Luminare

The torque that is in the lower right of the frame is really trippy and disturbing. Its like the building is slumping. Of course this is all due to the perspective of where this photo was taken, but its definitely weird. I don't understand why the designer thought that a torque was necessary there, when its not prevalent throughout the design. Its just odd. You even see it with the stone where the roof line doesn't continue through, and even the column at ground level is slanted as if to further highlight the weird torque and slumpish feel of that part of the building. What do others think about it, or the building I guess. In my opinion, I don't think a hospital aesthetically should look like its wonky or distort your perception. Thats just me.

Could you or anyone provide a bullet point version of the article? Apparently this story is behind a paywall.

Note to self in my future designs...apparently when spec'ing cool wavy/curvy metal panel wall systems expect a lead time of 8 months to a year. Yikes.

No the hilarious thing is in the comments on the twitter post the first person called this a "beautiful design"....without any sarcasm.

Just a hunch. I in no way know this to be the case, but I would assume they will probably get a bunch of money from the party at fault through either litigation, arbitration, or mediation. Whoever is the party at fault will more than likely go bankrupt and cleaned out because of it, but at least it will cover some of the damages. While the county could have stopped it was probably difficult to just halt everything, and that is always the clients call. Fortunately this was caught before this was completed and in use. It could have been a lot worse. Better to rip out concrete than dead bodies due to a collapse. Hopefully the county will be a little wiser in their next bridge project.

As an architecture they own all copyrights to their designs whether they are realized or not, and so they can use those designs however they wish, and if they are good designs or it highlights what they can do for future clients then its reasonable to advertise using buildings that are "on the boards". For the Treviso and Fitzroy, honestly it just comes down to bad luck, and it happens. Covid effectively killed the Fitzroy, but I assume that something big will take up that spot in no time, and maybe the developer will still undertake it, who knows. The Treviso died when Anadarko merged with Oxy that effectively halted the momentum of The Woodlands, but again I only think its temporary. While both these projects may or may not ever get built they do highlight not only how the firm designs, but also what building types they can do, the types of clients they associate with, and the services they provide. All great stuff to highlight.

Do we have a running list of how many stories, or construction news we break on here that others haunt the forums to scope up?

That to me looks like actual green marble. The giveaway is the break in the middle for the joints which indicates its two different slabs of marble. If it was faux they wouldn't bother to do that. Looks like white marble floors as well. The fixtures actually look like brass instead of gold. I don't know the exterior is going for a very toned down classical look, and so the interior is just mimicking that. Not every lobby needs to be like what we see today which in my opinion are a bit overblown for what their apartments are. Most apartments go for the grand lobby just to sell units not really for the building itself or the people that will live there.

If people want this to stop then they need to affect change in city government, and change parking regulations. That is why this exists. You change that regulation and the market will change with it.

