Luminare

22 minutes ago, I'm Not a Robot said:

 

I think this must be a different development because it looks almost nothing like the other design and nothing like the other photos on the same link couple this with nothing on the Mill's website indicating the design changed, especially considering that there is a 3D tour available elsewhere that maintains the other design. https://canvas360tours.com/TheMill/canvas/

 

I personally prefer the design more consistently shown, but I guess we should see soon considering this thing is supposed to be built by October. 

 

 

Some firms and contractors will continue to show earlier illustrations because it shows the evolution of the project. I'm working on a project right now where we showed one thing at a meeting and now will have to make some adjustments for the next one. Meaning I'll be producing new renders, new site plan, and a new animation. Designs change all the time and more often then people might guess. Honestly, the image shown above isn't that different. I'd imagine that was a phase of the design where they were exploring the cost benefits of placing more residential on site than office/retail. This happens all the time. I know there is usually a kneejerk reaction with each release on here of new or different renderings, but most of the time there is no context of when this was released by the firm or presented. Either way both designs are good. Both will be a massive improvement for the area. Considering what has been exhibited lately and even what is shown on Arch Con's website what we have been seeing lately is latest and greatest.

I'll be visiting Houston in late April. I definitely have a few projects I want to see like Montrose Collective, Post HTX, and the Ion. Anything else I should see? I'll be bringing my camera and taking pictures. Also off topic for this thread, but any new restaurants I should try? I'm sure there's been a bunch of new places popping up since I left Jan. of 2021. Also if anyone is interested in meeting up, I'm game for that as well.

Well its not terrible. Better than a vacant lot. On the positive side, I like the windows though.

And the award for the Worst Model to be Published/Shared with the Public...goes to...Forge Craft.

At the very least when you show off your model, show a finished one. Seriously, my eyes are bleeding and weeping at the same time when I look at this. I am immediately skeptical of any firm or project that is shown/presented in this way. Its lazy, and unprofessional.

Seems like these latest moves is Kirksey Architecture's attempt diversify. Kirksey for the past 10 years leaned very heavily into Educational facilities both K-12 and Higher Ed. Either that market is cooling off, or they aren't getting the kind of projects to only lean on that particular industry.

On 1/19/2022 at 1:09 PM, H-Town Man said:

Please cite where the money has been appropriated by TxDOT for a freeway cap structure. 

 

To my knowledge there isn't any for the cap itself, and they don't need too. They simply have to engineer the retaining walls before hand to bear the load among other things. This happens all the time with phased projects big and small. If the city is exhibiting to the state what they are considering then the engineers just need to over engineer these sections for what will be placed later. It is high in costs on the front end, and if there was a plan and executed at once then it would be cheaper, but it will allow for greater flexibility later. I don't understand this idea that if it isn't there now, right now, it won't ever be there. These things take time.

3 hours ago, samagon said:

TxDOT has always been very clear on this, someone else is going to have to pay.

many organizations have said they will pay, but I don't know that any of them have committed actual dollars.

Thats all which is required at the moment. Difficult to fully invest in a project when the basis for it hasn't put a shovel in the ground yet. The actual infrastructure needs to be approved and finally get underway. Once its a real project that will likely push people to further invest once they see its a reality. Again its a factor of time, and this needs time.

9 minutes ago, hindesky said:

Nothing going on when I took these pics today.

Well I don't remember there being a lake on site, so I guess thats progress?!

3 minutes ago, sapo2367 said:

Agree — if you have to explain that the company building a railroad is not a railroad company, you’re losing :)

We both agree on this, but for others looking at this. Imagine if, I Luminare, finally get my architecture license and now I have the ability to practice architecture, design buildings, stamp drawings, etc...

The argument against TCR would effectively be like saying...Luminare you aren't an architect because you haven't built anything yet, therefore you aren't allowed to practice architecture, design buildings, stamp drawings, etc...

I can't believe this has even made it to court. Its absurd.

8 minutes ago, sapo2367 said:

Isn't the famous quote "If you're explaining, you're losing"? I feel like that fits this pretty well. 

Well showing is always better than telling. Ironically TCR can't show anything because tellers won't allow them to show because they think (the tellers) that TCR (those that want to show) are the real "tellers".

Imagine being stuck in this crazy circular loop of nonsense:

TCR: Your honor we are a railroad, but how can we prove it if our opponents keep suing us preventing us from building it in the first place

Opponents: Ha see your honor! They just admitted that they aren't a railroad because they don't have any tracks yet.

TCR: Then stop suing us and we will get to work building our railroad

Opponents: No we won't because we don't think you are a railroad because you don't have any tracks.

TCR: We will have tracks if you just let us be.

Opponents: But you aren't a railroad company, so how can we trust you to lay track because if when you do lay down tracks then you will have to be recognized as a railroad and we don't want that.

TCR: ...what?

1 hour ago, astrohip said:

Funny you ask... I was driving by it again this week (I live practically next door) and noticed nothing going on. The flags are still there, but no trucks, no people, no nothing. 

