Houston Roller Derby Skates New Orleans Running of the Bulls
'600 sq mi': One week left to enter!
The Chronicle reported yesterday on Harris County's plans to demolish two of its buildings to make way for another amazing county plaza. Fair enough — the county has a lot of buildings, and apparently we could always use another plaza. The problem is that the two structures that are potentially on the chopping block — the former District Attorneys Building at 201 Fannin and the Family Law Center at 1115 Congress — happen to be two of the most architecturally interesting buildings in the courthouse complex. And given the county's recent architectural tendencies, we can only imagine what's ahead.
The Art Deco District Attorney's Building, designed by Washington architect Louis A. Simon, opened in 1938 as a federal building with a post office inside. In 1978, the county bought and renovated the 10-story building, and it housed the DA's office until it moved to the Criminal Justice Center in 2000. It's not a particularly exciting building, even as 1930s federal buildings go, but it is one of a dwindling number of Deco buildings downtown. As architectural historian Stephen Fox told the Chron, "it is a distinguished example of the architecture of its time." The Family Law Center is a more modern building that dates to 1969; architects Wilson, Morris, Crain & Anderson gave it a ground floor sheathed in floor-to-ceiling glass and upper floors featuring walls of glass recessed behind a cantilevered grid of precast concrete. One of the cool features of the building is that the entire upper structure seems to be balanced on the points of pyramidal steel hinges on top of the ground-floor columns — a light touch on a mostly no-nonsense modernist structure. Fox calls the building "the most distinguished work of architecture in the county complex," and apart from the 1910 county courthouse, we'd have to agree.
So why tear the buildings down? Well, the District Attorney's Building is standing in the way of the block-sized plaza, and county officials just plain seem to hate the Family Law Center. "It really, truly is not an attractive building," County Commissioner Jerry Eversole told Commissioners Court earlier this summer, seeming to overlook the fact that the county administration building, where his own office is located, is far uglier than the Family Law Center will ever be. "I think it's not functional, and in my opinion, Harris County would be better tearing down the Family Law Center and starting over." There's another angle, too:
Water is leaking through gaps between windows and the building exterior, said Mike Yancey, head of planning in the county's public infrastructure department."I don't care if it's ugly or pretty," [County Judge Ed] Emmett said. "It's crumbling. It's falling apart."
Of course, we could make the argument that the 38-year-old building is in bad shape because the county hasn't kept it up, but that's another matter. It sounds like officials have their minds made up: "I don't know anybody who thinks that building is worth keeping," Emmett told the Chronicle.
But there are people who do, of course. Fox is one; fellow architectural historian, UH architecture assistant professor and Houston Mod member Michelangelo Sabatino is another. "Why can't the county deal with more pressing issues than the destruction of its past?" Sabatino asked. I used to live in Boston, and I didn't see any older buildings torn down while I was there." Well, maybe, but we see his point.
The county's plans call for building a new, $85 million family courthouse to replace the Family Law Center and creating an open plaza on the block where the existing Family Law Center and DA's Building are located — that would be right across the street from another full-block plaza proposed for the block across from the new civil courthouse. We're sure the park space would be nice and all, but we don't have that much faith in the county's ability to create a functional plaza: Look, for example, at the small "park" behind the county administration building, the treeless plaza in front of the Family Law Center, or Quebedeaux Park, a pocket park alongside the DA's Building that always seems to be empty. In any case, it's not clear yet whether the demolitions will happen anytime soon: The commissioners will decide Aug. 21 whether to include the project in a bond package that will go before voters in November, and given that there are $1.4 billion in bond proposals, the new family courthouse could get delayed. Keep an eye out.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Forgive me, but what great county plaza(s) are you referring to? I mean, the planned plaza in the court complex is something that I have been eagerly anticipating, but I wasn't aware that they had even broken ground on it; it's still a parking lot, right?
