Jump to content
Urbannizer

Australian Developer Planning Five High-Rises for Midtown

Recommended Posts

I doubt it will happen but maybe our third Zaza?

 

 

Also super excited that they are looking at doing projects all over town!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Urbannizer said:

https://product.costar.com/home/news/shared/776417961

 

Sounds like phase II will consists of three high-rises, with the last being built at a later date.

 

 

caydon-property-houston.png

Nearly 20 years ago when my wife and I were early settlers in Post by Midtown square, we never envisioned Midtown looking so GREEN with livable and walkable areas!  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 5:21 PM, Urbannizer said:

The buildings along McGowen (The Greensheet, Leon’s Lounge, Kim Tai) aren’t on this layout.  Is Caydon planning to commandeer the rest of this block or is the diagram deceiving?  I notice it says “TO McGowen St.” on the right side).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 5:21 PM, Urbannizer said:

The buildings along McGowen (The Greensheet, Leon’s Lounge, Kim Tai) aren’t on this layout.  Is Caydon planning to commandeer the rest of this block or is the diagram deceiving?  I notice it says “TO McGowen St.” on the right side).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that Leon's Lounge etc remain in place, and the build-out just covers the current parking lot behind these structures.  The block on the far right in the diagram is slightly smaller than the two on the left, while the actual Dennis-Main-McGowan block is wider than the blocks immediately south, so there is room.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on Laneways by Caydon, Midtown Houston. There is nothing new in the article. It's the same press release Caydon emailed to news websites.

From Houston Chronicle this morning:

 

Australia-based Caydon will break ground early next year on Laneways, the next phase of its mixed-use development spanning three full blocks in Midtown.
 

The company aims to bring a touch of Melbourne to Midtown with the development, which targets a September opening for its 27-story apartment tower at 2850 Fannin. The next four buildings, including a boutique hotel, high-rise condos and apartments and retail, will go up north of 2850 Fannin as part of the more than 3.5-acre development bounded by Main, Fannin, Tuam and McGowen.
 

“We are designing a mixed-use development inspired by the iconic pedestrian Laneways in Melbourne with coffee shops, boutiques, wellness concepts and wine bars,” Joe Russo, principal of Caydon, wrote in an email. “Melbourne’s lanes are also home to an eclectic mix of high-rise residences and boutique hotels.”

 

The project is designed to create a community connecting residents in more than 2.5 million square feet of condo and apartment space and a 200-room hotel with green spaces, dining and entertainment. In the middle of the development, Drew and Dennis streets will provide a direct connection to Midtown Park. The newly announced name reflects Melbourne’s walkable, transformed alleyways that are enlivened by cafes, street art, residences and hotels.
 

Caydon, which acquired the land in multiple transactions, will start the next phase at 2711 Main, which is currently occupied by the Art Supply store.
 

Caydon Architecture and Design in Melbourne is handling the conceptual design for the district. Pricing at the condo tower, planned for about 200 units, has not been set. A hotel operator is expected to be announced soon, according to the developer.
 

The 2850 Fannin apartment building, designed by Ziegler Cooper Architects, has 13,000 square feet of street level retail space to be occupied by Atlanta’s Flying Biscuit café, a health and wellness operator and a Laneways sales center for the condos. An additional 55,000 square feet of retail will occupy the ground floors of the other four towers.

 

“We are excited by the Midtown location, being in the heart of Houston - between Downtown and the Medical Center, on the light rail, surrounded by bars and nightlife and a new Whole Foods opening up,” Russo said. “Our vision for our Laneways project will enhance the already thriving neighborhood, as we look to bring the Melbourne lifestyle to Midtown, all while infusing Houston’s culture and creativity.”

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/texas-inc/article/Caydon-to-bring-Melbourne-lifestyle-to-Midtown-in-13706534.php

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Bisnow on Laneways by Caydon and Caydon's The Midtown and other developments in Midtown Houston:

 

Caydon is creating a mixed-use, residential-anchored development in Midtown. Chief Operating Officer Derrek LeRouax exclusively announced during the panel the next phases of the company's Midtown project, Laneways.
 

In addition to the apartment project under construction at 2850 Fannin St., Laneways will include additional multifamily units, condos and a hotel in future phases.


