Jump to content
Urbannizer

Houston Endowment HQ Near Spotts Park (Formerly Park Place at Buffalo Bayou)

Recommended Posts

https://www.archdaily.com/922471/4-teams-shortlisted-for-the-houston-endowment-headquarters

 

The four design teams selected for the Houston Endowment Headquarters International Design Competition were announced today by Houston Endowment and Malcolm Reading Consultants, the organizers of the contest. The teams chosen have to imagine the new head offices of the organization, a private institution that tackles the essential needs of the community of greater Houston.



 

The four finalist teams are (in alphabetical order by team lead):

 

Deborah Berke Partners with DAVID RUBIN Land Collective and Atelier Ten

 

Kevin Daly Architects with TLS Landscape Architecture, Productora, and Transsolar

 

Olson Kundig with Surfacedesign, Inc

 

Schaum/Shieh Architects with HKS and Andrea Cochran Landscape Architecture

 

Launched in June 2019, the first phase of the competition was so popular that it attracted 121 team submissions from 354 individual firms. The selected four teams will be qualified to the next round where they would have to produce conceptual design drawings for the project in 10 weeks, based on their initial approach. They would have to create an inspirational and innovative 3700 square meters building, integrated within its natural context, near downtown Houston, and competing with the modern structures of the region. The construction will include spaces for its team and community partners, such as workspaces, meeting spaces, and engagement facilities. The winner’s announcement is expected in November 2019 and the final built project is due to open on May 2022.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be interesting to see what HKS has in store. Really hoping they go with someone local. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, marstrose said:

Be interesting to see what HKS has in store. Really hoping they go with someone local. 

 

The best one and probably the best fit will be Olsen Kundig. Really good architecture firm. They check all the boxes for what HE wants. They have a great variety in their portfolio of work. The architecture Kundig does is very contextual. Just scrolling through their projects a lot of what they do could easily be applied to the Houston context. I would choose them.

 

The odd one in the bunch is Schaum/Shieh. I like what they do, but they are very different from the other three (for good and for bad). Once they were chosen by the Architecture League as one of their 2019 Emerging Voices they were immediately catapulted into the "architectural zietgeist" or "architectural vanguard" of sorts, which when entering any competition is going to help you get chosen.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

The best one and probably the best fit will be Olsen Kundig. Really good architecture firm. They check all the boxes for what HE wants. They have a great variety in their portfolio of work. The architecture Kundig does is very contextual. Just scrolling through their projects a lot of what they do could easily be applied to the Houston context. I would choose them.

 

 

 

I too am rooting for Olsen Kundig. A number of architects have work in-design for Houston, which I like. Brings more variety and flavor.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good

This is actually ethical vis-a-vis the park. It has a very good relationship with the park. 

Edited by EllenOlenska
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something was bugging me and I realized it reminds me somewhat of the Menil and I don't know why. 

 

I love the design. The only thing is those skinny columns, dont know how I feel about that. The airyness of the design is pretty striking. Make parts of this out of recycled materials and we have a true winner. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, X.R. said:

Something was bugging me and I realized it reminds me somewhat of the Menil and I don't know why. 

 

I love the design. The only thing is those skinny columns, dont know how I feel about that. The airyness of the design is pretty striking. Make parts of this out of recycled materials and we have a true winner. 

 

Everyone at my office was saying the exact same thing!

 

With that being said, its not like its out of the realm of possibility, right?

 

I mean I remember this project by SANAA for a university cafe:

 

8PbSvvh.jpg

 

The slender column was at the Serpentine Pavilion for 2019 by Junya Ishigami:

 

rE02VOc.jpg

 

Theres this example of a new visitors center at Stonehenge (which must be recent because I don't remember this being there when I went (7ish years ago):

 

65T6rfL.jpg

 

I'm also trying to remember that one post-modern architect that first played with the super tall and slender column, but can't remember the name for the life of me.

 

I think the biggest question mark is the intention of this roof and whats its materiality. In the visuals it looks like concrete. You can go super skinny with metal, but concrete will be tricky.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I would take something like this any day over those 20+ story boring office squares.  I would have LOVED this in front of The James fronting Westheimer instead of the office building going up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great building. The simple lines and modern feel will compliment the AIG campus buildings (not their tallest tower) just across the way. Spotts Park needs a major upgrade... hopefully it will get one.

