Drewery Place: Multifamily High-Rise At 2850 Fannin St.

[phillip_white]

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... 😄

[Urbannizer]

https://lanewaysmidtown.com/dreweryplace/

 

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

 

 

 

[Response]

I love Caydon. Midtown needs about 100 more of these.

[cspwal]

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

[editor]

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.

[H-Town Man]

"We are sending some thugs to break your knees, hopefully they won't have to break your knees."

 

 

[hindesky]

They can't stop me.....🤣

 

I thought they owned this plot.

[TheSirDingle]

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 3:59 PM, Urbannizer said:

20190316-DJI_0041-2.jpg by Brian Greul, on Flickr

 

 

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

 

Edit: The 2 Towers are now to the left. Sorry for the confusion 

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by TheSirDingle

[hindesky]

8 minutes ago, TheSirDingle said:

 

 

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

 

Is that the tower by the Milhouse Midtown?

[TheSirDingle]

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 April 19, 2019 by TheSirDingle

[houstontexasjack]

On 4/14/2019 at 3:04 PM, hindesky said:

 

I thought they owned this plot.

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:

 

 

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.

[TheSirDingle]

Some reason I got confused on which lots they owned. Would be crazy if they built another 2 tower to the right of it though.

[Highrise Tower]

Clear skies

 

[Urbannizer]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/24435302@N03/46718811665

[Response]

Houston's getting more amazing by the day (and night ^) Thanks for posting that. I love these wide angle shots.

[Luminare]

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 April 30, 2019 by Luminare

[Luminare]

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.



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 April 30, 2019 by Luminare

[Luminare]

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 April 30, 2019 by Luminare

[Houston19514]

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.

[Urbannizer]

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.

[Luminare]

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.

[Houston19514]

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.

[Urbannizer]

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

[Luminare]

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?

[Houston19514]

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 April 30, 2019 by Houston19514

[rechlin]

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.

[cloud713]

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


(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.

[cspwal]

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

[rechlin]

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.

[Brooklyn173]

 

 

 

Last night (May 2, 2019)

Edited May 4, 2019 by Brooklyn173