Tackling Tenants' Wants 


 

Caydon seeks to enhance services by adding restaurants, bars and hotels near its multifamily and condo projects, LeRouax said. Home automation such as Bluetooth-enabled door hardware, WiFi-connected appliances and smart thermostat and other app-based technology services are also often a standard component to its properties.    
 

"We have a broad desire to provide that experience regardless who is the age or demographic that live there," he said. 

More: https://www.bisnow.com/houston/news/multifamily/future-of-houston-multifamily-will-depend-on-who-you-are-building-for-98103

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/18/2019 at 10:21 AM, Houston19514 said:

I think this is going to be rentals.  My impression is that, to the extent they use the word "condominium" at all in Australia, it does not necessarily mean ownership as it does to us here in the US.

 

Confirmed.  From ad in Houstonia magazine:  Drewery Place at Laneways Now Leasing in Midtown.  (link doesn't seem to work yet)
Drewery Place at Laneways

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Confirmed.  From ad in Houstonia magazine:  Drewery Place at Laneways Now Leasing in Midtown.  (link doesn't seem to work yet)
Drewery Place at Laneways



Good find.

Another url for Drewery Place at Laneways Midtown by Caydon could also be:

http://dreweryplace.com 


Both domains were created on the same day.


Drewery Place is the 27-level multifamily luxury high rise luxury tower at 2850 Fannin St in Houston.



And here is a link to Beau Immersive in Australia with the render we've seen before marked:

 

Drewery Place — Houston, Texas (USA)

renders beau | developers caydon | architects zeigler cooper

 

Edited by CrockpotandGravel
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, houstontexasjack said:

Here’s the ad in Houstonia:

 

https://imgur.com/gallery/q0YuufU

 

I’m surprised the leasing site for it isn’t operational.

 

 

Texting the number in your image leads you here:

https://knockrentals.com/community/977e1c7a6267711e/apartment/rental/houston

 

I might be scheduling a tour... 😄

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 6:59 AM, CrockpotandGravel said:



Renderings from the brochure of Laneways by Caydon in Houston Midtown


Interior of a room in the residential tower, Drewery Place




Exterior of Laneways's residential tower Drewery Place and ground level retail
 

 

EDIT: Renderings removed at the demand of Large arts in Collingwood, Australia.  —Editor

On 3/31/2019 at 6:15 PM, houstontexasjack said:

Here’s the ad in Houstonia:

 

 

I’m surprised the leasing site for it isn’t operational.

 

 

Their marketing is on point. Laneways Midtown dropped last week with full press, website and social media launch. And there is the ad in the magazine, sent to the publishers months ago for this month's issue. 

Cool roll out. But it would be nicer if the roll out included renders and more teasers.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 2:43 AM, CrockpotandGravel said:

Here is the first known retail and restaurant tenant for Caydon's The Midtown at 2850 Fannin in Houston: Flying Biscuit Cafe.

https://www.facebook.com/flyingbiscuitcafemidtownhouston/

 

 

Eater Houston wrote about Flying Biscuit opening in Houston

https://houston.eater.com/2018/2/16/17020324/flying-biscuit-cafe-houston-opening-two-locations

 

 

On 8/12/2018 at 4:05 AM, CrockpotandGravel said:



More on an opening timetable for The Flying Biscuit Cafe, opening at Caydon's The Midtown at 2850 Fannin in Houston.


A second Houston location [Flying Biscuit] is set for 2019.
https://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Retail-wrap-Fortress-BeerWorks-heading-to-13138391.php

 

On 10/26/2018 at 5:23 AM, CrockpotandGravel said:

 


 
Besides The Flying Biscuit Cafe coming to The Midtown by Caydon, El Charro restaurant is opening here at 2850 Fannin.

It could be this one that's in Houston
http://www.elcharrohouston.com/

 

 

Wahlburgers may open its Houston location at The Midtown by Caydon. I read in another online forum this is where it may open.

