Luminare

17 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

I don't know what it was you thought you were responding to there. As to "my" plan, I'll repeat myself:

1) Eliminate mandatory parking minimums and setback requirements. Let the market decide that.

2) Invest in transit, dense housing & multiuse developments, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure beyond current observable demand. A bridge's value isn't determined by the number of swimmers; neither should a quality rail network be judged by the number of bus riders, nor a protected bike lane by the number of people currently riding in mixed traffic.

This may not be financially feasivle beyond a certain radius, or outside of selected corridors. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't build up that radius and/or those corridors.

3) Don't increase the highway footprint, and decrease it wherever and whenever possible, especially within a couple of miles of downtown.

4) Use modal filters to keep auto through-traffic on side streets to a minimum, but don't do the Uptown thing of building endless impermeable superblocks that force everyone onto the stroads. Where possible, pedestrian/bicycle alleyways there.

5) Close redundant parking lot entrances/exits along bike lanes. 

6) Plant a thousand dollarston of trees.

By the way if anyone wants to actually learn something today you can buy the textbook which a lot of Architects have used to study for the ARE Exams (Including myself)

https://www.amazon.com/PPI-Exam-Review-Divisions-Comprehensive/dp/1591266807/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1KFZ28KGF87PC&keywords=ballast+are+review+manual&qid=1664402865&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjAwIiwicXNhIjoiMC4wMCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=ballast+are%2Caps%2C114&sr=8-4

Hope you are interested, and I hope you learn something from it.

My answers to numbers above:

1) About the only thing we probably agree on, but for probably different reasons.

2) This isn't how projects are ever proposed, or discussed. This isn't academia where you can do whatever you want based on some abstract hypothetical. Every architect with experience in the field, ARE literature, and even material on sustainability would say that you are wrong. People build for what they need when they need it. Period.

3) I don't like highway expansion as much as the next person, but putting a moratorium on anything just like previous moratorium on multi-family inside the loop is going to cause exactly the opposite you want. You might convince your loyal followers to stay, but everyone else will leave. Also you eliminate options and in business and development eliminating options ends the discussion because it goes from a negotiation to compulsion. Which do you think has more success?

4) Again depends on context and situation. This isn't something you just look on google maps and think you know where everything goes. Different places have different traffic patterns and different needs.

5) I'm fine with closing up parking lot entrances close or immediately next to an intersection. That is something I will always present as a compromise. Most textbooks on the subject recommend not putting any entrance within 150' of an intersection. Who's going to close them all down though? You? We don't have zoning in Houston. The city can't do squat about this. This can only happen per client at a time. Do you know how many parking lot entrances their are in the city?

6) I don't understand. Houston already has a lot of trees. Certainly more than parking lots, and if you were to merely take the time to look around and appreciate what is there already then you would see that.

Anyway I'm done with this discussion for now. Lots of work to do. I'll look back in on this thread when the full demo of those apartments is complete.

That straight on view of the crown of this building now shows the mechanical penthouse being reduced in size? I'm I seeing that right because while I like the building, it has a balance to it, that metal hat in previous renders was a bit tall and awkward. If this latest rendering is what is recent then that is a much better size than previous. Otherwise now I'm just confused.

30 minutes ago, samagon said:

considering that until 1999 you couldn't build a single family residence on a lot smaller than 5000sf, and even then, free standing homes on lots smaller than 5000sf was confined to the inner loop (has since been expanded outside the loop). Houston may not be zoned, but there are some silly rules we have that have absolutely forced us into a single mode of transit.

Or the fact that there was a moratorium on multi-family development within the loop which was government imposed, or that highways were built and designed and imposed by the government, or that cities until recently as far back as even a few decades ago were a dump and were a result of terrible management by government. People will naturally chose the avenue of least resistance, and it will reflect the times in which they live, and what is readily available to them. I'm tired of people endlessly abstracting these things without understanding context, because this will just result in the same kind of bad development imposed in the past. The same institutions that created these messes are the same institutions that are trying to fix them today, with the same people who think they will be the solution. I've been studying this stuff going on 10 years, some ideas are genuinely good and can be applied here, but most of the people professing these ideas have zero clue what they are doing just like those in decades past who though the highway would solve everything. Its the same people just possessed by a new idea. Someone I typically follow once said a great quote and I use it every chance I get, and its to this effect, "The idealism of every age is a cover story for its greatest thefts." Something to think about.