In any case, I think it's unfair to knock the County when they have done a great job consolidating the court complex into a nice sector of Downtown. Adding more open space, at the expense of an ugly, albeit architecturally interesting, building is okay by me. Still, the County has proven to be adept at fixing and refining older buidlings, and they should try to save the Franklin building.
Right, the plaza in front of the civil courts building is still a parking lot — as I said in the post, it's still a proposed plaza. The existing plazas (the one behind the administration building, the one in front of the Family Law Center and Quebedeaux Park) all far from great.
As for the Family Law Center, ugly or not, it deserves to be saved for what it is: a particularly good example of late 1960s modernist architecture. The strength of the building is in the details, I think, and it has very nice details. And I'm sure few people agree with me here, but I think it's a heck of a lot better architecturally than the new, faux-old civil courthouse, with its ridiculous dome.
It wouldn't let me login.
Oh geez, haven't you heard of the phrase "Beauty Lies in the Eye of the Beholder"? Just because something doesn't fit your taste, that doesn't make it useless.
I just can't understand how Houstonians can be so cavalier about destroying buildings worth tens of millions of dollars. Buidings we've already paid for. These buldings can be cleaned up and renovated, and put to good use. Do Houstonians think money grows on trees? Do they think we live in Never Ending Boom Times?
Aesthetics aside, every time you destroy a usable old building to put up some new shiny piece of crap you're adding tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. You're immoral for doing that. You're stupid for doing that. Does the ocean have to lap against your patio for you to get it? How many months of 100 degree August days do you need for you to get it?
I find the family law center building pretty ugly, but there isn't much point in turning it into another plaza when there are already plans for an even nicer plaza and most of these downtown plazas aren't used anyways.
If something spectacular was going up in its place I might consider knocking that ugly sucker down, but not to just create more empty unused space downtown.
Cipher, spare me the global warming guilt speech. And the 100 degree days are hardly a sign of global warming. Otherwise, where have they been the past four years? I take the bus nearly every day, even IN the 100 degree heat, so I hardly need a lecture about being environmentally responsible. Besides, we built the Port of Houston 50 miles inland in anticipation for when it would be the actual Texas Coast. :P I am looking forward to Houston being a beach town! :S
Jim, personally, I've always liked the Faux Dome, and enjoyed watching it go up. In any case, I've been a fan of Quebedeaux Park, even if it is an anemic example of a pocket park.
In the end, I feel the whole idea of something being "architecturally significant" is more subjective than objective. I mean, there are some strip malls that would be considered architecturally appealing, but it doesn't make them worthy of preservation, or does it? I don't know. I just know that given Houston's poor behavior in the realm of historical preservation, we get a little too trigger happy about some buildings that may just need to come down for the greater good. Not saying that is definitely the case here, but not every building that is slated for destruction in Houston is worth protecting either.
What bothers me is that I seem to agree with the Chronicle whack jobs. That makes me want to lay down, and talk to someone about my childhood. ;)
I just know that given Houston's poor behavior in the realm of historical preservation, we get a little too trigger happy about some buildings that may just need to come down for the greater good. Not saying that is definitely the case here, but not every building that is slated for destruction in Houston is worth protecting either.
I think there are a lot of people who favor tearing down the River Oaks Shopping Center, River Oaks Theater and Alabama Theater who would make exactly the same argument, Urban Houstonian. For the greater good!
Jim, I agree. At the same time, I despise Weingarten for what they have done and will do to the River Oaks Shopping Center, yet am willing to watch another building be torn down to usher in a new one. You'll recall I felt differently still about the Franklin building.
Ultimately, I'm not for saving everything nor am I for tearing down everything. I just feel like this subject, being so sensitive in nature, can illicit irrational emotions towards situations that wouldn't garner much attention if Houston had a better record preserving its history.
I am even starting to believe the idea that maybe Houston is one city that doesn't relish the past, and forges forward with its head down; always looking forward, never looking back. It's a mentality that has served us well in the past; Enron, anyone? It's not always admirable, may the Shamrock Hotel rest in peace, but it's got a certain charm to it that I am starting to begrudgingly admire.