 

The low rise nature of this will allow for towers in the back off Washington Ave to have sweeping views. One day, we will truly have the 'valley effect' in the bayou and it will be glorious. 

Edited by Avossos
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Avossos said:

Spotts Park needs a major upgrade... hopefully it will get one.


I thought Spotts was going to get expanded because of the removal of the clover interchange. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was hoping they would go with a Houston architect and Schaum / Shieh who were a finalist. I really like their Transart Foundation building on Alabama.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 9:18 AM, Urbannizer said:

 

1600x1600.jpg

 

 

 

I think this is what I was hoping the new MFAH building would be. It interacts with the outside world and invites it in.

 

On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 9:56 PM, EllenOlenska said:


I thought Spotts was going to get expanded because of the removal of the clover interchange. 

 

If there is a bold plan for the park following the clover interchange removal, I know a certain deep-pocketed endowment that might be willing to make it happen. The original BB master plan had those green fingers at this spot.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 5:05 PM, H-Town Man said:

 

I think this is what I was hoping the new MFAH building would be. It interacts with the outside world and invites it in.

 

 

 

FWIW, the street-facing ground floor of the new MFAH building will be probably at least 75% glass, very transparent, and appears as if it will indeed interact with the outside world and invite it in.

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

FWIW, the street-facing ground floor of the new MFAH building will be probably at least 75% glass, very transparent, and appears as if it will indeed interact with the outside world and invite it in.

 

I've seen the renderings and am aware of the glass. Interaction with the outside world is a judgment. You can have your judgments and I can have mine. I find this to be a much more inviting exterior. The glass on the new MFAH building does not look very transparent to me (especially with a concrete wall behind it), but maybe we have a different idea of "transparent." In terms of form it reminds me of brutalism and does not open up spatially the way this one does. That being said, I expect it will have a breathtaking interior and am optimistic on that point. I think you are overdoing your role of HAIF Positivity Police a little bit.

 

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I've seen the renderings and am aware of the glass. Interaction with the outside world is a judgment. You can have your judgments and I can have mine. I find this to be a much more inviting exterior. The glass on the new MFAH building does not look very transparent to me (especially with a concrete wall behind it), but maybe we have a different idea of "transparent." In terms of form it reminds me of brutalism and does not open up spatially the way this one does. That being said, I expect it will have a breathtaking interior and am optimistic on that point. I think you are overdoing your role of HAIF Positivity Police a little bit.

 

 

Where did you see renderings on which the glass on the new MFAH building does not look very transparent?

Regardless, you really should go take a look at the building.

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Where did you see renderings on which the glass on the new MFAH building does not look very transparent?

Regardless, you really should go take a look at the building.

 

Ok, I overlooked where you said ground floor. Regardless, for a building to look inviting, the full façade matters, not just the ground floor.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forget one thing. Art work is very sensitive to light and has to be kept in controlled environments. The Houston endowment will only be protecting its work.

The art museum is mainly about making sure the artwork has the perfect environment while being as open to the public as possible.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bobruss said:

You forget one thing. Art work is very sensitive to light and has to be kept in controlled environments. The Houston endowment will only be protecting its work.

The art museum is mainly about making sure the artwork has the perfect environment while being as open to the public as possible.

 

Valid point. I think Renzo Piano (among other architects) has managed to create a more transparent façade in buildings like the Art Institute of Chicago expansion. Not sure how he solved the light issue, maybe Luminare can illuminate us. But there's no point in going back and forth, we all want the MFAH building to be great and it may very well be.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, conveniently, this thread is not about the MFA building. 

 

Generally pretty happy with the site plan. I do wonder how serious the proposal for a new ped bridge across Memorial is. I'm all for more connections, but I wonder what a realistic cost on that would be.

 

I also wonder how much they're thinking about the potential removal of the cloverleaf, which the City has indicated is almost certainly going to happen.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Valid point. I think Renzo Piano (among other architects) has managed to create a more transparent façade in buildings like the Art Institute of Chicago expansion. Not sure how he solved the light issue, maybe Luminare can illuminate us. But there's no point in going back and forth, we all want the MFAH building to be great and it may very well be.

 

 

Being in Chicago goes a long way in solving the light issue.  😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 10:43 PM, H-Town Man said:

 

Ok, I overlooked where you said ground floor. Regardless, for a building to look inviting, the full façade matters, not just the ground floor.

