Houston's Archicture Heritage

[TxDave]

I am concerned about Houston's continuing position in the world architectural landscape...

In the 70's/early 80's, Houston established THE architectural scene: Pennzoil Place, One Shell Plaza, RepublicBank Center (Bank of America), Williams Tower, and on and on....

My concern is: What is happening in Houston today to continue this legacy of great architecture (if anything: small victories do contribute big)? If nothing, what can be done to re-establish Houston's prominence on the world architecture stage?

[Lowbrow]

I'll reserve my comments until I see what comes of the two new museums.

[TxDave]

Which two museums are you referring to?

[Subdude]

One of them I assume is the Asian one. The other I don't know. Maybe the one at Ellington?

You make a good point about Houston's position in the architecture world. When you look at architecture books from the 1970s or 1980s Houston is all over them. Not any more. I really don't see any big impetus to restore our reputation in the area. It really has to come from a public belief that good architecture is important for the city. We were considered world leaders 30 years ago in part because developers and businessmen thought that it was critical to contribute to the city's image of being leading edge and dynamic. Now there just doesn't seem to be any real concern about the quality of architecture (Exhibit A: New downtown courthouse). Like I said somewhere else, it says something about the city that the Chronicle doesn't even see the need to have an architecture critic. If we are all content to have second-rate architecture foisted on us, then that's exactly what we'll get.

[MidtownCoog]

Before we slit our wrists, what city in the US is blazing new trails in architecture?

Most of the big activity right now is in the Asia Pacific region and the UAE, etc.

[Subdude]

Big building activity is in China etc., but whether it constitutes good architecture is open to debate. In the US, I think Chicago is in some ways a leader, driven in large part by the city government. They have been proactive in "green" architecture, and the Millenium Park development is pretty world class. You also see a high degree of public and critical engagement in architecture issues in NYC. Look at the huge amount of public dialogue over the WTC redevelopment, Huntington-Hartford redesign, and the proposed West Side Stadium. In some other cities, though, they just go hire trophy arcitects and hope for the best.

[TxDave]

I am reviving this topic because my curiosity has not been satisfied...

It is true that China/Asia is the hotspot for development today, but there are still many opportunities for architectural prominence here.

Houston has an extremely impressive skyline, similar to what is being developed in Asia today. However, good architecture in a city extends beyond its gleaming towers.

Besides impressive monuments such as Pennziol Place and Williams Tower, Houston has many smaller treasures such as the Menil Collection and Rothko Chapel.

Right now, Houston may not be creating the dramatic towers, but the many smaller projects add up and do contribute significantly to the overall architectural character of the city.

My question remains: Is current development keeping up with the city's legacy of world class architecture? If not, what can be done to reinvigorate that pattern?

[Subdude]

My question remains: Is current development keeping up with the city's legacy of world class architecture?

No. If anything I would say that current development not only doesn't keep up, it is strongly lagging.

If not, what can be done to reinvigorate that pattern?

I wish I knew what could be done to bring back Houston as an architectural leader. One thing that always helps, naturally, is patrons who are interested in having good architecture. Houston was fortunate in having the de Menils, because they insisted on world class architecture and design. Look at their house, the museum, the Byzantine Fresco chapel, etc. Likewise, Hines tried to attain leading edge architecture in many of his early Houston developments. Patrons and developers like this were really instrumental in creating Houston's former prominence in architecture. Second, I think that back then there was an element of civic pride supporting leading-edge architecture, a feeling that we needed world-class buildings to be seen as a world-class city. Houston was enormously proud of the Astrodome for instance, or of the art museum designed by Mies.

Finally, as I said above, it is important to have a large segment of the public engaged and interested in good architecture. I have been in other cities were building designs are actively discussed and debated in the newspaper. A site such as this should be the perfect forum for that kind of debate, but even here there isn't that much discussion about local architecture. For whatever reason, most of the public in Houston doesn't seem to have that level of interest or engagement. I wish it were not the case.

[Montrose1100]

I wouldn't say so... Look at 2727, the Ripitarian (sp?) on Montrose...

We're alone in a sense that our 'entire' skyline was built in a small era with good architecture (Dallas too). BUt as time goes on, and we add a building here and there, it would take a massive reshaping of our skyline for it to be completely changed into the new, 'new'.

