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

[mattyt36]

49 minutes ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

Maybe and if so, maybe he'll add those additional forums requested to the neighborhood section. Then again, if there isn't a cease and desist, or threat of legal action from a developer or designer, we won't hear squat about requests for forum features.

 

Maybe you should play the Belgian card.

[BeerNut]

Why do developers post pictures to their web site then send take down request?  If my company wants to keep something private we keep it on internal networks and slap confidential watermarks all over it.

[houstontexasjack]

Ordinarily, a commercial developer would be thrilled to have a lot of positive chatter about a development.  However, in re-reading the Caydon press release on picking up more land, their reference to the parcel acquired did not appear to match all of the land to the north of the 2850 Fannin plot:

 

https://caydonusa.com/2017/08/17/australian-developer-picks-another-midtown-pacel-east-main/ 

 

In checking the maps of the area, I found at least one parcel abutting McGowen that would be apart of the proposed development that was owned by another entity.  In the interest of wishing Caydon "happy hunting" on the other parcels to as to be able to economically acquire the land to realize the full extent of the renderings, I won't push into the subject further. 

Edit:  In reading Swamplot's description of the renderings, it appears Caydon may not need all of the land on McGowen to accomplish what was proposed in the renderings....so I am back to being just as confused to why they would presumably prod the designer to get the renderings pulled, unless of course they were actually negotiating with the landowners on McGowen to acquire the remainder of the block.

Edited February 23, 2018 by houstontexasjack

[mattyt36]

 

1 hour ago, BeerNut said:

Why do developers post pictures to their web site then send take down request?  If my company wants to keep something private we keep it on internal networks and slap confidential watermarks all over it.

 

The developer didn't post the pictures, did it?  It was the designer.  Isn't the most logical explanation that the designer did it without the permission of the developer, which owns the work?

[samagon]

I have genuinely always been curious how posting portions of copyrighted works for the purposes of discussion (as was done here) does not fit into the fair use category that allows for limited reproduction?

 

I suppose with a legal team the size I imagine HAIF has, it's easier to just comply than start talking about fair use.

[mattyt36]

20 minutes ago, samagon said:

I have genuinely always been curious how posting portions of copyrighted works for the purposes of discussion (as was done here) does not fit into the fair use category that allows for limited reproduction?

 

I suppose with a legal team the size I imagine HAIF has, it's easier to just comply than start talking about fair use.

 

If it's intellectual property produced in connection with a legal agreement between two parties with attendant restrictions, fair use doesn't come into play.  Consider the work as "not published" in this instance.  (Or "improperly published in contravention of a legal agreement" in this case.)

[Montrose1100]

Don’t tell them about SSP. Maybe from now on we just link the renderings and ask swamplot to only report on tree removal?

[samagon]

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

 

If it's intellectual property produced in connection with a legal agreement between two parties with attendant restrictions, fair use doesn't come into play.  Consider the work as "not published" in this instance.  (Or "improperly published in contravention of a legal agreement" in this case.)

 

the legal-eze posted by editor doesn't say it was intellectual property that was bound by any kind of NDA, it just says that it was copyrighted material that they have exclusive rights to reproduce.

 

I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't even stay at a holiday inn express last night, so I really have no idea, it's just a genuine curiosity.

[Luminare]

These people obviously don't know how the internet works. What is seen can't be unseen or even completely taken down.

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

 

the legal-eze posted by editor doesn't say it was intellectual property that was bound by any kind of NDA, it just says that it was copyrighted material that they have exclusive rights to reproduce.

 

I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't even stay at a holiday inn express last night, so I really have no idea, it's just a genuine curiosity.

 

It originally came from their website right?  And it's been taken down from their website?  Or did it come from somewhere else?

[rechlin]

16 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

 

It originally came from their website right?  And it's been taken down from their website?  Or did it come from somewhere else?

 

The images are actually still online on their website.  I'm not going to embed any images or make any links here to avoid the wrath of their lawyers, but the images can still be found on their website on URLs like the following, just remove the space (unfortunately this is the only one I saved because I embedded it in one of my comments; I no longer have the others recorded):

 

https ://static1.squarespace.com/static/55eab7bde4b0be5bebc81228/5a56e08953450ad10256280c/5a56e289c8302558efef90b4/1515721739529/CAYDON_Houston_EXT03_Podium%2BRetail.jpg

[mattyt36]

4 minutes ago, rechlin said:

 

The images are actually still online on their website.  I'm not going to embed any images or make any links here to avoid the wrath of their lawyers, but the images can still be found on their website on URLs like the following, just remove the space (unfortunately this is the only one I saved because I embedded it in one of my comments; I no longer have the others recorded):

 

https ://static1.squarespace.com/static/55eab7bde4b0be5bebc81228/5a56e08953450ad10256280c/5a56e289c8302558efef90b4/1515721739529/CAYDON_Houston_EXT03_Podium%2BRetail.jpg

 

Hmmmmm then I definitely agree with Samagon.

[bobruss]

I was on the 288/ 69 yesterday and just noticed with the cranes in place what this is going to do to our southern end of town. Once one of these building reaches into the upper floors the affect it has on downtown skyline will be enormous. It will pull downtown to it and we will have  a small gap that will probably begin to see other high rises filling in. Its going to do what the courthouses and all of the outer edge high rises like the Marriott, Aris, Market Square and the Catalyst have done to the north and east skyline.

