Luminare

Isn't that what they did in in the 1970s in Chicago and other places? Hmmmm.....I don't think that worked out so well.

I think the greatest example is what I just posted above which happened in St. Louis.

This tower looks great! I just think that the city should stop making luxury towers and start putting up basic low income towers. Those, to me at least, make a city also look very nice and urban.

Please go watch a documentary called "the pruitt igoe myth" right now. It's on netflix. Like seriously just watch it.

Then lets see if you have the same opinion. Low income housing isn't something you just throw up and boom! Diversity, Urban, uplift from poverty. These are mistaken notions of the past and shouldn't be repeated again nor romanticized as something we just "didn't do right" or "wasn't implemented properly" or "it works in theory just no one has really tried". Btw If it feels like I'm jumping on you...it's because I am, but its for the right reasons. If anything watch that documentary because it's just a good architecture documentary.

The only one I like is the one being done by Norman Foster. The lines are nice. It's interesting in that it looks like it's essentially bursting out from it's surroundings via this very simple geometry. The skinniness to me seems to be an attempt to avoid the various setback rules in NYC. I think only a few of these will actually get built anyway and probably only one will be of any significance. What is great though is that NYC's skyline is getting a touch of contemporary. Freedom tower has just finished along with it's children skyscrapers yet to be completed. Then you may get a few of these. NYC skyline has been pretty static for quite awhile.

While all of these might not come to fruition its amazing what NYC could look like with these possible additions. Houston has been in a building boom for a little while know, but the economy has recovered to a point where even The Big Apple is getting some love. The link is below:

http://www.archdaily.com/569136/check-out-these-images-of-new-york-s-skyline-in-2018/

I'm not even going to respond to bobruss right now, because one....at work, and two I'm going to go on a rant lol. I understand where he is coming from though. A museum is an opportunity for a building to become a work of art, but it shouldn't compete with what is inside. The latest example of a very well done museum is the Perot Museum of Natural Science in Dallas designed by a very good group of architects from Morphosis.

found this today.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/neighborhood/woodlands/news/article/Woodlands-leaders-push-for-high-speed-rail-5898268.php

The chances of it going down the I-45 corridor are fading very quickly. If they really want to be considered then they should stop being so whiny and incorporate. The Woodlands is growing at an enormous rate, but they aren't as important as they think sometimes.

No.

I meant Condos over 1st floor retail, over as in "above".

Thanks for clearing that up. My apologizes

They are really blazin through this one!

Did these guys ever do a hi-res render of this? All we have is that one image that has been tossed around forever. The one that was done with pencils and markers. Any other images or renderings besides that one?

I seem to recall some people on here were excited about the plaza redo at the time, but I could never see what all the fuss was about. It seemed to go along with all the lowbrow efforts of the past forty years or so in America of making libraries a fun place for kids, a place that's "welcoming to everyone," that doesn't have grand traditional architecture that might be "intimidating," etc.

For some kids it is intimidating in a way, but also very closed off. A library for hundreds of years was nothing but a book museum guarded at the front by a librarian. Most were stuffy, not very well lit, and didn't really try to engage the urban context in anyway. Those problems then compounded itself with the advent of the internet. So not only was it tiring, dim, and non-engaging, but it wasn't very technologically advanced either.

I'm in a firm where we design a lot of schools, and one of the biggest differences in schools towards more "21st century learning environments" starts with changing the idea of the library. The project I'm currently working on, the Library isn't even called a library, but a Learning Hub. The space is grand but in a contemporary fashion, lots of light, lots of areas for different tech gadgets, variety in furniture for different study and reading postures, and the Librarian is tucked into the back of the space. The fronts are lined with lots of glass making it more transparent. This is the new idea of the Library.

The problem also wasn't ever that people weren't reading. In fact more people are reading now than ever before, but because people can get their books on the go or through the internet you have to create interesting environments for people to want to inhabit or populate a library.

I also like small projects like this. Sometimes just a small intervention can make a great difference.

To borrow a phrase. " I'm glad that blew over".

So where you referring to this?

Chi-Char-Hou-Dal when he graces HAIF with his presence when drunk.....and apparently cold as hell.

Just sitting there laughing at all of us...

I like how they are taking the same approach as Renzo Piano in that they are keeping the scale of the building at a managable level so it can essentially blend in with the surrounding landscape (the oaks, the bungalows, etc...). Very nice.

Amazing how we are going from zero theme parks (I don't really count Splashtown as a 'theme park' just a waterpark) to like 3 in 2-3 years. That's kinda crazy lol.

I do have to disagree with you, in that while this may be downtown, it's at a freeway intersection bordering a neighborhood of very low income, and so it's hard to expect the kind of investment that quality architecture usually requires.

