Better skyline Houston or Dallas? (Allen, Spring: 2014, hotel, construction)

[BCB]

Your reasoning is pathetic.

Aside from that long rabbit chase about bridges, it's about time this thread returns to skylines.

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by First24

Hartman Bridge is not in Houston. That would be Baytown and La Porte.

Houston doesn't have a signature bridge.

Still in Harris County & goes over the HOUSTON Ship Channel.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by TexasTallest

Agree with most everything up until you said the Montrose bridges weren't signature bridges.. They are indeed signature bridges that are iconic to that stretch of 59/69. They just aren't tall signature bridges.

Ok. Signature? Sure.

They aren't anything iconic, MHH is much more so.

[dallasboi]

Originally Posted by TexasTallest

smhhh.. when i said Houston i meant H-O-U-S-T-O-N... just as when most of you say Dallas your actually referring to DFW.

btw, Houston (the city) doesnt have signature bridges?





they will look even nicer when the new LED lighting is installed on the arches.



of course they arent. there is nothing to hate on about the Houston bridge. it was built at a reasonable cost, is unique, and we never hyped it up like its the best thing since sliced bread. i can guarentee you if there were half as many press releases and publicity surrounding the Houston bridge when it first opened as their were the Dallas bridge, plenty of Dallasites would of raised an eyebrow or two.

Those useless bridges over 59 dont have ANY water under them.....why such an elaborate design for 100 foot bridges that dont even let you on or off the freeway?

[dalparadise]

Both bridges are cable-stayed bridges, which are very common. The design for the Fred Hartman is definitely the more ordinary of the two. Similar designs are all over the world. I like the Margaret Hill design better myself. At least it took the cable-stayed form in a new direction.

The reason it could is because it is not spanning a wide, navigable waterway. Piers in the center of a bridge's "span" actually defeat the purpose of a bridge. Depending on your perspective in this debate, you will either see that Calatrava took unique advantage of his site, which allowed form over function (a truly unusual circumstance in bridge design) and pushed the envelope of design to exploit this, or you will see this as pure ornament and masturbatory bridge design.

Count me among the former.

[Aceraceae]

Originally Posted by TexasTallest

smhhh.. when i said Houston i meant H-O-U-S-T-O-N... just as when most of you say Dallas your actually referring to DFW.

btw, Houston (the city) doesnt have signature bridges?





they will look even nicer when the new LED lighting is installed on the arches.



of course they arent. there is nothing to hate on about the Houston bridge. it was built at a reasonable cost, is unique, and we never hyped it up like its the best thing since sliced bread. i can guarentee you if there were half as many press releases and publicity surrounding the Houston bridge when it first opened as their were the Dallas bridge, plenty of Dallasites would of raised an eyebrow or two.

Oh my. I will just refer to what BCB posted.

[TexasTallest]

Originally Posted by BCB

Your reasoning is pathetic.

Aside from that long rabbit chase about bridges, it's about time this thread returns to skylines.

Your misunderstanding of my points is pathetic. It's ok to use the excuse that MHH connects Dallas to west Dallas, but it's not ok to use the same excuse for the bridges connecting the Montrose and River Oaks to the Museum District areas? I'm ready to get back to skyscrapers too. I'm not a bridge aficionado but I do love my skyscrapers.

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Ok. Signature? Sure.

They aren't anything iconic, MHH is much more so.

Agreed MHH is more iconic than the Montrose bridges. I never said it wasn't, or compared the two for that matter. If the Montrose bridges were 400' tall, designed by a world renown architect, not some Txdot engineer, and cost over 180 million dollars they would probably be similarly "iconic".

[Aceraceae]

Originally Posted by TexasTallest

Your misunderstanding of my points is pathetic. It's ok to use the excuse that MHH connects Dallas to west Dallas, but it's not ok to use the same excuse for the bridges connecting the Montrose and River Oaks to the Museum District areas? I'm ready to get back to skyscrapers too. I'm not a bridge aficionado but I do love my skyscrapers.



Agreed MHH is more iconic than the Montrose bridges. I never said it wasn't, or compared the two for that matter. If the Montrose bridges were 400' tall, designed by a world renown architect, not some Txdot engineer, and cost over 180 million dollars they would probably be similarly "iconic".

[BCB]

There's no hope.

[R1070]

umm... I think all of the straws have been grasped.