I'll try to get some pics in a few days. I'm always driving when I go by, and try to focus on driving and not other distractions. But I should be able to pull over and get some.

As far as what it's part of, since everything (according to Marketing) that's inside the Loop is "River Oaks", I'm sure that's the main focus. It is (IMHO) closer to Greenway Plaza than RO.

There was a news story earlier this week about a shooting at a "River Oaks apartment complex". But in digging down, it was located at San Felipe & 610. But hey... that's River Oaks! 🙄

This is an example of "concept creep" which happens when small or minor shifts in semantics ends up pushing or expanding the boundaries of a defined concept, idea, word, etc... If River Oaks is the place that many people want to be, but the space available is limited then overtime you will have those on the periphery who will then attempt to link themselves with River Oaks by simple association just so they can say they "live in" River Oaks. Over time as more and more people start naming themselves as River Oaks the boundary that once was the actual River Oaks begins to be diminished. As the name River Oaks expands the name will get further diluted over time to a point where nobody really understands what River Oaks even means anymore, and its at that point you would then start to see a shift or change. Its a natural and emergent phenomena that's really interesting once you look into it.

1 hour ago, ADCS said:

I can't believe this comes down to English having only two tenses.

Traditionally, when your opponents arguments come down to semantics that not exactly a good sign. Also when your opponent continuously has to keep moving the goal post in effort to claim victory, that also isn't a good sign. When you have to push the courts to "fix" a definition of what is defined as a "railroad" in order to keep your narrative going, that is also not a good sign.

We have seen this play out in my spheres over the past few years. It doesn't matter what side of any issue, or whatever tride is pushing whatever narrative. When you see these sorts of points playout and stack up, the side that is at this point usually loses.

3 minutes ago, editor said:

I don't think the fact that one development in a hundred worked out well is an indication of that at all. 

17 minutes ago, Big E said:

If anything, this shows how much we don't need more extensive city planning. Developers are doing this because there is a demand for these kinds of spaces and this kind of development. The city didn't have to do jack, and its reaping the benefits. And better the city didn't do anything, because it would only mess up and do things to make these kinds of developments (or other kinds of developments that aren't like this) impossible, like in so many other cities.

I actually agree with both statements here. Both of true in different ways. @editor You are right. We currently don't have enough of a sample size from the pool of developments currently on going/ completed, etc... to really acknowledge that the totality of what @Big E said is correct, but at the same time Big E is correct in that in regards to how Houston functions as a city, if the city were to start step in and muck around and do things to these developments with the lack of experience they have it would only result in problems. Has every development faired greatly from this approach? No, but these companies, developers, architects, and contractors are learning from one another, and whats important is, on average are these developments getting slightly better over time? I would say yes. As long as the mean is improving relative to where things were at before, then I call that a success, and if this is without bloating central government to achieve that incremental improvement, then that is a wild success.

23 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I don't think changing parking regulations will solve this.  We need design standards for parking garages, STAT.   

Unless you aren't familiar with current parking space regulations in Houston then you might not, and if you settle for this just being what it is without any context to external forces which creates building forms in the first place, then yes your conclusion that this is merely an aesthetic problem would be correct, but it isn't.

Below are the parking regulations for the city of Houston by use classification:

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/docs_pdfs/parking_req.pdf

The amount of spaces required in each category across the board are some of the highest totals for parking you will find anywhere, and as development is concentrated on smaller and smaller lots then you will start to get more and more ridiculous results. This is like look at the "skinny"scrapers in NYC, and just say "Oh I guess thats the latest fad. I didn't know that this was in such high demand." It isn't though. The space those buildings are being built on are in high demand, but the skinnyscraper itself is direct result of some of the more ludicrous zoning regulations and requirements in the nation. Each city has their extremes in regards to development. For Houston, its parking requirements. Ask any developer, contractor, or architect, and the majority will tell you they wish they didn't have to build so much parking, but parking is one of the few things that the city of Houston mandates are included in every development, and these requirements have a drastic consequences on building forms in this city, so if you want to fix this building aesthetically with design standards for parking garages, then start with the number of spaces required in the first place.

This building has 337 parking spaces. 2/3rds of this building is for parking while the other is for actual rentable space. Now really think where the problem is, and yes if there is political will to do something then it can be done. I'm not against parking by the way, I'm against the heavy hand of government mandating something they have no clue or understand what is required for each site in each particular circumstance. You change these requirements and you will see a lot of drastic changes to building form in this city.

5 hours ago, tangledwoods said:

as one of those contractors, I am calling it: here is the stuff I can actually find in 2022.  So much material right now is backordered, long lead, no longer made, etc. We aren't even really doing VE, its just triage to get the building built.  FWIW, most of us hate VE, its more work for us and we also get blamed when it doesn't go well.

Totally get it. For us we need a term which at least gets a dialogue going between both sides, or at least signals to the client to not jump the gun on taking something out of a project.

