Jump to content

LBC2HTX

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    363

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by LBC2HTX

  1. LBC2HTX
    The whole area is a suburban style shopping center. I don’t get why anyone is surprised. Sure, they could’ve thrown up another apartment mid-rise but that wouldn’t make the area any more “walkable”.
  2. LBC2HTX
    Westcreek will be next level once they/ If they ever break ground on ROD phase 2 and the equinox hotel.
  3. LBC2HTX
    The James was great, very mixed crowd with some older residents and even families. The Ivy is the connected sister building with rents that are about 50% to 100% higher than a similar unit in the James. That said, it’s a huge building in a busy area so I wouldn’t expect quiet. It’s a quiet zone for the train so you won’t hear the horn blowing but it’ll def be annoying to get stuck behind.
  4. LBC2HTX
    I would highly suggest you don’t live in either Skyhouse property. The type of people those places attract are not who most people would want to live next to or interact with. There are a few buildings nearby that are in the same price range which will be much more enjoyable. I lived off mid-lane at the James for over 3 years so my vote is ROD area over downtown.
  5. LBC2HTX
    100% chance given that they have an anchor tenant
  6. LBC2HTX
    It’s not that complicated. The metal barns with rolling doors require more land. Land in the city is expensive. People in the city require storage for their junk, just the same as suburbanites.
  7. LBC2HTX
    NIMBYs in the heights- “Build storage facilities along a highway where they belong!!” Owners of highway adjacent property in Montrose
  8. LBC2HTX
    Don’t worry, it’s just a matter of time before that whole corridor goes the way of 19th and 20th.
  9. LBC2HTX
    NIMBYs triggered
  10. LBC2HTX
    The best section of 11th is on the other side of studewood, and even those buildings aren’t beautiful.
  11. LBC2HTX
    You realize there a big parking lot that they were otherwise looking at. No one is looking down anyway.
  12. LBC2HTX
    There are very few beautiful buildings on that block.
  13. LBC2HTX
    It’s going to be El Big Badyard
  14. LBC2HTX
    Hmm they’re on the upper middle floors, something like 30-42 (of 50). Their office are nice, you just get a whiff of retirement home when you walk in.
  15. LBC2HTX
    Should’ve been done 10 years ago. It was BAD then.
  16. LBC2HTX
    Just a matter of time. There’s a certain stench that permeates from their offices when the elevator door opens. That said, one shell has done a good job of staying competitive after Shell left.
  17. LBC2HTX
    You’re right, but everyone’s known about the expansion since at least 2009 and not much has happened. It’s pretty obvious that the area will eventually turn around, and if I were an investor then I’d buy but LIVING there is out of the question at the moment. Perhaps if I were a bachelor I’d make it work.
  18. LBC2HTX
    Wife and I looked into buying in the near north side and couldn’t see us living anywhere outside of Lindale Park. The area has a LONG way to go which is crazy to me given all the development elsewhere inside the loop and its decades long proximity to the redline.
  19. LBC2HTX
    WHAT? This is the unappealing 6 story building behind someburger. Literally across 11th street from this project. That’s my point. Bunch of NIMBYs.
  20. LBC2HTX
    Like I originally said, I understand being upset with a 7 story storage center. It’s an eyesore and a symbol of American excess. However, these developments are everywhere inside the loop. In any case, I’m all for historic preservation of actual historic places, just not preservation of old dilapidated buildings that have been neglected for decades and weren’t even notable when originally built. I’m going to call BS on that given the reaction to the apartments under construction on 6 1/2 street (behind onion creek), as well as the proposed automated parking structure on White Oak.
  21. LBC2HTX
    Clearly no one was willing to restore it. The level of unhappiness isn’t a surprise. The heights is full of NIMBYs who have only moved there within the last 10 years. As I said, the NIMBYs would be up in arms even if this was being built on an empty lot. This has nothing to do with “historical preservation”.
  22. LBC2HTX
    11th is mostly a commercial corridor from Michaux to Yale. Yes, it’s mostly 1 and 2 story buildings, but that’s exactly what most places are like before densification. If you didn’t think this would happen on 11th then you haven’t been paying attention to everything else happening in the Heights. You only need to look at 1111 studewood to know this was coming to this part of 11th.
  23. LBC2HTX
    I get being upset about a seven story storage facility, it’s an eyesore. But to act like the building it’s replacing is a huge loss or historical in any way is laughable. This section of 11th was always destined for densification. Just look what’s happening further down 11th and around 19th and 20th. If this monstrosity of a storage building came AFTER other densification (e.g mid-rises and retail) then hardly anyone would care. if this replaced a hand car wash or church parking lot on 11th then it would be getting the same reaction from NIMBY residents. Nothing to do with “history”.
  24. LBC2HTX
    Further, copyright infringement is a civil matter not a criminal act, so you’ll have no fear of being arrested (and I highly doubt the architect is going to sue some recreational photographer). That said, if you’re on private property you may be arrested for trespassing. disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer
  25. LBC2HTX
    “ Architectural works are protected by U.S. copyright law, specifically by 17 U.S. Code § 102(8). In fact, copyright law was officially changed in December 1990 in order to include these architectural copyrights. What does this mean for photographers who want the ability to make and sell architectural photos? The law does not apply to buildings created before December 1, 1990 (so architectural photos of such works can be taken and reproduced without permission). Except for buildings that cannot be viewed from a public space, the copyright owner of a post-1990 building (the architect, developer, or building owner) cannot prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the building. See 17 U.S. Code § 120, which covers the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works. Therefore, photographers need to be concerned only when entering private property without permission to take a photo of a post-1990 building. Such photos may result in a claim of copyright infringement.”
×
×
  • Create New...