VelvetJ

My Texas! I can't seem to make out any Houston buildings on the 'New Texas' plate.

You know what, just as long as it doesn't remind me of any type of stucco. I've developed an aversion to stucco and I am a bit paranoid. Personally if that is the design, I would have loved that 'sheild' to be some type of polished stone but due to availability of materials and costs, I know that may not be possible. But again, the jury is still out for me since what I've seen so far is limited. I may actually end up really loving this design.

Hmmmm, with just the renderings so far, the jury is still out for me on the design. I do like the height, and I love that is has somewhat of a different element to it with the curve and all, but if that 'sheild' covering the building is going to be some form of a dark beige stucco type material, I think I'm going to have to barf. It's time for some solid glass/silver glass tall towers in Uptown. I can never be satisfied.

I'll agree with you, HC 6 is probably not the best building for any type of cutting edge design or something totally left field. I actually think the design will work well.

Though I would have liked a little bit more exciting design, if this is indeed the final choice, at this point I'm almost ok with anything that doesn't include beige stucco.

^ That is exciting! Is that office space as well or just Hotel?

This isn't risk-taking, it's just a bad design, which is really no surprise. This is that 'mediocre tone' that's been set in Houston for the past 15 years. Deciding to add a crown was a step in a different direction, which I can actually respect, but the design is far from stellar (Did those 'Mercer' people, EDI, design this building?). Such a shame since this buidling will be in such high profile.

Trae, I think you missed his point. I interpreted those words as meaning sprawling shopping centers, freeways, etc., seemed to have been the main focus in Houston, while building up and building rail transit got a bit more attention in certain other cities. For example, while Houston was replacing rail tracks on Westpark and the Katy Freeway with more roads and toll roads, other cities were placing trains on their tracks. Also, IMO Houston joined the mixed-use trend later than some of it's counterparts, contrary to the belief of some, and when those mixed-use developments were being finished, they seemed to just be hitting the drawing boards in Houston. IMO, Houstonians are finally just now starting to understand how rail could be beneficial to the city (in fact, I'm willing to bet if the people could vote on whether the majority of our transportation dollars today should be spent on rail out to the suburbs instead of NEW toll roads, rail would win). Yet, the majority of transportation money for the future is going to more roads for more cars instead of the majority of it going toward mass transit making way for development and housing to compliment the mass transit. Our local leaders seem to think cheaper gas, fewer people, and cleaner air for Houston is in our immediate future. I've said many times on this board that Houston always seem to be a step behind everyone else. We seem to "get it" after everyone else has figured it out or done it. There was a time when we were in the family of trend setters. The world saw Houston and saw the future. That is no more. The tone of the city has changed. And while I think that mediocre/conservative/quality isn't important because it saves money/non-visionary lock on the city is breaking down, it is still very much here. Actually, I really don't care if Miami is taller, bigger, or whatever because like it has been mentioned already, half of those buildings are sitting empty. I will admit the competition in me would probably care a little if we were speaking of Dallas or Atlanta, but Miami......that is totally off of my radar.

Wonderful pictures and fantastic architecture.

I actually asked the previous question as a argument I often hear from those who support Houston being covered in toll roads. I personally view Houston's transportation system as a whole as a single entity that works together to the benefit of all Houstonians. Therefor, I do not mind my tax money going to a regional road project that I personally do not use everyday because I like to view things as Houstonians being in this together. So if expanding the Katy Freeway is going to help ease congestion, which will in turn help the entire region, how selfish of me to not want my tax money to go toward it simply because I personally do not use it. I'm not the only person who lives in Houston, and I am not the only person paying taxes. I can't say I'm against toll roads themselves as much as I am against toll money I pay everyday going toward the building of NEW toll roads, whose toll fees will never be eliminated and will only continue to be increased with HCTRA using "easing congestion" as the sugar to the posion they are feeding the public. *** (Does anyone know the effect the recent toll increase has had on congestion? I can tell you first hand it hasn't done much for the WestBelt. If it has, it is very little and I can only imagine it being back to pre-price hike levels before this time next year). Another issue is I think the overwhelming focus on more roads for Houston is not wise. When I look into the future through my crystal ball , it is showing me we should probably move more aggressively in a direction that reduces the amount of cars on our roads and highways. Building more and more roads, free or tolled, is only making the area more convenient for the automobile. Gas is not going to get any cheaper, air quality is not going to get any better with more cars on the roads, and being at the mercy of Middle Eastern countries or South American Presidents is no longer fun. With these factors, aggressive building of more toll roads is wise for us? To somewhat return to the subject at hand, I'm not opposed to a toll road down 288, but only with the promise to remove or significantly reduce the toll fee once the amount used to build it has been reached.