100 % agree with @editor From my perspective, Houston is THE "Workers City" and that goes from blue collar up to white collar. Houston is a place where you go to work and get work done, for better or for worse. Its also the easiest city to call home whether you are from there or are a recent expat. What I have said above is actually what creates a complicated relationship for me with the city. Because its the city of my youth during a time when I didn't like myself, I always seem to slide a bit personally and get a little to comfortable even if I'm getting a lot of work done. Its why I can't see myself always living in Houston indefinitely sometime in the future, but it will always remain a touchstone. A place that is in my back pocket and will be there to carry me if I fall down wherever I go, and that kind of security is very rare with most cities. I too have lived in a variety of places, including now in Salt Lake City, and what is peculiar is I'm always interested in jumping to cities with very particular mono-cultures that are vastly different from who I am, and where I came from, Houston. Houston is the most eclectic in regards to culture, the city that is actually weird, the most diverse, and the friendliest. What I love most is that it doesn't puff out its chest and preach these values. Instead it just lives it. Its also why I always tell people that Houston is the true bona-fide American city in every sense of the word (even right down to its lack of zoning!). Its THE melting pot, and at the same time is THE place where American values continue to thrive to the fullest. Houston is a city of action, not words, and its why unfortunately it sometimes doesn't get the recognition it rightly deserves for actually practicing the values a lot of cities preach about, and pretend they value when they really don't, or they are just a bunch of fakes. It was interesting living there in the city for my late 20's as opposed to the time I grew up in the suburbs because I really got to understand how people approach life. Yes on the exterior people come off as pretty conservative, but once you are behind closed doors people are willing to talk about anything and everything and are actually pretty liberal (in the true sense of the base term, the original meaning of liberal, as in the center with varied views and opinions). Like Editor's example of Seattle, I also lived in a city that would often try really really hard to come across as "open, diverse, inclusive, and progressive", and that city was Berlin, Germany. Germans are great people, but it was a weird experience because many of them seem really open and "liberal" on the exterior, but they are a very conservative bunch behind closed doors. Very tight social circles, and even though most speak English it will be very difficult for them to include you in things if you aren't German, and even if you can speak the language I learned really quick that you can speak the language, look German, act German, but at the end of the day if you weren't born there....you just aren't German, and they will treat you different even if its subtle, and its not like its even bad. Its called Germany for a reason right? Its the nation for Germans, its in the name haha, but thats what I mean about the facade of "liberal". A lot of what the city would preach or push, and the same with the people would just seem surface level. Its also not a city you "live in". Its the place you go to make money, climb the ladder in your industry, party your head off, and what was very evident to me when I was there, the place you go when you are a 20 something and are just...lost in life. This applied to both Germans and Internationals. Its a city that is a wonderful dream, but then one day you wake up and realize its time to get serious and start your life and you leave. Miss it totally, and can't wait to visit again as I still have a lot of my International friends there, but its a city of a particular time of my life and that's what it will be. The above is simply to exhibit a contrast with Houston. Now does this mean Houston is perfect, or everything is great? No. Does this mean Berlin is bad to live from what I provided? No. Just very different cities for different people at different times in life, and I've come to accept that. Not every city has to be everything you want it to be. All it needs to be is match the person you are then, so you can maximize the benefits to grow as a person for where you are at in life, and that is okay. Berlin was a great city that got me out of my comfort zone, and pushed me to be the best I could possibly be, and learn who I really am as a person. Houston was the city that caught me when I fell, dusted me off, put me back to work, and said yes you can do what you want to do, just do it. Got a lot of work done, and worked a lot of great projects, and meet some wonderful people. That's just me though. Interested in what others think.

Only in Houston would you ever see this. On the one hand I praise its cleverness, and uniqueness, but on the other hand this is probably the dumbest location to put a town home I've ever seen. Literally between two functioning railroads and industrial all around it.

Would be a shame to lose it. It definitely is a prime example of Neo-Classical, and sits on that site very nicely. Hope it stays, but understand if it goes. That whole area is just too valuable in regard to real estate. You are correct that Neo-classical churches are a victim of their own successes because there are so many, but also even the use case and low density of Houston in general is the same. I think we have had discussions about this in other threads, but single story low density is just hard to keep and reuse if you want to up the density. So this too is also a victim in that regard. If we had built more mid-rise buildings in the early days like I've seen in other American cities (this includes where I live now in Salt Lake City) then it would be a lot more difficult to tear down. Walked this area a lot when I lived in Montrose, and always liked passing by this church.

Makes sense to start with those sections as they are the most complex.

I personally vote for the parking lot right next to that AT&T building. That looks like a good spot for something like this...and more than likely thats not where it will be placed.