 

On 11/9/2018 at 12:26 PM, phillip_white said:
It appears that Flying Biscuit has announced that they are commencing build out? Is the building really that far along?
 
www.facebook.com/flyingbiscuitcafemidtownhouston/posts/539704269788432
 
Image may contain: 6 people, people smiling, people standing and outdoor

 

On 3/22/2019 at 9:44 AM, CrockpotandGravel said:

More on Laneways by Caydon, Midtown Houston. There is nothing new in the article. It's the same press release Caydon emailed to news websites.

From Houston Chronicle this morning:

 

Australia-based Caydon will break ground early next year on Laneways, the next phase of its mixed-use development spanning three full blocks in Midtown.
 

The company aims to bring a touch of Melbourne to Midtown with the development, which targets a September opening for its 27-story apartment tower at 2850 Fannin. The next four buildings, including a boutique hotel, high-rise condos and apartments and retail, will go up north of 2850 Fannin as part of the more than 3.5-acre development bounded by Main, Fannin, Tuam and McGowen.
 

“We are designing a mixed-use development inspired by the iconic pedestrian Laneways in Melbourne with coffee shops, boutiques, wellness concepts and wine bars,” Joe Russo, principal of Caydon, wrote in an email. “Melbourne’s lanes are also home to an eclectic mix of high-rise residences and boutique hotels.”

 

The project is designed to create a community connecting residents in more than 2.5 million square feet of condo and apartment space and a 200-room hotel with green spaces, dining and entertainment. In the middle of the development, Drew and Dennis streets will provide a direct connection to Midtown Park. The newly announced name reflects Melbourne’s walkable, transformed alleyways that are enlivened by cafes, street art, residences and hotels.
 

Caydon, which acquired the land in multiple transactions, will start the next phase at 2711 Main, which is currently occupied by the Art Supply store.
 

Caydon Architecture and Design in Melbourne is handling the conceptual design for the district. Pricing at the condo tower, planned for about 200 units, has not been set. A hotel operator is expected to be announced soon, according to the developer.
 

The 2850 Fannin apartment building, designed by Ziegler Cooper Architects, has 13,000 square feet of street level retail space to be occupied by Atlanta’s Flying Biscuit café, a health and wellness operator and a Laneways sales center for the condos. An additional 55,000 square feet of retail will occupy the ground floors of the other four towers.

 

“We are excited by the Midtown location, being in the heart of Houston - between Downtown and the Medical Center, on the light rail, surrounded by bars and nightlife and a new Whole Foods opening up,” Russo said. “Our vision for our Laneways project will enhance the already thriving neighborhood, as we look to bring the Melbourne lifestyle to Midtown, all while infusing Houston’s culture and creativity.”

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/texas-inc/article/Caydon-to-bring-Melbourne-lifestyle-to-Midtown-in-13706534.php




Two more retail tenants announced for  Drewery Place at Laneways Midtown , part of The Midtown from Caydon at 2850 Fannin: Earthcraft Juicery and Black Swan Yoga.

Altogether, that's three known tenants. There's also one possible tenant we don't know for sure and a rumored tenant.


From Eater Houston this morning:

 

New mixed-use development Drewery Place in Midtown is going to be a big draw for breakfast. Retail tenants in the development will include Houston juice shop Earthcraft Juicery along with a new location for all-day breakfast destination The Flying Biscuit. The $200 million residential tower is set to open its doors in July, spanning three city blocks boarded by Main, Fannin, Tuam and McGowen Street.
 

Earthcraft Juicery serves up vegan apple pie smoothies and fruit-packed bowls, and it will be located alongside a Black Swan Yoga outpost (for maximum wellness). Meanwhile, Georgia-based The Flying Biscuit is making in-roads in Houston: it opened its first area outpost in Memorial City at 12389 Kingsride Lane last December. The breakfast cafe’s website states that the Midtown location is slated to open in the fall at 2850 Fannin Street. 


https://houston.eater.com/2019/4/10/18304437/midtown-earthcraft-juicery-the-flying-biscuit




Zoomed in renderings of Drewery Place at Laneways by Caydon in Houston Midtown. The Flying Biscuit and Black Yoga Swan shown.

