Houston19514 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...?Not at all. The condos are quite large. There are, at most, 2 condos on each floor. The upper floors have one condo per floor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelvetJ Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 (edited) Even after a few years, I still cringe when I see that building. There should be a citywide contest on suggestions of how to make the highly visible backside more appealing to the eye. I have to also say I was disappointed to learn the new Highrise condo project in Clear Lake would have a similar but slightly altered tunnel type backside design facing the highly visible Nasa Parkway. I then learned the same people who did the Mercer were responsible for the Endeavor and it all made sense. It's such a shame such designs can so easily be approved. It is also such a shame that the Uptown skyline has been so horribly scarred all in the name of cutting corners by using the tunnel design. The Mercer design is a example of the negative side of embracing doing things "on the cheap". Edited May 30, 2007 by VelvetJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saddleman Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 It would be great for a giant mural of some sort. Or, just paint windows and balconies to make it look like the north face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Like I said, I love this tall, skinny building when looking at it from the front... and I just try and ignore what it looks like on the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 yeah, painting the back could make it look less like a 400' stained urinal. on the sides, paint in "windows" to fill in blank spaces and then a pattern on the back to mimic design on front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 We could paint the back like an artist did to the Broderick Tower in Detroit. Someone float this idea to Tillman so maybe we can pitch it as a billboard for the Downtown Aquarium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhh222 Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 I agree with HtownWxBoy - the northern facade is not bad, although "love" is a strong word -- more stylized glass on the North side might have led to love! If the width of the floor-plan had been doubled, the current plan could have been mirrored on the southern side, placing the services (elevators, stairs, etc) in the center -- see the picture of a typical floorplan unitb.pdf there's nothing but services on the south side. The northern facade could then have been mirrored to the southern, eliminating the current hideous southern exposure (although then they would have had the east and west to deal with!). The doubling of mass would have also reduced the slither effect which is magnified by the fact there are no tall buildings around it -- would have looked more like the Montebello and Villa D'Este in Uptown Park, or the Four Leaf Towers on San Felipe. What I've generally seen in most cities when a building is designed with a full facade employing minimal windows is that the architects are anticipating a structure of comparable height in that direction, so why put anything but service windows (in stairways, halls, etc.) which ultimately won't have any view. I originally thought with the talk of a twin tower, that this is exactly what was going to be done. The second tower would be due south of the current one, and it would have the attractive facade facing south, and the blank one facing north toward the original building. That's giving these hack architects too much credit though -- I've seen architectural drawings with the new building to the east, so now you get double the monstrosity. One can only hope that this thing(s) are torn down in 10 or 20 years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 I don't know what drove the decision to go skinny, but the rationale for the almost windowless southern facade was energy efficiency, which certainly makes sense in Houston. I like the idea of designing buildings with a view to the local environment, such as by limiting windows and including mechanisms for shade such as in several downtown buildings (eg Exxon). That said, that facade on the Mercer could certainly have been handled better, perhaps with a different facing material or patterning in the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhh222 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Subdude, just curious, but is your point about energy efficiency a fact based on information from the builder/architects or your opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfootball Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Pencil Towers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Subdude, just curious, but is your point about energy efficiency a fact based on information from the builder/architects or your opinion?I read that at the time it was being built, but I'm sorry I don't have the source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 And when and where are they building #2?Well it's either a blessing or a tragedy, the second "stained urinal" will no longer rise. The second condo tower is officially cancelled. WaMu bought the empty lot next to the existing tower and is building a typical bank. They already broke ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disastro Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 Well it's either a blessing or a tragedy, the second "stained urinal" will no longer rise. The second condo tower is officially cancelled. WaMu bought the empty lot next to the existing tower and is building a typical bank. They already broke ground. I think they should paint the sides and back to look like white puffy clouds with a blue sky on a sunny day. Wouldn't that be a hoot? Oh wait...that might make a flight hazzard, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMND Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 If they really do build that tall Deyaar tower, it could block the Mercer, at least at one angle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 Well it's either a blessing or a tragedy, the second "stained urinal" will no longer rise. I think they should paint the sides and back to look like white puffy clouds with a blue sky on a sunny day. Wouldn't that be a hoot?Oh wait...that might make a flight hazzard, huh? Carrying thorough with the 'stained urinal' theme, maybe a giant sign? NOTICE: EMPLOYEES MUST WASH HANDS BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) Well it's either a blessing or a tragedy, the second "stained urinal" will no longer rise. The second condo tower is officially cancelled. WaMu bought the empty lot next to the existing tower and is building a typical bank. They already broke ground. Figures... The Mercer is blasphemous. Of course a bank in this spot isn't that much better, but at least it's not sticking up 300' plus.Edit: I wonder if the possible lack of sales have much to do with the cancelation of the second tower. Edited