Since I like analogies I'll use a football one again. Nick Saban, who is probably going to go down as the greatest head football coach, not just in Alabama, but in College Football as a whole. To this day, Saban has won 6 National Championships at Alabama, 1 with LSU, zero with the Miami Dolphins in the NFL, and zero with Michigan State. Clearly his best run as a coach has been with Alabama. No question about that, and I would assume that with his success at Alabama he will probably say that they best place he coached at was at Alabama. So does that mean he wasn't coaching his best at LSU? or Miami? or Michigan State? No. It highlights just how difficult it is to win, and be the best, and also the combination of factors it takes to be the best. It also tells the story that sometimes when one is at the their best or thinks what they are doing is the best it isn't enough in certain circumstances, or administration, etc... Its the same with architecture. In fact the link you posted if you don't zero in that one statement, which was actually said by the journalist even if Johnson said it once before, but you learn in that interview why he "saved" his best designs for Houston, and that was because of the relationship Johnson and Hines had with one another. It was a relationship that just worked and was quite magical. In those types of relationships anything can happen. No matter what design Johnson would have presented Hines, Hines trusted Johnson no matter what and that allowed Johnson to do more daring projects that also just so happened to be his best. This is also why I said we should have defined what constitutes as "best" are we talking global? In a particular context? At a particular point and time? In my opinion best isn't relative. Its very much based in context. Best also doesn't mean that just because things didn't work out with one client even when you were at your best doesn't mean you weren't doing your best. All that matters is if you were doing your best at that time at that place, and if it was best for that client and what they wanted. People also change, and evolve. Situations change. Tastes change. Circumstances change. Its way more complicated than just saying "Oh he said he saved his best designs for Houston, that must mean he didn't do his best for others". I KNOW THATS NOT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, but its the heart and soul of what is being said. If you are interested in the idea of "standard of care" look into it further because its very specific to time, place, context, client, circumstances, etc... Its not relative in the slightest. If Johnson satisfied his clients needs and gave them the best design that THE CLIENT wanted then thats all that matters, and maybe he showcased these other designs and were rejected by the client, like in my example that happened to me. Also look into the AIA code of ethics because its all centered on the architect, but more important their relationship with the client, the public, and the environment, and as long as they aren't intentionally delivering an inferior product or are leading their client down a wrong path and knowingly doing so then that is grounds for a violation. I don't believe from my knowledge of Johnson that this was ever the case. I don't remember ever hearing about a client that ever said...hey I wanted that design, and Johnson didn't show me that. Never heard of that. In my opinion, case closed. Not just per each circumstances, as Johnson was beloved by his clients, but also globally across his career. I'm I saying he never did anything wrong ever...no. What I'm saying is that he was not only a great architect in what the code of ethics calls for, but was also the standard by which Architects should practice. A high bar. His best designs where in Houston because his best client was in Houston that allowed him to be the best and what he did. Not exactly rocket science. For anyone on this forum that hasn't ever had to collaborate on a project or work with a client, or work with others to achieve a higher goal will never know how difficult it is to get what you want done done.

