zaphod Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 your going to laugh but i think that building is cool looking. a better building to bash is those fancy condo/apartment things butting right up to freeway over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YakuzaIce Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 your going to laugh but i think that building is cool looking. a better building to bash is those fancy condo/apartment things butting right up to freeway over there.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Are you talking about the Broadstone (I think thats the name) those five or so story ones right next to 59 or the ones behind? Or maybe completely different ones. The ones behind the Broadstone are pretty ugly, but they look slightly better now that they have been repainted IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I think they look silly that they were designed to look like several small buildings next to each other, but have an outdoor staircase, simply covered up, not even A/C'd for Houston summers. I hope that they installed sound proof window, being so close to the freeway.To get back on topic, I love the person who made that comment that the Mercer looks like a stained unrinal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Hizzy! Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 The sad part is that the more I look at the front, the more I think that it could've a been a fairly decent building (redundant, I know). I still can't fathom why they thought cutting the building in half would be a good idea asthetically. The two buildings closer together will probably mitigate the ugliness of the buildings individually, but it's still a shameful miscalculation by the designers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Somehow I can't see how having a second ugly building would mitigate the ugliness of the first ugly building. Simple math says the ugliness is doubled. The problems with the Mercer run deeper than just plain ol' ugliness too. The proportions are terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Somehow I can't see how having a second ugly building would mitigate the ugliness of the first ugly building. Simple math says the ugliness is doubled. The problems with the Mercer run deeper than just plain ol' ugliness too. The proportions are terrible.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hey Subdude, I need that liscense to kill................ myself everyday that I have to look at that albatross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Somehow I can't see how having a second ugly building would mitigate the ugliness of the first ugly building. Simple math says the ugliness is doubled. The problems with the Mercer run deeper than just plain ol' ugliness too. The proportions are terrible.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hey Subdude, I need that liscense to kill................ myself everyday that I have to look at that albatross. My goodness I don't know what I'll do if they actually put #2 up. Please God if I have any favors with you, keep those developers from putting the second one up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Hizzy! Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I think having the twin will probably give the more discriminating viewer a different perception of scale. As it stands, the single monstrosity is more ominous. It's a bean pole; a homely, unshapely spinster in a crowd of curvaceous fashion models. Having another bean pole may (and I guess I should use more stress on the word "may") make it less egregious in its enviroment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 There was a news clip on one of the local stations about a year and a half ago, as to why there were so few windows on this building and why it was so ugly. It was designed with few windows so that those who are afraid of heights could still enjoy high-rise living. I don't think that answered the question of why it was so ugly, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 That was a public relations answer. If you actually look at the floor plans of the units in the building, you'll see that there really aren't the rooms on that side for windows. The building has emergency stairwells and elevators (residential and service). I think either a kitchen or a second bedroom may be in the back corners that'll need the windows. Every other room uses the other side for a windows.The floorplans are a nice layout for a condo and for the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Redscare (welcome to the forum btw), That explaination is akin to my typing slowly for those that don't aren't speed readers. I mean, really!Ricco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Hizzy! Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Ricco67 Thanks for the welcome. I'd been reading this forum for months before I finally signed up to reply. I really enjoy the architecture, construction and demographic related topics discussed here. Now, as to your post: Don't Shoot The Messenger! Seriously, that was what they said...and I also thought that was a poor excuse for a bad design. Now, if they had said it was high rise living for blind people who can't tell what it looked like.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 The reason why there are no windows was because they did not want a view of the south, so that is why they have the halls, elevator and such on the south part of the building and the north side can be covered with windows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ^^^Please read the posts in full. The case about the views was already made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 The reason why there are no windows was because they did not want a view of the south, so that is why they have the halls, elevator and such on the south part of the building and the north side can be covered with windows.It was also more energy-efficient to block out the direct sunlight from the south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 good point subdude.So that would mean people who want windows on the southside would want a building that is not energy saving. Just a thought.I bought my house so that the south side is completely blocked by another house. My east and west sides set up with energy efficient windows. My north side has a house by it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiko Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Just west of Sage, I think, between Richmond and Westheimer is a "luxury" high-rise. No balconies....few windows. Me no likey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Just west of Sage, I think, between Richmond and Westheimer is a "luxury" high-rise. No balconies....few windows. Me no likey.It's "The Mark" and yes it's horrendous. It does have balconies though, there on the North side of the building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I thought there was a thread on that, but it must've been before old HAIF went "boom" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 It's "The Mark" and yes it's horrendous. It does have balconies though, there on the North side of the building. Correction: The Mercer Ph. I Phase Two is being planned. See website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Correction: The Mercer Ph. I Phase Two is being planned. See website. oops, you are correct. Either way, it's horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I thought there was a thread on that, but it must've been before old HAIF went "boom" Here is one. and another! We have collectively dubbed the building the giant stained urinal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Merged topics with existing thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 so instead we now have one massive form of blasphemous architecture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 You forgot to put "" around that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swtsig Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 (edited) good lord that building is hideous... i live in tanglewood and see it all the damn time, and everytime i ask myself "how did that monstrosity get approved?" seriously, who was the braintrust that saw that design and said "yep! that's the one! let's get the ball rolling on this sucker!" i mean, they sure as hell cant be native houstonians... right? why would you want to deface your own city landscape like that?it's baffling, really. Edited May 27, 2007 by swtsig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 good lord that building is hideous... i live in tanglewood and see it all the damn time, and everytime i ask myself "how did that monstrosity get approved?" seriously, who was the braintrust that saw that design and said "yep! that's the one! let's get the ball rolling on this sucker!" i mean, they sure as hell cant be native houstonians... right? why would you want to deface your own city landscape like that?it's baffling, really.I actually love the building from the front side... but the back side is definitely not as nice. I wish they would at least build the second one so it's not just standing alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 I thought there were supposed to eventually be four mercers.That way they hide the back.Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 Yeah, I've seen that building (you're talking the one right behind the CVS and across from Chipotle) at Richmond. It is hideous and I've often thought it was too skinny for it's height. But more importantly, what are the condos in it like? They seem, just from looking at it, that they'd be too small...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.