Can Houston Go Back To The Good Ol' Days Of Architecture?

[mpope409]

exactly we are just like other cities....there are some premier buildings that standout but most are basic buck ones.

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

[mpope409]

OK, everyone. Stop being unique in ways celebrated by only a few. All of you, be unique in ways that we can all celebrate!

Yeah, that's real cute.

Houston doesn't look cheap, though. These buildings you dislike cost millions of dollars to build, and they generate millions of dollars for their owners. They don't look "plastic", they look like glass.

They do look cheap. There's not an ounce of complication to them.

You don't like it. That doesn't mean it isn't a "good variety", it just means you don't like it.

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.

What are you doing about it?

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.

[musicman]

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

it great that you've come to the realization that Houston does have some premier buildings.

[memebag]

They do look cheap. There's not an ounce of complication to them.

So, in your world, complication is the antithesis of cheap? Where does chaos fit in that?

[TheNiche]

There's not an ounce of complication to them.

That's exactly the point! I'd never thought about it before. Thank you for saying that.

It's all business, no pretension, no ceremony, not the least bit of regard for tradition. It is forward-looking, it was built to be something else. That was the intent! Everything about the BOA Center except is most basic shape is an utter disappointment.

By your standards, I have no taste. I do not hold myself to your standards. If, in your eyes, that makes me a horrible, ugly person, or something, that's OK. I don't care what you think of me.

[mpope409]

it great that you've come to the realization that Houston does have some premier buildings.

"Premier" in the sense that they stand out.

That's exactly the point! I'd never thought about it before. Thank you for saying that.

It's all business, no pretension, no ceremony, not the least bit of regard for tradition. It is forward-looking, it was built to be something else. That was the intent! Everything about the BOA Center except is most basic shape is an utter disappointment.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

By your standards, I have no taste.

Lol, I never said that. You did. If you feel that you have no taste, that's your problem.

[TheNiche]

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I'll try once more. Complication is inefficiency, the consequences either of incompetence or worse, intentional wastefulness. It is not desirable in business, science, or as an art form. That "there is not an ounce of complication" to so many buildings throughout Houston is remarkable. It is what makes us superior, in fact, to such places as encourage it.

As you stated in post #15, you believe that downtown has very little class or taste. And in post #62, you indicated that the lack of complication is in your opinion a key factor. I appreciate the lack of complication, and furthermore do not appreciate the one example of what you consider to be desireable. Therefore, by your standards, I must have no class or taste.

Lol, I never said that. You did. If you feel that you have no taste, that's your problem.

You've made clear what your standards of taste and class are. I do not conform to them. But I don't live by your standards. That's not my problem.

[TxDave]

Houton produced a lot of exceptional architecture in the 70's and 80's, much of it demonstrated in the downtown skyline. However it is aging and losing some of its initial luster (hence some of the opinions expressed above).

But good architecture must be more than just the downtown skyline. What is really important is what is being built throughout the neighborhoods. What examples of great architecture exist beyond downtown?

[TheNiche]

Houton produced a lot of exceptional architecture in the 70's and 80's, much of it demonstrated in the downtown skyline. However it is aging and losing some of its initial luster (hence some of the opinions expressed above).

But good architecture must be more than just the downtown skyline. What is really important is what is being built throughout the neighborhoods. What examples of great architecture exist beyond downtown?

Williams Tower, the Menil, a whole lot of buildings in UH, Rice, and St. Thomas' campuses, quite a few in the TMC, quite a few in Greenway, quite a few more in Uptown, and so on and so forth... Beyond business districts and universities, there are plenty of hidden gems...although a fair number are actually pretty well concealed or tucked out of the way so that you'd never know that they were there. I don't even know where to start on that list.

