Highway6

Turning out pretty nice.

Beautiful shot, that lighting is great.

If I'm not mistaken, you're in the vacant lot used in the Chevy commercial to build a youth baseball diamond.

The less than stellar access and visibility had nothing to do with the Robbins Bros closure. RB expanded way too fast from their california roots - multiple stores in Houston, Dallas, Chicago and went bankrupt when the economy went sour. Part of the bankruptcy deal was that Spence bought out all but their california stores.

Why Spence has closed, I have no clue... but RB's closure was a bigger corporate level thing, not a location thing.

Also if you look at the renderings, it almost looks like there will be steps down to the edge of the bayou. Is that really part of the current plan?

No, you're seeing the result of using foam core to build a terrain in a physical model.

Looks like the Sam Houston National Forest has jumped south and taken over Afton Oaks, and by 2012, the chrome, halo type street signs in the Galleria area will hover in place? Ah, renderings...

Oh God... I can picture the Haify bitching and moaning in a few years...

" BUT the RENDERINGS promised us a forest and floating halos "

Who cares?

It is still a well known comic; Regardless of the storyline above, the Brazos is not portrayed in a negative light. Therefore its a good thing.

Funky Winkerbean, Brazos Bookstore on Bissonett Street.

Hardly a positive reference, though, it being Funky Winkerbean.

Though I haven't followed Funky in a few years, Funky is still a classic.

Considering he could have chosen any bookstore in America, the fact that he enjoyed his visit there enough to include them in the strip this week is a very very positive thing.

http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20101207&name=Funky_Winkerbean

I can only wish I never heard of Trans Siberian Orchestra. ugh. double dog ugh. Like a crappy Kansas tribute band with Highlander thunder effects and a glockenspiel.

sorry.. Christmas music gets to be hokey and use glockenspiels. -1 for you.

I've been reading LTAWACS' comments for some time now. I'm pretty sure that he's just baiting us with outlandish comments. It's his persona, and it might be brilliant.

I could be wrong, though.

Whatever the case, it's best not to feed it.

UGH !!

google maps shows an existing bridge, at least a pedestrian bridge, only a few hundred feet from this location

That little space between their building in the park is owned by someone else? I know we can build stuff on little parcels but that's pretty small, considering every building needs a parking garage. The undeveloped land to the east seems much more likely for something to be built.

So is that one block divided between three owners? Embassy, space to the north, and space to the east?

I was under the impression that Embassy's land extended the width of the block to Lamar as well. NIche revealing otherwise is the obvious answer as to why the building fronts the way it does. It's not just the likelihood of something being built there that is the problem. If the Embassy only has 2 street access, not 3 like I thought, they have to front where they have access.

Even more important is the rectangular shape of the site. All your hotel rooms are going to face out the long sides or the rectangle. The site dictates that the back faces the park.

That being said, the ugly crowd's main complaint is with the big bare wall, which translates to lack of glazing.

If you remember from the construction photos, 1/3 of that wall is the emergency stairwell.. placed there because one is typically located in a back corner. They also have a shear wall there on the left. While the typical liner hotel room does not have glazing on the sides (thats where you have your furniture), the front of the hotel shows it certainly is possible and desired if you're building suites. Why are these not bigger suites on the back left corner which would allow for more side glazing? I'm sure there an economic formula that hotels deal with that dictate the % of suites but the most likely answer is that it is the back of the site/interior of the block.

While it in unlikely, Discover Tower's multistory entrance cube demonstrates it is possible to build something, part of a building, on such a small area of land that would obstruct those suite's views, esp if one developer were to buy the rest of the block.

This only proves that the people responsible for the building's design are nothing more than incompetent, bumbling, buffoons who are so out of touch with reality, they would have the gall the think this is a design worth building. Make those responsible for this hideous creation pay.

And this only proves that some people are incompetent buffons that have no idea how the process works. The developer/owner wants what he wants. He gets the final say. An architect can try to talk him out of it, but ultimatly an architects job is to satisfy the needs and desires of the customer... IF they don't, they'll be kicked to the curb and replaced by an another architect that will play ball.

You're repeated misguided anger is laughable.

Developing is a business.. Viva Capitalism. I don't know why the hell the building faces the way it does, but I'm sure the developer and architects had their reasons, so i don't care.

