Subdude Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 We've had several topics discussing whether Houston should have a signature monument, and what it could look like. I don't have any objection to them on moral grounds ("monuments to waste and backwardness" ). Cities have used monumental structures to indicate their cravings for attention or whatnot for thousands of years. Personally, I would prefer a signature skyscaper, but I wouldn't object to a large civic monument as long as it wasn't just another space needle, which has been done to death. If only the "Spirit of Houston" had been built! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Well there is a difference between skyscrapers and monuments. The St. Louis arch doesn't really serve any functional purpose that I'm aware of, whereas an office tower most certainly does.That's my bad. Guess I neglected to recognize it was a skyscraper he was talking about. Guess that story was on my mind.Yeah, I doubt anyone would be against something like that. After all, it has a practical use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 That reminds me, let's not forget the San Jacinto Monument! It isn't as though Houston doesn't have one...a New Deal project is our excuse...and frankly, I prefer ours to ones in San Antonio, Dallas, and Seattle. I'd say that it competes head-to-head with Saint Louis. It is certainly better than the Washington Memorial, as well. Probably one of the best examples of Moderne architecture...anywhere.I haven't been there since I was a kid. Where exactly is it anyway? Maybe people want a monument that's more visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 I haven't been there since I was a kid. Where exactly is it anyway? Maybe people want a monument that's more visible.Which is exactly the problem. It is situated somewhere among the smokestacks of the refineries out along the ship channel. It may be a swell monument and all, but as you say it lacks the right visibility and I don't think it has that strong an association with Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc Posted April 11, 2007 Author Share Posted April 11, 2007 We've had several topics discussing whether Houston should have a signature monument, and what it could look like. I don't have any objection to them on moral grounds ("monuments to waste and backwardness" ). Cities have used monumental structures to indicate their cravings for attention or whatnot for thousands of years. Personally, I would prefer a signature skyscaper, but I wouldn't object to a large civic monument as long as it wasn't just another space needle, which has been done to death. If only the "Spirit of Houston" had been built! What is/was the "Spirit of Houston?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 What is/was the "Spirit of Houston?" Why, it was an idea for a giant statue representing Houston, thus This would have been famous! As a little piece of HAIF trivia, as I recall a Spirit of Houston thread was the first topic on the first HAIF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Which is exactly the problem. It is situated somewhere among the smokestacks of the refineries out along the ship channel. It may be a swell monument and all, but as you say it lacks the right visibility and I don't think it has that strong an association with Houston.Yeah, that's key as well. It doesn't really seem to be a ssociated with the city.Why, it was an idea for a giant statue representing Houston, thusThis would have been famous!lol. I don't know about this one. I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc Posted April 11, 2007 Author Share Posted April 11, 2007 Why, it was an idea for a giant statue representing Houston, thus This would have been famous! As a little piece of HAIF trivia, as I recall a Spirit of Houston thread was the first topic on the first HAIF. That is magnificent! BUT, why is it by water?? It looks like it is on the coast of something?? And please don't tell me they were going to stick it near the Port of Houston. That would have been an embarrassment. Do you know dimensions and such? If it was large enough, to put it Southwest of DT around the I-10/I-45 interchange........that would be cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Wasn't it suppose be near that Eleanor Tinsley Park or Memorial Park? Do you know dimensions and such? If it was large enough, to put it Southwest of DT around the I-10/I-45 interchange........that would be cool. I believe it was around 500 ft actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 The renderings were just representative locations, but I thought Hermann Park was one idea. I-10 and 45 would have been a good location - right down the road from the big Beatles statues going up. It was designed to be about 500 ft tall. The artist has since died, and the idea along with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 The article to this link says it would be in a park.http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/liberty/...irit/spirit.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 The article to this link says it would be in a park.http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/liberty/...irit/spirit.htmI think for Houston a location along a freeway would have been far more appropriate than a park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 I think for Houston a location along a freeway would have been far more appropriate than a park.Like maybe where two freeways converge, going into downtown? Coming in from the North/the airport would be perfect, but then that would just ruin the skyline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc Posted April 13, 2007 Author Share Posted April 13, 2007 OK, So with all this talk, i am opening up a new topic. HOUSTON ICON m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Which is exactly the problem. It is situated somewhere among the smokestacks of the refineries out along the ship channel. It may be a swell monument and all, but as you say it lacks the right visibility and I don't think it has that strong an association with Houston.I think it does...Its situated on a beautiful park/land plot in the middle