 

 

On 11/19/2019 at 9:47 AM, H-Town Man said:

 

Valid point. I think Renzo Piano (among other architects) has managed to create a more transparent façade in buildings like the Art Institute of Chicago expansion. Not sure how he solved the light issue, maybe Luminare can illuminate us. But there's no point in going back and forth, we all want the MFAH building to be great and it may very well be.

 

 

EDIT: For those who want the quick answer. Glass doesn't make a space inviting. Your ideas for a space, and what your goals are for a space, are what makes something inviting. Glass is a tool to get there.

 

Been kinda letting this conversation play itself out and @Houston19514 and @bobruss are doing a good job reminding you that the position you hold on this, while fair, is not as easy or simple as you put across, and is built on some presuppositions that don't hold water once other elements are factored. I think while you state that the "full facade matters", which is true, you are also restricting facade treatments to only one material, glass, which is false in many cases, to achieve what you desire aesthetically, and is a narrow view in creating something that would feel "open" or inviting. Glass is certainly the easiest way to achieve this, but it isn't the only way. Actually designing buildings in this city with so much glass can be a real challenge because while natural light is very important, in this context the light is normally extremely harsh for most the year.

In fact, its interesting you bring up Renzo Piano into this conversation, because we have an example of his which achieves exactly what I'm talking about, while at the same time it limits the amount of fenestration on the facade, and along with that is a museum. This example, The Menil, is a very inviting building, but not because of its windows, which actually due to its limited application, make an onlooker curious as to what is hidden inside, but its actually its roof structure and its wood paneling. The structure creates a porch around the whole facade which asks people to come closer, and the wood makes it feel like its part of the neighborhood, and will help those feel comfortable in the space.

 

As for the new MFAH expansion...

 

On 11/19/2019 at 6:52 AM, bobruss said:

You forget one thing. Art work is very sensitive to light and has to be kept in controlled environments. The Houston endowment will only be protecting its work.

The art museum is mainly about making sure the artwork has the perfect environment while being as open to the public as possible.

 

You are absolutely correct. Its also why the new expansion is designed how it is, and though brutal in scale, I think the glass tubes, the structure, will be an element utilized to make the building more inviting (particularly at night!). I was talking to my boss, and he said that the new expansion made him think of it as an ice cube, and actually wondered why it might be designed like that (or why one would). The more I think about it, the more clever I think it is. Just think about our hot Texas summers where everything is melting around us, and then you match that with the coolness, and iceyness of that new expansion, and you can imagine how inviting that will be for people looking to get out of the sun. Again all of this before I even mention windows (of which all of them will go from slab to the second floor which the "ice cube" will sit on).

 

...ok with all that being said. I can now move onto this building.

 

I'm going to let everyone in on a little secret. Lets just say that this idea, of an all encompassing roof over elements underneath, proposed by Kevin Daly, wasn't the only one. I'm pretty sure many proposed the exact same concept. Again, the reason why is exactly how I described The Menil. In this region, what makes a building inviting is not necessarily glass, but the structure in front of it, a porch in many cases. So with a building this large, and with the precedent Piano established at The Menil, why not make the building one large giant porch! Its an idea that works here, and at the same time will allow the use of all the glass they will use in this building and protect it from intense light. However, even though the windows assist with it being inviting, again notice how that wasn't the first thing I touched on. It also has so many windows because in the original brief the Endowment was adamant about notions such as transparency and connection with the community, and so the windows are only there to serve a goal, it isn't the goal itself.

 

Anyway. Thats what I've been thinking about while this conversation was had, and since @H-Town Man invited me to comment on this, I thought I should. Glass isn't the end in making something inviting, but a MEANS to an end. A lot of times this also comes down to context with time, place, client, and ideas associated with all three.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Twinsanity02 said:

What is that  ghostly somewhat highrise in the first drawing?

 

Thats the existing Memorial by Windsor on Montrose Blvd.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luminare said:

 

 

EDIT: For those who want the quick answer. Glass doesn't make a space inviting. Your ideas for a space, and what your goals are for a space, are what makes something inviting. Glass is a tool to get there.