[Subdude]

I would agree that projects like 2727 are fine, if too rare.

That is an interesting point that our skyline was built in an era with good architecture. It is true that a lot of the skyline was developed in a roughly 20-year period from the early 1960s to the early 1980s, but I don't think that period had consistently good architecture. Houston was lucky however to get some excellent period examples, such as (imo) Pennzoil, BOA, and One & Two Houston Center. Other large components of the downtown skyline, eg Allen Center or One Shell, I don't believe are anything to write home about. It isn't that our architecture was consistently great then and entirely poor now, but it does seem that Houston used to have a large number of memorable structures. Look at Tenneco, Jones Hall, Pennzoil, Menil Collection, the Contemporary Arts Museum, or Transco. They all still look fresh today. I just don't see that same timeless quality much anymore. To me it is especially bothersome in more high profile recent buildings that could have been opportunities to do something exciting and notable. The Catholic downtown cathedral, Hobby Center, Wortham Theater, 1000 Main; all spring to mind as second-raters. Not necessarily bad, just not especially interesting or memorable.

[Montrose1100]

I would agree that projects like 2727 are fine, if too rare.

That is an interesting point that our skyline was built in an era with good architecture. It is true that a lot of the skyline was developed in a roughly 20-year period from the early 1960s to the early 1980s, but I don't think that period had consistently good architecture. Houston was lucky however to get some excellent period examples, such as (imo) Pennzoil, BOA, and One & Two Houston Center. Other large components of the downtown skyline, eg Allen Center or One Shell, I don't believe are anything to write home about. It isn't that our architecture was consistently great then and entirely poor now, but it does seem that Houston used to have a large number of memorable structures. Look at Tenneco, Jones Hall, Pennzoil, Menil Collection, the Contemporary Arts Museum, or Transco. They all still look fresh today. I just don't see that same timeless quality much anymore. To me it is especially bothersome in more high profile recent buildings that could have been opportunities to do something exciting and notable. The Catholic downtown cathedral, Hobby Center, Wortham Theater, 1000 Main; all spring to mind as second-raters. Not necessarily bad, just not especially interesting or memorable.

1100, 1 Shell, Fulbright Tower, Center Point Energy Plaza (with rennovation), Continental Center 1, Hertiage Plaza, and a few more... but maybe thats just taste.

[2fatcats]

My concern is: What is happening in Houston today to continue this legacy of great architecture (if anything: small victories do contribute big)? If nothing, what can be done to re-establish Houston's prominence on the world architecture stage?<<TxDave

One of the things I believe is that you can't contribute to the future by destroying the past. I have seen some things torn down in the last twenty years that I was really appalled by, things that could have been looked to by future generations as a real part of the city's heritage or could have been saved with minimal effort. The only things I see being saved these days are some downtown buildings being made into loft space. This all makes me wonder if in another fifty or seventy-five years will they be tearing down Penzoil or some of the other fine buildings that make up our skyline now? Or worse yet, turning them into high rise condos? I am all for adding new things, it's a must to keep the city fresh and alluring but you still have to respect the old first in order to better plan the future. That said, I would love to see some new buildings on the horizon as well, and with the right economic timing and the right cutting edge architect, it will happen.

[Croberts]

This thread is exactly what I was looking for when I discovered HAIF last july. At that time I was researching skyscraper history for a lecture in my urban geography-american landscape course sequence.

Houston has the best collection of skyscraper architecture in the 1970s-1980s for the following reasons in my view (lived there 1953-1979)

1. The early phase of industrial restructuring that resulted in global capitalism meant that large scale investments in rustbelt cities went slow. On the other hand, particularly after the arab oil embargo, there was much windfall profits to be invested by the oil companies in long term investments, ie skyscrapers. Houston in 1970s was what the rest of the world would become after 1990.

2. Philip Johnson who coined the term, intenational style pioneered the glass and steel skyscraper with Mies van der Rohe with the Seagram building in new your. Initially the reation was bad, it even had its taxes raised as punishment, but it did 2 things.

It popularized the new architecture amoung people, and it promoted the interior plaza, which is now mandated for high rises in many cities.

Johsons connection to the Demenils at the time that their circle was building many buildings makes Houston a virtual museum of international style, from the 1950s to about 1990. Their house should be purchased and made into a museum, or even shrine!