EDIT: Renderings removed at the demand of Large arts in Collingwood, Australia.  —Editor
(direct link to non-compressed and full-sized image: https://i.imgur.com/37YXES2.jpg )


(direct link to non-compressed and full-sized image: https://i.imgur.com/UoebRqu.jpg )

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2019 at 8:14 AM, Urbannizer said:

https://lanewaysmidtown.com/dreweryplace/


 

EDIT: Renderings removed at the demand of Large arts in Collingwood, Australia.  —Editor




From Houstonia magazine (non-hot linked images):


(direct link to non-compressed and full sized image: link 1, link 2)



(direct link to non-compressed and full sized image: link 1, link 2)
 



🎶Ba da ba ba ba, I'm lovin' it! 🎶

Wowzer! And this is only the beginning. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that the podium is wrapped with apartments like the Catalyst as opposed to being just a bare parking garage like 90% of highrises

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about the pictures in this thread, guys.

 

A company called Large Arts in Collingwood, Australia demands that we not show renderings of this property:

 

Quote

We have not authorised you to reproduce those images, and unfortunately, the continuing use of those images on your website has the potential to damage one of our client’s most important client relationships, and increases the risk of financial loss. As such, we demand that you remove this content immediately. Given the urgency of this situation, and the fact that we do not know how you will deal with this demand, we have instructed our lawyers to begin drafting a takedown notice which will be sent to your Internet Service Provider shortly. We hope that you will act on this demand quickly, and that it will not be necessary to send this notice to your ISP.

 

There's a lot of things I could say about this, but since I'm not the owner of this site, I will keep my thoughts to myself.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheSirDingle said:

 

WElpthatsawrap.png.18fdd25f9a3955b671ce379abe61ac36.png

 

Potential tower placements/size? Also ft. Innovation tower. 

 

Is that the tower by the Milhouse Midtown?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, hindesky said:

Is that the tower by the Milhouse Midtown?

Innovation Tower? That's the one being built by Medistar in the medical center. I just used it as a place holder; for the potential larger towers in this development. 

Also do you think the allen parkway, mixed used development could potentially be seen from this angle? If so I might add it to this picture.

Edited by TheSirDingle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 3:04 PM, hindesky said:

 

I thought they owned this plot.

K8r79C9.jpg

It’s listed for sale on LoopNet as part of 2800 San Jacinto. An entity called “Grassy Knoll, LLC” owns this portion of the lot.

5 hours ago, TheSirDingle said:

 

WElpthatsawrap.png.18fdd25f9a3955b671ce379abe61ac36.png

 

Potential tower placements/size? Also ft. Innovation tower. 

 

From this angle, I think the two taller towers would appear to the left of Caydon’s tower, as it owns the land to the north.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/11/2019 at 10:54 PM, editor said:

Sorry about the pictures in this thread, guys.

 

A company called Large Arts in Collingwood, Australia demands that we not show renderings of this property:

 

Quote

We have not authorised you to reproduce those images, and unfortunately, the continuing use of those images on your website has the potential to damage one of our client’s most important client relationships, and increases the risk of financial loss. As such, we demand that you remove this content immediately. Given the urgency of this situation, and the fact that we do not know how you will deal with this demand, we have instructed our lawyers to begin drafting a takedown notice which will be sent to your Internet Service Provider shortly. We hope that you will act on this demand quickly, and that it will not be necessary to send this notice to your ISP.

 

There's a lot of things I could say about this, but since I'm not the owner of this site, I will keep my thoughts to myself.

 



Why are Caydon and Large Arts demanding removal of renderings on HAIF again?  The renderings posted are ones posted on their own website, on the Facebook and Instagram for Caydon and Laneways Midtown, in Houstonia magazine, and on news sites announcing Drewey Place and Laneways Midtown?

 

Edited by CrockpotandGravel
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Rendering of the Sky Bar at Drewery Place at Laneways Midtown, I think this was posted before, but removed?

From the Instagram of Laneways Midtown today:

Common areas make for uncommon entertaining. Our exclusive sky bar atop the city adds a touch of glamour to every gathering. 
Cocktails in the Level 27 Sky Lounge

8JpHW6c.jpg
(direct link to non-compressed, full-sized image: link)


https://www.instagram.com/p/Bw4rGFEBf0p/

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bw4v8zTB477/

 

Edited by CrockpotandGravel
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

Why is Caydon and Large Arts demanding removal of renderings that are posted on their own website, on the Facebook and Instagram for Caydon and Laneways Midtown, in Houstonia magazine, and on news sites announcing Drewey Place and Laneways Midtown?