 

I think while you state that the "full facade matters", which is true, you are also restricting facade treatments to only one material, glass, which is false in many cases, to achieve what you desire aesthetically, and is a narrow view in creating something that would feel "open" or inviting. Glass is certainly the easiest way to achieve this, but it isn't the only way.

 

Actually, I never said glass was solely what makes this design inviting, although I think it is part of what makes it inviting. I got into the discussion on glass because a previous comment, challenging my characterization of the building as inviting, had focused on glass. If someone had actually asked why I found this building to be inviting, I would have also mentioned the three-dimensionality of the façade and the way it seems to open inward. The new MFAH building feels more fortress-like.

 

What I invited you to comment on was how the Art Institute of Chicago may have managed to use so much glass in its new building, in light of bobruss's comment which seemed to suggest that a glass façade wouldn't work in an art museum.

 

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 9:55 AM, Houston19514 said:

 

Being in Chicago goes a long way in solving the light issue.  😉

 

There is sunlight in Chicago. I guess though if one didn't want to go so far for an example, they could cite the two successive commissions that Mies van der Rohe did for MFAH (Brown Pavilion and Cullen Pavilion). Of course, I don't find Mies' exterior to be very inviting either, despite the amount of glass. I do find his design for the Neue Nationalgalerie to be more inviting.

 

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Actually, I never said glass was solely what makes this design inviting, although I think it is part of what makes it inviting. I got into the discussion on glass (on Monday at 8:09 PM) because the previous comment (challenging my characterization of the building as inviting) had focused on glass. If someone had actually asked why I found this building to be inviting, I would have also mentioned the three-dimensionality of the façade and the way it seems to open inward. The new MFAH building feels more fortress-like.

 

What I invited you to comment on was how the Art Institute of Chicago may have managed to use so much glass in its new building, in light of bobruss's comment which seemed to suggest that a glass façade wouldn't work in an art museum.

 

 

I get what you are saying.

 

Then again an art gallery is pretty much just a glorified storage facility for art that you just so happen can walk through and observe. For an art gallery, people are second to the art on display where as in this building its literally the people that are on display which makes the peoples needs primary. Each program requires a completely different approach. The matter of light and art is also really complicated and it depends on the art being displayed. In most instances, an artist will rather their pieces be placed in an environment that has consistent light, so the change in light doesn't change the perception of the art work itself. Not to mention natural light can be very damaging to older works of art, and if the windows aren't properly treated to redirect heat then it can also damage the materials in the paints themselves. This is one reason why the new MFAH expansion is designed in the way that it is. Its going to house a particular collection of art which will need to have controls on what light reaches the works of art shown, and while the walls will be "fortress like" (then again thats kind of the point) its clear from the diagrams and initial renderings that the the ceiling above will be anything but which should be a remedy for that. In Houston, we have an example that is the complete opposite of the MFAH expansion in dealing with natural light and that is the renovations to the Rothko Chapel, which originally the artist wanted natural light because the change in light was key in perceiving the works themselves as the artist envisioned, but at a point natural light was switch out for consistent artificial ones, and now this being reversed.

 

...ok so after writing that first part I decided to look into this New Wing of the Art Institute of Chicago. Instead of examining or analyzing this I'm instead going to throw that examination on you @H-Town Man I think you have been deceived by a false-equivalence. Just because they are both in the realm of "art" (the MFAH, and the AIC), doesn't mean they are the "same" and should be approached the same way. You also seem to be taking an aesthetic, of which you like (and I actually like as well), and projecting it onto something of which you wish was something to what you do like. You think you are comparing apples to apples, but when you are actually comparing apples to oranges, and further still you are trying to compare an approach to an office space and infering that the approach to the AIC was a similar approach and therefore it should also be the same for the MFAH. So you are not only comparing apples to oranges, but you are also comparing apples to oranges to peppers. I'm not even saying that what you are doing is wrong or bad, but there is a lot more to this than what you are either projecting, or objecting too. Its not as simple as you proclaim, and its way more complicated and much more context dependent than you realize.

 

...and we are just going to leave Mies van der Rohe and the modernists out of this, because that could result in this becoming an essay.

Edited by Luminare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

I get what you are saying.