But for instance, while exploring bits of Galveston a few weeks ago, I was driving through Fish Village, a neighborhood of mostly inexpensive 1960's cottages and some ranch-style homes, but embedded in this otherwise unremarkable neighborhood was this:

[liammclaren]

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.

mpope409, I almost completely agree with you. But Houston is a much newer city than Chicago or New York. I've always maintained that the spirit of of nation is most clearly manifest in its architecture, and we live in a different age now. Put another way I think what you're longing for is not so much a return to the prewar romance of a building such as the Chrysler building, but for a return to the spirit of the age that created it. People see things differently now--I mean, look at a lot of the hostile responses on this board-- people on this site go ga-ga over some crappy mid rise apartment house on post oak. What you're seeing is not so much a decline in the art of architecture as much as you're seeing a decline in the culture in general--

[TheNiche]

People see things differently now--I mean, look at a lot of the hostile responses on this board-- people on this site go ga-ga over some crappy mid rise apartment house on post oak. What you're seeing is not so much a decline in the art of architecture as much as you're seeing a decline in the culture in general--

People on this forum do seem to go ga-ga over crappy midrises, I agree. That has a lot to do with a paradigm shift in architecture, one that seems to integrate urban planning, so that a single building can no longer have aspirational qualities about it unless it is sited in the context of a neighborhood with particular characteristics that cannot often be achieved except through public investment in streetscapes, parks, transit, sometimes public parking garages, etc. Individual greatness < Collective greatness, per the new paradigm. The ends of this line of thought are supposedly that a mixed-use urban environment will further quality of life and have positive environmental effects, but the reality is that the "live, work, play" cliche is conjoined not with "and" but with "or".

[RedScare]

What examples of great architecture exist beyond downtown?

Well, there's my house....

[liammclaren]

That has a lot to do with a paradigm shift in architecture, one that seems to integrate urban planning, so that a single building can no longer have aspirational qualities about it unless it is sited in the context of a neighborhood

probably a lot of truth to that. I think a lot of it also has to do with something as mundane as money-- any company that can fund the construction of a large skyscraper is almost always a company that is ruled by the bottom line, and the bottom line is that stone and decoration cost money, and don't necessarily guarantee a return. Bean counters rule the world. And investors that lend the huge sums of money necessary to build large buildings want that money back FAST. The ever increasing devaluation of the dollar doesn't help either-- a dollar now is worth about 4 cents compared to what it was worth around 1900. I think it follows that if you use monopoly money to fund buildings you get monopoly money skyscrapers-- throwaway designs created solely for the blackening of the bottom line.

[musicman]

Well, there's my house....

I think he got ya TxDave.

[sidegate]

By and large, glass reflects more heat than masonry. That is not an insignificant consideration given the current energy situation.

[bachanon]

discussion on ron paul and economics moved to a new thread in "way off topic".

linky

btw, nice return to the discussion topic sidegate. thanks.

[Jeebus]

I'll have the the huevos con chorizo and an orange juice please.

[strickn]

New York and Chicago were also way ahead of Houston at the time of the Art Deco era etc. This was still a frontier town. All the big 'scrapers here went up in the '70s and early '80s and most anything built in any other city in the same era looks very similar. With the exception of BoA, which I think serves very well for a widely recognizable Houston landmark.

I used to think so, too; I used to think that curtain walls were the only facade that could be crafted for a reasonable cost. I still believe that the problem of bulk will be hard to chip away at for anything other than residential construction, because larger floorplates are more flexible for serving larger corporate operations as tenants, and real estate developers feel that you would have to be drawing an *awful* lot of premium business through slender beauty to make it at all worth building expensive vertical struture before you have fit as much space in as the site accommodates lower down. However, please consider this link:

The foreground building is neat. In fact, it was the first high-rise to be done with computer-assisted design. They are not building skyscrapers like this one anymore either. But survey the four visually distinct towers in the background: these were built (from left) in the following years: 1976, 1971, 1973, 1984. Yes, the last date was not a typo.

The proof is in the night skyline pudding.

The 1984 building lifts the city fabric with a grace that is lacking in the others, no matter how attentively detailed their curtain walls were. The 1984 building has a curtain wall, too, but its proportions, the amount of detail in it that we can humanely relate to, and its very materials each, and all, exhibit what this thread's starter was inquiring into the possibility of doing. Although the distinctive qualities of Houston that memebag loves are among those I prize most highly here myself, the answer to the thread's starter is nevertheless, "It could be done, and done well, and not be financially unthinkable."

My postscript point to ponder is this: When we think about Houston's unpresentable, dignified-through-being-unassuming characteristics, ones that are vulnerable precisely because they are not maintained with 'proving something' in mind and which would swiftly be bid up, bought up and ruined if all the classy East and West Coast dilletantes could see past their ideas and know what sweaty pecan- and live-oak-shaded joys they're missing - maybe it does make sense to wonder whether the Southern and Southwestern vernacular wooden and tawny brick structures of the best Houston homesteads and places of business would be ill-treated by classicist architecture of the revival type in the photographs above. Some thoughtful people could see fit to say that our heritage is better served by always standing in juxtaposition with 70s-heritage reflective prisms. Yet aren't our beloved characteristics of settlement primarily undermined by the high rise building typology itself, irrespective of stylistic conclusions, because monolithic construction acts to lock something in and to keep it permanently apart, not part of any rough, shady oasis - to calcify the city's surface, rather than to keep being Houstonish on it?