Mirror glass office buildings are in my view the best symbol of global capitalism, every beltway in the nation is ringed with them, and they are full of office workers whose main task is to keep track of far flung corporate operation under flexible regiemes of production, ie factories in indonesia.

How ever they are now thought to be passe for several reasons

Johnson's environmentalism was superficial, they are not very green

prone to send sheets of glass to the streets in high winds, ie the closing of downtown houston during hurricanes, when the city is not evacuated, the John Hancock experience in Boston (the plywood skyscraper), and many cities experiences in hurricanes.

Finally, corporate arrogance. The interior plaza does nothing for the street, houston is the most frequently cited exaple of a non-pedestrian city, there is even an article entitled the death of the street about downtown in the 1980s. And the Enron scandle has marred the image of glass and steel towers.

So it seems that "Space City" with its futuristic downtown, while a model of post 1990 capitalism, is also passe, currently.

However, mirror glass skyscrapers may be a thing of the past, and johnson recognized this in some of his later designs, ie transco tower, going back to the radiant city idea, another form of international style.

I think of the one architectural style that was developed in s.e. florida. That is mediteranean, by Addison Mizner. Its not really an architectural style, though, because Mizner was not really an architect. He was a designer, that had an eye for detail and a sense of taste and theatrics. He could not pass a college entrance exam, and was never formally educated. Many architectural historians then do not recognize meditteranean as a style. He built about 60 structures between 1918 and 1926 in Palm Beach county, jumping on the bandwagon of Italian renassaince, mission, and spanish eclectic, but claimed it was something new, by adding some venetian details, it was mediterranean. He was ruined in an enronesque scandal over his boca raton resort and club development, more or less banished from palm beach. The modern architects including Johnson hated his style and attacked it. Yet in the 1980s it revied, and Johnson himself built a mediteranean style museum in miami. And one of his last buildings was a mirrored Wachovia bank in boca raton.

Style is cyclical, but you may not know it in houston, because things are torn down 5 minutes after they become passe. I hope that is not the fate of international houston, i really think that it is the place to see international style, and I hope the city protects this architectural legacy. That goes for contemporary and ranch style jewels as well

[H-Town Man]

I hate to say it, but the good architecture that Houston has did not come from any great amount of local taste or public demand for aesthetics. It came from people with giant wallets and giant egos wanting to showcase their power and prestige, and thus hiring the biggest name architects they could find to do it. It was a lucky accident that people like Johnson came here and did some of their best work. Those are the people we should thank for the great buildings we have, not ourselves.

[Subdude]

I hate to say it, but the good architecture that Houston has did not come from any great amount of local taste or public demand for aesthetics. It came from people with giant wallets and giant egos wanting to showcase their power and prestige, and thus hiring the biggest name architects they could find to do it. It was a lucky accident that people like Johnson came here and did some of their best work. Those are the people we should thank for the great buildings we have, not ourselves.

True enough. But it was more than just showcasing power and prestige, or a lucky accident. People like the DeMenils really cared about good architecture. Good sponsors make all the difference. The worst of all architectural worlds is when the client, let's say for example the Houston-Galveston archdiocese, not only settles for the banal, but demands it, with the notion that there is some virtue in mediocrity.

[TheNiche]

I hate to say it, but the good architecture that Houston has did not come from any great amount of local taste or public demand for aesthetics. It came from people with giant wallets and giant egos wanting to showcase their power and prestige, and thus hiring the biggest name architects they could find to do it.

Yeah, dude...that's what architecture is all about.

[H-Town Man]

True enough. But it was more than just showcasing power and prestige, or a lucky accident. People like the DeMenils really cared about good architecture. Good sponsors make all the difference. The worst of all architectural worlds is when the client, let's say for example the Houston-Galveston archdiocese, not only settles for the banal, but demands it, with the notion that there is some virtue in mediocrity.

Agreed on the Menils and other great patrons, like Jack Bowen. My point is that there is not a big public interest in architecture here, and so if we're not lucky to have that great patron, we end up with crap.

[Subdude]

Agreed on the Menils and other great patrons, like Jack Bowen. My point is that there is not a big public interest in architecture here, and so if we're not lucky to have that great patron, we end up with crap.