 

Then again an art gallery is pretty much just a glorified storage facility for art that you just so happen can walk through and observe. For an art gallery, people are second to the art on display where as in this building its literally the people that are on display which makes the peoples needs primary. Each program requires a completely different approach. The matter of light and art is also really complicated and it depends on the art being displayed. In most instances, an artist will rather their pieces be placed in an environment that has consistent light, so the change in light doesn't change the perception of the art work itself. Not to mention natural light can be very damaging to older works of art, and if the windows aren't properly treated to redirect heat then it can also damage the materials in the paints themselves. This is one reason why the new MFAH expansion is designed in the way that it is. Its going to house a particular collection of art which will need to have controls on what light reaches the works of art shown, and while the walls will be "fortress like" (then again thats kind of the point) its clear from the diagrams and initial renderings that the the ceiling above will be anything but which should be a remedy for that. In Houston, we have an example that is the complete opposite of the MFAH expansion in dealing with natural light and that is the renovations to the Rothko Chapel, which originally the artist wanted natural light because the change in light was key in perceiving the works themselves as the artist envisioned, but at a point natural light was switch out for consistent artificial ones, and now this being reversed.

 

...ok so after writing that first part I decided to look into this New Wing of the Art Institute of Chicago. Instead of examining or analyzing this I'm instead going to throw that examination on you @H-Town Man I think you have been deceived by a false-equivalence. Just because they are both in the realm of "art" (the MFAH, and the AIC), doesn't mean they are the "same" and should be approached the same way. You also seem to be taking an aesthetic, of which you like (and I actually like as well), and projecting it onto something of which you wish was something to what you do like. You think you are comparing apples to apples, but when you are actually comparing apples to oranges, and further still you are trying to compare an approach to an office space and infering that the approach to the AIC was a similar approach and therefore it should also be the same for the MFAH. So you are not only comparing apples to oranges, but you are also comparing apples to oranges to peppers. I'm not even saying that what you are doing is wrong or bad, but there is a lot more to this than what you are either projecting, or objecting too. Its not as simple as you proclaim, and its way more complicated and much more context dependent than you realize.

 

...and we are just going to leave Mies van der Rohe and the modernist out of this, because that could result in this becoming an essay.

 

You just read a number of statements into what I have said, that I never said nor intended to say.

 

What I said:

1. The Houston Endowment building seems more inviting than the new MFAH building.

2. I wonder how the new AIC building was able to use so much glass, given the sensitivity of artworks to sunlight?

 

What I didn't say:

1. The Houston Endowment building has the same function as the new MFAH building.

2. The new MFAH building should look like the Houston Endowment building,.

3. The new MFAH building should look like the new AIC building.

4. The new MFAH building needs to have more glass in order to be inviting.

5. The various problems and issues involved in designing the new MFAH building are the same as for the Houston Endowment building and/or the new AIC building.

 

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@H-Town Man I don't think its very wise to ask someone to illuminate on a topic and then berate them when you don't get the "answer" that you are looking for. That would be like me asking Purdueenginerd to illuminate on a topic about engineering particularly if something is possible or not, and I don't like his opinion simply because it doesn't specifically provide me with the mythical perfect predetermined answer that is in my head. The "what I said" is what you just provided, but it definitely wasn't that clear in the first place, and just to get it to THIS point I've had to make a number of inferences to root out exactly what you are wanting addressed. You can't be this opaque at the beginning of a conversation, and expect to get the exact answer you want, and get flustered about it to boot. You need to be more clear in your positions if you want specific answers. By the way, I've given plenty of examples of different approaches one makes based on the needs of particular circumstances. This should clue you in that the Art Institute of Chicago had a vastly different program called for which doesn't mean Piano solved some great mystery, but merely had a program and a client that called for something specific while at MFAH called for something different. Plus the architects are vastly different in approaches. What do you expect?!

Edited by Luminare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Luminare said:

@H-Town Man I don't think its very wise to ask someone to illuminate on a topic and then berate them when you don't get the "answer" that you are looking for. That would be like me asking Purdueenginerd to illuminate on a topic about engineering particularly if something is possible or not, and I don't like his opinion simply because it doesn't specifically provide me with the mythical perfect predetermined answer that is in my head. The "what I said" is what you just provided, but it definitely wasn't that clear in the first place, and just to get it to THIS point I've had to make a number of inferences to root out exactly what you are wanting addressed. You can't be this opaque at the beginning of a conversation, and expect to get the exact answer you want, and get flustered about it to boot. You need to be more clear in your positions if you want specific answers. By the way, I've given plenty of examples of different approaches one makes based on the needs of particular circumstances. This should clue you in that the Art Institute of Chicago had a vastly different program called for which doesn't me Piano solved some great mystery, but merely had a program and a client that called for something specific while at MFAH called for something different. Plus the architects are vastly different in approaches. What do you expect?!

