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

[mattyt36]

Also Houston was the capital of the Republic of Texas ... certainly not the same in scale but it’s not anything to shrug at in terms of North American history. Boston and Philadelphia attract a lot of tourists who have no ties to either city for the same reason. 

[jmancuso]

3 hours ago, HOUCAJUN said:

Loosen up a bit. Midtown is taking off. The countdown has started. Give G class a break.

West Timer is correct. The animations and graphics not too mention awkward justified text are distracting and hard to read. 

[West Timer]

Swear to God. I saw his gobbledy-gook of letters in a blur as I just quick scrolled around it and didn't even bother reading. Was there anything clever their I should have read? Let me know. There may be some real gems or deep insight or maybe even the answer to world peace or winning lottery numbers but I'll never know. Somehow reading it would be condoning it. And I can't bring myself to condone REALLY BAD, bad graphic design. Now what are we talking about again? I forgot which thread I opened. Oh yes. That magnificent Aussie Project. Still love it. Any news? 

Edited October 8, 2019 by West Timer

[Luminare]

16 hours ago, MidCenturyMoldy said:

I know it's not quite as dramatic, but I "fixed" the image. I'm guessing the building is more likely to look like this. 

 

You didn't "fix" the image.

The original image is designed in a fixed two point perspective which you actually see with your eyes everyday with the exception of anything that starts to go vertical which when you start to look up that two point perspective begins to get distorted. Since the subject is the building and not the viewer the view is in a strict two point perspective from ground to top to heighten the appeal of the vertical lines.

This isn't even clever as you probably went into lightroom and stretched the image at the base. Is this an attempt to knock the building for something? I will admit some people can find the heightened verticals distracting in photography. My boss is one of them for example.

With that being said the original image that was produced is in line with best practice in architectural visualization and architectural photography.

 

@brijonmang

[H-Town Man]

35 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

You didn't "fix" the image.

The original image is designed in a fixed two point perspective which you actually see with your eyes everyday with the exception of anything that starts to go vertical which when you start to look up that two point perspective begins to get distorted. Since the subject is the building and not the viewer the view is in a strict two point perspective from ground to top to heighten the appeal of the vertical lines.

This isn't even clever as you probably went into lightroom and stretched the image at the base. Is this an attempt to knock the building for something? I will admit some people can find the heightened verticals distracting in photography. My boss is one of them for example.

With that being said the original image that was produced is in line with best practice in architectural visualization and architectural photography.

 

@brijonmang

 

So why does his "fixed" version look more natural?

 

[MarathonMan]

57 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

You didn't "fix" the image. . . This isn't even clever as you probably went into lightroom and stretched the image at the base. . .

 

@brijonmang

 

What’s with all the shade being thrown in this site as of late?  One image may align with architectural standard practices, while the other may seem more pleasing to the eye.  MidCenturyMoldy was just trying to provide a different perspective .  Is it really necessary to belittle him/her for it?

[Luminare]

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

So why does his "fixed" version look more natural?

 

 

Its not a "fixed" version. Its just a different version. I'm not saying that the "fix" is wrong, or can't be made. Its the certainty at which it was done, and the framing device used to describe the persons change is a flawed premise however. If this person framed the proposed perspective as a "different" or "alternative" perspective then it would be valid, but as this person is framing the proposition this person is making a claim to what is more "beautiful" or "correct" when that is entirely subjective to one who is viewing this image. The "fix" also misses the whole point of why the original image was produced in the first place and why it is normally produced. The original is done in a way to exhibit the buildings height and prominence, and give a sense of how it looks on the site vertically. Nearly every single proposed image that we have seen on this site of skyscraper with a ground view utilizes this technique show/exaggerate the vertical characteristics of the building from the The Preston, to Texas Tower, to Capital Tower (Bank of America Tower), and so on and so on. This image is meant to convey an idea about he subject, and not the idea of the viewer itself. If this were an image where the focus on the viewer experience then I would go with the "fixed" image, but thats not what is represented here. The image doesn't have to be self-referential or meta by taking the viewer into account. I know I don't do that everytime when I set a scene for an image just like not ever scene in a film is done in the most "natural" way an eye can see as that is limiting for expression of an idea. That would be like saying a "section" is not honest because we don't see in section when that isn't the point of the drawing.

 

45 minutes ago, MarathonMan said:

 

What’s with all the shade being thrown in this site as of late?  One image may align with architectural standard practices, while the other may seem more pleasing to the eye.  MidCenturyMoldy was just trying to provide a different perspective .  Is it really necessary to belittle him/her for it?

 

I take issue with the certainty of the notion that the image is "fixed" when there is a lot that goes into images like this and there are reasons architecturally you show images the way they are shown. I @brijonmang to this since he is a professional photographer that could shed light on this as he does the same vertical correction in his images. I do the same thing when I have a question or looking for input on structural questions like @Purdueenginerd @hindesky . In what way is this "shade being thrown in this site as of late". I don't take things the way they are presented as fact, and I'm merely questioning the certainy of the one producing the image. Its not "natural" its just "different". The original image is more dramatic, and exaggerated and thats the point of the image. Its selling the building itself and not the viewer.

