fatesdisastr Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 I was thinking that too actually, but honestly I think if they do anything they'll renovate the inside and if they replace the outside it will be with the exact same look just upgraded material. They would have to bee insane to change the look in any way to this building. I think we're all over reacting. I certainly do hope we are overreacting. I'd protest if they changed the exterior facade look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 I certainly do hope we are overreacting. I'd protest if they changed the exterior facade look. Why? Do you own the building? If not, then it's really none of your business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 There is zero reason to think they are planning any changes to the exterior facade of Pennzoil Place. Zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Why? Do you own the building? If not, then it's really none of your business.Just like it was none of our business trying to not bomb the cultural landmarks of Europe during WWII. We don't own any of them, what where we thinking?!? And the River Oaks theater... None of us owned it, so why save it?Lets propose to the owners of The Enpire State Building to do the facade in a light blue glass! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatesdisastr Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Why? Do you own the building? If not, then it's really none of your business. Relax friend, even though our constitutional rights have been eroding away over the years I do still have my right to free speech just like you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Just like it was none of our business trying to not bomb the cultural landmarks of Europe during WWII. We don't own any of them, what where we thinking?!? And the River Oaks theater... None of us owned it, so why save it?Lets propose to the owners of The Enpire State Building to do the facade in a light blue glass! Why would you care if the RO theater gets torn down? It's not a significant building, any more so than any of the other early strip malls on Gray are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Relax friend, even though our constitutional rights have been eroding away over the years I do still have my right to free speech just like you do. But why waste the effort complaining about what someone does to their property? I like looking at great buildings too, but I am not personally invested in whether they exist or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 But why waste the effort complaining about what someone does to their property? I like looking at great buildings too, but I am not personally invested in whether they exist or not. I seriously don't understand this mindset. So, you wouldn't care if your neighbor tears down their house and opens a tire dump/meth lab? You wouldn't care if the Pennzoil Towers were altered? You don't care if the last remaining vintage theater shuts down? All because you don't own them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Why would you care if the RO theater gets torn down? It's not a significant building, any more so than any of the other early strip malls on Gray are.Art Deco isn't significant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TowerSpotter Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 The Only change I would like to see is retail in the bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Is Ross trolling? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 But why waste the effort complaining about what someone does to their property? I like looking at great buildings too, but I am not personally invested in whether they exist or not.What an odd thing to say on an architecture forum. Hopefully you don't work for any companies that own beautiful properties in this city. Or worse, have any say in the fate of such said buildings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 What an odd thing to say on an architecture forum. Hopefully you don't work for any companies that own beautiful properties in this city. Or worse, have any say in the fate of such said buildings. I believe more in property rights than I do in my ability to look at cool buildings. If the owners of the Pennzoil building decide that it is in their best interest to change the facade, why is it anyone's business but theirs, assuming they meet any life safety requirements and abide by any deed restrictions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I seriously don't understand this mindset. So, you wouldn't care if your neighbor tears down their house and opens a tire dump/meth lab? You wouldn't care if the Pennzoil Towers were altered? You don't care if the last remaining vintage theater shuts down? All because you don't own them? Nice strawman with the meth lab reference. I think we were talking about the appearance of buildings, not the use of toxic chemicals in a residential area (we also have deed restrictions that limit the size and placement of meth labs and dumps within the neighborhood, and require some pretty strong fencing, with appropriate signage, to protect the neighbors). I might be bothered by changes in the Pennzoil building, but why would it matter? It's not my property, the owners don't owe me any obligation to maintain the appearance. I thought the changes to the Centerpoint building across from 1100 Louisiana were pretty darned ugly, and not something I would have done, but it's their building, they have to live with it. I think the use of the police power of the City of Houston to force property owners to adhere to the aesthetic desires of random people in the community is undemocratic and unfair. Why shouldn't Weingarten, or any other property owner, especially commercial property, be able to change their property to meet the needs of their customers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Is Ross trolling?By the very definition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Nice strawman with the meth lab reference. I think we were talking about the appearance of buildings, not the use of toxic chemicals in a residential area (we also have deed restrictions that limit the size and placement of meth labs and dumps within the neighborhood, and require some pretty strong fencing, with appropriate signage, to protect the neighbors). I might be bothered by changes in the Pennzoil building, but why would it matter? It's not my property, the owners don't owe me any obligation to maintain the appearance. I thought the changes to the Centerpoint building across from 1100 Louisiana were pretty darned ugly, and not something I would have done, but it's their building, they have to live with it.I think the use of the police power of the City of Houston to force property owners to adhere to the aesthetic desires of random people