Luminare Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, Reporter said: Let's face it. In Houston, everything sticks out. But's that's how we like it! *likes comment* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 33 minutes ago, Urbannizer said: Anyone know how the meeting went regarding this one? No real discussion from commissioners. One speaker in favor, though wanted less prominent parking (either fewer spaces or automated parking system). Two speakers opposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AREJAY Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) the design and coloring reminds me of the OG Nintendo. Edited August 31, 2018 by AREJAY 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CREguy13 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Is this designed to serve public parking, in addition to residents and retail? That would be great to park and walk to Gray street, if you're coming from outside the area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilcal Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 I think that it looks pretty good all things considered! Parking podium not ideal, but bring on the density. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Money Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 I'm diggin the funky retro vibe. I think it'll fit Montrose nicely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Oh. No no. That's ugly and so misporoportioned. However, can't argue with a frontage of retail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 24 minutes ago, jmosele said: I'm diggin the funky retro vibe. I think it'll fit Montrose nicely! I’m getting a “Sears store renovated in the 1980s” vibe from this render. 4 minutes ago, Naviguessor said: Oh. No no. That's ugly and so misporoportioned. However, can't argue with a frontage of retail. Agreed. This lot has a relatively narrow footprint for the size of the building, so when you combine that with the asinine minimum parking requirements, this is what you get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 1 hour ago, thedistrict84 said: Agreed. This lot has a relatively narrow footprint for the size of the building, so when you combine that with the asinine minimum parking requirements, this is what you get. Looking at the rendering, if the retail parking is undergound (probably 50 spaces or so) it's almost certainly exceeding the minimums by a fair amount. 50% or so, I'd guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terra002 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 love it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed_Tx Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 2 hours ago, thedistrict84 said: I’m getting a “Sears store renovated in the 1980s” vibe from this render. I'm getting a "1960's office building converted to a parking lot with something thrown on top" vibe. It looks like it will have ample parking for the residences on top AND for the nightlife in the area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarathonMan Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 This is just awful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purdueenginerd Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 In my opinion, I'm not a huge fan of 9 floor of garage space within that footprint. I get the idea that whilst looking for parking the driver will get dizzy driving up to the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 I don’t like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reporter Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 3 hours ago, UtterlyUrban said: I don’t like this. Who gives a shit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator80 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Love it !!!! Funky retro vibe. Good fit for Montrose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgriff Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 I like it because it pisses off the "What about the drainage?", "What about the traffic?", "It's out of scale with the neighborhood.", "Think of the children.", "I live in a bungalow." crowd. There's already a group of them trying to stop this. These people are truly evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatguysly Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 UGLY and dated looking. Looks like an office for a failed dot com company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intencity77 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Very hideous looking building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 16 hours ago, Reporter said: Who gives a shit? Such a friendly Lad or Lass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkylineView Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 Gucci @ Prada? At Montrose & Clay? Ok. glhf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 On 9/1/2018 at 1:31 AM, jgriff said: I like it because it pisses off the "What about the drainage?", "What about the traffic?", "It's out of scale with the neighborhood.", "Think of the children.", "I live in a bungalow." crowd. There's already a group of them trying to stop this. These people are truly evil. The "what about the drainage" people are the best. Aesthetics of this particular building aside, building high-FAR, high-population-per-acre housing results in less impervious cover per resident. And the increase in population is coming whether we build here or out in the sticks. Every apartment in this building could mean one fewer house on the Katy prairie, which should HELP the flooding situation. The "what about the traffic" people have a point, sort of. To the extent that all the people living in this building will mostly get around by driving personal automobiles, the additional population will increase traffic. But it's not a question of WHETHER we get additional population, it's a question of WHERE. If you want to reduce traffic, you need to reduce vehicle miles traveled per person. If you don't build dense housing near where people work and play, you build sprawl further away. Which means more people driving more miles, which means more traffic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 4 hours ago, Angostura said: Every apartment in this building could mean one fewer house on the Katy prairie, which should HELP the flooding situation. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m afraid the Venn diagram between people considering a house in Katy and those who would live in a high-rise apartment in Montrose would basically be two perfect circles directly next to each other. I personally have zero interest in living in a high rise, but also zero interest in living anywhere outside the loop, so maybe I’m not the best person to opine on such a choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedistrict84 Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 On 8/31/2018 at 11:31 PM, jgriff said: I like it because it pisses off the "What about the drainage?", "What about the traffic?", "It's out of scale with the neighborhood.", "Think of the children.", "I live in a bungalow." crowd. There's already a group of them trying to stop this. These people are truly evil. That’s a fairly low bar to set. There will always be somebody to oppose virtually any new development, no matter what the justification of their opposition may be. I’m not sure such people should be deemed “truly evil” though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobruss Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 On 9/1/2018 at 2:01 PM, UtterlyUrban said: Such a friendly Lad or Lass I don't know why he even follows this site if he has that attitude. Whats happened to friendly discourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, bobruss said: I don't know why he even follows this site if he has that attitude. Whats happened to friendly discourse. I simply chalk it up to immaturity with a tad bit of arrogance. I say this because I've been that way even on this site years prior. While we ultimately want/need these developments to happen we should uphold our due diligence to listen to what those people have to say because we might be just as ignorant about the situation as they are. Hopefully we all gain a better perspective in each situation on both sides. That last part especially "truly evil" just exudes tribalism in its worst forms. I'm glad people are taking him to task on this because its just as arrogant as those who oppose this development who say that we are evil for not caring about their lives and supporting this development. Edited September 3, 2018 by Luminare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 15 hours ago, SkylineView said: Gucci @ Prada? At Montrose & Clay? Ok. glhf. Just as a follow-on,....... For all you graphic artists..... what are the trademark/copyright laws that apply to this? I see some developers use “brand” names on the building’s in their rendering and others don't. Can any developer plaster a rendering with the trademark/tradename or copyrighted symbols of a brand? Or, is that not allowed? i’m curious and I could use a good education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 2 hours ago, thedistrict84 said: Although I agree with you in principle, I’m afraid the Venn diagram between people considering a house in Katy and those who would live in a high-rise apartment in Montrose would basically be two perfect circles directly next to each other. I personally have zero interest in living in a high rise, but also zero interest in living anywhere outside the loop, so maybe I’m not the best person to opine on such a choice. As long is there is some preference overlap along the spectrum from high-rise apartment to 1-acre homesite, it doesn't need to be a direct substitution to be true. And people's preferences are not immune to price and availability. Right now, you're able to indulge both your preference for a certain type of housing AND your preference to live (in certain neighborhoods) inside the loop, but there's no guarantee that those conditions will persist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 57 minutes ago, UtterlyUrban said: Just as a follow-on,....... For all you graphic artists..... what are the trademark/copyright laws that apply to this? I see some developers use “brand” names on the building’s in their rendering and others don't. Can any developer plaster a rendering with the trademark/tradename or copyrighted symbols of a brand? Or, is that not allowed? i’m curious and I could use a good education. This would slide into the category of fair use. One is that it isn't a one to one market. The rendering isn't competing in the market that the trademark resides and two its using the brand name in a different way than original intended which gives it a different meaning. However there are stipulations to this. Some companies require all sign offs to use their products in given work, but many don't because if an artist uses a certain brand than its basically free advertising for the brand. For many, any kind of visibility is good visibility. Sometimes this can even motivate a brand to buy into a production, project, design, etc... simply because they see the opportunity now that they see it in said production, project, design. You see this in Hollywood for instance when a script might read that "character starts drinking a soda" and later a brand comes in and says "can the character drink a Coke?" and give ad money so they can be featured. Its also based on preference. Some artists don't want to be tied or seen advertising to a particular brand and so they will go with a generic look. My personal preference is to use generic logos, etc... because any brand in an image like this is going to be a bit distracting to the overall vision. Plus it might immediately restrict what might be possible at that given moment in the project. There are a lot more that can be discussed on this, but its a good primer and quick answer to your questions which are good btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, Luminare said: This would slide into the category of fair use. One is that it isn't a one to one market. The rendering isn't competing in the market that the trademark resides and two its using the brand name in a different way than original intended which gives it a different meaning. However there are stipulations to this. Some companies require all sign offs to use their products in given work, but many don't because if an artist uses a certain brand than its basically free advertising for the brand. For many, any kind of visibility is good visibility. Sometimes this can even motivate a brand to buy into a production, project, design, etc... simply because they see the opportunity now that they see it in said production, project, design. You see this in Hollywood for instance when a script might read that "character starts drinking a soda" and later a brand comes in and says "can the character drink a Coke?" and give ad money so they can be featured. Its also based on preference. Some artists don't want to be tied or seen advertising to a particular brand and so they will go with a generic look. My personal preference is to use generic logos, etc... because any brand in an image like this is going to be a bit distracting to the overall vision. Plus it might immediately restrict what might be possible at that given moment in the project. There are a lot more that can be discussed on this, but its a good primer and quick answer to your questions which are good btw. Great info. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.