 

 

My guess is someone who is responsible for the distribution of material isn't very well introduced to the internet, and still believes that simply giving the go ahead to these publications means that they also have a hold on those that share images found on said publications. That would be like in real life I bought a copy of Houstonia Magazine and I wasn't allowed to share that copy with you. Its a bit absurd, but those who aren't well versed about the nature of the internet seem to think that what one publishes and what one shares are one and the same. They are two distinctly different actions in presenting information that serve their own purpose. One is exclusive and one is inclusive and both are essential, but to crack down on the latter is just silly and overly authoritarian. Not like it can be stopped anyway.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

My guess is someone who is responsible for the distribution of material isn't very well introduced to the internet, and still believes that simply giving the go ahead to these publications means that they also have a hold on those that share images found on said publications. That would be like in real life I bought a copy of Houstonia Magazine and I wasn't allowed to share that copy with you. Its a bit absurd, but those who aren't well versed about the nature of the internet seem to think that what one publishes and what one shares are one and the same. They are two distinctly different actions in presenting information that server their own purpose. One is exclusive and one is inclusive and both are essential, but to crack down on the latter is just silly and overly authoritarian. Not like it can be stopped anyway.



Seems that way.

Even the photo taken of the ad for Drewery Place in Houstonia magazine from @houstontexasjack was removed. I don't get it.

jennifer lopez what GIF by NBC World Of Dance

This is more of a reason to implement locked forums. Posters who have so many posts or have contributed to the forum gain access to the Going Up forum, and the Neighborhood forums. 

But that's a discussion for another thread.

Back to discussing Caydon's Laneways Midtown and Drewery Place.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, CrockpotandGravel said:



Seems that way.

Even the photo taken of the ad for Drewery Place in Houstonia magazine from @houstontexasjack was removed. I don't get it.

jennifer lopez what GIF by NBC World Of Dance

This is more of a reason to implement locked forums. Posters who have so many posts or have contributed to the forum gain access to the Going Up forum, and the Neighborhood forums. 

But that's a discussion for another thread.

Back to discussing Caydon's Laneways Midtown and Drewery Place.

 

 

Possibly. Maybe it can be solved with a simple statement in front of the website that clearly delineates what is final or in progress and that the images presented on this forum are not final products and are subject to changes. Thereby alleviating all parties of liability from any outside interpretations made from bystanders. This is how architects protect themselves if one views construction documents that haven't been permitted or stamped. We essentially put on each page that its "Not for Construction" and that because it doesn't have our stamp than we aren't liable for any outside interpretations or any attempts to build from unstamped plans. Maybe its a mutual agreement between both parties involved? Not sure.

 

EDIT: Something which also should be considered is that we should be protected under "Fair Use" provisions. While we aren't necessarily "transforming" the work proper. The posting of the image along with commentary next to the image should be transformative enough sense we are both taking it out of its original context and adding new meaning or interpretation to the image. We should also be protected because the images that we are presenting here aren't directly competing 1 to 1 in a common market, but in two different markets. We aren't taking the image and then presenting it as our own. We are sharing the image in the market of dialogue and not real estate.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

Possibly. Maybe it can be solved with a simple statement in front of the website that clearly delineates what is final or in progress and that the images presented on this forum are not final products and are subject to changes. Thereby alleviating all parties of liability from any outside interpretations made from bystanders. This is how architects protect themselves if one views construction documents that haven't been permitted or stamped. We essentially put on each page that its "Not for Construction" and that because it doesn't have our stamp than we aren't liable for any outside interpretations or any attempts to build from unstamped plans. Maybe its a mutual agreement between both parties involved? Not sure.

 

EDIT: Something which also should be considered is that we should be protected under "Fair Use" provisions. While we aren't necessarily "transforming" the work proper. The posting of the image along with commentary next to the image should be transformative enough sense we are both taking it out of its original context and adding new meaning or interpretation to the image. We should also be protected because the images that we are presenting here aren't directly competing 1 to 1 in a common market, but in two different markets. We aren't taking the image and then presenting it as our own. We are sharing the image in the market of dialogue and not real estate.

