Jump to content

Apartments By Greystar (2 Phases) At W. 19th St.


s3mh

Recommended Posts

Shit sandwich.  The Alliance Broadstone at least paid some lip service to the historic architecture in the Heights.  This is just generic modern multi-family infill that you can find in Dallas, Washington DC, Seattle, Los Angeles, Phoenix and so on.  I wouldn't be surprised if the design was 100% recycled from another project (or two or three) that has already been built somewhere else.  At least it will front 20th St. instead of 19th.  But Greystar will also build another building where the old bank currently sits.  Knowing Greystar, it will be another boilerplate modern design.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hang out around here a lot. I lived in Timbergrove for a while and then on the other side of the Heights. 

The area has a lot of tall buildings. The new apartment complex is there of course, but there's a dark-glassed office building, a hospital, an old-folk's apartment tower and another similar tower at the end of 19th. The tallest might be (I don't have the numbers in front of me) the office building right now. 

In front of the huge hospital is a massive parking lot (which fronts 19th.) And a bunch of stucco buildings with parking lots in front of them. Yeah, the old shops that front 19th at the end are cool, but they aren't the whole way. While I might prefer the boilerplate bunker design of the Chase building to the boilerplate modern design of this apartment, I think it's pretty fitting in that nothing really fits. 

Except density, which is what makes this area cool. 

 

Edited by EllenOlenska
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

Understandable, but this will only add to the neighborhood. Plus, would you rather have more things that look like this or things that look like that old Houston Heights Tower down the street? haha

If it looked something like that then I would say no, but something that is much more urban like this then yes.

My hope is that there are a few big ones like this, but that some point the neighborhood introduces a height cap at around 6-8 stories. 6-8 stories is a good fit for this area.

 

Very true, and if anything the Heights remains a hotspot in terms of desirable neighborhoods in Houston. Adding housing in this area especially will be huge.

 

26 minutes ago, s3mh said:

Shit sandwich.  The Alliance Broadstone at least paid some lip service to the historic architecture in the Heights.  This is just generic modern multi-family infill that you can find in Dallas, Washington DC, Seattle, Los Angeles, Phoenix and so on.  I wouldn't be surprised if the design was 100% recycled from another project (or two or three) that has already been built somewhere else.  At least it will front 20th St. instead of 19th.  But Greystar will also build another building where the old bank currently sits.  Knowing Greystar, it will be another boilerplate modern design.  

 

Yeah, it sucks that they couldn't have tried to have a historical aesthetic that would've gelled better with the area. That being said, generic as the design is, it really isn't anything awful. Like Lumi said earlier,  at least it isn't a Houston Heights Tower 2.0. It's nothing offensive or ugly. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, s3mh said:

Shit sandwich.  The Alliance Broadstone at least paid some lip service to the historic architecture in the Heights.  This is just generic modern multi-family infill that you can find in Dallas, Washington DC, Seattle, Los Angeles, Phoenix and so on.  I wouldn't be surprised if the design was 100% recycled from another project (or two or three) that has already been built somewhere else.  At least it will front 20th St. instead of 19th.  But Greystar will also build another building where the old bank currently sits.  Knowing Greystar, it will be another boilerplate modern design.  

I find it shocking that s3mh thinks a new development in the Heights is a shit sandwich...

Edited by JJxvi
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Avossos said:

Can anyone confirm the orientation? From the pictures it looks like it fronts W 19th and Lawrence St... am I wrong?

 

The rendering is Nicholson and 20th, looking SW. That's the bike trail across the street from the building, and Waterworks would be to the left of the image.

 

I'm curious about the building to the right of this one in the rendering. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Angostura said:

 

The rendering is Nicholson and 20th, looking SW. That's the bike trail across the street from the building, and Waterworks would be to the left of the image.

 

I'm curious about the building to the right of this one in the rendering. 

 

agreed - i was trying to place that building and I couldn't. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, JJxvi said:

I find it shocking that s3mh thinks a new development in the Heights is a shit sandwich...

 

If the only substance of your posts is to attack me, get a day job and go away.  

1 hour ago, Avossos said:

Can anyone confirm the orientation? From the pictures it looks like it fronts W 19th and Lawrence St... am I wrong?

 

They are drilling piers for the foundation already on this one.  It is on W 20th at the corner of Nicholson.  Nothing has happened to the old Chase bank building yet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EllenOlenska said:

I hang out around here a lot. I lived in Timbergrove for a while and then on the other side of the Heights. 

The area has a lot of tall buildings. The new apartment complex is there of course, but there's a dark-glassed office building, a hospital, an old-folk's apartment tower and another similar tower at the end of 19th. The tallest might be (I don't have the numbers in front of me) the office building right now. 

