Jump to content
Urbannizer

Australian Developer Planning Five High-Rises for Midtown

Recommended Posts

 The previously named District II is planned for 631 feet in height.   Extapolating from the Marriott Marquis this hotel would be around 670 to 680  feet.  Can't imagine this is a major problem.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MidCenturyMoldy said:

 

My first thought was Nit Noi, a block and a half away.

Just past the homeless encampment...
But seriously. It was a question from out of the blue, and I didn't have a map, smart phone or much time to ponder a response. 

My answer would probably still be the same. "Hmm....", because this IS kind of a dead zone.

Share this post


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

^ Just wanted to let you know that your post are always so annoying to try to read so I never read them. Have no idea what you are saying because it's just not worth the headache. I don't think this ornamental stuff is the least bit entertaining. I'm sure you're a nice guy and all. But these cheap graphics and bizarre showboating is stupid. That's all. G'day!

Loosen up a bit. Midtown is taking off. The countdown has started. Give G class a break.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/5/2019 at 4:25 PM, BeerNut said:

 

What is Houston lacking to make it a tourist destination?  From my perspective the things that are the biggest draw for tourist areas Houston will never have.  We don't have the right geography, historical pedigree, or cultural significance that other tourist dominated destinations have.  Houston should focus on it's strengths which are food, museum district, and performing arts.  I did see Mayor Turner mention bringing an amusement park to Houston on Twitter.

 

Not sure why we doubt ourselves. Houston has a pretty spectacular historical (albeit modern historical) pedigree, as good as any city in the country. It may be “ugly”/not conventionally beautiful, but it’s a place that a lot of people have come from all over the world, for whatever reason (certainly not because of tourist attractions) it felt like home, they were welcomed by their neighbors as if it were home, and they made it home. And that doesn’t even begin to consider the world-changing technological advancements that were made by Houstonians in the oil and gas, space, and medical industry. 

 

One of worst “no builds” in my mindis the Nau Museum. That would’ve been a fine start in telling the story. Another great idea would be a National Museum of Immigration affiliated with the Smithsonian that would tell the domestic and international immigration story.

 

A new Astroworld would also be great of course. 

Edited by mattyt36
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Houston was the capital of the Republic of Texas ... certainly not the same in scale but it’s not anything to shrug at in terms of North American history. Boston and Philadelphia attract a lot of tourists who have no ties to either city for the same reason. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HOUCAJUN said:

Loosen up a bit. Midtown is taking off. The countdown has started. Give G class a break.

West Timer is correct. The animations and graphics not too mention awkward justified text are distracting and hard to read. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Swear to God. I saw his gobbledy-gook of letters in a blur as I just quick scrolled around it and didn't even bother reading. Was there anything clever their I should have read? Let me know. There may be some real gems or deep insight or maybe even the answer to world peace or winning lottery numbers but I'll never know. Somehow reading it would be condoning it. And I can't bring myself to condone REALLY BAD, bad graphic design. Now what are we talking about again? I forgot which thread I opened. Oh yes. That magnificent Aussie Project. Still love it. Any news? 

Edited by West Timer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MidCenturyMoldy said:

I know it's not quite as dramatic, but I "fixed" the image. I'm guessing the building is more likely to look like this. 

Kimpton01.jpg

 

You didn't "fix" the image.

The original image is designed in a fixed two point perspective which you actually see with your eyes everyday with the exception of anything that starts to go vertical which when you start to look up that two point perspective begins to get distorted. Since the subject is the building and not the viewer the view is in a strict two point perspective from ground to top to heighten the appeal of the vertical lines.

This isn't even clever as you probably went into lightroom and stretched the image at the base. Is this an attempt to knock the building for something? I will admit some people can find the heightened verticals distracting in photography. My boss is one of them for example.

With that being said the original image that was produced is in line with best practice in architectural visualization and architectural photography.

 

@brijonmang

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

You didn't "fix" the image.

The original image is designed in a fixed two point perspective which you actually see with your eyes everyday with the exception of anything that starts to go vertical which when you start to look up that two point perspective begins to get distorted. Since the subject is the building and not the viewer the view is in a strict two point perspective from ground to top to heighten the appeal of the vertical lines.

