Jump to content
Urbannizer

Australian Developer Planning Five High-Rises for Midtown

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Urbannizer said:

 

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



Okay. The context and timing of editor's post seemed to imply the removal request applied to all the renderings, that's why. But thank you for clarifying.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you "hotlink" images (a direct link to the original source that is serving the images with the copyright holder's permission, without rehosting the images) in your post, to continue the earlier analogy, it's like leaving a copy of Houstonia magazine out in public, open to a particular page, and telling people to look at that page.

 

If you rehost images (copying them to another site for serving the image, like imgur.com) and link those instead in your post, it's like photocopying the copy of Houstonia magazine and telling people to look at that.

 

I believe the former case is not in any way a copyright violation, since you've copied nothing.  The only exception would be if the original source is hosting them illegally, in which case there might be a problem with linking to illegal content, but then the copyright holder should be shutting it down at the source instead.


The latter case could possibly be considered fair use, but it's a gray area and may indeed be a copyright violation.

 

That's why, if you want to avoid copyright concerns, you should hotlink.  But because sites frequently go down, causing the images to no longer be made available even though the copyright holder is fine with them being shared, rehosting can be a better option if it can be considered fair use.

 

In the Drewery Place example, some images were hotlinked, which should be legal since they were pointing to the original source published by the copyright holder, and some images were rehosted, which the copyright holder said was illegal (though might have actually been fair use -- but that's up for debate and would need a court to decide).  But all images were removed, probably in the interest in avoiding any conflict rather than just trying to satisfy any legal requirements.

 

I am not a lawyer, though, so take this with a grain of salt.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, rechlin said:

If you "hotlink" images (a direct link to the original source that is serving the images with the copyright holder's permission, without rehosting the images) in your post, to continue the earlier analogy, it's like leaving a copy of Houstonia magazine out in public, open to a particular page, and telling people to look at that page.

 

If you rehost images (copying them to another site for serving the image, like imgur.com) and link those instead in your post, it's like photocopying the copy of Houstonia magazine and telling people to look at that.

 

I believe the former case is not in any way a copyright violation, since you've copied nothing.  The only exception would be if the original source is hosting them illegally, in which case there might be a problem with linking to illegal content, but then the copyright holder should be shutting it down at the source instead.


The latter case could possibly be considered fair use, but it's a gray area and may indeed be a copyright violation.

 

That's why, if you want to avoid copyright concerns, you should hotlink.  But because sites frequently go down, causing the images to no longer be made available even though the copyright holder is fine with them being shared, rehosting can be a better option if it can be considered fair use.

 

In the Drewery Place example, some images were hotlinked, which should be legal since they were pointing to the original source published by the copyright holder, and some images were rehosted, which the copyright holder said was illegal (though might have actually been fair use -- but that's up for debate and would need a court to decide).  But all images were removed, probably in the interest in avoiding any conflict rather than just trying to satisfy any legal requirements.

 

I am not a lawyer, though, so take this with a grain of salt.



In the images I posted, I posted the link to the uploaded link and the direct link, so as not to hotlink the images. Like sharing articles in full (something I know I'm guiltty of), websites frown down on hotlinking their images (bandwidth, etc).

Hotlinking is considered theft too. I remember this being a big deal years back. Posting the link without the image, maybe not. So it's web etiquette to not hotlink.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 12:05 PM, CrockpotandGravel said:

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/

 

 

I assume that will be for residents only? That looks like a fantastic place to grab a few drinks/enjoy the views.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be tough to run a bar that's residents only.  Limiting your market to at most 500 people seems bad.  Either it will be open to the public or an amenity that is part of a hefty rent

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Hotlinking is considered theft too. I remember this being a big deal years back. Posting the link without the image, maybe not. So it's web etiquette to not hotlink. 