 

Here is what I said initially:

 

"I think Renzo Piano (among other architects) has managed to create a more transparent façade in buildings like the Art Institute of Chicago expansion. Not sure how he solved the light issue, maybe Luminare can illuminate us."

 

I didn't think this was too opaque. I was hoping you would explain how glass might be used in an art museum without damaging sensitive artworks. Not write 500 words telling me I didn't understand what makes for invitingness in architecture, or the difference between an endowment HQ and an art museum, or that buildings have different programs, etc., etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

There is sunlight in Chicago.

 

 

Of course there is sunlight in Chicago, but it is not NEARLY as harsh as the sunlight in Houston.  Also, I don't think the Art Institute building is as transparent as you are imagining.  The east and west facades are limestone with very little, if any, transparency.  Most of the windows appear to be on the north side of the building, which in Chicago will allow no direct light.

 

The other thing they do with glass in art museums is to use the glass in areas of the building devoted to activities other than displaying light-sensitive art.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Of course there is sunlight in Chicago, but it is not NEARLY as harsh as the sunlight in Houston.  Also, I don't think the Art Institute building is as transparent as you are imagining.  The east and west facades are limestone with very little, if any, transparency.  Most of the windows appear to be on the north side of the building, which in Chicago will allow no direct light.

 

The other thing they do with glass in art museums is to use the glass in areas of the building devoted to activities other than displaying light-sensitive art.

 

We are talking about the new AIC building designed by Piano - there is considerable transparency on all sides of the building. As to direct light from the north, the sun rises in the northeast and sets in the northwest in summertime. This is why Chicago has longer days than we do in summer - it's further north. Kind of a moot point though since we can all agree that glass is just one part of this. I think the front of the Met in NY is inviting and it has very little glass. I think it's more inviting than the Carolyn Wiess Law building is from Binz Street, which has a lot of glass.

 

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair, but lets see how we got to this point, and why I had to say what I said to get you to clarify exactly what you wanted me to answer.

 

On 11/11/2019 at 5:05 PM, H-Town Man said:

 

I think this is what I was hoping the new MFAH building would be. It interacts with the outside world and invites it in.

 

 

This was the foundational statement which everything else was built on. I had to know if this still played a factor in what you wanted to know. I'm not going to make the assumption that this doesn't still hold true for you in this conversation, so my initial goal was to try and omit this and move on. Its in this statement that you begin to make initial comparisons of false equivalence focusing on an aesthetic rather than the program and context itself, but I needed to understand where the false equivalence was coming from. This is also were you make your initial statement on what you perceive to be "inviting" and "interacting". Again I needed to understand what this was in relation to.

 

On 11/18/2019 at 8:09 PM, H-Town Man said:

 

I've seen the renderings and am aware of the glass. Interaction with the outside world is a judgment. You can have your judgments and I can have mine. I find this to be a much more inviting exterior. The glass on the new MFAH building does not look very transparent to me (especially with a concrete wall behind it), but maybe we have a different idea of "transparent." In terms of form it reminds me of brutalism and does not open up spatially the way this one does. That being said, I expect it will have a breathtaking interior and am optimistic on that point. I think you are overdoing your role of HAIF Positivity Police a little bit.

 

 

Without us knowing what the false equivalence is (from the listeners viewpoint), you then further build the case aesthetically what you prefer over others, and what you deem to be "inviting" and "interacting". You also make it clear that you do have a bias in what transparent means, but again, what is the comparison. From these initial points it seemed that you were comparing the Endowment to the MFAH as if they were like-like comparisons. Something which had to be addressed and untangled.

 

On 11/18/2019 at 10:43 PM, H-Town Man said:

 

Ok, I overlooked where you said ground floor. Regardless, for a building to look inviting, the full façade matters, not just the ground floor.

 

 

This actually then made things more confusing because while you conceded one point about the museum, the listener still doesn't understand where your initial perspective is on this topic and why you are making your initial comparisons. What is your initial comparison that that informs your notions about what is more inviting and that the "full facade matters"? Again the listener still thinks that your comparison is between the Endowment (an office building) and the MFAH expansion (an art gallery).