This isn't even clever as you probably went into lightroom and stretched the image at the base. Is this an attempt to knock the building for something? I will admit some people can find the heightened verticals distracting in photography. My boss is one of them for example.

With that being said the original image that was produced is in line with best practice in architectural visualization and architectural photography.

 

@brijonmang

 

So why does his "fixed" version look more natural?

 

Share this post


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

 

You didn't "fix" the image. . . This isn't even clever as you probably went into lightroom and stretched the image at the base. . .

 

@brijonmang

 

What’s with all the shade being thrown in this site as of late?  One image may align with architectural standard practices, while the other may seem more pleasing to the eye.  MidCenturyMoldy was just trying to provide a different perspective .  Is it really necessary to belittle him/her for it?

FDC08953-C511-49BA-8824-EAAAC4930664.jpeg

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

So why does his "fixed" version look more natural?

 

 

Its not a "fixed" version. Its just a different version. I'm not saying that the "fix" is wrong, or can't be made. Its the certainty at which it was done, and the framing device used to describe the persons change is a flawed premise however. If this person framed the proposed perspective as a "different" or "alternative" perspective then it would be valid, but as this person is framing the proposition this person is making a claim to what is more "beautiful" or "correct" when that is entirely subjective to one who is viewing this image. The "fix" also misses the whole point of why the original image was produced in the first place and why it is normally produced. The original is done in a way to exhibit the buildings height and prominence, and give a sense of how it looks on the site vertically. Nearly every single proposed image that we have seen on this site of skyscraper with a ground view utilizes this technique show/exaggerate the vertical characteristics of the building from the The Preston, to Texas Tower, to Capital Tower (Bank of America Tower), and so on and so on. This image is meant to convey an idea about he subject, and not the idea of the viewer itself. If this were an image where the focus on the viewer experience then I would go with the "fixed" image, but thats not what is represented here. The image doesn't have to be self-referential or meta by taking the viewer into account. I know I don't do that everytime when I set a scene for an image just like not ever scene in a film is done in the most "natural" way an eye can see as that is limiting for expression of an idea. That would be like saying a "section" is not honest because we don't see in section when that isn't the point of the drawing.

 

45 minutes ago, MarathonMan said:

 

What’s with all the shade being thrown in this site as of late?  One image may align with architectural standard practices, while the other may seem more pleasing to the eye.  MidCenturyMoldy was just trying to provide a different perspective .  Is it really necessary to belittle him/her for it?

FDC08953-C511-49BA-8824-EAAAC4930664.jpeg

 

I take issue with the certainty of the notion that the image is "fixed" when there is a lot that goes into images like this and there are reasons architecturally you show images the way they are shown. I @brijonmang to this since he is a professional photographer that could shed light on this as he does the same vertical correction in his images. I do the same thing when I have a question or looking for input on structural questions like @Purdueenginerd @hindesky . In what way is this "shade being thrown in this site as of late". I don't take things the way they are presented as fact, and I'm merely questioning the certainy of the one producing the image. Its not "natural" its just "different". The original image is more dramatic, and exaggerated and thats the point of the image. Its selling the building itself and not the viewer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

You didn't "fix" the image.

Wow. Just...wow.

 

Anyway, you'll notice I put quotation marks around "fixed."
 

Secondly, I used Photoshop CS6, thank you. And I didn't just stretch the base. That wouldn't have corrected the exaggerated top of the original. Actually, I corrected perspective from the top down (but not too, too much), you might have noticed that nothing at the base of the rendering was lost...if you had actually looked. I free-resized a portion of the top to reduce the exaggeration of the top corner. I did some content-aware filling because correcting the perspective left voids on the sides. I used the "patch tool" to clean up a bit afterward. Oh, and I did it super fast because, well, because I was just having some fun. So forgive me if it ain't perfect.

 

And last but not least, I 'fixed" the rendering because when I showed it to a friend, he thought the building was going to be triangular because of the pronounced corner on the top.

Next time, try decaf, maybe?