I say it depends on if the city has reached it's monthly projections. If it hasn't, he will probably get a ticket. But look at it this way, that camera probably saved his life. So if he does get a ticket, the $75 fine will be worth it.

So basically money from the toll roads is being spent on the building of NEW toll roads? This bothers me much. Tolls from toll roads should be used to pay for themselves, then removing or reducing the tolls once that is done. Why should the toll I pay from 249 to Westheimer ($6 round trip per day + gas) go toward a new toll road on 288? I don't use 288. Why should the tolls my parents pay on the South Sam Houston tollway go to the accelleration of the expansion of the Katy Freeway, a freeway that neither of them ever use? The HCTRA is out of control and something needs to be done.

Just a fyi, there is a full page advertisment in this weeks Time Magazine for Titan. Randall Davis has gone national with this one.

I will venture away from my rule Redscare. For those who do not realize it, there is no single person who controls everything built in Houston, and I find it quite interesting that some (not only you Redscare) can't seem to figure out what my reference to "Houston" is. It's all about tones. It has been my experience that different cities have different tones and those tones have a tendency to reflect themselves in not only the people but in the city environments as well. Is the fact so many buildings in Dallas have night lighting because a single person owns all of the buildings there? Does the fact Chicago overall has such a great variety of great architecture because a single individual has owned all of the buildings over the years? I've used this example a million times but would the Mercer design have EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED for Buckhead in Atlanta, or Uptown in Dallas, or Downtown San Diego (please no technical responses regarding zoning laws )? My point is I have watched the tone in Houston change in the past 10-15 years especially in architectural design and it has been tough to witness considering I witnessed a time of great architectural choices for the city. A tone seemed to have been set in Houston where forward-thinking ideas all but had disappeared, and where mediocre architecture as a whole seemed to had become the rule of thumb. There have been some exceptions of course like 1500 Louisiana, and the Chapel at St. Thomas, but overall the designs for Houston in recent history has been blah, and I personally believe it is because a tone has been set in the city where blah has become acceptable. So for every great piece we get, there are 4 more blah pieces to counter it. I believe it was here where someone made a post not long ago about there being a tone in Texas and Houston where ANYTHING was possible. Being on the cutting edge was not a bad thing. Today, without skipping a beat someone is ready to jump with not only why something can't be done but why it shouldn't be done. It seems most people forgot a building does not have to be a trillion dollar spectacle to have a quality design.... MainPlace anyone? I must say however in the past year I have seen signs of a possible tone tilt. I hope it continues. So Redscare when you read my tagline and some of my posts, hopefully you will now understand my references to Houston is not to a individual person who controls all in the city, but to a tone and a overall attitude in the city that manifests itself in different things (SPOOKY).

Precisely. Why must it always be one or the other for some Houstonians? If something is built for the citizens of Houston, what is wrong with it looking nice as well? As my mother would tell me, " if you are going to iron the shirt, iron the entire thing including the areas people can't see". If something is built in Houston, every aspect of it should be important, not just the functionality of it. Maybe it's time for Houston to give a bit more attention to how things look in the city as opposed to only focusing on whether something will make someone a profit or how cheaply something can be done. Appearance matters and it doesn't always have to be at the expense of qaulity or functionality.

Beautiful.......simply Beautiful is how I would describe this post. You've spoken from my heart.

