Jump to content

Icon M Tower: NEC Of Montrose & West Clay St.


Sparrow

Recommended Posts

That's going to stick out like a sore appendage.
BTW, the name "Montrose Gardens" was already taken (2507 Montrose), but that building has been retitled "The Gardens Condominiums", (although I've never heard anyone call it that).
Taxi and Uber drivers should be forewarned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Luminare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarnoff article is out: https://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Montrose-tower-to-rise-20-stories-at-former-13217603.php?utm_campaign=twitter-desktop&utm_source=CMS Sharing Button&utm_medium=social

 

One bit of new info I believe:

 

Quote

The owners of a Thai restaurant on the property -- Khun Kay Thai Cafe (formerly the Golden Room restaurant) -- are proposing the project. Tanawat (Book) and Anuch (Annie) Sumrith, plan to re-open their restaurant in the new tower.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 11:12 AM, thedistrict84 said:

 

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. 

 

I stand by it. They are "truly evil". I don't believe that they are intellectually honest in anyway and they want to trample on the rights of others. Lying to get your way and destroying some of the foundational rights that makes the U.S. what it is rises to the level of "evil". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Angostura said:

From the revised variance request:

 

  • Now 6000 sf of retail, 4 x 1500sf, one of which will be a new version of Khun Kay
  • Retail parking on the 2nd floor
  • Residential parking on floors 3 thru 7
  • Residences on floors 8 thru 20

 

 

Wooooooow. That's good stuff. 33% reduction in parking and 33% increase in residential space? Quite a difference. 

 

Edit: unit/parking breakdowns:

 

6,000 sqft retail: 24 parking spaces

 

100 total residential units

59 1 bedroom @ 1.33 units = 79 spaces

28 2 bedroom @ 1.66 units = 47 spaces

13 3 bedroom @ 2.00 = 26 spaces

 

Total 176 required. Providing 180 spaces

 

That would be 180 spaces / 6 floors of parking = 30 spots per level

 

 

Edited by wilcal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

Wooooooow. That's good stuff. 33% reduction in parking and 33% increase in residential space? Quite a difference. 

 

 

But on the low end of the initial 100-150 res units. That said, a reasonable amount of 3BR units. If dense areas are to attract families in addition to singles and childless couples, we need more 3BR+ apartments and condos.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Icon M Tower: NEC Of Montrose & West Clay St.
  • The title was changed to Icon M Tower: NEC of Montrose & West Clay

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...