 

100% agree. 

The word rendering to me implies a conceptual image of what a development has in mind to plan. When that word is used in the posting of said drawings that is what is implied, at least what I assumed it to be.

Also if these were proposed or non-finalized plans, why submit them to every publication in Houston or that covers Houston commercial and office development? Why not have them post specifically that the renders are proposed or non-finalized?

I know the renderings were provided to the publications by Caydon, not Large Arts, giving them permission to republish. But at this stage, and from a layman's POV, it seems Large Arts is unfairly targeting HAIF and borderline harassing the forum with demands of removals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

 

100% agree. 

The word rendering to me implies a conceptual image of what a development has in mind to plan. When that word is used in the posting of said drawings that is what is implied, at least what I assumed it to be.

Also if these were proposed or non-finalized plans, why submit them to every publication in Houston or that covers Houston commercial and office development? Why not have them post specifically that the renders are proposed or non-finalized?

I know the renderings were provided to the publications by Caydon, not Large Arts, giving them permission to republish. But at this stage, and from a layman's POV, it seems Large Arts is unfairly targeting HAIF and borderline harassing the forum with demands of removals.

 

Maybe there is a way to impose a watermark when posting any conceptual image? Both watermark of the company and "Conceptual Rendering" or "Conceptual Plan" underneath? No idea how that would be achieved. Someone that is way smarter than I would need to pick up the slack on that idea, but it is an idea. This isn't btw a topic restricted to this platform, but the internet in general. For anyone interested in understand more about these issue you can simply google "EU Article 11" or "EU Article 13". It is a very complicated issue that we are only scratching the surface here, but the propositions that we have both proposed would at least be ways to address the issue in a non authoritarian way and makes each instance a case by case affair.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

Maybe there is a way to impose a watermark when posting any conceptual image? Both watermark of the company and "Conceptual Rendering" or "Conceptual Plan" underneath? No idea how that would be achieved. Someone that is way smarter than I would need to pick up the slack on that idea, but it is an idea. This isn't btw a topic restricted to this platform, but the internet in general. For anyone interested in understand more about these issue you can simply google "EU Article 11" or "EU Article 13". It is a very complicated issue that we are only scratching the surface here, but the propositions that we have both proposed would at least be ways to address the issue in a non authoritarian way and makes each instance a case by case affair.


I would be on board with this. @editor

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

My guess is someone who is responsible for the distribution of material isn't very well introduced to the internet, and still believes that simply giving the go ahead to these publications means that they also have a hold on those that share images found on said publications. That would be like in real life I bought a copy of Houstonia Magazine and I wasn't allowed to share that copy with you. Its a bit absurd, but those who aren't well versed about the nature of the internet seem to think that what one publishes and what one shares are one and the same. They are two distinctly different actions in presenting information that serve their own purpose. One is exclusive and one is inclusive and both are essential, but to crack down on the latter is just silly and overly authoritarian. Not like it can be stopped anyway.

 

It's actually not like sharing your copy of Houstonia magazine.  That is allowed by copyright law.  It is more like copying your copy of Houstonia magazine and selling it to someone else.

 

The owner of a copyright has the right to allow or not allow the reproduction of the copyrighted material. It's his/her property to publish or not publish as he/she chooses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am not sure why the images of Drewery Place were removed.

 

I had renderings of Phase II on the first page that Large Arts were responsible for. I am certain they were only asking for Phase II renderings to be removed (which can still be found online, BTW).

 

https://skyrisecities.com/database/projects/district

 

I went ahead and added the images of Drewery Place onto the first page.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

It's actually not like sharing your copy of Houstonia magazine.  That is allowed by copyright law.  It is more like copying your copy of Houstonia magazine and selling it to someone else.

 

The owner of a copyright has the right to allow or not allow the reproduction of the copyrighted material. It's his/her property to publish or not publish as he/she chooses.