[MidCenturyMoldy]

3 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

You didn't "fix" the image.

Wow. Just...wow.

 

Anyway, you'll notice I put quotation marks around "fixed."
 

Secondly, I used Photoshop CS6, thank you. And I didn't just stretch the base. That wouldn't have corrected the exaggerated top of the original. Actually, I corrected perspective from the top down (but not too, too much), you might have noticed that nothing at the base of the rendering was lost...if you had actually looked. I free-resized a portion of the top to reduce the exaggeration of the top corner. I did some content-aware filling because correcting the perspective left voids on the sides. I used the "patch tool" to clean up a bit afterward. Oh, and I did it super fast because, well, because I was just having some fun. So forgive me if it ain't perfect.

 

And last but not least, I 'fixed" the rendering because when I showed it to a friend, he thought the building was going to be triangular because of the pronounced corner on the top.

Next time, try decaf, maybe?

 

 

ETA:That wouldn't have corrected the exaggerated top of the original. Actually, I corrected perspective from the top down (but not too much), you might have noticed that nothing at the base of the rendering was lost...if you had actually looked. I free-resized a portion of the top to reduce the exaggeration of the top corner. I did some content-aware filling because correcting the perspective left voids on the sides. I used the "patch tool" to clean up a bit afterward. 

Oh, and I did it super fast because, well, because I was just having some fun. So forgive me if it ain't perfect.

Edited October 8, 2019 by MidCenturyMoldy

[MarathonMan]

I understand you’re perspective, @Luminare.  I, too, respect the intention of the illustrator to dramatize the image for effect. I also respect someone else’s attempt to show it slightly differently.  I don’t think @MidCenturyMoldy thought his version was somehow better than the original, as he used the term “fixed” in quotations.  He just wanted to show what he thought was a less-dramatized version.

 

I interpreted your response to his post as a bit condescending — specifically the comment that his method “isn’t even clever”.  If I read your intention wrong, I apologize.

[H-Town Man]

33 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

Its not a "fixed" version. Its just a different version. I'm not saying that the "fix" is wrong, or can't be made. Its the certainty at which it was done, and the framing device used to describe the persons change is a flawed premise however. If this person framed the proposed perspective as a "different" or "alternative" perspective then it would be valid, but as this person is framing the proposition this person is making a claim to what is more "beautiful" or "correct" when that is entirely subjective to one who is viewing this image. The "fix" also misses the whole point of why the original image was produced in the first place and why it is normally produced. The original is done in a way to exhibit the buildings height and prominence, and give a sense of how it looks on the site vertically. Nearly every single proposed image that we have seen on this site of skyscraper with a ground view utilizes this technique show/exaggerate the vertical characteristics of the building from the The Preston, to Texas Tower, to Capital Tower (Bank of America Tower), and so on and so on. This image is meant to convey an idea about he subject, and not the idea of the viewer itself. If this were an image where the focus on the viewer experience then I would go with the "fixed" image, but thats not what is represented here. The image doesn't have to be self-referential or meta by taking the viewer into account. I know I don't do that everytime when I set a scene for an image just like not ever scene in a film is done in the most "natural" way an eye can see as that is limiting for expression of an idea. That would be like saying a "section" is not honest because we don't see in section when that isn't the point of the drawing.

 

 

I take issue with the certainty of the notion that the image is "fixed" when there is a lot that goes into images like this and there are reasons architecturally you show images the way they are shown. I @brijonmang to this since he is a professional photographer that could shed light on this as he does the same vertical correction in his images. I do the same thing when I have a question or looking for input on structural questions like @Purdueenginerd @hindesky . In what way is this "shade being thrown in this site as of late". I don't take things the way they are presented as fact, and I'm merely questioning the certainy of the one producing the image. Its not "natural" its just "different". The original image is more dramatic, and exaggerated and thats the point of the image. Its selling the building itself and not the viewer.

 

I think you overreacted a bit. And possibly are reading too much into the word "fixed."

 

 

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

wow, talk about a thread that got off track....

[MidCenturyMoldy]

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by MidCenturyMoldy
Never mind

[brijonmang]

I get why Moldy went in and changed the perspective.  Typical architectural images and renderings of skyscrapers with the vertical perspective look very dramatic albeit unnatural.  I personally enjoy seeing the imposing look of a skyscraper in this way but that's just my opinion.

 

Unfortunately, playing around with the perspective in photoshop doesn't get this thing built any faster and that's the real issue.

[Luminare]

1 hour ago, MarathonMan said:

I understand you’re perspective, @Luminare.  I, too, respect the intention of the illustrator to dramatize the image for effect. I also respect someone else’s attempt to show it slightly differently.  I don’t think @MidCenturyMoldy thought his version was somehow better than the original, as he used the term “fixed” in quotations.  He just wanted to show what he thought was a less-dramatized version.

