Symphony Center - IM Pei

Nasher Sculpture Center - Renzo Piano

Pick any Philip Johnson building, there's several in downtown 

 

There's also the Rachofsky House just outside Dallas by Richard Meier who is also a Pritzker winner

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you weren't referring to the Perot when you said tacky.

 

The buildings are

 

Winspear Opera House - Norman Foster

Wyly Theater - Rem Koolhaas

Perot Museum - Thom Mayne

Morton H Meyerson Symphony Center - IM Pei

Nasher Sculpture Center - Renzo Piano

Pick any Philip Johnson building, there's several in downtown 

 

There's also the Rachofsky House just outside Dallas by Richard Meier who is also a Pritzker winner

 

Impressive list. But several Philip Johnsons downtown? I can only think of Momentum Place/Comerica and the Crescent if you count Uptown as downtown. Thanksgiving Square and the JFK Memorial too, but neither is a building.

 

Pei is closer to having several - Meyerson, City Hall, and Fountain Place.

 

Didn't Rem Koolhaas distance himself from the Wyly Theater after they made changes to it? Thought I heard something like that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Impressive list. But several Philip Johnsons downtown? I can only think of Momentum Place/Comerica and the Crescent if you count Uptown as downtown. Thanksgiving Square and the JFK Memorial too, but neither is a building.

 

Pei is closer to having several - Meyerson, City Hall, and Fountain Place.

 

Didn't Rem Koolhaas distance himself from the Wyly Theater after they made changes to it? Thought I heard something like that.

 

 

Sorry...several 'works' by Philip Johnson. Yes, Crescent is uptown but still minutes from the Arts District. Long story short Dallas has some pretty respectable architecture within a very close area haha

 

Rem is listed on the Wyly Theater site as an architect. OMA collaborated with REX on the project so maybe he was more of a consultant on the project, not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always considered Wyly Theater as more of an OMA project with Rem attached to it. Like Steven Spielberg when he attaches his name to a film as a Producer lol.

 

EDIT: I'm just going to post this here because Wyly Theater is a fun little building and is talked about more here in this Ted Talks

 

Edited by Luminare
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you weren't referring to the Perot when you said tacky.

 

The buildings are

 

Winspear Opera House - Norman Foster

Wyly Theater - Rem Koolhaas

Perot Museum - Thom Mayne

Morton H Meyerson Symphony Center - IM Pei

Nasher Sculpture Center - Renzo Piano

Pick any Philip Johnson building, there's several in downtown 

 

There's also the Rachofsky House just outside Dallas by Richard Meier who is also a Pritzker winner

 

thats pretty cool.. i wonder how many Pritzker Prize architect designed buildings Houston has.

is there a list anywhere of all the Houston buildings and the Pritzker architects who designed them? that would be something cool to find out.

 

Long story short Dallas has some pretty respectable architecture within a very close area haha

i guess thats one of the benefits to having zoning...

Edited by cloud713
Link to post
Share on other sites

thats pretty cool.. i wonder how many Pritzker Prize architect designed buildings Houston has.

is there a list anywhere of all the Houston buildings and the Pritzker architects who designed them? that would be something cool to find out.

 

i guess thats one of the benefits to having zoning...

 

Well I'm not sure of a list but these are the Pritzker winners I can think of that have buildings in Houston

 

IM Pei - Chase Tower

Renzo Piano - Menil

Rafael Moneo - Beck Building MFAH

Philip Johnson - Throw a stone and see where it lands..probably hit one of his buildings 

 

I always assumed Steven Holl had won a Pritzker but I guess he hasn't. I'm sure he will at some point though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not sure of a list but these are the Pritzker winners I can think of that have buildings in Houston

 

IM Pei - Chase Tower

Renzo Piano - Menil

Rafael Moneo - Beck Building MFAH

Philip Johnson - Throw a stone and see where it lands..probably hit one of his buildings 

 

I always assumed Steven Holl had won a Pritzker but I guess he hasn't. I'm sure he will at some point though.

hmm.. i too thought Holl had won. Mies obviously would have won had he been around. same for FLW. kind of surprised Pelli hasnt won. do you think Taniguchi will ever win?

theres also the Venturi designed Childrens Museum..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Johnson - Republic Tower, Pennzoil, Transco... UH School of Architecture, de Menil House... keep chucking stones you'll hit something he did.

IM Pei - Chase Tower

Pelli - 1500 Louisiana/UH Science Building # Something or other

Renzo Piano - Menil Campus

Yoshio Taniguchi - Asia Society

Rafael Moneo - MFA.Beck

Robert Venturi - Children's Museum

Kevin Roche - Conoco HQ

 

Thought that Pelli and Taniguchi had won it!  Apparently not?  Yet they're still considered noteworthy architects.

 

Add to the list:

Frank Llyod Wright - Memorial Area house

Mies van der Rohe - MFA expansions: 1958/1974

(not winners but certainly would have been if the prize had started sooner!)

 

I'm not sure what's been built recently on the Rice U campus - but they have gone towards getting more prestigious architects of late for work.

Edited by arche_757
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that Michael Graves isn't a Pritzker winner, but he recently designed a new building for Rice which is on University Blvd. A very nice building. Rice is potentially getting a theater by Diller Scofidio + Renfro. They also aren't Pritzker winners, but they are one of the "it" firms right now with some very popular work in Europe.

Link to post
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...