Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Neither Tulsa nor Houston have many glass towers... :ROFLMAO:
Tulsa_Skyline.jpg

By Caleb Long

51830641220_b10627dcbc_h.jpg

Houston by Guillermo Cabrera, on Flickr
 
shmessy said:
I don't think you looked very carefully at your second picture. The Houston Insects on the sidewalk are all dying from the solar glare. ;)
Click to expand...
Houston certainly has a couple, but it also has a large variety of non-glass facades. I actually think it's a really great skyline (better than Boston, I daresay) and don't get why it's used as an example of what not to become.
 
A Chicagoan said:
Houston certainly has a couple, but it also has a large variety of non-glass facades. I actually think it's a really great skyline (better than Boston, I daresay) and don't get why it's used as an example of what not to become.
Click to expand...

The issue is that people act like putting up tall buildings automatically means we'd become devoid of all our other awesome neighborhoods. In their minds, each tall building must apparently be accompanied by a government-center styled razing of random swaths of city. How else to explain it? Considering Boston is already awesome, we could have the best of both worlds. It's a classic straw man argument used ad nauseum on this forum.

"I'd rather be Boston with shorter buildings than Houston with taller buildings." Personally, I'd rather be Boston with some taller buildings sprinkled in, which is entirely possible to pull off if people weren't all so small-minded about it.
 
DZH22 said:
The issue is that people act like putting up tall buildings automatically means we'd become devoid of all our other awesome neighborhoods. In their minds, each tall building must apparently be accompanied by a government-center styled razing of random swaths of city. How else to explain it? Considering Boston is already awesome, we could have the best of both worlds. It's a classic straw man argument used ad nauseum on this forum.

"I'd rather be Boston with shorter buildings than Houston with taller buildings." Personally, I'd rather be Boston with some taller buildings sprinkled in, which is entirely possible to pull off if people weren't all so small-minded about it.
Click to expand...

100% no.

Anonymous tall buildings are bad. No matter how tall they are to impress the list keepers.

A great tall building (especially with a spire) is a winner for a city if it pays as much attention to its street level and its siding as it does to impressing the competitive height list keepers.
 
A Chicagoan said:
Houston certainly has a couple, but it also has a large variety of non-glass facades. I actually think it's a really great skyline (better than Boston, I daresay) and don't get why it's used as an example of what not to become.
Click to expand...

"Houston certainly has a couple,....." - 9 in just that picture.

Hey, some people like anonymous Foster Grant skylines. They have some fabulous highways in Houston downtown.
 
shmessy said:
"Houston certainly has a couple,....." - 9 in just that picture.

Hey, some people like anonymous Foster Grant skylines. They have some fabulous highways in Houston downtown.
Click to expand...
I count 3 fully blue glass towers in that photo, plus at least 10 unique non-completely glass facades. Boston's skyline is remarkably dull compared to Houston. Downtown Boston is almost completely various shades of brown and gray.
 
A Chicagoan said:
I count 3 fully blue glass towers in that photo, plus at least 10 unique non-completely glass facades. Boston's skyline is remarkably dull compared to Houston. Downtown Boston is almost completely various shades of brown and gray.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's the colors - There are only so many glass/stone/metal elements in the tool kit. Would more imagination be welcome, yes, but the high-rise palette of Houston or Boston is comparable. At least we have brick and brownstone as a contrast at streetlevel. It's the shapes. Boston is very boxy and flat at all levels. Step backs, cornices, ornamentation, spires, are exceedingly rare on anything built from the 50's onward. Balconies on residential buildings are almost non-existent so residential and commercial are indistinguishable. The Millennium/Handel slant is about as outrageous as it gets. Woo!
 
1/17 FYI I think they're finishing up 45 (19 floors above the 26th floor "residential club") and it won't pass Preggers until 47. You can count that they're starting 45 in my second picture, and it's from 4 days ago so it's safe to say that floor should be about done.