As far as "here is the stuff I can actually find in 2022" you are right, and I've experienced this on projects I currently work on and describing this process as a "triage" is spot on. Heck I'm familiar with a job where a contractor literally took stuff off of one job just so they could fill a need on another. Its ridiculous. If anyone after hearing what is going on in construction right now thinks the economy is "okay" they I have serious doubt they have the ability to think critically. No reason why a particular gas burning fireplace for an outdoor portion of a clubhouse should take 6-12 months in lead time...

7 minutes ago, arche_757 said:

I like that!  Going to use it for sure.

Go ahead! Spread it far and wide. I'd rather use this term which is us describing what is actually happening, and not simply seceding territory or narrative to contractors.

Looks slick...both literally and figuratively.

23 hours ago, cityliving said:

I've tried flying around this project but because the Medical Center flight restrictions around where this project is located, it makes it hard to fly a drone around there.

There might be rules, but with every rule there is an exception. That exception would be finding a way to talk to higher ups on site or those building this, and pitch your flights as part of an advertising opportunity from which you would get a cut. All of this is of course hypothetically speaking. Maybe team up with @brijonmang? Just spitballin an idea. Remember where there is a will there is a way.

2 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

All these developments offering high comfort walkability are really changing the landscape of the city. That in combination with local TIRZ improvements and the road overlay packages are drastically changing the aesthetics of the city. 

More impressive is that its private companies doing this themselves rather than specific city planning. Although good city planning helps properly stitch these large developments together in a seamless way (that will be the next step if that could be achieved), its better than what was on offering before.

Now the only thing thats missing is obviously retail, and people. Lets see how this space works once those start up.

2 hours ago, Amlaham said:

I for one am glad of TXDOT's decision. They're basically consolidating 2 highways around downtown into 1. I don't think it's necessary to have a loop around downtown, it really disconnects downtown from the surrounding neighborhoods. So we get rid of one freeway (Pierce elevated), while the other side gets buried and we get more open space for a potential park. Sorry, but I don't think saving any of these business is worth it. Once this project is done, it's going to bring in more business if anything. I made the map below that shows what we're trying to save lol. The bright red are all parking lots. Maroon is unoccupied businesses. Orange is Park Houston. Pink is the lofts (already acquired). Finally, Green is all the active businesses. The is a major project that will reshape the core of Houston. The area has plenty of CHEAPER rentable spaces, idk why people like to act like we're limited in space in Houston. 

Get out of here with your facts...and logic...and making sense!

1 hour ago, freundb said:

^^ or stamped concrete to look like pavers. 

Those are pavers. If its stamped concrete to look like pavers...then you wouldn't do them individually. The entire point of "stamped" concrete to look like pavers is that its cheaper because you are subtracting labor costs.

16 minutes ago, TacoDog said:

Nope.

Time certainly makes fools of us all.

10 hours ago, feedvaulter said:

Found a small mistake at "The Mill" development (just west of Forth at Navigation).

The link points to the thread about Forth and Navigation but I think this is the correct thread:

Appreciate the feedback. Unfortunately, this project is currently on hold/hiatus for the foreseeable future. I believe I posted something about this on the Project Development thread, but it seems I didn't say anything on here. I simply don't have the time these days to continuously update the project. At the same time, I haven't seen anyone who wants to take this on themselves to replace me, and carry on with it. Currently, my focus is becoming a licensed architect (taking my exams right now), and building a new life in a new city in a new state, and don't really have the ability to dedicate any extra resources to a project that requires a lot of it. I'm glad you are getting some use out of it, as it lets me know that people are still interested in something like this, which is something I'll continue to consider as I find time at some point to maybe pick this back up. Until then feel free to keep commenting if you find anything else I should know about.

On 10/29/2021 at 2:10 PM, X.R. said:

Are we saying the women's center has character? I feel bad that the women's center isn't gonna be there anymore, but check out Pasadena, Friendswood, Deer Park, old Pearland, and Soho if you want to see brick buildings that prolly still has asbestos in the roof tiles. 

I'd suggest you look up the works of MacKie and Kamrath. They were a very prolific modernist architecture firm during the golden age of modernism in Houston. Kamrath was mentored by Frank Lloyd Wright, and much of his work was inspired by FLW. This actually is a very fine example of this kind of architecture of the period. Unfortunately, as I've said throughout this forum many times, low-rise uses of any kind will find difficulty existing when areas begin to densify. You also don't seem to know about Asbestos that much. As long as asbestos is undisturbed then it isn't a harm to anyone. The reason why its been outlawed and why its no longer in use is due to the fact that when this material is disturbed and broken apart it begins to release toxins into the surrounding environment. Otherwise if left in tact its actually a very effective material for the time it was created. Luckily we have better technology and understanding, and no longer need to use Asbestos, but just because a building has it within it doesn't mean its a death sentence. As for the roof tiles...I guess that is just your sense of aesthetics, which is subjective and is entirely up to you whether you like it or not, but also not a death sentence.