OMG, I hate to even say this for a number of reasons, but I think Atlanta is doing a better job at creating a environment for itself to maintain higher density and some would argue they don't have natural barriers to confine their sprawl either. I know the city overall is a sprawling monster and sprawls even moreso than Houston if I am not mistaken. But from what I see, they are really putting effort into making high density lifestyles work. I know Houston is a different animal, which is why I think strong pockets of it here would be more effective. I understand what you mean when you say Houston attracts people who don't want high density, in fact I am one of them to a degree. Believe it or not, I have no problem with Houston's density overall. My thing is, high density should be available in this huge metropolis that we call Houston........for those of us who would like that type of lifestyle. Houston is diverse enough now for me to believe there are those who want it. Look at the Post Development in Midtown. Though I enjoy and prefer my lifestyle at the moment, I lived in St. Louis in another life in a "urban" environment and there were aspects of that lifestyle that I really enjoyed and wouldn't mind having that option again maybe later in life, but in Houston. And with all due respect memebag, whenever this subject comes up, the first thing some suggest is moving. "Houston should have a rail option".....move! "Houston should have more entertainment options for families".......move! "A metro area of this size should have a theme park".....move! "Billboards on the North Freeway make it look tacky".......move! It really does nothing and is a distraction from the subject, so stop it or move! Some may interpret what I'm saying as I want Houston to be Manhattan and that is far from the truth. Houston will never be Manhattan and most of us don't want that anyway. However, again my ideal is to have pockets of areas that can offer a similar style of living if it is desired. People in Houston will always have private transportation. The same is true for most other cities. And I'm not against that. But hypothetically speaking, if I could take a bullet train from the Galleria to Intercontinental in 10 minutes.....guess what. I would leave my car at home and do it. The only reason I don't do it now is NOT because I love my car so much, but because I don't have that option. Oh by the way, I think the HP is going to be nice.

Well my frustration with the style/substance divide on HAIF is the tone that they both cannot coexist in Houston. It seems it has to be either one or the other. Why can't a office tower in Houston be full of tenants and have an illuminated fin at the same time? I believe it is indeed possible for a city to LOOK exciting as well as BE exciting. It does not have to be a situation of it being either one or the other. I also agree with Dallasboi in that HP can help set the foundation for that vibrant downtown we desire, despite all of the vibrancy some residents already have inside of them. Will HP suddenly thrust Houston into the stratosphere of cities like Tokyo, Paris, or New York City, of course not but it can lay the groundwork for Houston becoming a better city by becoming a more dynamic city through a choice of diverse offerings. Personally, I love the clean manicured look of Post Oak in Uptown with the Space Age Arches and suspended street signs. But you know what, I love the Montrose with it's organic chaos and funkiness, just as well. Also, memebag why can't Houston be a place where a automobile is still in the budget for most but can still offer up pockets of high density pedestrian friendly enviroments connected by rail as well if some of it's citizens desired? Besides, how much longer will the automobile be in the budget of Houstonians? Tolls are continuing to be raised on top of more than our share of new tollroads are being planned and rolled out. Plus I predicted $5.00 a gallon gas on this website a couple of years ago, and as of today it looks like we are well on our way.

Very well stated. There is something that is not quite tangible in the air that sets a tone in cities which is why as you stated, owners light up their buildings in Dallas but not in Houston. There is a tone in Houston that says it's ok to design a monstrosity like the Mercer Condo Tower to be placed in such a high profile location in Houston's Upscale Uptown, but would not dare even consider such a building for Uptown Dallas or Buckhead in Atlanta. Currently there is a progressive, striving, can-do, cutting edge tone in Atlanta that is evident in everything from the design of the buildings going up to the very ideas that are being proposed years down the line. That same tone existed in Houston once. I believe cities have certain tones that permeates everything even the residents of a city. I have found that a particular tone in a city is contagious. The tone in Dallas is more flashy and attention to detail is valued there and it shows up in almost every part of the city. You can see it in the buildings, in the freeway designs, in the designs of the shopping centers, the the rail stations, etc., and I think it's great. I like the color scheme of the Hunt Tower. I say bravo to the owner for the design.

But spires on buildings in Houston would mean we are trying to be like someone else and Houston should focus on being itself. Anyway, love the design of this one. It really is a refreshing design for the city. I hope the actual building stays true to the rendering.

Excellent post.

Those designs of the buildings are kicking my butt right now. I love when buildings have the "x" factor. It's time for the future to return to Texas buildings. Way to go Dallas, I hope it is built.

I like the lighting on that building. It's something different. I'm not a fan of gaudy things but I like a "splash of flash" or that "odd element" added to architecture. I know a lot of people, particularly in Houston nowadays, like it but boxy buildings with no lighting at night do nothing for me.

The 6 million dollar question is whether Houstonians would be willing to pay for a elevated system with fewer stops.

Ok my dream for that location would to bring back the old Tower Theater (anyone at the Howard Rollins Show?), and raze the Blockbuster strip center and create some sort of square. I'm talking complete with fountain, seating area, and a couple of al fresco cafe's. A tatoo shop, vintage clothing store, or a record shop wouldn't hurt either. BlockBuster and Hollywood leaving isn't a bad thing in my eyes. Unless someone in this city of no-zoning decides the corner of Montrose and Westheimer would be the ideal location for a storage facility. Let us pray.