1642807621287.png


IMG_7774 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_7796 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_7807 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_7812 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_7822 by David Z, on Flickr
 
Bos77 said:
I don't think it's the colors - There are only so many glass/stone/metal elements in the tool kit. Would more imagination be welcome, yes, but the high-rise palette of Houston or Boston is comparable. At least we have brick and brownstone as a contrast. It's the shapes. Boston is very boxy and flat at all levels. Step backs, cornices, ornamentation, spires, are exceedingly rare on anything built from the 50's onward. Balconies on residential buildings are almost non-existent so residential and commercial are indistinguishable. The Millennium/Handel slant is about as outrageous as it gets. Woo!
Click to expand...

We need SPIRES.

South Station (a fukkin' Houston Developer) should have been much more interesting (yes to your idea of cornices, step backs, ornamentation, etc.) and spired. So should North Station (and taller). It would have made a very useful and interesting play to the city and its transpo hubs. The Boston crew cut stinks.
 
Last edited:
Dammit I can't seem to get my pics ahead of this stupid conversation. I know they're going to get buried. Post 6150 and they include a pic of the diagram to compare progress.

shmessy said:
We need SPIRES.

South Station (a fukkin' Houston Developer) should have been much more interesting (yes to your idea of cornices, step backs, ornamentation, etc.) and spired. So should North Station (and taller). It would have made a very useful and interesting play to the city and its transpo hubs. The Boston crew cut stinks.
Click to expand...

It's going 677' in a 677' FAA zone. Adding a spire means cutting the building. No thanks. Ask for a spire where we could actually get one, like near North Station, Back Bay, or Kendall. Boston's buildings are stumpy enough without cutting the little height we do get around here.
 
Last edited:
DZH22 said:
Dammit I can't seem to get my pics ahead of this stupid conversation. I know they're going to get buried. Post 6150 and they include a pic of the diagram to compare progress.



It's going 677' in a 677' FAA zone. Adding a spire means cutting the building. No thanks. Ask for a spire where we could actually get one, like near North Station, Back Bay, or Kendall. Boston's buildings are stumpy enough without cutting the little height we do get around here.
Click to expand...


Why is height (instead of architectural beauty and style) so vitally important to you? Would it make Boston more important in your eyes?
 
shmessy said:
Why is height (instead of architectural beauty and style) so vitally important to you? Would it make Boston more important in your eyes?
Click to expand...

It's the only way for a building to stand out around here. We already have 25 150m buildings. They all just blend into the blob unless they can exceed the blob, which means 600'+.

By the way, I'd say our top 4 so far are all pretty much stunners (with a lot of subjectivity involved with the Pru). It's nice to think some of our best buildings can actually be seen through the jumble.
 
DZH22 said:
It's the only way for a building to stand out around here. We already have 25 150m buildings. They all just blend into the blob unless they can exceed the blob, which means 600'+.

By the way, I'd say our top 4 so far are all pretty much stunners (with a lot of subjectivity involved with the Pru). It's nice to think some of our best buildings can actually be seen through the jumble.
Click to expand...


I hear ya, but like the Pru better than the other three because of the detail versus the sheen. The all too common now straight glass look seems clone-ish, mass produced and pre-cast. I like detail and care in my buildings. It feels "busier" instead of a "nothing going on there" wall. JMHO.

I do like the glass look when it is a change up. A little grape jelly in the peanut butter is great. But (in the case of Raffles-JH, or some areas of the Seaport) putting them right next to each other???? Naw.
 
shmessy said:
I hear ya, but like the Pru better than the other three because of the detail versus the sheen. The all too common now straight glass look seems clone-ish, mass produced and pre-cast. I like detail and care in my buildings. It feels "busier" instead of a "nothing going on there" wall. JMHO.

I do like the glass look when it is a change up. A little grape jelly in the peanut butter is great. But (in the case of Raffles-JH, or some areas of the Seaport) putting them right next to each other???? Naw.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, after South Station Tower, the next (few) major buildings need more color, texture, and sturdiness to them. It's one reason I think The Sudbury has been so underrated for adding something different into the mix. I also appreciate how dark 1 Dalton ended up, unlike many here, because it sets it apart more from the others.
 
Im sorry but Houstons skyline blows. ESPECIALLY considering its the 4th largest city in the us. Its all pomo trash. Pomo done right is Atlanta. Houston, Dallas, Austin.. etc are the definition of the “anywhere usa” look so many ppl talk about here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top