Embassy Suites By Hilton Houston Downtown At 1515 Dallas St.

[lockmat]

[bachanon]

that just hurts to look at...........can we go back to the parking lot?

[DrLan34]

this was prime land for something grand... are they going to put a sign up on that back side of ES facing the park?

[lockmat]

this was prime land for something grand... are they going to put a sign up on that back side of ES facing the park?

Like a Lebron, er, Yao poster?

I say it needs a mural.

[wernicke]

I'm glad taxpayer dollars incentivized this beauty.

[Nole23]

I never post on this board and only read for information, but this side of the building just looks extremely boring and lame. Paint a mural on it or something LOL.

[mfastx]

Wow the view from the park is horrible. Hopefully they'll paint a mural or something.

[Subdude]

Dare to say it is ugly? This is normally where the "we shouldn't criticize it because it's better than surface parking" crowd chimes in.

[lunchbox]

Looks like another high rise apartment building.

[brian0123]

Has Embassy Suites commented on why the building faces away from the park? Isn't that really ugly electrical substation on the side that it now faces? I'd love to hear why they decided to point it towards a block full of electrical equipment instead of a park.

[lockmat]

Wow the view from the park is horrible. Hopefully they'll paint a mural or something.

That's three votes for a mural. Let's petition it h aha

[kdog08]

Dare to say it is ugly? This is normally where the "we shouldn't criticize it because it's better than surface parking" crowd chimes in.

It is ugly but that hasn't changed.

[LTAWACS]

This only proves that the people responsible for the building's design are nothing more than incompetent, bumbling, buffoons who are so out of touch with reality, they would have the gall the think this is a design worth building. Make those responsible for this hideous creation pay.

[lockmat]

Question for architects: How often does the final built product actually look like what you thought it would be?

[Highway6]

This only proves that the people responsible for the building's design are nothing more than incompetent, bumbling, buffoons who are so out of touch with reality, they would have the gall the think this is a design worth building. Make those responsible for this hideous creation pay.

And this only proves that some people are incompetent buffons that have no idea how the process works. The developer/owner wants what he wants. He gets the final say. An architect can try to talk him out of it, but ultimatly an architects job is to satisfy the needs and desires of the customer... IF they don't, they'll be kicked to the curb and replaced by an another architect that will play ball.

You're repeated misguided anger is laughable.

Developing is a business.. Viva Capitalism. I don't know why the hell the building faces the way it does, but I'm sure the developer and architects had their reasons, so i don't care.

---------------------------

I'm not naming any names here... but in my opinion, someone here has a firm stranglehold on "Most Worthless Haif Contributor" 2010 award.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Highway6

[TheNiche]

Has Embassy Suites commented on why the building faces away from the park? Isn't that really ugly electrical substation on the side that it now faces? I'd love to hear why they decided to point it towards a block full of electrical equipment instead of a park.

The building is at an intersection of two streets where, if it faced either street, it would face away from the park. Also, since the land behind the building (between it and the park) is still a separately-owned surface lot, there was a decent chance that something would be built that blocked a nice and expensive facade if one had been built that faced the park.

Not that I'm defending the suckage, mind you; I fully acknowledge and concur regarding the suckage. I'm just pointing out the obvious to the oblivious...that's all.

[barracuda]

Also, since the land behind the building (between it and the park) is still a separately-owned surface lot, there was a decent chance that something would be built that blocked a nice and expensive facade if one had been built that faced the park.

We can only hope.

[DrLan34]

This is really good information and makes a lot of sense.

The building is at an intersection of two streets where, if it faced either street, it would face away from the park. Also, since the land behind the building (between it and the park) is still a separately-owned surface lot, there was a decent chance that something would be built that blocked a nice and expensive facade if one had been built that faced the park.

Not that I'm defending the suckage, mind you; I fully acknowledge and concur regarding the suckage. I'm just pointing out the obvious to the oblivious...that's all.

[brian0123]

The building is at an intersection of two streets where, if it faced either street, it would face away from the park. Also, since the land behind the building (between it and the park) is still a separately-owned surface lot, there was a decent chance that something would be built that blocked a nice and expensive facade if one had been built that faced the park.

Not that I'm defending the suckage, mind you; I fully acknowledge and concur regarding the suckage. I'm just pointing out the obvious to the oblivious...that's all.

I had no clue that the lot between it and the park is separately-owned. I thought they had the entire block. It makes sense why they did what they did if that's the case.

[lockmat]

The building is at an intersection of two streets where, if it faced either street, it would face away from the park. Also, since the land behind the building (between it and the park) is still a separately-owned surface lot, there was a decent chance that something would be built that blocked a nice and expensive facade if one had been built that faced the park.

Not that I'm defending the suckage, mind you; I fully acknowledge and concur regarding the suckage. I'm just pointing out the obvious to the oblivious...that's all.

That little space between their building in the park is owned by someone else? I know we can build stuff on little parcels but that's pretty small, considering every building needs a parking garage. The undeveloped land to the east seems much more likely for something to be built.

So is that one block divided between three owners? Embassy, space to the north, and space to the east?

[LTAWACS]

If they are going to build something on such a small piece of land it better have the words "needle" and "sky" somewhere in the name.