People's defenses back and forth contribute somewhat to our understanding of the place, but I think we'll learn more if we start going from here instead.

[Vertigo58]

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.

The only way we will ever see any real progress is to bring in some of the best architects/designers from all over the world. Thats why cities like San Francisco & NYC have and have retained the large expansive palazzos and big wide boulevards. We need more of a European touch that simple. Our fountains are a joke, etc I could go on. The fact that this is a young city is another reason for lack of historical appeal. Some will not like what I am stating but this city simply is not a tourist draw, that alone is what brings in the $$$ to build these magnificent monuments.

Houston dropped the ball decades ago and we have been pushed to the side.

[TheNiche]

The only way we will ever see any real progress is to bring in some of the best architects/designers from all over the world. Thats why cities like San Francisco & NYC have and have retained the large expansive palazzos and big wide boulevards.

Really? The architects are responsible for it? Design it and it becomes?

Do you think you might be leaving out some factors and...oh, maybe...the ones that paid for it!?

[marc]

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.

Some of what i am about to say may have already been said, but after the first page, i got tired of reading the bantering.

SO, here it goes. I think, perhaps, there are a couple of MAIN reasons why Houston doesn't have the type of archetecture you like. (or doesn't have A LOT of it). First off, relatively, H-town is a young town compared to the East Coast metropolises. Or is that metropoli?? Anyway, places like NY, Chi-town, Boston and Philli had tons of people, limited land space and the need for skyscrapers in an era where brick, stone and marble was predominately used as facades. Keep in mind, when skyscapers first started making their mark on US cities (1890s-1920s) architects used historical trends

(Gothic, Romanesque, Greek) and added height to them. Consequently, we get lots of marble, stone and brick cladded scrapers. Houston's ascendence as a top 5 contending city did not really occur until after the 50's, and thus the past trend had moved on to a more sleeker, boxier look thanks to then-visionaries like Frank L. Wright.

Now, let's move to present day. With the push for "greener" high rises that can be virtually self sustaining, photo-voltaic glass, aluminum, and the like are becoming more and more popular. With that, there seems to be a current trend of office skyscrapers which have a more transparent feel to them (connotating a more honest and open to public view maybe?) whereas more resdidential towers adopt the type of cladding you like.

I know this doesn't always account for everything you have pointed out, but maybe this helps you understand the "why" of Houston's DT look.

m.

[Vertigo58]

Some of what i am about to say may have already been said, but after the first page, i got tired of reading the bantering.

SO, here it goes. I think, perhaps, there are a couple of MAIN reasons why Houston doesn't have the type of archetecture you like. (or doesn't have A LOT of it). First off, relatively, H-town is a young town compared to the East Coast metropolises. Or is that metropoli?? Anyway, places like NY, Chi-town, Boston and Philli had tons of people, limited land space and the need for skyscrapers in an era where brick, stone and marble was predominately used as facades. Keep in mind, when skyscapers first started making their mark on US cities (1890s-1920s) architects used historical trends

(Gothic, Romanesque, Greek) and added height to them. Consequently, we get lots of marble, stone and brick cladded scrapers. Houston's ascendence as a top 5 contending city did not really occur until after the 50's, and thus the past trend had moved on to a more sleeker, boxier look thanks to then-visionaries like Frank L. Wright.

Now, let's move to present day. With the push for "greener" high rises that can be virtually self sustaining, photo-voltaic glass, aluminum, and the like are becoming more and more popular. With that, there seems to be a current trend of office skyscrapers which have a more transparent feel to them (connotating a more honest and open to public view maybe?) whereas more resdidential towers adopt the type of cladding you like.

I know this doesn't always account for everything you have pointed out, but maybe this helps you understand the "why" of Houston's DT look.

m.

All true Marc, got the stamp of approval!

[marc]

Thanks V-58.

m. Enjoyed my stay in Houston over the holidays.