Can anything be done to change that and encourage more public interest in architecture in Houston?

[Houston19514]

Agreed on the Menils and other great patrons, like Jack Bowen. My point is that there is not a big public interest in architecture here, and so if we're not lucky to have that great patron, we end up with crap.

How would a big public interest in architecture manifest itself? And why do you assume it does not exist?

[H-Town Man]

How would a big public interest in architecture manifest itself? And why do you assume it does not exist?

Post number four, from Subdude, summarizes this pretty well. I would add: how often, outside this forum, have you heard people in Houston talking about what they think of a new building? Maybe in a few historic neighborhoods or wealthy enclaves you will get this kind of interest; outside of that, it does not exist. In cities like New York, Boston, or Chicago - even Austin - you will hear such conversations all the time: people are upset about how a certain building turned out, or have a reserved liking of another building. People here might be wowed by things that are big and fancy, like Reliant Stadium or the downtown skyline, but most Houstonians are oblivious to aesthetic quality. That is why our paper does not hire an architecture critic - because its average reader has not even thought about architecture.

[H-Town Man]

Can anything be done to change that and encourage more public interest in architecture in Houston?

Well, this forum is a start! Besides this, I would say anytime a beautiful building or place is built, it raises people's standards about everything else. Many people in this city never experienced an architectural feeling before they saw the Transco Tower, or knew a street could be beautiful until they drove down South Main. I have a friend who recently moved here from Dallas, who told me after doing some sightseeing in Houston, "I can see why you're so interested in architecture. Houston has a lot of buildings that Dallas just doesn't have."

Aside from this, I think having zoning would do a lot to raise awareness about beauty. Just like people became more interested in what their leaders were doing after democracy was put in place and they had a hand in the governing process, giving people a hand in controlling the shape of their neighborhood would do much to awaken their sensitivity to what gets built.

Edited February 6, 2007 by H-Town Man

[Houston19514]

Post number four, from Subdude, summarizes this pretty well. I would add: how often, outside this forum, have you heard people in Houston talking about what they think of a new building? Maybe in a few historic neighborhoods or wealthy enclaves you will get this kind of interest; outside of that, it does not exist. In cities like New York, Boston, or Chicago - even Austin - you will hear such conversations all the time: people are upset about how a certain building turned out, or have a reserved liking of another building. People here might be wowed by things that are big and fancy, like Reliant Stadium or the downtown skyline, but most Houstonians are oblivious to aesthetic quality. That is why our paper does not hire an architecture critic - because its average reader has not even thought about architecture.

Well color me skeptical about how often one hears New Yorkers, Bostonians and Chicagoans having conversations about particular buildings. I have spent a fair amount of time in each of those cities and I can honestly say I have never heard such a conversation, let alone "all the time". I'm not sure I buy that people in those cities discuss their buildings more often than Houstonians.

As to the paper... the Chron doesn't have an architecture critic for the same reason they don't have a real estate reporter worthy of the name. The Chron is America's worst major newspaper.

[H-Town Man]

Well color me skeptical about how often one hears New Yorkers, Bostonians and Chicagoans having conversations about particular buildings. I have spent a fair amount of time in each of those cities and I can honestly say I have never heard such a conversation, let alone "all the time". I'm not sure I buy that people in those cities discuss their buildings more often than Houstonians.

As to the paper... the Chron doesn't have an architecture critic for the same reason they don't have a real estate reporter worthy of the name. The Chron is America's worst major newspaper.

If you've never heard anyone in New York, Boston, or Chicago having a conversation about what they think of a certain building, then I would have to ask how much time you've spent in those cities, and how you spent it. I was a newspaper reporter in a suburb of Boston, and these kinds of conversations were floating around constantly. Very different environment from here.

On an unrelated note, is there any reason this conversation needs to be so agonistic? This forum reminds me of certain bars I've been to... everyone's looking for a fight.

[Houston19514]

If you've never heard anyone in New York, Boston, or Chicago having a conversation about what they think of a certain building, then I would have to ask how much time you've spent in those cities, and how you spent it. I was a newspaper reporter in a suburb of Boston, and these kinds of conversations were floating around constantly. Very different environment from here.

On an unrelated note, is there any reason this conversation needs to be so agonistic? This forum reminds me of certain bars I've been to... everyone's looking for a fight.

