H-Town Man

^ I disagree.  I think this glorified canopy is one of the items in our greater architectural repertoier as a city - that is sorely lacking.  That is: we do not have enough smaller scale built environment that could be considered "avant garde" in this town.  Someone posted a list of fountains in and around town recently... while not a fountain, it does, in a way, engage on the same scale.  The Gulf Building (like most skyscrapers) engages on a much different / broader level, and the greater affect of the Gulf Building wouldn't be lost as the eyes wander up towards the crown...  As such, the juxtaposition of these two contrasting architectural styles wouldn't harm, or hurt either one for the sake of the other.  Rather, I believe that the one would enhance the other, and vice versa.  I feel like Snoetta's design (and others like it) would have helped create a context of architectural discussion about the mundane, or, objects of the urban street environment that are so common in places like London, New York, Berlin etc. yet so very much lacking here.

 

Thoughtful post. To answer your points, I am not thinking of the crown of the Gulf Building, I am thinking of its entrance at street level. Go stand across the street sometime and look at it. Just the first floor. Now imagine half of that blocked out by these shards of concrete or whatever they are. It's not appropriate.

 

I think we are showing our "catch up to the big boys" mentality by being so desperate for anything exciting and avant garde from a big-name firm. It would look very nice elsewhere, maybe down by the new Hilcorp building or if there were light rail on Smith Street it would be ideal, but not here.

I have been accused of being unreasonable a time or two in my lifetime. However, my comment in post #447 was an attempt at subtle humor, with the use of both conspicuous and inconspicuous sarcasm. The conspicuous sarcasm is obvious since H-Town Man's comments were comically absurd. The reference to Houston's reputed traffic would be the part that was inconspicuous since my comment indicated I didn't have a problem with the absurd assertion but chose instead to challenge his ability to get to the golf course due to traffic, on a morning that Houston was also inundated by heavy rainfall and strong winds.

 

I have been accused of being unreasonable a time or two in my lifetime. However, my comment in post #447 was an attempt at subtle humor, with the use of both conspicuous and inconspicuous sarcasm. The conspicuous sarcasm is obvious since H-Town Man's comments were comically absurd. The reference to Houston's reputed traffic would be the part that was inconspicuous since my comment indicated I didn't have a problem with the absurd assertion but chose instead to challenge his ability to get to the golf course due to traffic, on a morning that Houston was also inundated by heavy rainfall and strong winds.

oops

 

No worries. Your comment was understandable.

The design would not have looked good at all in front of the Gulf Building, IMHO. Not too sad it's been scrapped, considering that's the most graceful historic building in the whole city.

 

And the Metro guy is right, the existing stations don't look bad. In certain situations, less is more.

 

 

Found a second source to corroborate mkultra25's link, so the theater pictured was indeed the Metropolitan, 1018 Main (Lamar Hotel block), demolished 1973.

 

Its neighboring movie palace at the Lamar Hotel, the Loew's State, was apparently also destroyed in the early 70's, and a decade later the hotel that had housed them was wiped clear by Hines for surface parking.

 

A good photo of the two in their twilight:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lastpictureshow/3730781225/

 

The Majestic is a puzzler, since there was indeed one at 908 Rusk (next to 806 Main, soon to be a Marriott), and other sources show one in the Chronicle building before it was renovated in the 70's. Which one was the famous "atmospheric" palace that changed how movie theaters were built across America?

 

 

They are chipping out the below grade foundations currently with nealy all of the former building debris havig been hauled off.

 

Tough to see much, but there wasa ton of steel reinforcing the concrete that made up the outer retaning wall. Maybe what I saw was part of the rumored "fallout shelter".

 

Perhaps they thought that when they built, they built forever.

I think my point was missed?  I meant - its a shame that this centers original facade was covered with what is there now.  Not that it must be saved.

 

Run of the mill Art Deco trumps almost anything else (in my opinion).

 

And this intersection is important, but both sides need attention, and I doubt (from what I've read above) that we will see that any time soon.

 

 

Sure, always a shame when an original facade is covered up by blandness. But the time is past for a one-story strip center with parking in front at this intersection, unless it was a strip center of international architectural distinction, which this one isn't.

 

To my mind there are two truly great historic strip centers inside the loop that should be saved no matter what, and one of them has been butchered by Weingarten. That was the only one that could be called a landmark of regional/national significance, on par with Highland Park Village in Dallas.

Was really bored tonight and after a devastating Rockets loss, I decided to cheer myself up by counting the number of developments on the map and seeing how many of them replace surface lots or lots that are mostly surface parking. I got 16. I also counted how many blocks in downtown Houston are surface lots, or mostly surface lots/grass lots and I got around 62.

Amazingly, within the next 5 years or so, roughly 26% of blocks downtown that are currently surface lots/abandoned buildings will be developed!

Exciting times indeed for Houston.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

I like this project. Reminds me of my home country. Shopping at the bottom; restaurants, hair salons, local news paper on 2nd level, businesses and offices on 3rd levels; and condos, hotels, apartments on higher levels.

Your home country... Would that be the Roman Empire?

to the floors being too close together to meet modern requirements.

This one falls under the "wasteful society" category. People are what, half an inch taller on average than when this was built? Pretty sure America is the only country where you hear "low ceiling heights" as an excuse to demolish buildings.