 

Thats the question of our time though. Its an incredibly fuzzy gray area. Its not black or white. By the way I'm about to ask that we explore this philosophically for the moment because this is something that requires us to go deeper than whats on the surface. With that being said, we are in a digital environment and so I can't use my actual hands to hand you an actual copy of Houstonia magazine. I only have a pair of virtual hands to present something to you. This is why there seems to be difficulty on the internet between what is the definition of "publishing" and "sharing" as its easier to do in the real world because there are physical actions to witness, but in a virtual world our actions aren't exactly as explicit and instead are implied. Implied means there needs to be a motive or intent while something more explicit requires for me to only cross a threshold for an "action" of some description to take place. Explicit action is very vague online and so this is the new battleground for areas such as copyright which were more explicit in our own reality where all you had to do is use copywritten material by republishing it without owners permission to be criminal, but online it seems that copyright law will have to be transformed or adapted to something more along the lines of "intent or motive" because actions online are more implied than explicit. If my motive is to share the information rather than republish then I shouldn't be in violation of copyright law because my aim was not to steal a work but instead to share (once again this is establishing that online its hard to distinguish immediately whats the difference between sharing and publishing). My motive is therefore more important than simply having the material itself and therefore I shouldn't be a criminal. Now if I were to "publish" said material either before they publish it themselves, or claim what I'm publishing as my own, then most certainly I should be deemed a criminal because my intent or motive is clear to fraud and not to share. Finally this gets us to your inital statement which would be the case if this were actual reality, but clearly this doesn't function in the same capacity as it does online where I have layout the fact that because the lines are blurry it can't be immediately discernible what is sharing and what is publishing and therefore shouldn't be prosecuted immediately as if I was copying it or sharing, and instead should be examined in its particular context.

 

......for those unwilling to dig into the more philosophical implications of what I said above or comments made by @CrockpotandGravel . Basically....its complicated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

Thats the question of our time though. Its an incredibly fuzzy gray area. Its not black or white. By the way I'm about to ask that we explore this philosophically for the moment because this is something that requires us to go deeper than whats on the surface. With that being said, we are in a digital environment and so I can't use my actual hands to hand you an actual copy of Houstonia magazine. I only have a pair of virtual hands to present something to you. This is why there seems to be difficulty on the internet between what is the definition of "publishing" and "sharing" as its easier to do in the real world because there are physical actions to witness, but in a virtual world our actions aren't exactly as explicit and instead are implied. Implied means there needs to be a motive or intent while something more explicit requires for me to only cross a threshold for an "action" of some description to take place. Explicit action is very vague online and so this is the new battleground for areas such as copyright which were more explicit in our own reality where all you had to do is use copywritten material by republishing it without owners permission to be criminal, but online it seems that copyright law will have to be transformed or adapted to something more along the lines of "intent or motive" because actions online are more implied than explicit. If my motive is to share the information rather than republish then I shouldn't be in violation of copyright law because my aim was not to steal a work but instead to share (once again this is establishing that online its hard to distinguish immediately whats the difference between sharing and publishing). My motive is therefore more important than simply having the material itself and therefore I shouldn't be a criminal. Now if I were to "publish" said material either before they publish it themselves, or claim what I'm publishing as my own, then most certainly I should be deemed a criminal because my intent or motive is clear to fraud and not to share. Finally this gets us to your inital statement which would be the case if this were actual reality, but clearly this doesn't function in the same capacity as it does online where I have layout the fact that because the lines are blurry it can't be immediately discernible what is sharing and what is publishing and therefore shouldn't be prosecuted immediately as if I was copying it or sharing, and instead should be examined in its particular context.

 

......for those unwilling to dig into the more philosophical implications of what I said above or comments made by @CrockpotandGravel . Basically....its complicated.

 

It's really not as complicated as you are making it out to be.  You can "share" copyrighted internet material by sharing the link.  You can not duplicate or publish copyrighted material by posting it on another website without permission.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Urbannizer said:

I too am not sure why the images of Drewery Place were removed.

 

I had renderings of Phase II on the first page that Large Arts were responsible for. I am certain they were only asking for Phase II renderings to be removed (which can still be found online, BTW).

 

https://skyrisecities.com/database/projects/district

 

I went ahead and added the images of Drewery Place onto the first page.


Renderings of phase 2 were removed months ago.

