Talk:Architecture of Houston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Architecture of Houston article.
Article policies
Good article Architecture of Houston has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Collaboration notes

This scope of this article:

  1. Notable buildings and structures
  2. Architects, styles
  3. Entire Houston MSA

Random thoughts:

  • Should this article be reorganized by timeline or by area?
  • Should scope be narrowed?
  • Lead paragraph (or lack of). Add at end of editing?

Postoak 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Let's see how it evolves. There's a lot out there to process. Because of the way Houston developed, the timeline and area methods may have some parallels.
    • I think the scope is fine. We may discover some notable sub-scopes, but I'd like to see this article be pretty comprehensive.
    • I added a brief intro, for the interim. Once the article is more developed, I bet a substantive intro will be warranted.
--Evb-wiki 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, looks good. I can take some pics for the article on a sunny weekend. I'd like to add some of the older buildings located downtown for the "Early Houston" section. Postoak 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SANDBOX

I've created a SANDBOX for us to play in while we take on the task of making this article comprehensive. Everyone is invited to contribute buckets of sand and to create sandcastles to be placed in the article. --Evb-wiki 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

lol, just noticed the sandbox. Postoak 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edge cities

I have removed most of the Edge cities section (moved Uptown to Mid-/late century), because it seemed to me to mainly discuss urban planning. While I realize the term architecture can sometimes be broad enough to include it (and landscaping, etc.), I think the article is developing with a more narrow focus. Some of the discussion of the housing styles were relevant and interesting, but I felt the section was a little distracting. Is that okay? Did you have more you wanted to do with it? --Evb-wiki 02:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I dropped it into the sandbox, in case we decide to keep it. --Evb-wiki 02:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, we're still in brainstorming mode here. Actually, I started with "edge cities" but intended to move towards a residential architecture section. The city has many fine examples from mansions in River Oaks to postwar modern homes. Loft conversions and some of the new high-rise condo towers I think would also be appropriate. My ideas are in the sandbox, what do you think? Postoak 03:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that *Early Houston*, *Downtown*, and *Uptown* each have an intro paragraph that is similar to the *edge city* sub-secs. I think this is fine. If we could identify specific examples of each area's architecture (like the other sections do), that would be great. I was just thinking, without examples of the styles mentioned, the paragraphs were a little off scope. Of course, I have not yet done any type of "focused" research on the edges. --Evb-wiki 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove edge cities altogether and replace with a residential architecture section. Sections would be:

  1. Early Houston - 1800's to 1949, all
  2. Middle and late century - 1950 to current
  3. Residential architecture
  4. Public facilities
  5. See also
  6. References
  7. External links

Postoak 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That might work. Makes more sense than "edge cities", IMHO. --Evb-wiki 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Early Houston

I'm checking flickr for Esperson, Rice Hotel and Gulf Building images. Do you have any? I still plan to take some pics myself. Postoak 05:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm having such a tough time finding pub domain or fair use images of early downtown. There must be hundreds of them somewhere. --Evb-wiki 05:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I found Esperson, but it's not that good, I'll upload it anyway. Postoak 05:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at this. Great but not free. [1] Postoak 06:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Damn. Ummm . . . we don't have any of those buildings in our article. Hmmm. --Evb-wiki 06:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't find anything free anywhere. Hey, I need to get my butt to bed. I'll look for more images tomorrrow. This article is looking good! G'night. Postoak 06:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember this? I think it was out by Almeda Mall [2]

Hmmm. Nope, can't say that I do. Of course I grew up near Cypress, kinda between Jersey Village and where Willowbrook Mall is now. Almeda was a long way away, especially back then, when Highway 290 only reached to West 43rd. --Evb-wiki 23:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I grew up on the south side, we usually went to Sharpstown, Meyerland and Westwood. I do remember seeing this building back then and thought it needed repairs. Postoak 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article is nicely written, but unfortunately I have to fail it on the basis of lack of references. While many paragraphs are well referenced, a good deal also are not. In the style of the rest of the paragraphs (wherein a building summary is presented with an inline reference) I would recommend referencing for the remaining unsourced paragraphs. As far as the writing goes it is nice, it's mostly a referencing problem. DoomsDay349 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I read through the article, and saw that it was very well written. I also thought it was well-referenced, but only today the article was failed because of referencing problems. I am placing it on hold pending an absolute confirmation that this article has been properly renominated with appropriate changes have been made since the last renomination. I'd be quite happy to pass it, but I dont want to pass it only for someone to say that, because it was only just failed, it cannot be re-reviewed until major changes have been made - • The Giant Puffin • 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional references were added to the article immediately after the intial failed review was reported to us. I renominated the article after adding the references. Thanks, Postoak 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
After going through previous versions of the article, I see you quickly made a lot of amendments. Seeing as it is a very different article now, I'm happy to pass it - • The Giant Puffin • 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that the lead section is way too short. Ideally it should briefly summarize the article. Hopefully someone can take care of this. Drewcifer3000 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)