 

On 11/19/2019 at 9:47 AM, H-Town Man said:

 

Valid point. I think Renzo Piano (among other architects) has managed to create a more transparent façade in buildings like the Art Institute of Chicago expansion. Not sure how he solved the light issue, maybe Luminare can illuminate us. But there's no point in going back and forth, we all want the MFAH building to be great and it may very well be.

 

 

NOW we have found the false equivalence and what you were ACTUALLY comparing both the MFAH and the Endowment too. As you can see this was in no way clear. If you frame your argument to just this one quote then it is clear, but to the conversation as a whole it isn't clear. With the evidence above this was a hornets nest to unravel to get hone in on what specifically you were asking for.

 

54 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

What I didn't say:

1. The Houston Endowment building has the same function as the new MFAH building.

2. The new MFAH building should look like the Houston Endowment building,.

3. The new MFAH building should look like the new AIC building.

4. The new MFAH building needs to have more glass in order to be inviting.

5. The various problems and issues involved in designing the new MFAH building are the same as for the Houston Endowment building and/or the new AIC building.

 

 

This is why I had to infer these things. Thankfully you did clarify, but only at this point.

 

Now you see why I made the claim this was opaque. You do tend to do this by the way, and I wanted further clarification.

 

AIC does not equal to MFAH and does not equal to Endowment

Your origination point of comparison was the AIC to MFAH aesthetically, but was masked by this topic of the Endowment which has a similar aesthetic, but is a different program/function.

Knowing the basis for this I can say:

 

There was no light issue as their was with MFAH because the program, client, and context called for something different. There were probably light issues associated with the AIC, but of a different kind, and not similar to the MFAH. So while you do prefer the AIC aesthetically, and while its possible the MFAH could have done this same aesthetics, the MFAH had different set of constraints which probably prevented it from looking comparable to the AIC. With that being said, both are actually very transparent, but in different ways that relate to their context and while what you perceive as "transparent" "inviting" and "interacting" is more a matter of opinion than something objectively true, it doesn't make what you said wrong, but it does distort your comparison because you omitting a lot of different variables that were at play for each project.

 

See what I had to get through just to get to this answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has spiraled out of control and I'm done with it. I had a feeling when I initially wrote that this building was more inviting than the new MFAH building, I was going to catch hell for it. But I wrote it anyway, because it's a perfectly valid statement.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To try and get this train back on track, I really like how they have addressed the site and have developed a relationship to the bayou and downtown.

This is going to be a wonderful addition to the Buffalo bayou area. I imagine the views from inside the building will be magnificent and I can't wait for them to break ground. 

If the city goes through with their plan to get rid of the clover leaf I imagine it will open up more room for park land.

Edited by bobruss
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

La Brea Tar Pits Museum meets the Lincoln Center as a trapezoid. Iconic Houston.

 

Actually I’m shocked to see the bottom floor, be a floor. With Allison & Harvey not far in people’s memories I would have expected a One Moody Plaza situation. Spots Park did not fair well during either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are on a high spot above the park. It fills in the space that had been the home of the YWCA. No pun intended.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Luminare said:

Fair, but lets see how we got to this point, and why I had to say what I said to get you to clarify exactly what you wanted me to answer.

 

 

This was the foundational statement which everything else was built on. I had to know if this still played a factor in what you wanted to know. I'm not going to make the assumption that this doesn't still hold true for you in this conversation, so my initial goal was to try and omit this and move on. Its in this statement that you begin to make initial comparisons of false equivalence focusing on an aesthetic rather than the program and context itself, but I needed to understand where the false equivalence was coming from. This is also were you make your initial statement on what you perceive to be "inviting" and "interacting". Again I needed to understand what this was in relation to.

 

 

Without us knowing what the false equivalence is (from the listeners viewpoint), you then further build the case aesthetically what you prefer over others, and what you deem to be "inviting" and "interacting". You also make it clear that you do have a bias in what transparent means, but again, what is the comparison. From these initial points it seemed that you were comparing the Endowment to the MFAH as if they were like-like comparisons. Something which had to be addressed and untangled.