11 minutes ago, iah77 said:

I think you need to direct you anger at our ridiculous minimum setbacks and parking requirements. Anything you like about Amsterdam is probably not legal here under our present building codes. Keep in mind even applying for small variances can be very expensive. 

I don't know this person, but I always recommend spending a few years in one of these places preached about so often before they are used as an example. I actually gained a greater appreciation of this country, Texas, and Houston after a couple years away. Now Houston can certainly learn something from the Dutch regarding flood prevention, but other than that the two cultures can't be anymore different. A culture can't be imposed top down. It can only grow from bottom up. If you want the culture to change which then eventually changes everything from habits, to politics then start local. In a generation you might see the change you desire, but practice what you preach right? I don't go running around talking about how much I want things to change. Instead I try my best to do things the way I would like them to be. If people follow me then they will if they don't then they don't. There are days when work gets really grindy that I prefer to drive to work, but most days I've started biking again. Do I walk into the office and talk about how superior I think I am because I choose for myself a different way to get to work?...No. I go to my seat and do my work. If @004n063 wants change then making odd comparisons to cultures that aren't like Houston isn't going to do anything. What might do something is you put what you want into practice. Then get a friend involved, and then they get their friend involved. Otherwise I should just post that Simpsons meme "Old man yells at clouds." How does that change anything?

2 minutes ago, shasta said:

NHHIP? Cap Park?

Can you catch me up to speed on this project?

Here is the discussion

25 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

Oh I know. It was just the fact that there was activity on the thread. Which, dammit, now I am contributing to. Sorry!

So is the cap park now a for sure thing then?

I've learned its not best to think you can mindread people or organizations, so until I don't see it in a proposal then its happening. Unless you want to roll dice and make bets on odds of it happening that is another matter. Nothing is ever a sure thing until its built. Just like I can never provide a client a "guarantee" for virtually anything especially what's not laid out in a contract. Same with planners.

My guess is none of these blocks get developed until the NHHIP gets moving, and we get further along with details and construction of the cap park. Once that triggers then that will trigger development along that. Until then we should leave this block dead. Rather wait for something better than revive a dead project that honestly aesthetically is okay.

Fulshear is basically what Cypress was like 30-40 years ago. At least from looking at old Satellite images and talking with family members.

This thread is a blast from the past. Remember when that Development Map from Downtown was all we looked forward too? This city, in particular downtown, has come a long way.

On 9/15/2022 at 6:34 PM, freundb said:

Now we just need to get Spotts Park some updates.

I believe that's an eventual phase to this. Lets just say I'm familiar with the original RFP that was sent out to design firms.

17 minutes ago, Big E said:

Ominous. Did something change?

Of course its ominous...I foresee *looks into crystal ball* terrible grindlock traffic for years ahead... haha

And so it begins...

2 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Is it just me or was this completed relatively fast?

1 1/2 year construction isn't bad. This looks to me to be a very efficiently designed building from top to bottom. Steel Frame Construction for the guts of the building which is one of the quickest structures to erect. The canopy probably is using standard sizes. Same with the windows and doors. Even the special facade pieces are in regular and consistent measurements around the building (you can see what I mean by the creases and separation points). Having only one facade material also speed things up.

2 hours ago, freundb said:

Construction fence is down. I wonder how close they are to finishing it. Hopefully they host an open house for the public.

To my eyes it looks like its at or very close to Substantial Completion. I imagine all they have is the final walk and punch list.

y'all would be amazed at how easy some contractors and architects can make a building like this, and just how difficult some contractors and architects can make this.

At least per the site plan the frontage against the bayou and Jensen will be good. Looks like that utility building with the antenna will remain.

"Solar-powered Food Park" haha. Okay I've heard it all now.

On 8/26/2022 at 4:15 PM, MaxConcrete said:

See item 7.1 in the agenda for today's NCTCOG meeting

https://kentico-admin.nctcog.org/getmedia/9af64da6-ce3c-4017-9cd2-b007bd0b551e/agendapacketaugust2022.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf

Director Michael Morris is now proposing high speed rail as a more traditional government-funded asset with private operations, similar to many airports. This seems to be further evidence that Texas Central won't be able to move the project forward with its private funding plan. It also appears to suggest that (in the current political climate) federal money would be more readily accessible for a government-owned project. And it definitely addresses the reality that property taxes on a privately-owned high-speed rail corridor would be a major expense contributing to project infeasibility.