of the Industrial heart of Houston. It stands out because its not black and billowing smoke, and Its the tallest thing around. We only don't associate it with "Houston" because when you think of the city itself, one usually only thinks of everything west of Downtown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rio Grande Valley Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 1. What ever happened to the second Mercer Condominiums in Uptown/Galleria?2. My building would be located in one on the parking lots of downtown around Houston Center. It would be an 100 storey glass building that twists sort of like a screw but not that extreme. It would be around 1450 - 1600 feet from street to roof, and an additional 200 foot antenna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc Posted May 2, 2007 Author Share Posted May 2, 2007 1. What ever happened to the second Mercer Condominiums in Uptown/Galleria?2. My building would be located in one on the parking lots of downtown around Houston Center. It would be an 100 storey glass building that twists sort of like a screw but not that extreme. It would be around 1450 - 1600 feet from street to roof, and an additional 200 foot antenna. I am not sure about the Mercer part 2- BUT i think that many UT condo projects were built with their twin in mind, but maybe due to the lack of need or want they remained solo. Anybody have the 411 on that? Your idea about a supertall DT sounds great. Would it resemble the proposed Chicago Spire? Who would you prefer as the architect? I like that you are thinking it should stand out among the other DT scrapers. I don't mind the buzz about some new scrapers coming to DT, BUT am really watching closely and crossing my fingers that they won't be bland. I LOVE UT and how dense it is becoming, but am disappointed that so many of the highrises look very similar. And maybe it is just me, but i think MT is looking more like a 21st century urban center (YES, i know many of the highrises ARE built in the 21st century), i am just saying how it looks. I still stand by my assertion- DT needs a tall one with a spire. And NO, to me the antenna on One Shell Plaza doesn't constitute a spire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rio Grande Valley Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 quote "I am not sure about the Mercer part 2- BUT i think that many UT condo projects were built with their twin in mind, but maybe due to the lack of need or want they remained solo. Anybody have the 411 on that? Your idea about a supertall DT sounds great. Would it resemble the proposed Chicago Spire? Who would you prefer as the architect? I like that you are thinking it should stand out among the other DT scrapers. I don't mind the buzz about some new scrapers coming to DT, BUT am really watching closely and crossing my fingers that they won't be bland. I LOVE UT and how dense it is becoming, but am disappointed that so many of the highrises look very similar. And maybe it is just me, but i think MT is looking more like a 21st century urban center (YES, i know many of the highrises ARE built in the 21st century), i am just saying how it looks. I still stand by my assertion- DT needs a tall one with a spire. And NO, to me the antenna on One Shell Plaza doesn't constitute a spire. " marc, I would choose I.M. Pei to be the architect of my building. I am not familiar with Chicago Spire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc Posted May 2, 2007 Author Share Posted May 2, 2007 quote "I am not sure about the Mercer part 2- BUT i think that many UT condo projects were built with their twin in mind, but maybe due to the lack of need or want they remained solo. Anybody have the 411 on that?Your idea about a supertall DT sounds great. Would it resemble the proposed Chicago Spire? Who would you prefer as the architect? I like that you are thinking it should stand out among the other DT scrapers. I don't mind the buzz about some new scrapers coming to DT, BUT am really watching closely and crossing my fingers that they won't be bland. I LOVE UT and how dense it is becoming, but am disappointed that so many of the highrises look very similar. And maybe it is just me, but i think MT is looking more like a 21st century urban center (YES, i know many of the highrises ARE built in the 21st century), i am just saying how it looks. I still stand by my assertion- DT needs a tall one with a spire. And NO, to me the antenna on One Shell Plaza doesn't constitute a spire. " marc, I would choose I.M. Pei to be the architect of my building. I am not familiar with Chicago Spire. Chicago Spire is the proposed supertall by Calatrava. It has been redesigned a couple of times. IF built, it will be the tallest in North America at 2000 ft.....even taller than the New World Trade Center. I am going to ATTEMPT to attach a couple of pix. of skyscrapers i think should have been/should be built in DT or UT Houston.... Wish me luck.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rio Grande Valley Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 I'll find some information myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Chicago spire: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rio Grande Valley Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 That looks awesome Subdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Chicago spireI like it, but it seem aesthetically out of place...and not in a good way, like with Williams Tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc Posted May 14, 2007 Author Share Posted May 14, 2007 I like it, but it seem aesthetically out of place...and not in a good way, like with Williams Tower. The redesign is a bit more reasonable looking in that location. ALSO, keep in mind there are going to be at least 10-20 more skyscrapers in DT Chicago in the next few years, so the Spire won't look so much like it was just placed there randomly by a nebulous force. Chicago, like many US cities is experiencing a rebirth in it DT area, so many very tall scrapers are coming. ALSO, it is bidding for the 2016 Olympics. (Beijing 2008: London 2012) I for one, hope Chi-town gets it. m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.