August 6, 2008 by Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Figures... The Mercer is blasphemous. Of course a bank in this spot isn't that much better, but at least it's not sticking up 300' plus.Edit: I wonder if the possible lack of sales have much to do with the cancelation of the second tower. Absolutely, and I am sure the bad press regarding the design was part of it. It was SO freaking skinny. They parking garage should have been part of the building, like the Cosmopolitan. Having them as two seperate structures and making it SO skinny was a bad design choice. Ugly, but a twin would have at least balanced the ugliness better, if you get it. Two skinny "ugly's" would at least looked planned, by itself, it really stands out as a mistake. Poor uptown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) Ugly, but a twin would have at least balanced the ugliness better, if you get it.Two skinny "ugly's" would at least looked planned, by itself, it really stands out as a mistake. Poor uptown. Had the original concept been implemented it probably wouldn't look that bad. It would have at least covered up that storage building look on the backside. I know i shouldn't, but I really take that building as an insult to Houston. It's the worst modern building I've ever seen, in any city. Edit: just felt like writing "edit". Edited August 6, 2008 by Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) Had the original concept been implemented it probably wouldn't look that bad. It would have at least covered up that storage building look on the backside.I know i shouldn't, but I really take that building as an insult to Houston. It's the worst modern building I've ever seen, in any city. No need, I doubt you'd find anyone in Houston that thinks that building looks good. I know I whine and complain about low density projects, especially strip centers. But regardless of how tall this condo is, this one is butt ugly, the project stinks, and really, whether it was 4 or 2, they really should have just built them all for symmetry. The condo tower looks ugly, and looks even more so by itself. Shame on the developers for not doing their homework and scaring the skyline with such an atrocity. Stained urinal indeed. Edited August 6, 2008 by Pumapayam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disastro Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) No need, I doubt you'd find anyone in Houston that thinks that building looks good. I know I whine and complain about low density projects, especially strip centers. But regardless of how tall this condo is, this one is butt ugly, the project stinks, and really, whether it was 4 or 2, they really should have just built them all for symmetry. The condo tower looks ugly, and looks even more so by itself.Shame on the developers for not doing their homework and scaring the skyline with such an atrocity. Stained urinal indeed. I just don't like that style of architecture...not sure what you guys call it -- but all these crap buildings with the curved rooftops with pastel colors and chrome is just going to scream "late 1990's, early 2000's" in a few years. I see it in schools, skyscrapers...lofts...you name it. Well, I'll name it: UGLY. There's nothing timeless or aesthetically appealing about this style. It's butt-ugly. And I don't know what possesses these architects to copy each other and reuse this style over and over in this city. It's gross! Edited August 7, 2008 by Disastro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I just don't like that style of architecture...not sure what you guys call it -- but all these crap buildings with the curved rooftops with pastel colors and chrome is just going to scream "late 1990's, early 2000's" in a few years.I see it in schools, skyscrapers...lofts...you name it. Well, I'll name it: UGLY.There's nothing timeless or aesthetically appealing about this style. It's butt-ugly. And I don't know what possesses these architects to copy each other and reuse this style over and over in this city.It's gross!And Uptown has at least a half dozen of them, the multiplied like a plague in 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disastro Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 And Uptown has at least a half dozen of them, the multiplied like a plague in 5 years.Oh yeah, I've noticed that...ugly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fewellman Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I have noticed in the last few days that alot of ground has been moving in the empty lot next to the Mercer, and was wondering if the second tower was going up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I have noticed in the last few days that alot of ground has been moving in the empty lot next to the Mercer, and was wondering if the second tower was going up? Unfortunately no, I guess. . . it was ugly anyways. Hard to decide if a second ugly tower would have been better or not. Thread is here. Wamu bought the land, they are building a branch bank on the lot. No second tower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Topics combined for now - they can be magically separated if the second tower is magically built Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamie Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 They are building something next to Memorial Towers and the CVS at the corner of Richmond and Sage. Just wondering what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 (edited) They are building something next to Memorial Towers and the CVS at the corner of Richmond and Sage. Just wondering what it is. Welcome to HAIF jamie!. Good question, Fellowman asked the a similar question a few weeks back. This is the answer. Long story short, it was supposed to be Mercer II to match the existing skinny nasty stained urinal looking condo. Not Memorial Towers as you mentioned. People realize how hideous it was and held off. 3 years later, with the project completely dead, WaMu bought the land and a cheap little branch bank is being built. Nothing to see here, merge. Edited August 27, 2008 by Pumapayam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Welcome to HAIF jamie!. Good question, Fellowman asked the a similar question a few weeks back.This is the answer. Long story short, it was supposed to be Mercer II to match the existing skinny nasty stained urinal looking condo. Not Memorial Towers as you mentioned. People realize how hideous it was and held off. 3 years later, with the project completely dead, WaMu bought the land and a cheap little branch bank is being built. Nothing to see here, merge. Now that WAMU is dead... what now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Now that WAMU is dead... what now?The building was almost half way built. With all the exposure, the structure is probably getting mold infested on the inside and should be torn down.At least the prime lot can host a different structure now, better suited for the current densification of that area. 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.