adr Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Scaffolding is down. Sunset Coffee by differentryana, on Flickr Sunset Coffee by differentryana, on Flickr 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Is it just me or does this building no longer feel "historic"? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchFan Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Well ... maybe if you close your eyes, clap your hands, and believe! :-) I very much appreciate the efforts of the people behind this ... but ... I see your point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monarch Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 very nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 ...It's not historic anymore. They removed every visible exterior historic element, replaced it with new material constructed using contemporary methods. It looks like a brand new building because it is a brand new building. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate99 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Were the original materials at all salvageable? I guess everything is at some price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Moral of the story. If you want to keep what you got then take better care of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pragmatist Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 It looks like a large number of buildings on the A&M campus with that brick. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Were the original materials at all salvageable? I guess everything is at some price.I seem to recall reading that the old walls were removed because they were soaked with urine 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate99 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I seem to recall reading that the old walls were removed because they were soaked with urine I remember hearing that too, and certainly don't blame them for replacing the brick if that were the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Is it just me or does this building no longer feel "historic"?It looks like a utilities annex building in a suburban school district.And dear God, give that thing a cornice!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I can find recent pictures of the building from the same angle and the placement and size of the windows isn't even the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 This reminds me of the Ship of Theseus. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I can find recent pictures of the building from the same angle and the placement and size of the windows isn't even the same. For an example, check this out: Scroll up to the last picture in the "modern pictures" post. It's clearly the same angle, but count the differences. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Yeah but that looks worn down and awful 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 It's not even the same color brick. I really doubt that the outside, third floor brick would have been urine soaked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) It's not even the same color brick. I really doubt that the outside, third floor brick would have been urine soaked. Hmmm I was initially disappointed at first as well, but when you put both of the old and new side by side....this building had zero chance of a proper restoration! Sometimes what is there simply can not continue and needs to be replaced. The brick on the old one was a terrible shape. It looked like it had been painted over multiple times and probably had problems internally. I wouldn't be surprised that when the GC and architect were at the site and taking brick out if all the sudden some of the bricks started to fall apart. The biggest thing they probably had to overcome was the envelope of the building. I mean to fully restore this and bring it up to code???? pfffft talk about nearly impossible. Lets also really really examine this building in the historical context. Is it the architecture that makes it important because I would argue that it's not. What's important is the idea of the building and the past that it represents. If this is the case which I'm sure Lake | Flato came to that conclusion then it would be more faithful to the original to simply completely redo the exterior. It looks like they kept the original super structure because it seems that the brick is not load bearing which means that it's even more expendable. There has to be a balance between the more militant historical preservation meaning we must protect everything simply because it's been there for a long time, or destroy it and building something new. True preservation has to take the middle path. In this case, a complete restoration wouldn't have been a good idea so it was chosen to instead go for a faithful recreation. I'm sure in the end we will be more thankful for the direction they took this as it will give the building more life and extend it's importance and building life span. Edited February 13, 2015 by Luminare 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate99 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) I'm famously not picky about such things, but it looked like a plain box that was faling apart. Now it looks like a plain box that is entirely usable. Does anyone has an idea what color the brick was originally? Edited February 13, 2015 by Nate99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkultra25 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 It's not even the same color brick. I really doubt that the outside, third floor brick would have been urine soaked. And if it was, there are a few urologists who'd like to examine the soakers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I'm famously not picky about such things, but it looked like a plain box that was faling apart. Now it looks like a plain box that is entirely usable. Does anyone has an idea what color the brick was originally? As rendered on my (pretty accurate) monitor, the original brick appeared somewhat darker and redder. I compared the patch where the paint was gone in the "before" picture side by side with the "after." The original was much closer to the brick color on the UHD building in the background. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 There must have been structural cracks, which is understandable if it's next to a bayou. I don't think even in America a building would have all its brick removed because it had been peed on a lot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Hmmm I was initially disappointed at first as well, but when you put both of the old and new side by side....this building had zero chance of a proper restoration! Sometimes what is there simply can not continue and needs to be replaced. The brick on the old one was a terrible shape. It looked like it had been painted over multiple times and probably had problems internally. I wouldn't be surprised that when the GC and architect were at the site and taking brick out if all the sudden some of the bricks started to fall apart.The biggest thing they probably had to overcome was the envelope of the building. I mean to fully restore this and bring it up to code???? pfffft talk about nearly impossible. Lets also really really examine this building in the historical context. Is it the architecture that makes it important because I would argue that it's not. What's important is the idea of the building and the past that it represents. If this is the case which I'm sure Lake | Flato came to that conclusion then it would be more faithful to the original to simply completely redo the exterior. It looks like they kept the original super structure because it seems that the brick is not load bearing which means that it's even more expendable.There has to be a balance between the more militant historical preservation meaning we must protect everything simply because it's been there for a long time, or destroy it and building something new. True preservation has to take the middle path. In this case, a complete restoration wouldn't have been a good idea so it was chosen to instead go for a faithful recreation.I'm sure in the end we will be more thankful for the direction they took this as it will give the building more life and extend it's importance and building life span.It's not only architecture that can make an old brick building worth saving, but also the fact that it probably had multiple layers of brick, giving the wall a much more authentic feel (especially noticeable in window openings), as well as the individual bricks having a more charming (because less perfect) shape. And I've never heard of brick disintegrating because it was 100 years old.But you're probably right (at least I hope) that it had structural issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 With such a radical change of, well, everything.....Why bother to save anything......They should have bulldozed it and built a modern structure from scratch. The entire purpose of historic renovations is to renovate historic buildings (often at significantly more cost than new). But, if they were essentially going to create a new building, why bother to do anything but bulldoze? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 How about we hold judgement until the finished product yeah? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Indeed, the JW Marriott downtown ended up looking way better than construction photos would imply. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) How about we hold judgement until the finished product yeah?The very fact that we should "wait for a finished product, yeah" is indicative of the fact that this was not a "historic renovation" as described in the press prior to work starting. Rather, it seems to be a complete gut and rebuild job.If it was a historic renovation, we would KNOW what it was going to look like, right?Personally, I am fine if they wanted to bulldoze the thing and build new. But let's not call it a "renovation" of a historic building when it is not..... Edited February 14, 2015 by UtterlyUrban 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I can't believe that the brick and walls would be removed but the floor was not. It's what, 100 years old? Must have been built awfully sturdily...concrete floors of that age tend to be compromised more easily, especially to renovations and heavy equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 The very fact that we should "wait for a finished product, yeah" is indicative of the fact that this was not a "historic renovation" as described in the press prior to work starting. Rather, it seems to be a complete gut and rebuild job.If it was a historic renovation, we would KNOW what it was going to look like, right?Personally, I am fine if they wanted to bulldoze the thing and build new. But let's not call it a "renovation" of a historic building when it is not.....Yes, because every building that's ever been midway thru construction looks perfect and exactly how it should. I'm sure 609 is just going to leave those columns open as well as the Finger Ballpark apartments are going to keep that nice, yellow outer coating texture we've come to appreciate.The building isn't done, yet you and so many others are crying like its the end of the world. IronTigers pic doesn't help your argument when it looked like crap to begin with. The history behind the original building is what's important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) The building isn't done, yet you and so many others are crying like its the end of the world. IronTigers pic doesn't help your argument when it looked like crap to begin with. The history behind the original building is what's important. I am not "crying" about this building as I could care less if they bulldozed it, historically renovated it, or simply gutted it like they did. What I care about is calling something in the press a "historic renovation" (as I recall) when it is not. The picture above of the "before" image shows a badly worn building. While it is possible that this is not the original facade, my bet is that it is. Notice it also shows a building with a specific set of window placements of a specific size on one facade. That has changed. The brick is all new. It seems that no effort was made to conserve any of the old brick above the "urine line". My further guess is that this brick is also totally modern brick. It likely has a different chemistry and look from brick of 1900. The windows all appear to be new but appear to have the same design. That's good. The final building might look great and be very functional but it will not have been "historically" renovated. Rather, it will have changed in a material ways. I am totally and completely fine with that change. Bothers me not. But, the press before construction should have been accurate and simply said that the building would be stripped bare and renovated to fit modern uses. Edited February 14, 2015 by UtterlyUrban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrLan34 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 From today 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.