 

I interpreted your response to his post as a bit condescending — specifically the comment that his method “isn’t even clever”.  If I read your intention wrong, I apologize.

 

All these points are fair. My intentions are always to separate the weak from the chaff, and sometimes that can be messy and sometimes I miss the table completely. I do stand by what I said though it could have been more balanced.

 

@MidcenturyMod My intention was not to say that what you did was wrong, but the fact that you were so certain and bold in your statement in it being "fixed". However, while I do stand by my comments, I do not stand by "isn't even clever". That is overstepping and I should be called out on that.

 

1 hour ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

wow, talk about a thread that got off track....

 

Rather us discuss this than homelessness! Both of these do get us wildly off track which I've also contributed too.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Luminare

[MidCenturyMoldy]

10 minutes ago, Luminare said:

My intention was not to say that what you did was wrong, but the fact that you were so certain and bold in your statement in it being "fixed".

My putting the word in quotation marks was *specifically* meant to convey the fact that it was all a matter of interpretation.If I were certain I never would have done so.

 

ETA: In fact, my use of quotation marks was meant to convey a lack of seriousness, as well.

Edited October 8, 2019 by MidCenturyMoldy
Added "specifically."

[Texasota]

Important pedantic note: the term is actually "separate the wheat from the chaff."

 

...my work here is done...

 

29 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

All these points are fair. My intentions are always to separate the weak from the chaff, and sometimes that can be messy and sometimes I miss the table completely. I do stand by what I said though it could have been more balanced.

 

 

[Luminare]

17 minutes ago, MidCenturyMoldy said:

My putting the word in quotation marks was *specifically* meant to convey the fact that it was all a matter of interpretation.If I were certain I never would have done so.

 

ETA: In fact, my use of quotation marks was meant to convey a lack of seriousness, as well.

 

True. I probably missed the mark on that, and I do admit that. Sometimes it can be hard to interpret that, and sometimes it's pretty clear. It wasn't meant to seem personal and merely a critique, but I know my stances can be intense and abrasive and so it can come off as personal. Now we know though and I rather there be a little conflict that gets us to this point than none and it remains totally ambiguous.

Like I said sometimes I hit, sometimes I don't. It happens. I'll do better.

1 minute ago, Texasota said:

Important pedantic note: the term is actually "separate the wheat from the chaff."

 

...my work here is done...

 

 

 

Don't be shy to jump in everyone haha! Open season on me today. Seriously, I deserve it every once in awhile.

[MidCenturyMoldy]

Now that we've got that out of the way, I'd like to point out that the rendering for The Preston does *not* get larger at the top nor distort the upper floors. 😈

 

(It seems farther away and less intimate because of that.)

[Luminare]

9 minutes ago, MidCenturyMoldy said:

Now that we've got that out of the way, I'd like to point out that the rendering for The Preston does *not* get larger at the top nor distort the upper floors. 😈

 

(It seems farther away and less intimate because of that.)

 

Challenge accepted haha.

 

You say that but thats because in this angle you see how the building slims out as it aims towards texas tower.

 

Now lets look at the face from the park.

 

 

Vertical lines are straight the whole way up including the one you posted. Not exactly "natural" angles

[MidCenturyMoldy]

Just now, Luminare said:

Vertical lines are straight the whole way up including the one you posted. Not exactly "natural" angles

 

 

That's why the building looks farther away than the Caydon rendering. 

[mollusk]

22 hours ago, MidCenturyMoldy said:

Is there an echo in here?

There might be - I only posted once.

[Montrose1100]

Lordy these renderings are getting HAIFers excited. 

 

I just hope there’s a bar on the top floor. We need more Z on 23. We have a skyline, let the people see it (and drink to it).

[Highrise Tower]

 

[dbigtex56]

On 8/22/2019 at 1:01 PM, quietstorm said:

The light at the top left is out already

That is a lovely rendering. 
Maybe someday it will actually look that way. 
(and I don't care how much of a specialty item that light may be. It's been two months. Time for them to get on the ball!)

[jermh]

17 minutes ago, dbigtex56 said:

That is a lovely rendering. 
Maybe someday it will actually look that way. 
(and I don't care how much of a specialty item that light may be. It's been two months. Time for them to get on the ball!)

 

That's a drone shot, not a rendering. Probably a composite.

Edited October 17, 2019 by jermh

[j_cuevas713]

When does the next phase start?

[dbigtex56]

11 hours ago, jermh said:

 

That's a drone shot, not a rendering. Probably a composite.

It's a floor wax and a dessert topping. 

[Naviguessor]

It's the best floor wax I've ever tasted. 

 

or

 

Its the best drone shot ever drawn. 

[dbigtex56]

I'll be darned. They finally fixed the damn light. 

 

[Highrise Tower]

Drewery Place vinyl wrap is now surrounding the Art Store.