You are coming up to the age old question of can there be quality architecture at low cost and even in the most inconvenient of circumstances? I say yes, and there is plenty of precedent to back up my argument. Sure they won't have granite counter tops, or a luxury pool, but that's because that's not what makes something architecture! I see places like these as a architectural challenge not an inconvenience. This exact kind of thinking is why this thread has gone down this direction from the very beginning

The root of the problem is that peoples expectations for a site like this are so astronomically low that anything will do! This induces a mindset where mediocrity is fine because it's miles ahead of where it was before which is not fine. I could also counter that we have skyscrapers next to very busy, unappealing highways. Most architecture of significance in this city is within a 5min walking distance of a highway! I think you might want to reevaluate that statement as it really doesn't hold up at all.

The problem is people are looking at this development with a broad frame that includes other developments in downtown. Combined with everything else it makes this development look better than it is because it's just another building filling up a vacant lot. That's not the goal of the topic though! The topic discusses this development within this particular context and the point I was making before is that it's a disappoint. For something that is in downtown it should be something more unique even if it's next to a freeway. It's lazy, cookie-cutter, and bland compared to other developments going up in downtown. Bottom line is that this isn't something that should be in downtown. Maybe Midtown or neartown, but not Downtown.

@avossos I completely understand that people aren't going to have the same opinions as me, but architecture asks for more depth in terms of ones opinion, and 'I'm just pleased it's brick' just doesn't go very far.

@Alec I rather have quality options over simply a 'variety' of options.

I second this question! I see plenty of residential and retail activity when I walk past here every night, but only of the kind that discourages new investment in the area.

Rice University owns the Sears site. They currently have no plans to redevelop it as far as I'm certain. Sears currently holds a lease on the space.

Awesome.

As far as condos vs townhomes, I live across the street from the site at The Ventana, and I have envisioned the midrise condo proposal you have come up with since I have lived there.

I dont think townhomes would really fit the area, it is more of a high density, mid rise neighborhood.

You have the eight story behemoth Ventana across the street, you have two new midrises on Main across from the Breakfast Klub, then of course you have Mid-Main under construction as we speak, the entire area is becoming a 5-7 story neighborhood, like something you would see in New York.

I definitely think you would get more bang for your buck with the condos over retail, more units to sell in the same footprint, that would without a doubt fill up quickly.

Im calling it right now, the Mid-Main area (which yalls block would be a part of) is the next big thing in urban Houston development, Im talking a "Soho", "Tribeca", "Wicker Park" type area.

Give it 10 years, you will see.

I think you meant condo's over townhomes....not retail >.>

You want condo's with retail, but just townhomes.

"under construction"?  so in essence, another phantom menace...  

Ah so that was one of the original titles for the new movie:

Star Wars Episode VII: Under Construction

Alright cloud you proved your point. Lets leave this thread be until there is an actual update

I thought all the activity right now was related to the tunnel project...

Sounds like someone is in here simply to stir things up -.- I thought it was a genuine update and not someone arguing for the sake of arguing.

Oh the gall, no, the nerve, to question this exquisite design. Blasphemous for me to even criticize a potential development on an architecture forum that....you know discusses architecture! I'm sorry I ask just a little bit more than standard or even in most cases sub-par. I'm not even asking everything to be a "work of art" or "work of masterpiece" that would be absurd, but what I do like to see is genuine design effort. Even if it comes out looking like complete crap at least you know that they took everything into consideration from site, to street level, to it's environment, to it's proximity to everything else, etc... because sometimes in architecture things just don't work out, but that's ok....it has to be from a good effort though. This isn't any of that and the fact that it's praised is hilarious when there are many just like this. The idea that this building can be built in downtown when there are others like it outside of town gives that area a distinction that it isn't unique, it isn't an area worth doing something different, and it means that anything can be built in downtown. That anything could apply for this residential incentive and it will pass. That's quite troubling and actually quite revealing. It means a lack of a standard for what downtown should be, and what should be in downtown.

Some here like to criticize finances that of which we have no possible investment in (unless it's a gov. project). Some here like to criticize the political aspects of such projects which we can only ever know maybe a small percentage of to the point it shouldn't be worth our time. I like to be critical of architecture. It's the one thing that we as bystanders have the opportunity to invest in because architecture is a shared experience and it's something that is looked upon by everyone and therefore can be properly analysed/critique because its right in front of us. It's something that we can effect and in some cases control. It's something we can focus and influence.

Is this building awful...no. Is it lazy...YES!

Just because something is being built downtown doesn't mean it should automatically in peoples brains register as something of distinction or good design.

Thought this was a very compelling master plan that will be implemented in our nations capital which is extremely important because it puts on the national stage changing city dynamics, more inclusive design, inter-connectivity of different areas, the rise of the sustainable movement, and more importantly the prominence of the New Urbanism movement. This packet is from January of 2013 and is a fabulous blueprint for future developments around the nation including Houston. Of course, even though we don't really have zoning or vast urban planning infrastructures, we are moving into a more planned direction for the city (case in point the Houston General plan). Of course the no zoning I think we should continue to embrace, but we should be the ones that guide it through via smart and thoughtful design and frameworks (such as infrastructure, and possible incentive programs).

http://www.ncpc.gov/plans/swecodistrict.pdf

Rumor on the street it's that 200 story Tower