---------------------------

I'm not naming any names here... but in my opinion, someone here has a firm stranglehold on "Most Worthless Haif Contributor" 2010 award.

While I like the rusted steel, we all know they're gonna paint it.

Anyone know what color it will be painted or care to make a guess ?

While i agree with both of you that the design is a natural fit with the bayou, I wouldn't mind seeing a vibrant color chosen.

It would be an unexpected surprise in our city of neutral colors. I'm rooting for Canary Yellow.

I disagree. It's better than the twisty design they previously had.

It's going to be quite pleasant, when its done, jogging through the tree tops.

That article made me want to dig around to see if Ronnie Self finally had a webpage.. and voila, he now does.

http://www.ronnieself.com/ has more photos of that house, for those interested.

Thanks for sharing that article... I've always hoped Ronnie's house would get published someday so that we could see some interior shots.

Question (maybe a dumb one): It's a "pedestrian" bridge, but can I ride my bike across it? Obviously this depends on landings, but those usually have ramps instead of steps. It's just kind of crazy getting down there with the kid trailer sometimes. Might be just as crazy trying to go down a ramp with it.

I'm sure it has to be ADA accessible.. so ramped with a min slope. Bikes and kid trailers shouldn't be a problem.

I may be misunderstanding here, but I read it as dbigtex hitting a car to alert them they were about to run him down at a crosswalk as they made their right turn. That sounds like self-defense to me.

Whether a pedestrian is crossing the street the car is approaching on, or crossing the street the car is turning into , you're still supposed to look both ways. You never just assume your pedestrian right of way when you're going up against several thousand lbs. Make eye contact with the driver at the stop sign before crossing the street. In Dbigtex's example - If he's not paying attention to you and you don't think he sees you, then guess what.. you wait. You yield your right of way. You don't continue to cross the street in front of the car just because you are "in the right". If you know the driver has not seen you since ""Almost NEVER do drivers check to their right when making a right-hand turn from a stop sign"... then you'd have to be dumb to still step out in front of them.

I read it as dbigtex being ticked that the car wasn't yielding to his pedestrian right of way and pounding the car accordingly. He doesnt have the right to do that. That is not self defense.

Unjustly losing your right of way doesnt justify violence. If my car and another car both stopped at a 4 way intersection at the same time. If I'm on the right, I know I have the right of way... but I'm not just going to assume the other driver knows that I have the right of way. I'd continue slowly while making eye contact with him. If he decides to go for it in front of me, I do not then have the right to ram him just because I had the right of way.

Use common sense.. a pedestrian shouldn't step in front of any moving car, turning or not, right of way or not, if he doesn't think the driver has seen him.

I've taken to banging on people's hoods to alert them that I'm crossing in front of them

Sued? Really?

So far as assaults, cars have license plates. Drivers can be traced. And I will press charges.

Pounding on someone's car when they are in it is asking for trouble. Period. You have no right to do that. Period.

Yes, if they came out and assaulted you, you could sue their ass... you'd get rich, but you'd still deserve the asskicking.

Red will have to step in on this one. I believe in tort law - if you pounded a car with the driver in it... the car would be considered an extension of the driver, you would in essence be assaulting the driver and they could file civil charges.

I'm not sure what your actions would have to entail for criminal charges to be pressed. At the least, there would be destruction of property.

If you pounded my car, for any reason, at an intersection. I would immediately phone the cops and follow you till they showed up. I would make you financially regret it as much as I could.

Back in 06 here in Montrose, some jacka$s pounded angrily on my wife's truck at an intersection when she had her middle school-aged brother in the car with her. Scared the everliving crap out of both of them. If you've ever done that to a woman driver or when kids were in the car, that would make you an extreme p.o.s.

_________________

I've taken to banging on people's hoods to alert them that I'm crossing in front of them, after the second accident. If they scowl, screw 'em. I don't feel like getting my leg broken again.

Good way to get your ass kicked or sued.

Either you misread my post, or are being tendentious. W. Alabama was never designed as a major artery, but has been tarted up as one in order to keep East West (read: commuters into and out of downtown) traffic moving at as good a clip as possible. Speed is very much an issue on this road....and that's coming from a neighbor.

Neighbors speed as well. It's not just a commuter thing. You don't need the middle lane going in your direction to speed if you have no cars directly in front of you. Speed can be an issue on every road, including 1 lane roads.