 

15-25 years ago it was considered bad form, yes, but not illegal.  Bandwidth was expensive back then so that made sense.  But now bandwidth is dirt cheap.  Back in the early 2000s I used to spend $1000/month, just in bandwidth costs alone, hosting my web site.  Now I get more bandwidth than I could ever need (plus hosting!) for $10/month.  Web etiquette has changed, and avoiding infringing on copyrights is now more important than the obsolete 1990s ideas of netiquette.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, rechlin said:

 

15-25 years ago it was considered bad form, yes, but not illegal.  Bandwidth was expensive back then so that made sense.  But now bandwidth is dirt cheap.  Back in the early 2000s I used to spend $1000/month, just in bandwidth costs alone, hosting my web site.  Now I get more bandwidth than I could ever need (plus hosting!) for $10/month.  Web etiquette has changed, and avoiding infringing on copyrights is now more important than the obsolete 1990s ideas of netiquette.


And still, hotlinking is frowned upon and discouraged. So...

vince staples showtime GIF by Desus & Mero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that The lights in this building are beginning to glow at night.  Its heart is finally beginning to beat.  Can’t wait for residents to bring it fully to life!

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2019 at 9:36 AM, MarathonMan said:

I love that The lights in this building are beginning to glow at night.  Its heart is finally beginning to beat.  Can’t wait for residents to bring it fully to life!

 

I agree.

And just imagine - maybe, someday, Camden at McGowen Station will be completed, too, and we'll have Main Street back again.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is ... a very wide variety of neighborhoods. Among those, the closest comparison (at least in physical form) is probably Navy Yard/ SE/ the area around the ballpark. Once everything currently under construction is finished, I actually think Midtown will be pretty comparable to Navy Yard. Actually, I'd say Midtown is better because it has actually managed to retain some remnants of previous iterations of itself. Navy Yard has retained a few nice old red brick buildings, but the actual tenants are mostly pretty bougie and mediocre. Midtown absolutely has its bro scene of course, but it also has Leon's, Continental Club, Big Top, Double Trouble, Tacos a-go-go, some remaining good bits of Little Saigon, the best Spec's, 13 degrees, HCC Central's campus, the amazing job done at the old Gulf Station for Revival, same for Axelrad, some solid newer stuff like Spicy Girl, and it's even getting a Whole Foods for just a touch of bougieness. 

 

Nah, twenty years nothing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Spotted the mural a couple weeks ago, asked a security guard if I could go in and take pic. It's on the back wall of the Art store.

vCaqhhi.jpg

Edited by hindesky
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hindesky said:

Spotted the mural a couple weeks ago, asked a security guard if I could go in and take pic. It's on the back wall of the Art store.

vCaqhhi.jpg

 

Man, what happened to orbit??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, por favor gracias said:

 

Man, what happened to orbit??

It mimics a mural in the Third Ward with Houston sports teams as South Park characters:

7lVSO4S.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that this project is, for all intensive purposes complete, what is the next step regarding the other towers that are supposedly 500-600 feet tall? Are we still expecting them to rise soon? Has anybody even  seen the full rendering except for the bottom 10 floors or so? The only reason I'm interested in this project is because of those yet-to-be-built towers. Not this thing..

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AREJAY said:


FAA shows the 600 foot "Tower C" has a construction timeline from 12/2019 to 11/2022

and 570 foot "Tower A" has the same construction dates 

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=403884614&row=240

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=403884593&row=257

 

Overview
Study (ASN): 2019-ASW-5459-OE
Prior Study:  
Status: Work In Progress
   
Received Date: 04/26/2019
Entered Date: 04/26/2019
Map: View Map
Construction Info     Structure Summary
Notice Of: CONSTR
Duration: PERM    (Months: 0    Days: 0)
Work Schedule: 12/13/2019  to  11/09/2022
   
   
Structure Type: Building
Structure Name: Tower C2
FCC Number:  
   
Structure Details     Height and Elevation
Latitude (NAD 83): 29° 44' 39.49" N
Longitude (NAD 83): 95° 22' 25.72" W
Datum: NAD 83
City: Houston
State: TX
Nearest County: Harris
   
 
Proposed
Site Elevation:
44
Structure Height:
600
Total Height (AMSL):
644
 
Frequencies
Low Freq High Freq Unit ERP Unit
Overview
Study (ASN): 2019-ASW-5454-OE
Prior Study:  
Status: Work In Progress
   
Received Date: 04/26/2019
Entered Date: 04/26/2019
Map: View Map
Construction Info     Structure Summary
Notice Of: CONSTR
Duration: PERM    (Months: 0    Days: 0)
Work Schedule: 12/13/2019  to  11/09/2022
   