 

 

ETA:That wouldn't have corrected the exaggerated top of the original. Actually, I corrected perspective from the top down (but not too much), you might have noticed that nothing at the base of the rendering was lost...if you had actually looked. I free-resized a portion of the top to reduce the exaggeration of the top corner. I did some content-aware filling because correcting the perspective left voids on the sides. I used the "patch tool" to clean up a bit afterward. 

Oh, and I did it super fast because, well, because I was just having some fun. So forgive me if it ain't perfect.

Edited by MidCenturyMoldy
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand you’re perspective, @Luminare.  I, too, respect the intention of the illustrator to dramatize the image for effect. I also respect someone else’s attempt to show it slightly differently.  I don’t think @MidCenturyMoldy thought his version was somehow better than the original, as he used the term “fixed” in quotations.  He just wanted to show what he thought was a less-dramatized version.

 

I interpreted your response to his post as a bit condescending — specifically the comment that his method “isn’t even clever”.  If I read your intention wrong, I apologize.

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

 

Its not a "fixed" version. Its just a different version. I'm not saying that the "fix" is wrong, or can't be made. Its the certainty at which it was done, and the framing device used to describe the persons change is a flawed premise however. If this person framed the proposed perspective as a "different" or "alternative" perspective then it would be valid, but as this person is framing the proposition this person is making a claim to what is more "beautiful" or "correct" when that is entirely subjective to one who is viewing this image. The "fix" also misses the whole point of why the original image was produced in the first place and why it is normally produced. The original is done in a way to exhibit the buildings height and prominence, and give a sense of how it looks on the site vertically. Nearly every single proposed image that we have seen on this site of skyscraper with a ground view utilizes this technique show/exaggerate the vertical characteristics of the building from the The Preston, to Texas Tower, to Capital Tower (Bank of America Tower), and so on and so on. This image is meant to convey an idea about he subject, and not the idea of the viewer itself. If this were an image where the focus on the viewer experience then I would go with the "fixed" image, but thats not what is represented here. The image doesn't have to be self-referential or meta by taking the viewer into account. I know I don't do that everytime when I set a scene for an image just like not ever scene in a film is done in the most "natural" way an eye can see as that is limiting for expression of an idea. That would be like saying a "section" is not honest because we don't see in section when that isn't the point of the drawing.

 

 

I take issue with the certainty of the notion that the image is "fixed" when there is a lot that goes into images like this and there are reasons architecturally you show images the way they are shown. I @brijonmang to this since he is a professional photographer that could shed light on this as he does the same vertical correction in his images. I do the same thing when I have a question or looking for input on structural questions like @Purdueenginerd @hindesky . In what way is this "shade being thrown in this site as of late". I don't take things the way they are presented as fact, and I'm merely questioning the certainy of the one producing the image. Its not "natural" its just "different". The original image is more dramatic, and exaggerated and thats the point of the image. Its selling the building itself and not the viewer.

 

I think you overreacted a bit. And possibly are reading too much into the word "fixed."

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get why Moldy went in and changed the perspective.  Typical architectural images and renderings of skyscrapers with the vertical perspective look very dramatic albeit unnatural.  I personally enjoy seeing the imposing look of a skyscraper in this way but that's just my opinion.

 

Unfortunately, playing around with the perspective in photoshop doesn't get this thing built any faster and that's the real issue.

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

I understand you’re perspective, @Luminare.  I, too, respect the intention of the illustrator to dramatize the image for effect. I also respect someone else’s attempt to show it slightly differently.  I don’t think @MidCenturyMoldy thought his version was somehow better than the original, as he used the term “fixed” in quotations.  He just wanted to show what he thought was a less-dramatized version.

 

I interpreted your response to his post as a bit condescending — specifically the comment that his method “isn’t even clever”.  If I read your intention wrong, I apologize.

 

All these points are fair. My intentions are always to separate the weak from the chaff, and sometimes that can be messy and sometimes I miss the table completely. I do stand by what I said though it could have been more balanced.

 

@MidcenturyMod My intention was not to say that what you did was wrong, but the fact that you were so certain and bold in your statement in it being "fixed". However, while I do stand by my comments, I do not stand by "isn't even clever". That is overstepping and I should be called out on that.