Competition would likely give consumers more options and lower prices. Does anyone know of high speed train lines elsewhere that have multiple service providers? It also makes me wonder if the different train technologies are compatible, or if a specific technology would need to be selected (and all service providers would use it).

I can't envision the State of Texas spending any state funds on this project. I don't know of any other way the non-federal share of costs, which would be in the billions and probably $10+ billion, could be covered.

 

Government official says the only way something can be done is if the government does it. I'm shocked by what I'm reading here I tell you...shocked.

19 hours ago, shasta said:

No, the hate is 100% justified.

They Value Engineered both the layout and quality it worse than the Embassy Suites downtown and in the process left the lots vacant for over a decade.

Meanwhile, Hanover put together a very high quality product in a fraction of the time and were faced with the same exact issues as GID, from a catchment area analysis.

Two solutions for the exact same type of project in the exact same exact location. But with two drastically different strategies: One went high quality and one went cheap and still has only 2 tenants.

The hate is definitely justified.

The only hope is that they use the now vacant "Block A" to significantly improve the quality but their reputation of Block B may hurt. They can benefit by piggy backing off of the Hanover vision.

Nurse get in here!.....Its bad. We can't save him. This patient has....*sigh*....RSDS....Regent Square Derangement Syndrome....dum dum dummmm

56 minutes ago, X.R. said:

If I was them, I'd be balancing my need for privacy of the faithful vs inviting the public. Its a fine line but I think they are balancing it well. Whether the sightlines make for easy viewing, I'm unsure, but I know it will be very, very busy. They will have a good presence in the area. Their population here is comparatively large, and other Muslims will 100% utilize this space as well.

This has fortress-elements, but I don't think in their case its a Houston-specific issue. If you check their Canada-based centers they have similar, more recessed layouts for what I can tell from google maps and the images. And if they do have a sizeable pedestrian presence, as I alluded to above, it further detracts from the fortress element. The layout makes sense, its a bit of a campus, and if I was going there for programming that spoke to my faith or heritage I don't want cars zooming down Allen pkwy to be in the background. Enough land was there to both add to the city at large and to Ismaili community, which is what I think they are trying to do. 

I suspect some take issue with this because of the current zeitgeist which is that "inclusivity" must be made a priority over "exclusivity". In this current age exclusivity is seen to be inherently wrong, or since we are talking about a religious building which will house participants of a religious faith, exclusivity is seen by some to be inherently sinful. With that being said you are correct, the very nature of any group with a strong established beliefs means that they will create a building that will be focused on being an exclusive experience for its faithful. This isn't an all-faith's chapel, right? Certainly it will be a building that will have semi-public and public spaces, but at the end of the day its for the Ismali first, and everyone else second, and that is perfectly okay. You can't have anything that pleases or is home to everyone, nor do we as architects design spaces in that way. Even the fortress like nature of its massing is very in-line with typical Islamic massing of its worship spaces, mosques, etc... considering its history, and how its faith practices.

17 hours ago, strickn said:

If your concept is that a public building can perfectly well be a cartoon of a private single-family home if the postmodern style calls for it, then to start with, people need something else from this at the level of artistic license:  just asserting it doesn't absolve the artist from picking a more sensible style in the first place.
 

Michael Graves already gave Allen Parkway another cartoon house job in the form of a Federal Reserve sub-branch, and that choice poorly suited both the utility and the dignity of a public-sector institution.  This jamatkhana has utility and dignity but the classic criticism of postwar Houston urbanism is that it is too disjointed and hermetically sealed from its surroundings.  If your building is open air but treats everything offsite as a blank slate both artistically and urbanistically, it is still disjointed.

