mpope409

"Premier" in the sense that they stand out. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Lol, I never said that. You did. If you feel that you have no taste, that's your problem.

Yeah, that's real cute. They do look cheap. There's not an ounce of complication to them. No, it means what I said. Most buildings in that area are generally plain, flat, and wide. Only a small percentage of buildings in Houston are as careful as BoA for example. To my knowledge, there's nothing I can do. Though, I do know an architect student who has done several renderings of some of his visions. They are beautiful pieces, and I would love to share them with you all if I get the chance.

No, because most of the premier buildings in Houston are basic and simple.

Who said it was? That's one of the basic buck buildings you speak of. No one recognizes that building.

Yes, but those cities are not just making basic buck buildings. Their buildings that stand out are beautiful, and they make sure of it.

If you say so. You know what I mean. Like I said, if there were a great deal of non-Houstonians here, I would not be the minority. No, that's what y'all think I'm saying, but that's not it exactly. Houston can be as unique as it wants to, but it needs to do it in a way that can be celebrated by all citizens. Well, y'all said it yourselves. Developers and city planners have been trying to squeeze as much out of one dollar as they can. Which is why you get the cheap, plastic look that serves as the face of Houston's downtown.If there was more of a variety of architectural styles and materials in DT, this might not be so bad. But there isn't a good variety, so we're stuck looking at this. And I speak for many people all over the city and the country when I say that I'm sick of it.

Really good at what? I can only hope that's not true. I can only hope that some city leaders will notice the same problems I do. This is the Houston Architecture Info Forum. I'm positive that most users of this forum are 100% pro-Houston. Okay with just about anything that's put up. If there was a great deal of non-Houstonians here, I'm sure I would not be the minority. Lol, you got me there. But I just don't understand why Houston has to be so different (that sounds so shallow, but think about what I'm trying to say). I could understand if we were a poor city, but we're far from that. To me, Houston just does not look like the world city that it is.

I guess I do prefer stone over glass, but I do like glass. It just depends on what the architect does with the glass. Note, the Conde Nast Building up above. Transco might have been okay if it wasn't in a city where flat, glass buildings are PLAYED.

No. The lackluster structures in downtown highly outnumber the more impressive ones. If it were even then we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's your opinion, not mine. You seem to praise this whole idea of being outcasted and disliked, but that's not always a good thing. That's a given. I knew that coming on here. But what about those of us who do want something different? Most of you are satisfied with downtown Houston, but what about those who aren't? Shouldn't we be able to enjoy looking at it, too? Our opinions matter just as much as yours. Take it how you want, but that's not what I was trying to say. I agree. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. It's not as if this problem keeps me up at night. No matter whether Houston changes or not, I'm still going to love it more than any place in the world. I just thought I'd start a conversation on something I usually think about.What I'm saying is that there is no excuse for mediocrity.

For just a minute, let's forget about the past-era architecture. These are some post modern structures that I find appealing and show a great deal of art, elaboration, and fine work. Conde Nast Building, New York (a green building, with average post modern materials but great detail and creativity) Bank of America Center: Atlanta 191 Peachtree Center, Atlanta Bank of America: Houston (a very fine piece of work, but the ball was dropped for everything else) Respectively, One Worldwide Plaza and the Carnegie Hall Tower (two fine examples that using brick for post modern structures is still very doable, not to mention beautiful) What I don't like... See the trend in these? Their designs are very plain, simple, and uninspiring. Groundbreaking they are not. They look as if a child could build them with their Legos.

Exactly. I knew I wasn't alone in that aspect. I too enjoy that building. The same can be said for much of the architecture in TMC.I'm not saying that all post modern architecture isn't beautiful, all I'm saying is that a lot of the fine craftsmenship is gone. I'd like to get it back.

Exactly. So why not make more buildings look as beautiful as BoA. Just my opinion. Excuse yourself. I was given problems before I said either of those things.

I understand. I guess I took it too personal. I'm not saying that all buildings in the downtown area need to be like the ones I'm fond of. I just wish there was more of a mixture of what was put up. Rather than the same old large, imposing structures. The city itself does not lack class and taste, but several of Houston's past developers do, in my opinion. I see absolutely no reason why anybody should be against building something that's beautiful. Sure, Houston's "ugliness" might be considered a unique trait to many natives here, but trying to explain to visitors why there's not much nice to look at isn't fun.Mind you, I wasn't trying to imply that either one of you guys had no class or taste. But hey, I'm a girl, and while the way Houston looks may not bother guys, it sure bothers us. Maybe. Maybe not. What they aren't right about, though, is that Houston doesn't have the potential. I'm completely open to different opinions. I don't feel that way. Many people believe that had it not been for Houston being fairly unattractive, the city would be even better off than it is now. You have a point, and I guess that's not what I meant to say. What I mean is that why does it seem that nobody is open to change?