In front of the huge hospital is a massive parking lot (which fronts 19th.) And a bunch of stucco buildings with parking lots in front of them. Yeah, the old shops that front 19th at the end are cool, but they aren't the whole way. While I might prefer the boilerplate bunker design of the Chase building to the boilerplate modern design of this apartment, I think it's pretty fitting in that nothing really fits. 

Except density, which is what makes this area cool. 

 

 

Density is fine for that part of the Heights.  12 stories is pushing it, but not so bad considering that it will be almost completely blocked from view from the north by the 8 story Alliance Broadstone and won't be hovering over 19th street.  But I would be concerned that it opens the door to go up 20+ stories on the few big lots left to redevelop in the Heights.  That would not be good.  

 

But just because there are architectural duds from the past along 19th st. doesn't mean that anything goes.  We should be trying to undo the crud that was built back when no one wanted to live in the Heights and replace it with good architecture that reflects the history of the neighborhood.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, s3mh said:

 

Density is fine for that part of the Heights.  12 stories is pushing it, but not so bad considering that it will be almost completely blocked from view from the north by the 8 story Alliance Broadstone and won't be hovering over 19th street.  But I would be concerned that it opens the door to go up 20+ stories on the few big lots left to redevelop in the Heights.  That would not be good.  

 

But just because there are architectural duds from the past along 19th st. doesn't mean that anything goes.  We should be trying to undo the crud that was built back when no one wanted to live in the Heights and replace it with good architecture that reflects the history of the neighborhood.

 

2 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

If you were the architect, @s3mh, how would you design this to fit the Heights aesthetic?

 

Once again I going to utilize a quote from my boss "its hard to legislate taste". This is particularly true in The Heights and even Montrose. Its like, which history? by what definition? by what standard? under what authority? From what I've seen in this particular hood its an all around "American Eclectic". Lots of older kit houses from old pattern books that advertised anything from "Queen Anne" to "Craftsman". The spectrum is so wide and broad that it leaves the door open for many possibilities which is what makes the area fun! I honestly don't care what style you employ as long as its a solid to good design in the end. I mean recently we been getting a lot of "Charleston Style" and "New Orleans French Second Empire" (townhome styles) (which I think are fun and look natural with the setting of our city/climate). That wasn't here before, but some have been executed really well. Are these wrong too?

 

As far as "Boilerplate". A lot of your architecture is going to be boilerplate or generic. Its really really hard to design something great, and with all the space we have to build here, and how cheap the land still is, you will get a lot of boilerplate and generic. This doesn't mean these are bad or can look bad. The kit houses I mentioned earlier were the "boilerplate" or "generic" of their day. Very safe styles. Nothing risking or exciting. It also gets really hard to work with these styles beyond 4-6 stories. Louis Sullivan tackled this over 100 years ago and its still not an exact science. But hey, what do I know. I'm just someone that works in architecture.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see more detail on what the street level of this looks like. Overall I don't mind the building, but I'm a little concerned that the apparently undifferentiated first (effective) three floors will feel out of scale and alienating. What's with giant lobby?

 

Also, I would really like *some* sort pf pedestrian shade structure.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, s3mh said:

 

If the only substance of your posts is to attack me, get a day job and go away.  

 

They are drilling piers for the foundation already on this one.  It is on W 20th at the corner of Nicholson.  Nothing has happened to the old Chase bank building yet.  

100% substance is boring, which ironically seems to be your problem with this building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think it looks fine.  I dont see what makes it any more or less stylish than like Broadstone Waterworks. I suspect based on that rendering that, like Broadstone, its going to use a significant amount of brick to match the Braun Waterworks shopping center, for example. So Im not sure the idea that they are just plopping down something generic here without any thought is borne out yet. Perhaps you have more information.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, s3mh said:

Shit sandwich.  The Alliance Broadstone at least paid some lip service to the historic architecture in the Heights.  This is just generic modern multi-family infill that you can find in Dallas, Washington DC, Seattle, Los Angeles, Phoenix and so on.  I wouldn't be surprised if the design was 100% recycled from another project (or two or three) that has already been built somewhere else.  At least it will front 20th St. instead of 19th.  But Greystar will also build another building where the old bank currently sits.  Knowing Greystar, it will be another boilerplate modern design.  

 

man houston has really come up the last few years if this is what passes as a "shit sandwich" nowadays. i would've killed @CREguy13 for consistent mf projects like this 5-6 years ago.

 

carry on.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

 

Once again I going to utilize a quote from my boss "its hard to legislate taste". This is particularly true in The Heights and even Montrose. Its like, which history? by what definition? by what standard? under what authority? From what I've seen in this particular hood its an all around "American Eclectic". Lots of older kit houses from old pattern books that advertised anything from "Queen Anne" to "Craftsman". The spectrum is so wide and broad that it leaves the door open for many possibilities which is what makes the area fun! I honestly don't care what style you employ as long as its a solid to good design in the end. I mean recently we been getting a lot of "Charleston Style" and "New Orleans French Second Empire" (townhome styles) (which I think are fun and look natural with the setting of our city/climate). That wasn't here before, but some have been executed really well. Are these wrong too?