Large Arts wanted the renderings of Laneways and Drewery Place removed, from my summation of editor's post. It seems Large Arts request was recent and if recent, would apply to the renderings posted here of Laneways and Drewery Place. All of those renderings (including in the brochure that was linked) were published online through Houston Chronicle, Houston Business Journal, Houstonia, CultureMap, and other publications covering Houston development. 

As I posted above, Large Arts is unfairly targeting HAIF and borderline harassing the forum with demands of removals. The renderings have been shared on other forums Skyscrapers Forum and Skyrise Cities forum and those still remain. 

Edited by CrockpotandGravel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, CrockpotandGravel said:


Renderings of phase 2 were removed months ago.

Large Arts wanted the renderings of Laneways and Drewery Place removed, from my summation of editor's post. It seems Large Arts request was recent and if recent, would apply to the renderings posted here of Laneways and Drewery Place. All of those renderings (including in the brochure that was linked) were published online through Houston Chronicle, Houston Business Journal, Houstonia, CultureMap, and other publications covering Houston development. 

As I posted above, Large Arts is unfairly targeting HAIF and borderline harassing the forum with demands of removals. The renderings have been shared on other forums Skyscrapers Forum and Skyrise Cities forum and those still remain. 

 

Then after some time I reinstated images of phase II into my first post of this thread-they were up for a few months again.

 

The message sent to editor doesn't mention which renderings they were referring to, but I am confident they were only referring to the images they created for Phase II. There's nothing to suggest renderings of Drewery Place were made by them.

 

Edit: CGI images of Drewery Place were created by a different firm, Wade Mueller of Art and Form Visualization 

 

https://www.behance.net/wademuller

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

It's really not as complicated as you are making it out to be.  You can "share" copyrighted internet material by sharing the link.  You can not duplicate or publish copyrighted material by posting it on another website without permission.

 

Once again you also painfully omitting "Fair use" provisions, which do alter the "intent and motive" of copyright material and the nature of using such material in different or common markets. By your own statement, are you saying that you have never under any circumstances done what you have said on any other website whether that be an image of any kind ever? What about the "Neo-Classical Skyscraper" that is part of your banner that may or may not be copywritten? That you essentially "republishing" with each and every post your make?

 

This isn't a matter of opinion either. This isn't, again, a black or white issue. I'm saying that its way more complicated than you are admitting, and unless you can answer the above questions with a definitive yes or no (which I would find rather hard to believe) then under your own standard you were also a criminal at some point? You are being way to Puritan on this issue and I'm trying to illustrate how absurd your position on this is. Are you willing to come to middle and say that this is a more nuanced issue?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

Once again you also painfully omitting "Fair use" provisions, which do alter the "intent and motive" of copyright material and the nature of using such material in different or common markets. By your own statement, are you saying that you have never under any circumstances done what you have said on any other website whether that be an image of any kind ever? What about the "Neo-Classical Skyscraper" that is part of your banner that may or may not be copywritten? That you essentially "republishing" with each and every post your make?

 

This isn't a matter of opinion either. This isn't, again, a black or white issue. I'm saying that its way more complicated than you are admitting, and unless you can answer the above questions with a definitive yes or no (which I would find rather hard to believe) then under your own standard you were also a criminal at some point? You are being way to Puritan on this issue and I'm trying to illustrate how absurd your position on this is. Are you willing to come to middle and say that this is a more nuanced issue?

 

Your prior post only discussed how complicated it was to distinguish between "sharing" (a la sharing your physical copy of Houstonia" magazine) and "publishing" or "stealing".  Fair use (which allows in certain limited circumstances, some "publishing" or copying without permission)  is indeed a more complicated question. But I doubt posting copyrighted renderings on this forum, at least in most cases, would constitute fair use and I even more highly doubt that the owners of this website want to spend the money necessary to assert such a claim. 

 

As to whether or not I have ever posted copyrighted material on any website:  (1) It's hard to imagine anything less relevant to this discussion, but (2)  certainly never after being requested by the copyright owner to desist.

 

Oh, and FWIW, I have nothing to do with the appearance of "Neo-Classical Skyscraper" on my posts; that is inserted by the forum.

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...