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm merely pointing out that its not fair to compare things that aren't 1 to 1, or to ask something of a thing which will never be. Post-modernism by its own tenants celebrates a divorce from context because it believes that everything is relative in relation to everything else, which also means that its pursuits and even its execution will entirely remain in the abstract. My guess is that you understand this, I'm simply stating this for the rest of the room (the thread) for the layperson who doesn't spend time noting these distinctions. These distinctions are important when making comparisons. For the many faults of Post-Modernism, and my personal feelings and reservations I have for Post-Modernism as a movement, and philosophical movement, I still believe its fair to give the devil its due. This building is what it is and for the framework that it places itself in, even if its in the abstract, it excels in its category (for the moment, lets see the finished product). In your hypothetical framework, and the traditional framework, and the contextual framework it most certainly does not pass in these regards, but that doesn't mean it this can't be a success in its own right and in its own way. As an example the Guggenheim in New York is most definitely a Frank Lloyd Wright example, and a modernist example, but with the framework you have presented fails in that regard, yet after enough time has passed we instantly see the Guggenheim as a definitive New York City building, and can't imagine it anywhere else. Most abstracts rarely will achieve this, but that is for time to judge, not us.

1 hour ago, strickn said:

Just like Holl's and Lake Flato's recent local arts buildings, or this Dallas palace under construction right now,

https://www.archdaily.com/981862/morphosis-designed-new-arts-campus-breaks-ground-in-texas

can't help noticing that the architecture has nothing to say to the rest of the city that is its home.  How different is this Aga Khan cool textured beauty from say the reserved geometry of the Tampa Museum of Art (2010)?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Museum_of_Art

Like them, these design renderings could really be clipped from magazine articles about recent climate-minded modernism in Tampa, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, or Tehran just as easily as Houston -- probably more easily.  Academic or commercial architects are both equally out of step with Houston's distinctive rhythm and texture.

Holl has never been known to be contextual. He's been a Post-Modernist through and through. Always focusing on the abstract. Tom Mayne is cut from the same cloth, but is more dynamic with his facades, and is more curvilinear. The Jewel box example in Tampa Bay also Post-Modern. Don't expect Post-Modernist to care about their surroundings. Just not their MO. The only group you mentioned that actually focuses on Context is Lake Flato and you probably chose their worst example among very stellar work they have done regarding Contextualism. As for Farshid Moussavi what we are seeing in these images is right in her wheel house. Highly geometric forums/patterns in the abstract. Not known for being Contextual. Very Post-Modern as well, but I'll tell you what I look at this building and see plenty of connections to things are very key to Houston prototypically. To be one with context does not necessarily mean you match 1 to 1 with what is existing (though that would be more engaging). You can focus on Contextual in the abstract and focus on very meta or macro aspects of context. When I look at this project I see a lot of masonry, which has always been very southern. Nice big porches and overhangs (very big deal in Houston and the south), and Houston has always been well regarded for its gardening culture, and this facility looks to have massive one at that. To me it looks like a very abstract and upsized version of your prototypical house made w/ masonry with a deep porch and a very nicely landscaped backyard. That hits a lot of the hallmarks of buildings/construction in this region of the country and Houston as a whole. What else do people need from this?

11 hours ago, arche_757 said:

I’m just going to go out on a limb and suppose the architect is a tad zealous with regard to controlling the details here.  That is reinforced by the developer/owner who likely wants to have as crisp and perfect of a job as possible.  I suspect that money is not an issue for this project in the slightest.  It is the centerpiece of this foundations American presence, and a prominent one at that.

ah yes the dream client for any architect haha.

2 hours ago, arche_757 said:

Project like this will have a near endless stream of RFI’s I’ll wager.  It’s all figured into the price.

Question for any Architect’s/Engineers and Contractors on here:  have any of you ever worked on a high profile project with a crazy high budget - such as a museum or building like this?

I wish, but no.

You and I both know though that it doesn't have to be a high profile project to get a flood of RFI's. Lets say I know a project that currently has like over 200? 300? something crazy and its just a simple run of the mill garden style apartment job.

During my studies over the prior 3 exams I've passed thus far its pretty clear the most important things are; how good is your contract and does everyone know their responsibilities and take them seriously, did you pick a contractor that actually priced in what was actually bid, or did they low ball the number and are then trying to make up lost profits by picking apart ambiguity in the drawings, are your drawings thorough enough for the work at hand so it can be priced reasonably, and how firm is the architecture office in their procedures handling situations during CA, do they have a structured RFI system or not, do they enforce contract language or not, and do they reject bs a contractor sends them during the submittal phase.

The only RFI's one should expect on a project like this are obviously situations that the contractor and subs aren't accustomed too right?

My bet, personally, is they probably went the IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) route or at least this is the route I would have taken.