Its amazing how much it visually enlarges the footprint of downtown. Now we have lots of infill to work on.

The southeast side is going to have the same thing happen once the Camden at Root park is finished.

[Chi-Char-Hou-Dal]

My fam and I ate at Cafe Saigon vietcajun crawfish over the weekend - walked to the park after this part of midtown is gonna be so different soon.

 

maybe the crime stoppers building can even take down their fenced in park in a few years !

 

Armed seal security was working hard patrolling the new park on golf carts  - no bums anywhere to be seen.

[REDev89]

This group's local office is very secretive, which is strange considering the owner's boisterous and more open mouthed approach (Aussie).

 

Joe has told me the plans for the other parcels which renderings they were quick to try to scrape from the internet will attempt to be creative office and for-sale condos or they have even explored micro rental housing. It will be interesting to see the retail they end up with their development as this seems to be a weakness in this developer's expertise.

[rechlin]

I've been thinking about the renderings that were pulled and looking at them in more detail, and also looking back through the posts in this topic to get a better idea on what's going on here.

 

The tower being built now is the "southernmost" (pretending that Main is a north/south street) of the three towers.  You can see it in the background on a few of the pulled renderings, but renderings of that tower itself are still in this thread in earlier posts (such as this one and this one) and also on the construction fence around the site. 

 

This post here has the FAA filings for the next two towers, called Tower 1 and Tower 2.  Tower 1 is on the block that presently has the Art Supply building.  Tower 2 is on the block that presently has the Greensheet building.  And this post here shows the property they had acquired as of about half a year ago, which seems to have everything except the far corner of the northernmost block.  The renderings focused on these two blocks, which have much more striking designs than the tower being built right now.

 

In the renderings, the one I was most confused by was the one of the northernmost block.  After additional thought, I've realized that that is actually the southbound McGowen station (not the northbound station as it appears at first glance), and the person coming up with the rendering used a little artistic liberty to show green grass where the southbound Main Street lane is now, and a third set of rail tracks where the southbound Main Street sidewalk is (perhaps to emphasize the proximity to the rail?).  Other than that minor details, the renderings make sense.  The not-really-archlike thing it pictured going over Main Street would be to visually connect it to the mini park on the north edge of the Camden Superblock.

 

Now lets hope they build the two blocks as pictured in the renderings!

[corbs315]

16 hours ago, bobruss said:

I was on the 288/ 69 yesterday and just noticed with the cranes in place what this is going to do to our southern end of town. Once one of these building reaches into the upper floors the affect it has on downtown skyline will be enormous. It will pull downtown to it and we will have  a small gap that will probably begin to see other high rises filling in. Its going to do what the courthouses and all of the outer edge high rises like the Marriott, Aris, Market Square and the Catalyst have done to the north and east skyline.

Its amazing how much it visually enlarges the footprint of downtown. Now we have lots of infill to work on.

The southeast side is going to have the same thing happen once the Camden at Root park is finished.

 

Agreed. I drive home on 288-N all the time and the crane right there already fills the sky a bit. Having a tower there will be amazing.

[hindesky]

 

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

 

Parking for the workers, lunch area and prefab area across the street.

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 12, 2019 by Timoric

[phillip_white]

From this evening:

 

 

[htownbro]

16 hours ago, phillip_white said:

From this evening:

 

 

woohoo...it should be visible in the skyline by mid to late summer!

[bobruss]

On 3/19/2018 at 6:02 AM, Timoric said:

I can't imagine what the West Loop looked like before the Galleria came and all the rest, hope this is the start of something big mid-way

Can you say prairie!

Besides Sakowitz and 2K's an ice cream parlor at Post Oak and westheimer, that was over the top 1890's style, with lots of brass, fancy cushioned twirling seats at the bar and large apothecary jars of sweets.You expected to hear a barber shop quartet at any moment.

KPRC was where the lakes of Post Oak are, and farther down Meyerland had just opened. On Easter they had a huge promotional easter egg hunt in the field across post oak, which is now where Lowes and what was once Armco tower stand. Home depot was where the Pin Oak stables were where they had an annual week long horse show that all of the Houston socialites would attend. Besides that it was pretty much crickets.

Edited March 28, 2018 by bobruss

[hindesky]

[Urbannizer]

 

[hindesky]

[hindesky]

From a FB friend.

[htownbro]

12 hours ago, hindesky said:

From a FB friend.

2016 Main looks like that old ugly abandoned building on St. Josephs.  Ughhh.  

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, htownbro said:

2016 Main looks like that old ugly abandoned building on St. Josephs.  Ughhh.  

I like 2016 Main. If we had more buildings its size around it, I think it would "seem" nicer. 

[Triton]

2 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I like 2016 Main. If we had more buildings its size around it, I think it would "seem" nicer. 

 

If I remember correctly, there are even several HAIFers that live there and say they enjoy that place too, even for its age.

[htownbro]

3 hours ago, Triton said:

 

If I remember correctly, there are even several HAIFers that live there and say they enjoy that place too, even for its age.

 

Oops my bad!