[marc]

Like everything else in human reality, the trend pendulum swings from side to side as time progresses. Periods of conservativism follow periods of liberalism and then it swings back to conservatism, etc. This has been a truism since culture began. So follows architecture in the US. When scrapers first appeared, it seemed that form and function were trying to reach a happy co-existence. Once the first decade of scrapers were well under way, then, it seems, the trend setting began.

There was a period where form seemed more important than function, i.e. the Gothic look heavily influenced urban architecture, which then morphed into a Neo Classical/ Art Deco trend. Then the trend started celebrating function over form, indicating that a more stream-lined and minimalistic style served the purposes of corporate America. Around the early 80's once again, form started becoming more noticably ornate and flamboyant- i.e. the return of stone with glass facades.

Due to the techno. boom since the turn of the millenium, (not just materials, but computer graphic design) it seems that scrapers are, once again, focusing on form over function. It is just a matter of era and trends. Houston just happened to get a great deal of skyscrapers when the trend focused on block, sleek, solid and not too much flamboyance. I think this is most evident in the differences between DT, UT and MT. Look at all three skylines. DT being the oldest , UT, second, and MT with the newest additions. Make sense?

m.

[Vertigo58]

Like everything else in human reality, the trend pendulum swings from side to side as time progresses. Periods of conservativism follow periods of liberalism and then it swings back to conservatism, etc. This has been a truism since culture began. So follows architecture in the US. When scrapers first appeared, it seemed that form and function were trying to reach a happy co-existence. Once the first decade of scrapers were well under way, then, it seems, the trend setting began.

There was a period where form seemed more important than function, i.e. the Gothic look heavily influenced urban architecture, which then morphed into a Neo Classical/ Art Deco trend. Then the trend started celebrating function over form, indicating that a more stream-lined and minimalistic style served the purposes of corporate America. Around the early 80's once again, form started becoming more noticably ornate and flamboyant- i.e. the return of stone with glass facades.

Due to the techno. boom since the turn of the millenium, (not just materials, but computer graphic design) it seems that scrapers are, once again, focusing on form over function. It is just a matter of era and trends. Houston just happened to get a great deal of skyscrapers when the trend focused on block, sleek, solid and not too much flamboyance. I think this is most evident in the differences between DT, UT and MT. Look at all three skylines. DT being the oldest , UT, second, and MT with the newest additions. Make sense?

m.

Absolutely!

[strickn]

Okay, original post again:

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.

[rapturematt]

I think when it really comes down to it. People have not focused on architecture in the past 20 years or more. I am really encouraged that green building will help with a renaissance of building designs. I am sure it will cost more to build the "more than just 4 wall type" skyscraper, but I also feel that some of the great cities like Houston are going through a major art renaissance by adding sculptures on corners and such. Eventually that led to low rise buildings being more architectural appealing, and now has led to mid-level condos having more style like the Mosiac, The Edge, and others throughout the area.

The big buildings will be the last to be updated. Maybe with the help of the sprinkler systems updates due by 2010 in Houston, we might see some new buildings and/or style developed in the old ones.

All in all it will come down to the economy though, and unfortunately with only one day this year closing on the positive, the future does not look good for your dreams of a mini building boom to happen.

[memebag]

People have not focused on architecture in the past 20 years or more.

Do you really believe that? You think 1500 Louisiana St, Reliant Energy Plaza, 717 Texas Ave or Memorial Hermann Medical Plaza went up without a "focus" on architecture?? I can't even figure out how you think that happens. Freak tornado? Bat guano accretion?

Maybe you mean you don't like the architecure applied in Houston over the last 20 years? That's understandable. Wait another 20 years and you might.

[rapturematt]

When I mean "people" I mean the majority of builders/developers. Sure you are going to have some great people that are going to come up and do something cool, but when it really boils down to it, the only real true consistent developer of good architecture are the city built projects. Example would be Minute Maid Park.

I also hope that I can contribute to the architecture of Houston over the next 20 years.

[TheNiche]

Eventually that led to low rise buildings being more architectural appealing, and now has led to mid-level condos having more style like the Mosiac, The Edge, and others throughout the area.

The Edge strikes me as...well, never mind...it doesn't strike me at all. It's bland.

Maybe with the help of the sprinkler systems updates due by 2010 in Houston, we might see some new buildings and/or style developed in the old ones.

I don't follow. Can you elaborate?