I speed a little bit pretty much everywhere I go, including Alabama, Westheimer, or Richmond, however I may choose to drive E-W any given day. I don't however run red lights or walk out into intersections before looking both ways, and I'm smart enough to drive significantly below the speed limit if I have the sun in my eyes.

My issue with your post is you chose the wrong accident to rant against the "switch and bait middle lane configuration that still sits very uneasily with you" .

This accident had zilch to do with speed and zilch to do with the middle lane configuration,

many drivers, and a fair guess is that they predominantly commuters, treat it like it's a major artery, when it was never designed to be anything of the sort. How many major arteries have teachers leading a crowd of 12 year olds on a neighbourhood jog after school gets out?

I don't see how accidentally running a red light because you're driving into the sun has anything to do with the middle lane configuration. -LINK

I drive it daily. It was and is a major artery... and that's coming from a neighbor. I don't see the present lane configuration or your terming it an artery being synonymous with "need for speed". It appears this accident would have happened regardless of speed. Furthermore, you don't know that the driver wasn't a neighbor as well.

Also.. kids, parents, teachers, anyone should be looking both way before crossing any street.

While this driver is 99.9% at fault, I agree with Ricco. These 2 kids and coach were stopped at the intersection; They got complacent and it seems like they weren't paying much attention if they then stepped out right in front of a fast-moving car just because they had the right of way.

1. It doesn't match the renderings... yea yea, stick with me here... the purpose of a rendering is to give you an idea what the final product will look like. ....

Refer to post 717 for my reply.

2. I wouldn't say don't build at all... I would say, okay, tough economic times.. lets wait. I'm sure though in the real world, time lost = money lost. Guess you can't argue with that

Oh.. but you would.

Too bad they couldn't just stick to the rendering and the original height. When you can't do it right, it's sometimes best to do nothing at all...

See, this is what kills me. Whenever some garbage gets built, and it is criticized as such, someone comes along to not defend the building, but to in effect say we should be happy with junk. This isn't even defending the hotel, just saying that we should be happy to settle for mediocrity, because after all, there are other mediocre buildings around. The pros and cons imply a false trade-off; that somehow it's OK to be ugly if it replaces a surface lot. All the pros mentioned could just have well been accomplished with an attractive building.

Embrace mediocrity!

Simply amazing...

Embrace mediocrity? Me? Apparently you haven't seen my rants against "Recognized" ratings in the Klein ISD thread.

What kills me is the average haifer's lack of sense of reality. There is no city in the world that doesn't have their share of mediocre buildings.. they are just a fact of life. It is stupid to expect every building built to be awe-inspiring. Developers pull all the strings.. architects can only design what they can get away with.. Money always does the talking.

This is not a commercial mid-rise or hi-rise building where a developer might be willing to go out on a limb in order to attract tenants . It's a hotel. Not a Ritz, Not a W, not some famous hotel brand name known for elegance or cutting-edge. It's an Embassy Suites. Here is a snapshot of Embassy Suite's portfolio. Why anyone would expect much beyond mediocrity from Embassy Suites is beyond me!!

Also, what kills me.. ignoring what's going on around you. Economy is in the crapper! Everyone here vilifies the developer, but I just can't imagine it's only his say. I can't imagine that financing issues haven't played an enormous part in his scaling back.

Everyone has a right to b!tch about an ugly building. Hell, I think it's ugly too. I have a right to b!tch about b!tchers if I feel their b!tchings are unjustified. My responses have usually come in after reading two specific complaints.

1) The "oh waaahhh, IT doesn't match the renderings" complaint

2) The " IF you can't build something nice, don't build anything at all " complaint

You can call the building ugly all you want, but if you go to either one of those 2 destinations, I'm gonna rant about what an idiot you are.

And guess what Subdude... It IS okay to be ugly if it increases the taxbase, creates much needed jobs, adds infill to our skyline. Is it preferable? No. But it's certainly Okay.

And you me as well. I consider this to be far from the rendering because they completely omitted the only aesthetic aspect to the bulding, which was the crown. Obviously you think that since they built basically the same structure minus the most dynamic feature, that it's "close" to the rendering, well, you sadden me.

You're 100% wrong on my thoughts. I'm tired of beating a dead horse, so I won't mention them again... my thoughts on renderings and expectations have been documented enough in this thread ( #717).