[Highway6]

That little space between their building in the park is owned by someone else? I know we can build stuff on little parcels but that's pretty small, considering every building needs a parking garage. The undeveloped land to the east seems much more likely for something to be built.

So is that one block divided between three owners? Embassy, space to the north, and space to the east?

I was under the impression that Embassy's land extended the width of the block to Lamar as well. NIche revealing otherwise is the obvious answer as to why the building fronts the way it does. It's not just the likelihood of something being built there that is the problem. If the Embassy only has 2 street access, not 3 like I thought, they have to front where they have access.

Even more important is the rectangular shape of the site. All your hotel rooms are going to face out the long sides or the rectangle. The site dictates that the back faces the park.

That being said, the ugly crowd's main complaint is with the big bare wall, which translates to lack of glazing.

If you remember from the construction photos, 1/3 of that wall is the emergency stairwell.. placed there because one is typically located in a back corner. They also have a shear wall there on the left. While the typical liner hotel room does not have glazing on the sides (thats where you have your furniture), the front of the hotel shows it certainly is possible and desired if you're building suites. Why are these not bigger suites on the back left corner which would allow for more side glazing? I'm sure there an economic formula that hotels deal with that dictate the % of suites but the most likely answer is that it is the back of the site/interior of the block.

While it in unlikely, Discover Tower's multistory entrance cube demonstrates it is possible to build something, part of a building, on such a small area of land that would obstruct those suite's views, esp if one developer were to buy the rest of the block.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Highway6

[LTAWACS]

Perhaps they were trying to save money./

[TheNiche]

That little space between their building in the park is owned by someone else? I know we can build stuff on little parcels but that's pretty small, considering every building needs a parking garage. The undeveloped land to the east seems much more likely for something to be built.

So is that one block divided between three owners? Embassy, space to the north, and space to the east?

The block is divided between only two owners. Embassy Suites has the land that Embassy Suites is on; someone else has everything else. Check out HCAD's facet map and also check ownership records.

Although the site is not rectangular, as per usual, there would be no problem at all with the physical feasibility of a tower with an odd footprint. Eyeballing it, I don't think that there is a single cross-section on the surface lot with less than 60 or 65 feet of width. In fact, the shape of a prospective floorplate and the placement of stairwells and elevator banks, etc., is pretty intuitive. The only limiting factor, if there is one, would be the layout and flow of a parking garage.

[lockmat]

The block is divided between only two owners. Embassy Suites has the land that Embassy Suites is on; someone else has everything else. Check out HCAD's facet map and also check ownership records.

Although the site is not rectangular, as per usual, there would be no problem at all with the physical feasibility of a tower with an odd footprint. Eyeballing it, I don't think that there is a single cross-section on the surface lot with less than 60 or 65 feet of width. In fact, the shape of a prospective floorplate and the placement of stairwells and elevator banks, etc., is pretty intuitive. The only limiting factor, if there is one, would be the layout and flow of a parking garage.

Cool, thanks for the info. Knowing that one owner has the rest makes a lot more sense. I'm no architect or engineer, but since with money they're pretty much capable of anything, putting a tower and garage there looks fairly simple.

In the end Embassy suites probably did the right thing for themselves in terms of the plain jane architecture on the north side, considering this has become a popular area to build and whatever their neighbors decide to build has a good chance of being something of significance.

[GovernorAggie]

Cool, thanks for the info. Knowing that one owner has the rest makes a lot more sense. I'm no architect or engineer, but since with money they're pretty much capable of anything, putting a tower and garage there looks fairly simple.

In the end Embassy suites probably did the right thing for themselves in terms of the plain jane architecture on the north side, considering this has become a popular area to build and whatever their neighbors decide to build has a good chance of being something of significance.

Agreed. Much like the 100% blank wall on the new Ballet Center and to a much lesser extent the Hess Tower parking garage. Both have smaller tracts remaining on their blocks for add'l development.

[photolitherland]

When this building broke ground a while back, I was really looking forward to it, but god damn, its horrid. Id rather have a surface parking lot than this monstrosity. Seriously, it should be torn down as soon as possible. The architect should be put on trial for crimes against humanity and the city of Houston.

[Subdude]

When this building broke ground a while back, I was really looking forward to it, but god damn, its horrid. Id rather have a surface parking lot than this monstrosity. Seriously, it should be torn down as soon as possible. The architect should be put on trial for crimes against humanity and the city of Houston.

You think it's an eyesore now? Wait a couple of years until the beige stucco starts to age. People will have to turn away to keep their eyes from bleeding.

[lockmat]

When this building broke ground a while back, I was really looking forward to it, but god damn, its horrid. Id rather have a surface parking lot than this monstrosity. Seriously, it should be torn down as soon as possible. The architect should be put on trial for crimes against humanity and the city of Houston.

Let's take into consideration what some of us recently discussed about the rest of the block and what the developer and architect most likely took into account when placing and designing this thing. Totally forget about the north and east faces of the building; imagine they're covered by one or two other buildings. Only think about the west and south - it's really not THAT bad.

[Subdude]

Let's take into consideration what some of us recently discussed about the rest of the block and what the developer and architect most likely took into account when placing and designing this thing. Totally forget about the north and east faces of the building; imagine they're covered by one or two other buildings. Only think about the west and south - it's really not THAT bad.

Yeah, but even the facades with windows are mundane, to put it charitably.