Well this has been an interesting discussion... Funny enough, I'm currently studying for one of my 6 exams...ugh...for licensure and one of them is practice management, and what is being discussed at the moment relates to what I have been slaving away preparing for this exam (Its in December). As a foundation, one would, and should use this quote in relation to an architects typical duties, and how the design process normally is carried out. In architecture, we are governed, legally, by what is known as the "Standard of Care": a legal concept, defined as the level of skill and diligence that a reasonably prudent architect would exercise in the same community, in the same time frame, and given the same or similar facts and circumstances. At the same time, it should be noted that the law does not require perfection. I think its important to relay this because some people's definition of "best" often times isn't what is best but instead its somewhere in the neighborhood of "perfect" which are two different things. Especially in legal terms. I don't think anyone has bothered to clarify what is meant by "best" in relation to @H-Town Man 's original post. Are we talking about best as in "This building is the best among all other buildings." Or are we talking about "This building is best for this particular location and circumstances." Two completely different things. What's important is context. Then again we are on the internet, and over my many years living on the internet (I don't do so very much these days for precisely this reason), is a place completely devoid of context. For the sake of brevity, we can table what I've said above for another day, and another thread for this very topic. I will say straight up that while I'm grateful for @H-Town Man posting the conversation he had with the aforementioned architect, it probably wasn't the best way of either posting, or framing, or disclosing such a personal conversation because there is so much context left out, of course people could take that particular statement and just run away with it into who knows where. For myself, I'm going to choose not to say anything disparaging or question the authenticity of said statement, or question the integrity of the architect who said the thing at the heart of the matter because it would be unfair of me to do so, given the fact that so much context is missing, and I've never met the person before, although it seems we share a lot in common, including our desire to rid the world of the gloomy, hollow, and depressing all glass box skyscraper. Can we get a architecture Jesus to purge us of this architectural sin?! I guess its but a dream. Its in my opinion that because there is so little context, the conversation is rather mute. Its a lot like conversations about the college football playoff. Who is the best football team on paper, even though we can not possibly have them play one another even though that is the point of the playoff...its a fun conversation to have, but certainly nothing to fight over or pretend that we are mindreaders and see motive or intent for any architect regarding how they practice, including the architect at the heart of this discussion. @arche_757 I get exactly what you are saying, and I even agree with what you are saying in the abstract, but because I don't know this particular architect I couldn't possibly agree with how you applied it in your series of posts. I will say that I've had my fair share of run ins of the exact people that you have described, and not only that, just people that are in this discipline who just don't care, or are just in it for the paycheck, or if its a big office are just in it for clout or office politics. That's just life though right? As unfortunate as that may be. For those wonder about how ethics relates to all of this, which is a good read, I will link them here: NCARB Rules of Conduct https://www.ncarb.org/sites/default/files/Rules_of_Conduct.pdf AIA Code of Ethics https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/2020_Code_of_Ethics.pdf Lets just say that, if in describing a hypothetical architect, where we know the intent, motive, and context actually render service that wasn't to the best they could do for their client, and knowingly did so which would then bring about an inferior product for the client irrespective of budget, circumstances, etc... then that could possibly be grounds for a violation under AIA's Code of Ethics as I read them. This happens more often then you would think, but not for why this discussion has happened in the first place or in the way you might think. Often, us as architects and designers go through many many many many different design iterations with a client. So many different possibilities. Most simply go into the trash because rightly they weren't good designs, and probably wouldn't in most circumstances, but every now and then you strike gold, but the client sees another option that is worth way more than the gold you have presented, and chooses to go one direction, but the gold you struck is actually good, and then you simply save it for a rainy day. This happened to me not that long ago where I designed 3 different façade options for a townhome project. One was "contemporary", one was "modern", and one was "traditional", and as is practice for me I typically try to design all three to a standard where if one is chosen over the other I would be proud to work on that option even if the one I prefer isn't picked. The client choose the "traditional" option, but the "modern" option was really nice, and my boss and I looked at each other and said...we are just going to keep that option for ourselves because we like it and will use it for another client if the circumstances are right and the client is right. And we totally can do that even if some might not like this because unbeknownst to most in here its actually pretty stunning the level of copyright architects have over their designs since the passage of such legislation in 1990. After 1990, architects not only possess the copyright of the finished building itself, as well as the documents used to construct said building, but even the models, sketches, and processes used to get to that final building is all copyright! During my studies, I thought that was pretty wild. So whatever is produced even if it doesn't get built can be used by that same architect in any place whatsoever any time. Pretty neat stuff. Anyway, this has been long enough. Thought I'd chime in since this was an interesting conversation that related a lot to what I'm currently studying. With that being said, I'm off to read/study contract documents for the traditional Design-Bid-Build delivery method....oh fun...ugh.

Ha! Take that New York. We have a skinnyscraper too. Yeah its not fancy Norman Foster, but we are on your heals. Better watch out.

Been noticing the pictures that you been posting lately, and all I want to say is keep it up. They look great. What some have been saying on here is right, you definitely capture the building as it was sold in the render, yet at the same time it has surpassed the render itself. Looking forward to more pictures from you.