 

1 hour ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

wow, talk about a thread that got off track....

 

Rather us discuss this than homelessness! Both of these do get us wildly off track which I've also contributed too.

Edited by Luminare

Share this post


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

My intention was not to say that what you did was wrong, but the fact that you were so certain and bold in your statement in it being "fixed".

My putting the word in quotation marks was *specifically* meant to convey the fact that it was all a matter of interpretation.If I were certain I never would have done so.

 

ETA: In fact, my use of quotation marks was meant to convey a lack of seriousness, as well.

Edited by MidCenturyMoldy
Added "specifically."
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Important pedantic note: the term is actually "separate the wheat from the chaff."

 

...my work here is done...

 

29 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

All these points are fair. My intentions are always to separate the weak from the chaff, and sometimes that can be messy and sometimes I miss the table completely. I do stand by what I said though it could have been more balanced.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MidCenturyMoldy said:

My putting the word in quotation marks was *specifically* meant to convey the fact that it was all a matter of interpretation.If I were certain I never would have done so.

 

ETA: In fact, my use of quotation marks was meant to convey a lack of seriousness, as well.

 

True. I probably missed the mark on that, and I do admit that. Sometimes it can be hard to interpret that, and sometimes it's pretty clear. It wasn't meant to seem personal and merely a critique, but I know my stances can be intense and abrasive and so it can come off as personal. Now we know though and I rather there be a little conflict that gets us to this point than none and it remains totally ambiguous.

Like I said sometimes I hit, sometimes I don't. It happens. I'll do better.

1 minute ago, Texasota said:

Important pedantic note: the term is actually "separate the wheat from the chaff."

 

...my work here is done...

 

 

 

Don't be shy to jump in everyone haha! Open season on me today. Seriously, I deserve it every once in awhile.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that we've got that out of the way, I'd like to point out that the rendering for The Preston does *not* get larger at the top nor distort the upper floors. 😈

 

(It seems farther away and less intimate because of that.)

the-preston_rendering_exterior_view-from-milam-street-looking-north_hresgif.gif

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Now that we've got that out of the way, I'd like to point out that the rendering for The Preston does *not* get larger at the top nor distort the upper floors. 😈

 

(It seems farther away and less intimate because of that.)

the-preston_rendering_exterior_view-from-milam-street-looking-north_hresgif.gif

 

Challenge accepted haha.

 

You say that but thats because in this angle you see how the building slims out as it aims towards texas tower.

 

Now lets look at the face from the park.

 

YuPKhrf.jpg

 

Vertical lines are straight the whole way up including the one you posted. Not exactly "natural" angles ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Luminare said:

Vertical lines are straight the whole way up including the one you posted. Not exactly "natural" angles ;)

 

 

That's why the building looks farther away than the Caydon rendering. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MidCenturyMoldy said:

Is there an echo in here?

There might be - I only posted once.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 1:01 PM, quietstorm said:


The light at the top left is out already :(

That is a lovely rendering. 
Maybe someday it will actually look that way. 
(and I don't care how much of a specialty item that light may be. It's been two months. Time for them to get on the ball!)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dbigtex56 said:

That is a lovely rendering. 
Maybe someday it will actually look that way. 
(and I don't care how much of a specialty item that light may be. It's been two months. Time for them to get on the ball!)

 

That's a drone shot, not a rendering. Probably a composite.

Edited by jermh
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jermh said:

 

That's a drone shot, not a rendering. Probably a composite.


It's a floor wax and a dessert topping. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be darned. They finally fixed the damn light. 

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


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

Any word on how quickly they’re leasing these units?

 

They're pre-leased at 28% right now, so about 105 units out of the total 357. They started pre-leasing in May, so they're averaging about 17 units a month.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 7:24 AM, dbigtex56 said:

I'll be darned. They finally fixed the damn light. 

 

 

Aaaannd.....it's out again. Didn't even last a month. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

49 minutes ago, dbigtex56 said:

 

Aaaannd.....it's out again. Didn't even last a month. 

Ugh I’m at the bus stop across the way and thought I had Breaking News. Alas. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 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...