in the community is undemocratic and unfair. Why shouldn't Weingarten, or any other property owner, especially commercial property, be able to change their property to meet the needs of their customers?We live in a community. The thoughts of people matter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatesdisastr Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I believe more in property rights than I do in my ability to look at cool buildings. If the owners of the Pennzoil building decide that it is in their best interest to change the facade, why is it anyone's business but theirs, assuming they meet any life safety requirements and abide by any deed restrictions? I believe in property rights as much as the next person. I don't believe anyone here has said that we have any legal right to stop someone from changing the look of their property, but we do live in a country that we have the freedom to at least voice our opinion in opposition of such changes. If they refuse to listen to our concerns and go through with it then so be it, it is on them. But those of us who love architecture and history have a voice and we will use it, regardless if it makes a difference. I'd rather use my tongue to speak than to merely bite it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Yes, Ross, a property owner, here, can do with their property what they wish (generally speaking and within reason). However, neighbors or the public, do not have to just sit back and ignor it. If Transwestern we to propose or announce changes that would alter the architectural significance of a madterpiece, your darn right that the neighbors and public can insert themselves into the situation. And I hope that we would. No...we can't force them not to. But, helping them understand the problem by voicing objections is what must be done. Now...I am sure Transwestern knows better than anyone what a treasure that they control and own. Yes, they must stay competitive and must improve the property in order to Save the property. But, this does not necessarily mean that they must alter the appearance of the exterior, for which the building is prized. That'd be just foolish. Lets hope they are not fools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Everyone has the right to express their opinion, and the property owners have the right to ignore the opinions. Where it gets bad is when the protestors start trying to convince the city to pass an ordinance that enforces the protestors sense of aesthetics, which has happened every time there's a rumor that he RO theater is going to be demolished. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 We live in a community. The thoughts of people matter. So Vik, are you saying that if I build a great building that people love, I shouldn't be able to tear it down 30 years later if I get tired of it? That seems pretty much like telling Bob Dylan he couldn't play electric guitar instead of acoustic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downtownian Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Updated the development timeline for: 1) Moved Hines Residential at Market Square Park from "Potential Developments" to Q1 2016 2) Moved Green Street Renovation from Q4 2013 to Q2 2014 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt16 Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 So Vik, are you saying that if I build a great building that people love, I shouldn't be able to tear it down 30 years later if I get tired of it? That seems pretty much like telling Bob Dylan he couldn't play electric guitar instead of acoustic.That's why I hate the "community" liberals have created. It usually means a small minority are going to try and bully the masses into what they tell you is good for you. This new concept of community is just an erosion of personal freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 So, just to reset the conversation, everyone is getting all worked up about a renovation that, at last check, is really just something that has been guessed at on this forum. Don't you think that it might be a good idea to find out what the plans actually are before the outrage starts? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Everyone has the right to express their opinion, and the property owners have the right to ignore the opinions. Where it gets bad is when the protestors start trying to convince the city to pass an ordinance that enforces the protestors sense of aesthetics, which has happened every time there's a rumor that he RO theater is going to be demolished.Sometimes the value of a building to the community is greater than to the owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Sometimes the value of a building to the community is greater than to the owner.Sure and such buildings are generally designated as national landmarks. Seems like a stretch to me to put this building at that level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Sometimes the value of a building to the community is greater than to the owner.So, is your argument that if the community, whoever that is, decides the building is worth more to them than to the owner, the owner ought to bow to the desires of the community without compensation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatesdisastr Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 So, just to reset the conversation, everyone is getting all worked up about a renovation that, at last check, is really just something that has been guessed at on this forum. Don't you think that it might be a good idea to find out what the plans actually are before the outrage starts? Seems like we may have to wait till the first of the year to find that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Sure and such buildings are generally designated as national landmarks. Seems like a stretch to me to put this building at that level. Pennzoil Place earned Johnson a Pritzker. The three most architecturally significant buildings in houston are probably the Menil, MFAH, and Pennzoil. Landmark designation tends to happen *after* 50 or years, though exceptions are made. Pennzoil is less than 40 years old. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgriff Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Sometimes the value of a building to the community is greater than to the owner.If they think it's worth so much they can buy it. That's the only way to prove how much you value something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Pennzoil Place earned Johnson a Pritzker. The three most architecturally significant buildings in houston are probably the Menil, MFAH, and Pennzoil. Landmark designation tends to happen *after* 50 or years, though exceptions are made. Pennzoil is less than 40 years old. OK, I'm clearly not an architect. 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.