This is not the first thread I've participated in. Up until now, I was sure that everybody was open to views. That may be true, but how do you explain me being disrespected almost immediately after my first post?

How exactly do you give documentation to an opinion. All I was doing was stating an opinion and asking a question. Nothing more nothing less. And I have yet to be persuaded that this is the forum of mature adults in favor of intelligent discussion. It feels like a boys club here. Where if you're not praising the "accomplishments" of Houston, you'll be frowned upon. I just want to know why everybody seems to have something against improvement.

That's not at all what I'm trying to say. I'm just sick of outsiders saying that Houston is ugly and has no potential for greatness, while I think that this city has all the potential in the world. But since you asked, yes I do think the lighting is poor.Jeez, I guess I chose the wrong website to have an opinion.

No, this girl is not a Dallasite. And can we please keep this thread mature and civilized? Without insulting another person just because their opinion differs from yours.

Whatever. Say what you want, it's neither here nor there with me. The fact of the matter is that a lot buildings in downtown Houston are big and ugly. That's my point.

Heritage Plaza is very bulky and plain (emphasis on "very"). It looks cheap, and I see no beauty in it. It's wide and fat. Why? Because I have an opinion? Because I don't praise mediocrity? Give me a break. My "aesthetic" comes from class and taste. Two things that this amazing city's downtown has little of, unfortunately.

Lol, well you make it quite evident that you don't share my sentiments, so I'm not sure you'll be much help in that regard. But Wells Fargo and Heritage Plazas are exactly the type of structures I don't want to see going up anymore. Heritage Plaza is probably the most ghastly hideous skyscraper in America.

Bank of America Center is a fine example of good architecture here, but it's certainly not the norm here in Houston, Texas. Okay. So Houston has no problem holding the attention of businesses. What about holding the attention of tourists and the media? What about having structures to be proud of? Something beatiful to look at for a change.Not that I'm comparing, but places like New York and Chicago wouldn't be what they are today if they looked like us.

I wouldn't say that all of the craftsmen are gone, but that they do seem to be in short supply. You would think that with Rice U's acclaimed architecture program, some of the best would be right here in the city. Now that we have identified that the problem is money, all I can do is wonder what can be done about it. Well if that's the case, Houston seems to be the only city that's making such poor decisions. Look at Atlanta. There's certainly not more money in that city than there is here, but the architecture of their buildings far exceeds ours.And I disagree that the return on investment is low. When you have a good looking city, people want to come here to see it. It invests in our future.

So what you're saying is that it's very unlikely for developers to have these types of structures in mind? The city is no longer interested in such projects? If so, then why? That's exactly what I'm asking. Buildings with beauty and character and elaborate design. Why not dare to start doing something that's unheard of today. Not to mention, even if Houston was to continue building with glass and steel, why must the buildings always be so bulky and plain? Towers that are more slender and complicated in the frame work would be much more slick and appealing.

Houston, along with many Sunbelt cities, is constantly being criticized for having boring architecture. Between the wide, boxy glass towers and stucco-like parking garages, not many seem to be a fan of the scenery our skyline has to offer. Unfortunately, I often agree. I do not have a problem with some post modern structures, but so many of them are so bland and have no bit of aesthetic appeal to them. The Esperson buildings are like the jewels of downtown. Very romantic and elegant. Where are our other buildings like them? I would love for this city to have a mini building boom of highrises and skyscrapers that paid homage to the Italian Renaissance or Art Deco era, for example. Ushering back in a new trend of brick buildings that allowed such elaborate and classic design from the minds of some of the world's greatest architects. My question is, are we too far gone in technology and time for these types of structures to ever become likely again? Would it be too expensive, nowadays? Would it be cheaper? Would building them take more time than most are willing to commit to? They're certainly not out of style, but I was just wondering if such an aspiration was unreasonable.

What about all those people living in terrible conditions? Has the city not failed them? Gentrification? Tearing down valued homes and businesses to replace them with crap. You call that decision making by a great city? Truth is, this city has made some very bad choices that have disadvantaged many. Change is good in our case, and it won't just attract the "elite", but also the general nation. I fail to see how these changes would affect the way you choose to live. A better image can mean a better outlook for a city.