   
Structure Type: Building
Structure Name: Tower A1
FCC Number:  
   
Structure Details     Height and Elevation
Latitude (NAD 83): 29° 44' 39.32" N
Longitude (NAD 83): 95° 22' 27.90" W
Datum: NAD 83
City: Houston
State: TX
Nearest County: Harris
   
 
Proposed
Site Elevation:
44
Structure Height:
570
Total Height (AMSL):
614
 
Frequencies
Low Freq High Freq Unit ERP Unit

 

Pretty exciting, especially the heights - both taller than The Preston! Not going to celebrate until I see some more confirmation, I think they filed permits for three buildings way back in 2017 or whenever the first one started.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Timoric said:

What if Caydon is not done after all these?

I could see them buying up all of Midtown, and making it a little Australia. 150+ m residential towers, and Vegemite sandwiches as far as the eye can see. A glorious future that brings a tear to my eyes. 

  • Like 8
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caydon does some interesting smaller scale things in Melbourne. I’d love to see what they might do with the Chelsea property, across from the Hampstead, on Blodgett for example.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheSirDingle said:

I could see them buying up all of Midtown, and making it a little Australia. 150+ m residential towers, and Vegemite sandwiches as far as the eye can see. A glorious future that brings a tear to my eyes. 

And pourover coffee galore!! Can’t wait.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, TheSirDingle said:

I could see them buying up all of Midtown, and making it a little Australia. 150+ m residential towers, and Vegemite sandwiches as far as the eye can see. A glorious future that brings a tear to my eyes. 

 

They should sponsor some sort of kangaroo exhibit at the zoo for some extra publicity.

 

(The forum groans as H-Town invokes the kangaroo cliché.)

 

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 8:09 AM, AREJAY said:


FAA shows the 600 foot "Tower C" has a construction timeline from 12/2019 to 11/2022

and 570 foot "Tower A" has the same construction dates 

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=403884614&row=240

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=403884593&row=257

 

Overview
Study (ASN): 2019-ASW-5459-OE
Prior Study:  
Status: Work In Progress
   
Received Date: 04/26/2019
Entered Date: 04/26/2019
Map: View Map
Construction Info     Structure Summary
Notice Of: CONSTR
Duration: PERM    (Months: 0    Days: 0)
Work Schedule: 12/13/2019  to  11/09/2022
   
   
Structure Type: Building
Structure Name: Tower C2
FCC Number:  
   
Structure Details     Height and Elevation
Latitude (NAD 83): 29° 44' 39.49" N
Longitude (NAD 83): 95° 22' 25.72" W
Datum: NAD 83
City: Houston
State: TX
Nearest County: Harris
   
 
Proposed
Site Elevation:
44
Structure Height:
600
Total Height (AMSL):
644
 
Frequencies
Low Freq High Freq Unit ERP Unit
Overview
Study (ASN): 2019-ASW-5454-OE
Prior Study:  
Status: Work In Progress
   
Received Date: 04/26/2019
Entered Date: 04/26/2019
Map: View Map
Construction Info     Structure Summary
Notice Of: CONSTR
Duration: PERM    (Months: 0    Days: 0)
Work Schedule: 12/13/2019  to  11/09/2022
   
   
Structure Type: Building
Structure Name: Tower A1
FCC Number:  
   
Structure Details     Height and Elevation
Latitude (NAD 83): 29° 44' 39.32" N
Longitude (NAD 83): 95° 22' 27.90" W
Datum: NAD 83
City: Houston
State: TX
Nearest County: Harris
   
 
Proposed
Site Elevation:
44
Structure Height:
570
Total Height (AMSL):
614
 
Frequencies
Low Freq High Freq Unit ERP Unit

 

 

Previous heights from the FAA listing posted in 2017: 544' and 631'.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nate_56 said:

Is the Sky Lobby open again?

 

I have a badge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 7:52 PM, TheSirDingle said:

I could see them buying up all of Midtown, and making it a little Australia. 150+ m residential towers, and Vegemite sandwiches as far as the eye can see. A glorious future that brings a tear to my eyes. 

 

I don't think I'd want to drive there, it would be difficult enough remembering which way to look when crossing the street.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

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...