I'll be honest. I've never seen a stairs configured in this way. Definitely going to walk this next time I'm in town. Have any of you seen Inception? Its like that moment when Joseph Gorden-Levitt's character was showing Ellen Page...Elliot Page...ugh...whatever anyway, the Penrose Steps or infinite staircase, but then the illusion was broken to show that its all a trick and the stairs then separate. Pretty neat.

I think it has a hotel component, but its also offices and residential, and of course theres the amazing interior park/courtyard. It really is a crazy project, and one which takes the aesthetic posted and adapts it properly to that climate and setting. I also got to go to conference while in Germany where he did a lecture regarding that project (because the architect, Ingenhaven, is from Germany). I just think the aesthetic presented above is good, but also pretty generic for what you find elsewhere. You know this is "greatest hits" type of work when you see random wind mills on top of buildings. Looking forward to a more refined design. I do agree with your Hsu arguments. I personally think he is adapting the sorta whimsy eclectic aesthetic you see in Austin, but is now incorporating elements that feel more Houston. I particular the more mid-century feel, and industrial feel which you do see in Austin but fits better here, along with a wide range of colors. Full disclosure, I am biased when it comes to his work, as I did apply to his Houston office when I got laid-off in 2020. Just so people know. I just wish there were more adventurous architects aesthetically in Houston like a Hsu. Some are getting close, but most stay very conventional both in form and aesthetics.

Unfortunately. Not in Asia. I do have friends from many parts of Asia though. Also just finished a book about a project in Singapore called Marina One, and a lot of elements in these renders is very similar to what I read about. I have been to Milan and London, and there are plenty of projects that either are planning or have gone this angle.

He isn't everywhere. His only really big projects are Montrose Collective, MKT, and Zadok, along with a few smaller projects. I would really like to see that aesthetic play out with a highrise. That would be refreshing. Yes it does feel Austin, but then again that is where his firm is based. I'd rather it feel more like Austin, which is more Texas, than more New York or LA. The eclectic variety is I believe a better direction than more abstract wood boxes and metal panel wraps with a lot of curtain wall. I'm not saying its bad. It isn't, and the look in this render I've seen in plenty of other places and it does work as an aesthetic. I've seen this play out in Asia, I've seen this play out in Milan, I've seen this play out in London, but it is pretty similar across all those regions. I certainly would like to see great variety try that aesthetic. It doesn't have to be Michael Hsu, but I do think its aesthetic that feels more to this region. Maybe a cross between a Michael Hsu and Lake Flato is something I've been interested in. Very regional and eclectic. Thats just me though.

It is, but I do appreciate where their mindset is. This area has the potential to be what they show in the images. I mean they did land SHOP architects to do the ION itself, so they already know what kind of architects who can do this kind of work. That is a good sign. It always starts with the architect you choose to do this kind of work. I hope they start roping in some others like Michael Hsu, who can maybe massage this look to something that feels more Houston. Right now this all feels like something I would see in New York, LA, or even cities like Toronto. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I think something that expresses the colors of Houston, and our general eclectic nature would work better. Overall its a good direction. Will all of this work out? Maybe not, but if they can just build out the area around the ION with a few buildings like this then I'll be satisfied enough.

More than likely no? Thats one of those, "Well it will make the render look really nice" kind of things. The only way that would happen is if the city asked the developers of this to spruce up that stretch of Montrose as part of this development.

Feels like the right blend of contemporary approaches, and matching Houston's strong Mid-Century tradition. Really like this idea of the giant porch facing the large extended garden too the bayou, also very Houston. You can even notice the interplay of all the Islamic geometric motifs, yet at the same time it doesn't feel forced or intruding. I'm impressed. They did a good job of managing the site. A site this big can sometimes corrupt the design process because you feel very tempted to over design, and overscale. All and all, This looks to be another great addition to Houston. Looking forward to its completion.