Jump to content

Museo Institute For The Medical Arts In The Museum District


Urbannizer

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, hindesky said:

All tenants in the old building have moved to the new one. Both it's parking lot and the one next to it are blocked off. The prosed high rise would go in the latter.

2keh6uQ.jpg

2p6OpOm.jpg

It's looking much better now, just wish they would of made all of the glass look like the glass panels on the left, or something that better fits with those panels. If the whole building had that deep blue glass it would look amazing. Doesn't look half bad, but the cyan blue doesn't fit the building. 

Also, excited for the next phase of development hopefully that high rise comes to fruition. 

Edited by TheSirDingle
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, toxtethogrady said:

This is way too much of a tease to be real. How does an eye doctor have hundreds of millions in financing to blow on a 58-story residential building?

Surprisingly he has 18 locations in greater Houston and Austin. I thought he had just the one.

https://www.manneye.com/locations-directions/

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tangledwoods said:

aesthetic dumpster fire.  for an eye doctor, dude doesnt seem to have a good vision.....

People are so critical, it's literally his own personal office building lol. The amount of disused buildings in the area is the real dumpster fire

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'll come in here with the medium view. I don't entirely dislike the floor. The statuary is...a bit...well this isn't gonna be the Trevi Fountain. The mix up of curtain glass colors was...odd. But I think the proportions of the building aren't terrible, and I'm really excited to see what such a tall tower looks like here. Really excited. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel like BEES?! is on point. What was a weird choice in the smaller building, with the larger will transcend taste and create its own center of aesthetic gravity. I suppose that's a traditional definition of kitsch, but, I dare everyone involved to do it. 

Edited by EllenOlenska
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, EllenOlenska said:

Feel like BEES?! is on point. What was a weird choice in the smaller building, with the larger will transcend taste and create its own center of aesthetic gravity. I suppose that's a traditional definition of kitsch, but, I dare everyone involved to do it. 

Yes I can get onboard with yours and BEES' attitudes.  If Houston can fill up with a wide range of people's first and second and third drafts of their favorite place to be in the world, then it will remain a tapestry that's a good deal more nuanced than some consistent idea of taste and nuance could ever become.  And I'd rather live in that place, not because of or in spite of its frequent stylistic unevenness (or hamfistedness) but because of the potential for unexpectedly caring about new places and being in deliberately or accidentally profound surroundings.  That beats taste, design, and fine-grained, guaranteed quality to this American, even though kitsch is not my favorite yet.

Edited by strickn
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BEES?! said:

I’m interested to see what the high rise will wind up looking like. Will they go for a more subdued color scheme on the glass, or let their freaky flag fly and go all-in on the weird colors?

The habitable sculpture concept from Philip Johnson (on which the residential tower is based) back in the day had a bunch of different colors, but the base palette was red.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/26/2022 at 4:09 PM, H-Town Man said:

That is good to hear. Horrible to hear that there will be a skybridge.

 

I don't have an opinion about skybridges, other than they're better than tunnels.  What's the beef with skybridges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially the beef is that it’s a ped tunnel with better daylight but it robs the urban street of people’s presence no less than tunnels would.  However, the eye doctor doesn’t want people getting run over between the operating room and their hotel room, so it is part of the program for the hotel to be in the project (as a convenient place for patients to stay, not only the general public) that they not have to be part of the street life every time they move between buildings.

Edited by strickn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2022 at 5:05 PM, strickn said:

Essentially the beef is that it’s a ped tunnel with better daylight but it robs the urban street of people’s presence no less than tunnels would.  However, the eye doctor doesn’t want people getting run over between the operating room and their hotel room, so it is part of the program for the hotel to be in the project (as a convenient place for patients to stay, not only the general public) that they not have to be part of the street life every time they move between buildings.

Skybridges don't just rob the street of pedestrians. They create a psychological sense that the street is a second-class location while the glass-enclosed bridges above the street are the first-class location. They rob the street of dignity, and great streets the world over seldom have them. They're worse than tunnels because you don't have to look at the tunnel. They are characteristic of second-tier cities where the public sphere is weak and the private sphere is overly powerful, and people don't want to walk on the street because it is thought to be a gross and scary place full of homeless.

I can't take too seriously that there is a risk of eyecare patients getting run over if they don't have a skybridge to get them across the street. How did they get to the hotel in the first place? If you can drive, you can cross a street. If somebody drove you, they can walk you across the street.

Edited by H-Town Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

Skybridges don't just rob the street of pedestrians. They create a psychological sense that the street is a second-class location while the glass-enclosed bridges above the street are the first-class location. They rob the street of dignity, and great streets the world over seldom have them. They are characteristic of second-tier cities where the public sphere is weak and the private sphere is overly powerful, and people don't want to walk on the street because it is thought to be a gross and scary place full of homeless.

I can't take too seriously that there is a risk of eyecare patients getting run over if they don't have a skybridge to get them across the street. How did they get to the hotel in the first place? If you can drive, you can cross a street. If somebody drove you, they can walk you across the street.

Why would you ask people to walk across a busy street, with traffic, when you can just have them walk in an air conditioned sky bridge? This is all part of one development, and the developers have a vested interest in keeping those who visit inside the development. They don't care about the street.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Big E said:

Why would you ask people to walk across a busy street, with traffic, when you can just have them walk in an air conditioned sky bridge? This is all part of one development, and the developers have a vested interest in keeping those who visit inside the development. They don't care about the street.

We are talking about walking across *a street* correct? I just want to make sure we are both talking about the same thing. Crossing one street in the Museum District. Not crossing a freeway. Not crossing an eight-lane road. A single street in a neighborhood that you hope becomes an interesting neighborhood where people walk around, not a repeat of the Medical Center and its jumble of skybridges, garages, and faceless buildings that nobody wants to walk around.

Fannin has a traffic count of 15,683 a day. Not very busy. You push a button on the crosswalk and wait for the walk sign to appear. Why would a developer in an urban setting have an interest (vested or not) in keeping those who visit inside the development? It's a hotel, and there are lots of tourist attractions nearby... are you saying that you don't want people walking to those attractions? This isn't the Gaylord Texan where you want everyone to stay bottled up inside your development. Of course you care about the street. It makes the hotel more desirable if there's a nice active street to walk on. Someone visiting a museum is more likely to stay at your hotel, etc.

 

 

Edited by H-Town Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Big E said:

Why would you ask people to walk across a busy street, with traffic, when you can just have them walk in an air conditioned sky bridge? This is all part of one development, and the developers have a vested interest in keeping those who visit inside the development. They don't care about the street.

Yeah hard pass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...