I was not meaning to be antagonistic. I'm just trying to understand why you think people in Houston don't think/talk about buildings and architecture as much as those in other cities? No fight being looked for. Or perhaps more to the point what makes you think people in other cities spend their time talking about buildings? Do you spend your time in Houston in similar ways and with similar groups of people as you did in the Boston area? Perhaps it was something unique about the people you were around at that time in that place, rather than anything peculiar about either Houston or Boston.

Does Boston have an organization such as the Rice Design Alliance, or a magazine such as Cite? And there is no reason to limit this comparison to Boston. Do most other cities have comparable organizations and publications? And FWIW, I'll take the new Harris County Courthouse over the Boston City Hall any day ;-)

Edited February 7, 2007 by Houston19514

[Montrose1100]

I've heard everyday conversations about Houston architecture... but its usually brought up by someone mentioning downtown. I've heard the BoA being called the "Razor looking/step/brown spike/pointy building". Or people that sometimes look at the skyline and say "Gosh/Gee/Wow Houston's skyline is pretty/purdy".

[Guest Marty]

I've heard everyday conversations about Houston architecture... but its usually brought up by someone mentioning downtown. I've heard the BoA being called the "Razor looking/step/brown spike/pointy building". Or people that sometimes look at the skyline and say "Gosh/Gee/Wow Houston's skyline is pretty/purdy".

Yea i used to say that before i found this forum.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Marty

[nmainguy]

Phillip Johnson deliberatly designed the Flemish style BoA to cover up Pennzoil. He said it was his Ayn Rand moment. He loved Pennzoil and hated the BoA pile of crap. Never let it be said that Houston does not have some of the best urban architecture and never doubt that people like Dominique DeMenil had a hand in it. For all her good taste she saw the ugliness of the corporate crap going up and loved the fact Johnson spit in the face of the developers of the BoA.

He said he felt like Domnique Francon throwing the exquisite and priceless work of art down the air shaft so no one else could pollute it with their eyes.

Priceless.

As for our architectural heritage, we are unique in the fact we have short-sighted "free marketers" who have no use for heritage. Their end result will be an Aggie designed city of mediocrity devoid of soul and character.

[Houston19514]

Phillip Johnson deliberatly designed the Flemish style BoA to cover up Pennzoil. He said it was his Ayn Rand moment. He loved Pennzoil and hated the BoA pile of crap. Never let it be said that Houston does not have some of the best urban architecture and never doubt that people like Dominique DeMenil had a hand in it. For all her good taste she saw the ugliness of the corporate crap going up and loved the fact Johnson spit in the face of the developers of the BoA.

He said he felt like Domnique Francon throwing the exquisite and priceless work of art down the air shaft so no one else could pollute it with their eyes.

Priceless.

Interesting. Do you have sources for any of that? Actually, I had always heard that he (and Burgee) designed the RepublicBank Tower (now BoA) so that it would not completely hide the Pennzoil towers. And honestly, given the step-down design of BoA, that version seems to make more sense. But in any event, given a commission to design a million + square foot tower on the adjoining block, it is a little hard to imagine how he could have avoided at least partiallly blocking Pennzoil. And I guess I'm missing something... how did he supposedly spit in the face of the developers of BoA?

[nmainguy]

Interesting. Do you have sources for any of that?

I was there in the de Menil's home. He was direct and matter of fact. He talked about Burgee as an employee and chuckled at his gullible clients.

It took me awhile to catch on but Mrs. de Menil seemed to grasp it immediatly.

[Houston19514]

I was there in the de Menil's home. He was direct and matter of fact. He talked about Burgee as an employee and chuckled at his gullible clients.

It took me awhile to catch on but Mrs. de Menil seemed to grasp it immediatly.

I guess I'm still not getting the part about spitting in the BoA developer's face. I recently read a biography of Philip Johnson and one thing that was clear about him was that he wasn't necessarily consistent in his comments and statements from time to time. He played to his audience, if you will, and would say whatever he thought might impress the audience...

Alll that being said. I'm not sure what it really has to do with Houston's archtictural heritage. I love both of those buildings (except for the way the BoA building has no connection with the sidewalk traffic)

Edited February 7, 2007 by Houston19514