Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yesss! Always exciting when work starts up. I was going to drive by it later today but I guess I don't need to anymore. Thanks for the update!

Edit: damn Hines doesn't mess around. They said work would start in early November.. It started November 1st. Ha

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

I don't, but my only objection to this building is the loss of a perfectly nice existing tower. No reason they couldn't have built around it, and I think that's almost always more interesting than a single monolithic building taking up an entire block.

 

Normally I would agree with you, but in this case I'm not sure there was a strong case for preservation.  The old structure had already lost its architectural integrity from earlier remodelings, and after sitting vacant for 20 years I'm not sure what kind of shape it is in. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 years vacant would indicate to me that it is likely something less than perfectly nice. For usable square footage, I'm sure rehabbing that property would be significantly more expensive than tearing it down and adding that space to the new building, tosay nothing of having a less desirable and more difficult to lease property when you are done.

Edited by Nate99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with this building being demolished. It's main architectural feature was removed a long time ago and I could only imagine how much it would cost to renovate a building that was vacant for so long.

Edited by xsatyr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with this building being demolished. It's main architectural feature was removed a long time ago and I could only imagine how much it would cost to renovate a building that was vacant for so long.

Completely agreed. If we were talking about the building in all it's 1930s glory then it might be a different story, but unfortunately this building lost much of its beauty, and with it history, in the 1940s.

I hope it's a controlled demo too and not a slow tedious process. I guess it's time to start keeping an eye on demolition reports

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when is the dynamite going boom on that one? ^

(Hopefully it wont be another tower torn down floor by floor, Im really enjoying going to all these controlled demolitions lately)

Bisnow is reporting that it will be deconstructed. Excavation and foundation work will begin in march.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bisnow is reporting that it will be deconstructed. Excavation and foundation work will begin in march.

 

It would be interesting to see how they make the call on deconstruction vs. implosion.

 

Cost aside, I would guess that it involves height, inward implosion space/ability, and distance from surrounding structures. All that energy from falling debris has to go somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely agreed. If we were talking about the building in all it's 1930s glory then it might be a different story, but unfortunately this building lost much of its beauty, and with it history

I agree. The original pics show a rather attractive building, why on earth did they remove all its finery?

I guess its a good thing for progress, it would have been harder to accept demolition if the building still looked attractive. At least we are getting a bigger, attractive replacement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. The original pics show a rather attractive building, why on earth did they remove all its finery?

I guess its a good thing for progress, it would have been harder to accept demolition if the building still looked attractive. At least we are getting a bigger, attractive replacement.

 

It was removed in the name of modernization.  Interesting that a similar debate is going on in the Astrodome and Macy's topics.  In both cases, can the structures be modernized and re-used?  I'm not convinced that remodeling to modernize ever adds long-term value, even though it runs the risk that the building sits vacant and loses value in the short-run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was removed in the name of modernization.  Interesting that a similar debate is going on in the Astrodome and Macy's topics.  In both cases, can the structures be modernized and re-used?  I'm not convinced that remodeling to modernize ever adds long-term value, even though it runs the risk that the building sits vacant and loses value in the short-run.

 

I think with Macy's it is more about re-using the building without a huge change to what it is.  With the Astrodome it is about re-using the building for something much more than it is.  At least that is my opinion.  I want to see the Dome saved and re-used to help people and not necessarily as a convention center...

 

As with re-using anything old change is certain, but not all change is bad.  There is certainly plenty of bad change that can happen.

 

Macy's/Foley's could have been re-used as retail with a tower above.  It would not have required a drastic alteration of the building on the exterior and would have given the architects a lot of space on the interior to do something with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are ways to make just about anything economically viable... that said Foley's was empty.  Not in use.  There is no need to make sure it remained open during construction.

 

Again, just playing devils advocate.  It can be done - but won't be.  So no need to further concern our selves about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that a similar debate is going on in the Astrodome and Macy's topics. In both cases, can the structures be modernized and re-used? I'm not convinced that remodeling to modernize ever adds long-term value

I see your point but disagree on the ever adding value part.

The value of repurposing is in maintaining continuity.

Like Arche said the purpose must be considered. If you destroy all department store structures and replace them with modern buildings, we not only lose our, history and culture but we also lose the multifaced nature of our downtown. How are we going to fit in department stores and large groceries if we only build structures geared to the 9-5ers?

In terms of the Texas tower, the value would have been in its beauty, but since that is gone there is not much vslue in renovation. Many tourists like taking architectural tours of downtowns. The Texas Tower would havevalue there over a shiny glass box, but because of what was done to it, the shiny new tower will have more value in this case

Edited by HoustonIsHome
  • Like 1
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...