 

As far as "Boilerplate". A lot of your architecture is going to be boilerplate or generic. Its really really hard to design something great, and with all the space we have to build here, and how cheap the land still is, you will get a lot of boilerplate and generic. This doesn't mean these are bad or can look bad. The kit houses I mentioned earlier were the "boilerplate" or "generic" of their day. Very safe styles. Nothing risking or exciting. It also gets really hard to work with these styles beyond 4-6 stories. Louis Sullivan tackled this over 100 years ago and its still not an exact science. But hey, what do I know. I'm just someone that works in architecture.

 

Oh come on.  The Heights was built out mostly from 1910-20 and is largely Craftsman with some older Victorian homes.  The spectrum of the original architecture is not that wide and the McVics, Fauxorleans and especially the $%&@ing modern Victorian farmhouse new builds that have infested the neighborhood stick out like sore thumbs.  Of course, everyone who is at all connected with the builders, realtors and architects in the Heights thinks that it all looks great, but that is just because they want to put their own architectural stamp on the neighborhood.  But it is totally easy to build consistent with the original architecture and a good percentage of the recent new builds have paid attention to the original craftsman architecture.

 

The Broadstone Waterworks does a good job of respecting the original architecture of the Heights.  Brick with some stucco and some Art Deco ornamentation.  You can clearly see that they were thinking about what would fit in well in a historic neighborhood.  Greystar just came in and basically dropped an architectural f-bomb.  They didn't even try.  It is boilerplate in a way Craftsman architecture never was.  Craftsman architecture was part of a significant artistic movement and the architecture is celebrated and preserved for its brilliantly simple variations on common architectural elements.  Greystar's design is just another modern multi-family going for the "Urban Elegance" look.  It is stale, out of place and just lame.  We are long past the days when we had to thank our lucky stars whenever a developer was willing to put up anything new in the Heights.  This neighborhood is in National Geographic.  Property values are off the charts.  Retail developments are everywhere with every restaurant in Austin and Dallas looking for a spot in the Heights.  We deserve much better than this.

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one messy message to unpack, but lets walk through it.

 

13 minutes ago, s3mh said:

 

Oh come on.  The Heights was built out mostly from 1910-20 and is largely Craftsman with some older Victorian homes.  The spectrum of the original architecture is not that wide and the McVics, Fauxorleans and especially the $%&@ing modern Victorian farmhouse new builds that have infested the neighborhood stick out like sore thumbs.

 

 

4 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

 

From what I've seen in this particular hood its an all around "American Eclectic". Lots of older kit houses from old pattern books that advertised anything from "Queen Anne" to "Craftsman". The spectrum is so wide and broad that it leaves the door open for many possibilities which is what makes the area fun!

 

 

Do you even know what goes into a Queen Anne house and a Craftsman house? Not only are they stylistically vastly different from each other, but thats without even going into how each type of house is organized. One is very ornate while the latter is very simple. One is Uniquely English while the other is uniquely American. Thats a very wide and broad spectrum of design. Anything that is built like new is going to stick out like a "sore thumb" whether it is a good build or a crap build. None of this is even an argument and is a matter of opinion. A weak one at that.

 

21 minutes ago, s3mh said:

 

Of course, everyone who is at all connected with the builders, realtors and architects in the Heights thinks that it all looks great, but that is just because they want to put their own architectural stamp on the neighborhood.

 

 

Haha. So now I'm a shill? How do you define a "shill" in your eyes? By your definition, anyone that likes development that you don't like or even development at all is basically a "shill". Thats a very broad and vague definition of a very particular word.

Yes I do work in the industry and yes I do want to see more developments happening, but its not like I'm secret about that, and my remarks aren't sponsored by Greystar either (maybe they should. That would make life so much easier haha).

 

27 minutes ago, s3mh said:

 

 But it is totally easy to build consistent with the original architecture and a good percentage of the recent new builds have paid attention to the original craftsman architecture.

 

 

Are you saying you have? I would love to see your work. I'm sure you have done an excellent job since you claim that is "easy" to build consistently with the "original architecture". Where are these new builds that you speak of as well. Most I've seen have been restorations, as Craftsman isn't exactly in vague when it comes to new houses of late. Then again I could be wrong.

 

32 minutes ago, s3mh said:

 

The Broadstone Waterworks does a good job of respecting the original architecture of the Heights.  Brick with some stucco and some Art Deco ornamentation.  You can clearly see that they were thinking about what would fit in well in a historic neighborhood.

 

 

1) Are you seriously going to use a building that hasn't been finished yet as your horse to bet on? Really?