I thought you were trying to show that an old structure could be attached to a new structure/mall. But if you were just trying to show that you can have a hotel on top of a mall, then yes I agree with you.

I was trying to show how a possible redevelopment of Foley's could have incorporated shops and an office tower. The bulk of Foley's is analogous to the bulky lower portion of Water Tower Place. The text of my post explained what I was driving at.

Isn't that actually the Metropolitan?

http://www.cinemahouston.info/palaces.shtml

The destruction of the "big 3" dow

ntown theaters has to rank near the top of the list of the greatest losses to Houston architecture.

That picture is classed with the Majestic at cinematreasures.org. Unfortunately there is no direct link; you have to navigate their tabs. Either way they were both torn down.

Not sure, but the Majestic is still downtown. It is a venue for parties and weddings. Of course folks on these boards never let facts get in the way of a good argument.

You are thinking of the much smaller Majestic Metro. This was the Majestic, demolished in 1971.

Another shame - this center was(still is) an Art Deco shopping center. It was very poorly covered by that nasty concrete/pea-gravel stuff in the 1970s.

http://swamplot.com/big-block-on-the-corner-of-westheimer-and-montrose-goes-up-for-sale/2012-03-08/

http://www.houstondeco.org/1930s/towercomm.html

Gotta disagree. Although I love Art Deco, this was run of the mill for what was a suburban intersection when it was built. Now it is one of the most important intersections in urban Houston, and it is time to build up.

This preservation twin wishes the Ben Milam Hotel were still next door. But otherwise, this is exciting.

To be fair, Hurricane Carla badly damaged the Ursuline Academy...but it could have at least been partially salvaged.

 

 

I've heard conflicting reports about this. At least one source has said that although it was damaged, this was used more as an excuse to tear it down than the real reason.

completely agree with you that the Islamic Center should have been a mixed use development. also that Days Inn needs to come down (build that park!).. i actually kind of like what they are planning to do to Central Square (at least its a huge improvement). the renderings look nice.

and i do agree that just because a building is crumbling doesnt mean it needs to come down. it just seemed like that thread was taking a shot at us/claiming we were lying about it falling apart. but no H-Town, i dont claim to of ever said those other statements.

 

I concede that you were not lying about a piece falling off of it. Although it does make me wonder if the owner caused that piece to fall off when no one was on the sidewalk so they could deflect criticism for tearing it down. Owners have done worse things in this town.

First was Medical Arts building, 1215 Walker, now a surface parking lot.

 

Second was the Majestic movie theater, 908 Rusk.

 

Third was the Ursuline Academy in Galveston.

 

Buildings like this

 

 

this

 

and this

 

need to be answered for. 

Thank you! we point out the obvious and get some thread dedicated to us in the General Houston section about how crazy we are saying this building needs to come down.. psh, how ridiculous.

 

That thread wasn't dedicated to you personally, unless you want to claim having spoken all those excuses.

While I would also prefer to see this building reused, I feel the need to point out that:

 

pieces of it literally fell off and hit the ground.

 

When did it happen? What kind of pieces?

For my part, it's not so much that I have special knowledge of this building and how to preserve it. It's just that every mid-century building in Houston is the same scenario: Just beyond repair. No way to renovate. Pieces of it are falling! (The last being perhaps the ultimate Houston anti-preservation bs cliche, said about every old building, yet no one ever actually sees any pieces fall.)

Mid-century buildings are preserved and renovated in other cities around the world, notably in places like Vienna or Berlin, but I guess the builders in 1950's Houston just weren't as good, because every one of those buildings here has "structural issues beyond repair!" Funny thing is 30 years ago the developers were saying the exact same thing about Houston's early 20th century buildings, movie palaces, etc. Now what's left of those are finally considered historic and suddenly the structural issues are gone! All over downtown they're being renovated. But it hasn't dawned on these people that the mid-century buildings are historic, just of a different style, so they're all "beyond repair"...

A collection of perennial Houston responses to the age-old question: why that building needs to be torn down.

 

 

You gotta make money in this business. There's no money in something old like that. Maybe if it was historical like 712 Main, but anything else, the numbers just won't work.

 

That thing's crumbling. Somebody's going to get hit on the head, and there's going to be a lawsuit.

 

I guess it's just time for something new. That building's been there a long time.

 

You know, if we just keep having to save every old building that some preservationist likes, Houston's going to run out of land. It already costs a fortune to buy a decent, 4,000 sf house inside the loop.

 

I'm normally in favor of saving something old when it can be done, but that thing's just been sitting there for ten years! Imagine what they'd have to do to clean it up.

 

We're not Paris. If people like old things, they can go to Paris. We just don't look like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thought this building really added some character to Montrose Blvd. Shame. Lots of smaller junk along that road they could have scraped off for their 30 story tower, but that seems to happen a lot.

Philip Johnson - most important architect of the late 20th century for my money. For sheer talent he belongs with FLW and Mies, maybe slightly lower. Biggest strike against him is that he became, by his own admission, a skyscraper prostitute, applying Byzantine or Romanesque forms originally developed in churches to lobbies for banks. Also just seemed to do one design too many every so often in his later years; five drop dead gorgeous buildings would be followed by something really hokey and regrettable. Lost his "cool" factor due to this.

It's on.