Highway6

Turning out pretty nice.

Beautiful shot, that lighting is great. If I'm not mistaken, you're in the vacant lot used in the Chevy commercial to build a youth baseball diamond.

The less than stellar access and visibility had nothing to do with the Robbins Bros closure. RB expanded way too fast from their california roots - multiple stores in Houston, Dallas, Chicago and went bankrupt when the economy went sour. Part of the bankruptcy deal was that Spence bought out all but their california stores. Why Spence has closed, I have no clue... but RB's closure was a bigger corporate level thing, not a location thing.

No, you're seeing the result of using foam core to build a terrain in a physical model.

Oh God... I can picture the Haify bitching and moaning in a few years... " BUT the RENDERINGS promised us a forest and floating halos "

Who cares? It is still a well known comic; Regardless of the storyline above, the Brazos is not portrayed in a negative light. Therefore its a good thing.

Though I haven't followed Funky in a few years, Funky is still a classic. Considering he could have chosen any bookstore in America, the fact that he enjoyed his visit there enough to include them in the strip this week is a very very positive thing. http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20101207&name=Funky_Winkerbean

sorry.. Christmas music gets to be hokey and use glockenspiels. -1 for you.

UGH !!

google maps shows an existing bridge, at least a pedestrian bridge, only a few hundred feet from this location

I was under the impression that Embassy's land extended the width of the block to Lamar as well. NIche revealing otherwise is the obvious answer as to why the building fronts the way it does. It's not just the likelihood of something being built there that is the problem. If the Embassy only has 2 street access, not 3 like I thought, they have to front where they have access. Even more important is the rectangular shape of the site. All your hotel rooms are going to face out the long sides or the rectangle. The site dictates that the back faces the park. That being said, the ugly crowd's main complaint is with the big bare wall, which translates to lack of glazing. If you remember from the construction photos, 1/3 of that wall is the emergency stairwell.. placed there because one is typically located in a back corner. They also have a shear wall there on the left. While the typical liner hotel room does not have glazing on the sides (thats where you have your furniture), the front of the hotel shows it certainly is possible and desired if you're building suites. Why are these not bigger suites on the back left corner which would allow for more side glazing? I'm sure there an economic formula that hotels deal with that dictate the % of suites but the most likely answer is that it is the back of the site/interior of the block. While it in unlikely, Discover Tower's multistory entrance cube demonstrates it is possible to build something, part of a building, on such a small area of land that would obstruct those suite's views, esp if one developer were to buy the rest of the block.

And this only proves that some people are incompetent buffons that have no idea how the process works. The developer/owner wants what he wants. He gets the final say. An architect can try to talk him out of it, but ultimatly an architects job is to satisfy the needs and desires of the customer... IF they don't, they'll be kicked to the curb and replaced by an another architect that will play ball. You're repeated misguided anger is laughable. Developing is a business.. Viva Capitalism. I don't know why the hell the building faces the way it does, but I'm sure the developer and architects had their reasons, so i don't care. --------------------------- I'm not naming any names here... but in my opinion, someone here has a firm stranglehold on "Most Worthless Haif Contributor" 2010 award.

While I like the rusted steel, we all know they're gonna paint it. Anyone know what color it will be painted or care to make a guess ? While i agree with both of you that the design is a natural fit with the bayou, I wouldn't mind seeing a vibrant color chosen. It would be an unexpected surprise in our city of neutral colors. I'm rooting for Canary Yellow.

I disagree. It's better than the twisty design they previously had. It's going to be quite pleasant, when its done, jogging through the tree tops.

That article made me want to dig around to see if Ronnie Self finally had a webpage.. and voila, he now does. http://www.ronnieself.com/ has more photos of that house, for those interested.

Thanks for sharing that article... I've always hoped Ronnie's house would get published someday so that we could see some interior shots.

I'm sure it has to be ADA accessible.. so ramped with a min slope. Bikes and kid trailers shouldn't be a problem.

Whether a pedestrian is crossing the street the car is approaching on, or crossing the street the car is turning into , you're still supposed to look both ways. You never just assume your pedestrian right of way when you're going up against several thousand lbs. Make eye contact with the driver at the stop sign before crossing the street. In Dbigtex's example - If he's not paying attention to you and you don't think he sees you, then guess what.. you wait. You yield your right of way. You don't continue to cross the street in front of the car just because you are "in the right". If you know the driver has not seen you since ""Almost NEVER do drivers check to their right when making a right-hand turn from a stop sign"... then you'd have to be dumb to still step out in front of them. I read it as dbigtex being ticked that the car wasn't yielding to his pedestrian right of way and pounding the car accordingly. He doesnt have the right to do that. That is not self defense. Unjustly losing your right of way doesnt justify violence. If my car and another car both stopped at a 4 way intersection at the same time. If I'm on the right, I know I have the right of way... but I'm not just going to assume the other driver knows that I have the right of way. I'd continue slowly while making eye contact with him. If he decides to go for it in front of me, I do not then have the right to ram him just because I had the right of way. Use common sense.. a pedestrian shouldn't step in front of any moving car, turning or not, right of way or not, if he doesn't think the driver has seen him.

Pounding on someone's car when they are in it is asking for trouble. Period. You have no right to do that. Period. Yes, if they came out and assaulted you, you could sue their ass... you'd get rich, but you'd still deserve the asskicking. Red will have to step in on this one. I believe in tort law - if you pounded a car with the driver in it... the car would be considered an extension of the driver, you would in essence be assaulting the driver and they could file civil charges. I'm not sure what your actions would have to entail for criminal charges to be pressed. At the least, there would be destruction of property. If you pounded my car, for any reason, at an intersection. I would immediately phone the cops and follow you till they showed up. I would make you financially regret it as much as I could. Back in 06 here in Montrose, some jacka$s pounded angrily on my wife's truck at an intersection when she had her middle school-aged brother in the car with her. Scared the everliving crap out of both of them. If you've ever done that to a woman driver or when kids were in the car, that would make you an extreme p.o.s. _________________

Good way to get your ass kicked or sued.

Neighbors speed as well. It's not just a commuter thing. You don't need the middle lane going in your direction to speed if you have no cars directly in front of you. Speed can be an issue on every road, including 1 lane roads. I speed a little bit pretty much everywhere I go, including Alabama, Westheimer, or Richmond, however I may choose to drive E-W any given day. I don't however run red lights or walk out into intersections before looking both ways, and I'm smart enough to drive significantly below the speed limit if I have the sun in my eyes. My issue with your post is you chose the wrong accident to rant against the "switch and bait middle lane configuration that still sits very uneasily with you" . This accident had zilch to do with speed and zilch to do with the middle lane configuration,

I don't see how accidentally running a red light because you're driving into the sun has anything to do with the middle lane configuration. -LINK I drive it daily. It was and is a major artery... and that's coming from a neighbor. I don't see the present lane configuration or your terming it an artery being synonymous with "need for speed". It appears this accident would have happened regardless of speed. Furthermore, you don't know that the driver wasn't a neighbor as well. Also.. kids, parents, teachers, anyone should be looking both way before crossing any street. While this driver is 99.9% at fault, I agree with Ricco. These 2 kids and coach were stopped at the intersection; They got complacent and it seems like they weren't paying much attention if they then stepped out right in front of a fast-moving car just because they had the right of way.

Refer to post 717 for my reply. Oh.. but you would.