 

2) You do know this is an EDI International project, right? EDI is the definition of "boilerplate" and "generic". Thats not to say that is bad or even wrong. They aren't an example of incredible design talent. They do consistent work that has a consistent level of quality which is hard for any firm of any size to do (I hope to even get to that level in my career. Thats hard to do). So there is that. However, by your definition of what a "shill" is. Maybe we should question your motivations? Especially when you say things like below:

 

40 minutes ago, s3mh said:

 

Greystar just came in and basically dropped an architectural f-bomb.  They didn't even try.  It is boilerplate in a way Craftsman architecture never was.  Craftsman architecture was part of a significant artistic movement and the architecture is celebrated and preserved for its brilliantly simple variations on common architectural elements.  Greystar's design is just another modern multi-family going for the "Urban Elegance" look.  It is stale, out of place and just lame.

 

 

This sounds like you have a personal axe to grind with these guys. No idea why, but this is way to emotional, and like your previous remarks, doesn't mean its an argument. I also think Greystar is like another EDI International. Though I would say they are a slight peg above. At least they put out renders that are professional and make you interested in the building. EDI can't even be bothered too.

 

43 minutes ago, s3mh said:

 

This neighborhood is in National Geographic.  Property values are off the charts.  Retail developments are everywhere with every restaurant in Austin and Dallas looking for a spot in the Heights.  We deserve much better than this.

 

 

 

I don't care if they are in the next issue of Playboy. The elites in media aren't the reason why The Heights is now successful. Its not because someone wrote about the place in GQ or whatever. Its a lot of different companies doing their best to figure it out and make something out of a neighborhood that used to be not much of anything. A lot of those retail developments and housing is actually the very stuff that you complain about. A lot of regular generic stuff, but together it becomes something.

Luckily you have zero power or authority to make any worthwhile decisions in this neighborhood because by your ridiculous subjective standards nothing would ever get built (anywhere for that matter).

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm kinda w/ s3mh on this one. 

 

I'm pretty much OK with the massing. The 20th St frontage is essentially 6 stories (a reasonable height fronting a street that width). The 12-story facade on Nicholson would seem overly high fronting a street as narrow as Nicholson, except the RoW on Nicholson is actually 50% wider than 20th (90 vs 60 ft). And the afternoon shade on that stretch of the bike trail would be welcome.

 

But the architecture is... not great? With the exception of the balconies on the north façade, it looks more like an office building or hotel than residential. And with the exception of the (3-story) lobby on the corner, the rest of the street-facing parts of the building look to be essentially blank walls covering a parking structure. Could be better.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The front corner and balconies in the rendering look alright but the many repetitive cut out windows just really kills it for me. It immediately reminded me of the same cut out windows on The Hampton/Homewood Suites Hotel downtown. Also, the modern yet bland minimalist look doesn’t really mesh well with the surrounding “historic” neighborhood. I feel since this current design trend took hold, we have become very closed minded to all other styles. The modern trend just doesn’t translate well in every location, this to me being an example. The height is okay considering there are other tall buildings nearby. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

YTI7HJ9.gif

 

I literally have no clue what is going on this thread. How this thread is progressing makes the quote from my boss remain all too true and not only is it hard to legislate taste, it also seems impossible for others here to even define what the "taste" of this neighborhood is and why it so important to this particular instance, and nobody here can seem to give a solid answer why any of this matters in the grand scheme of things. Of all the places to make a stand aesthetically, this is an odd moment to do so, especially after how much has been built and changed in this hood for the past 10 years. NOW its going to far? Really? Oh well.

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

About the only high rise building that I can think of that manages to successfully blend in with a historic area's aesthetics is Aris at Market Square - but this ain't a Hines project, or apparently even a high end one.  Whether this building is attractive or not is a matter of taste (I don't much care for it personally).  Regardless, we're stuck with it, and it's not a chicken farm or a trash transfer station or some such so I'm not going to go all Abe Simpson and yell at the clouds.

 

Frankly, as a long time Heights homeowner, I'm more concerned by the sudden onset of fully fenced McTexasModernFarmhouses on slab, with crummy build quality and drainage issues out the wazoo for the immediate neighbors.  That, and I kinda liked the po' folks (as in, not a 7 figure housing budget) better.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2019 at 2:12 PM, cspwal said:

Also I looked on streetview - this is across the street from a strip center, not the historic 0' setback buildings

The best word for this immediate area going back 50 years is "dump" not "historic" in any sense.  It was very 50s-60s era commercial industrial mix with a railroad spur right through the middle of it. 

 

The only thing memorable or consistent about the area that felt like they tied together were the two big water tanks, they were very similar to each other...they had a nice giant water tank-ey aesthetic that really tied everything up in a beautiful bow.

Edited by JJxvi
  • 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...