 

 

This actually then made things more confusing because while you conceded one point about the museum, the listener still doesn't understand where your initial perspective is on this topic and why you are making your initial comparisons. What is your initial comparison that that informs your notions about what is more inviting and that the "full facade matters"? Again the listener still thinks that your comparison is between the Endowment (an office building) and the MFAH expansion (an art gallery).

 

 

NOW we have found the false equivalence and what you were ACTUALLY comparing both the MFAH and the Endowment too. As you can see this was in no way clear. If you frame your argument to just this one quote then it is clear, but to the conversation as a whole it isn't clear. With the evidence above this was a hornets nest to unravel to get hone in on what specifically you were asking for.

 

 

This is why I had to infer these things. Thankfully you did clarify, but only at this point.

 

Now you see why I made the claim this was opaque. You do tend to do this by the way, and I wanted further clarification.

 

AIC does not equal to MFAH and does not equal to Endowment

Your origination point of comparison was the AIC to MFAH aesthetically, but was masked by this topic of the Endowment which has a similar aesthetic, but is a different program/function.

Knowing the basis for this I can say:

 

There was no light issue as their was with MFAH because the program, client, and context called for something different. There were probably light issues associated with the AIC, but of a different kind, and not similar to the MFAH. So while you do prefer the AIC aesthetically, and while its possible the MFAH could have done this same aesthetics, the MFAH had different set of constraints which probably prevented it from looking comparable to the AIC. With that being said, both are actually very transparent, but in different ways that relate to their context and while what you perceive as "transparent" "inviting" and "interacting" is more a matter of opinion than something objectively true, it doesn't make what you said wrong, but it does distort your comparison because you omitting a lot of different variables that were at play for each project.

 

See what I had to get through just to get to this answer?

I’m convinced crockpot and Lumi are the same person😛

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobruss said:

I think they are on a high spot above the park. It fills in the space that had been the home of the YWCA. No pun intended.

The YWCA was no more after Allison (memory, I was 10). Father’s place on Blossom was one of the few town homes that didn’t flood in the area but water made it up to their garage door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing.I stand corrected. Blossom is a good distance from the bayou also. That's really remarkable. We were living in the Wagon Works building. a block from the bayou and Elysian viaduct, and fortunately didn't flood. Then I hope they have plans for raising the grade before building.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me a lot of a new building on the Yale campus (I believe it is the business school)

Image result for yale som building

 

 

My apologies if it is mentioned earlier, but is the new pedestrian bridge over Memorial part of this project?  Or part of the long-term plan for the bayou?  It would be great to have another connection to this park.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks like it's going to be a beautiful building. But I sure wish they had kept their offices downtown and made an architectural (and urban) statement where Jesse Jones surely would have wanted them to be.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The overhead view is interesting because of the street features. The loop connectors at Waugh and Memorial are gone. The intersection appears to remain grade-separated, with a single-point urban interchange (SPUI) style of intersection at Waugh, which would gain a traffic signal. I have seen the SPUI listed in HGAC's long term documents.

 

Waugh is realigned to straighten the curve. This realignment would appear to necessitate a new bridge over the bayou since the existing bridge is angled and would not line up with a straighter alignment. But that bridge is also the bat colony, so I'm thinking its removal would be a wildlife impact, which could prevent its removal. So this concept may be more speculative than potential future reality.

 

The loop connectors do use a lot of land. I don't see a compelling need for more park space in this area because there is already of abundance of well-developed parkland in the area. But in today's climate, the road is going to lose in road vs. park. Two new soccer fields could potentially fit on the northwest quadrant if Waugh is realigned and the loop connectors removed.

 

HoustonEndowment07.jpg

Edited by MaxConcrete
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Urbannizer said:

SCHAUM/SHIEH and HKS Architects concept

 

https://acochran.com/work/houston-endowment-headquarters-competition-landscape-architecture/

 

HoustonEndowment01.jpg

 

HoustonEndowment10.jpg

 

HoustonEndowment09.jpg

 

HoustonEndowment02.jpg

 

HoustonEndowment07.jpg

 

 


So happy they did not choose this design! I want to root for Schaum Shieh because they’re local, but their buildings are either boring or try too hard, in my opinion. This design looks like a slightly updated version of one of the hundreds of mediocre suburban office buildings out Gessner or FM 1960. 

Edited by TOMIKA!
  • Like 3

Share this post


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...