Icon M Tower: Condominium High-Rise At 1209 Montrose Blvd.

[Purdueenginerd]

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. 

 

 

[UtterlyUrban]

I don’t like this.

[Reporter]

3 hours ago, UtterlyUrban said:

I don’t like this.

Who gives a shit?

[Gator80]

Love it !!!! Funky retro vibe. Good fit for Montrose. 

[jgriff]

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. 

[thatguysly]

UGLY and dated looking. Looks like an office for a failed dot com company.

[intencity77]

Very hideous looking building. 

[UtterlyUrban]

16 hours ago, Reporter said:

Who gives a shit?

Such a friendly Lad or Lass

[SkylineView]

Gucci @ Prada?  At Montrose & Clay?  

 

Ok.  glhf.

[Angostura]

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.

[thedistrict84]

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. 

[thedistrict84]

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. 

[bobruss]

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.

 

[Luminare]

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

[UtterlyUrban]

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.

[Angostura]

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. 

[Luminare]

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.

[UtterlyUrban]

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.

[samagon]

no one has commented on how much this looks like Holiday Inn/Heaven on Earth?

 

Then I'll say it, it looks like Holiday Inn/Heaven on Earth.

 

Somehow though, with the glass cladding on the parking, I think it works.

[wilcal]

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.

 

[jgriff]

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". 

[Angostura]

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

 

[Texasota]

---I kinda dig it, enormous parking garage aside. 

[CREguy13]

It appears these will be condo units, not apartments, per the HBJ article.

 

 

[lockmat]

Looks like it's from the 70's.

[wilcal]

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 September 10, 2018 by wilcal

[Angostura]

On 8/27/2018 at 3:27 PM, Angostura said:

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if, by the time this actually gets built, it's a single level of GFR, with 4 to 6 levels of parking between the GFR and the 1st residential floor.

 

 

 

[Angostura]

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.

 

[wilcal]

2 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

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.

 

 

Agreed! And nice call on the your prediction. 

[NoMoHouTx]

So, just a quick intro.  This is my first post ever on this site although I've been a lurker for years.  I like keeping up with what's happening in Houston, particularly inside the loop, and this is a good place for getting information and what I consider great insight from people that know way more than I do about architecture and construction projects.  That being said, I'm following this thread and project very closely because I just happen to share a property line with Khun Kay Thai.   I'll be honest, if I lived anywhere else in Montrose, I'd be thrilled with this project.  It's a mixed use building with ground floor retail and I'm a huge proponent of this in close-in neighborhoods like Montrose and Midtown...I think we need way more of it.  However, the shared property line has dampened my enthusiasm considerably...LOL.  I'll be staring at the backside of a 20 story apartment building and I just cannot get excited about that.   I'm also not sure what's going to happen to what vegetation I have in my backyard.   This building will block most of the afternoon sun.  In the summer time, I'll get a few hours of sunlight.  In the winter time, probably zero.  I have a very large tree (~40 feet tall) and I don't know what lack of sunshine will mean for its overall health.  This being Houston, the project will likely move forward.  As a concerned property owner, I'm just hoping to have a say in what the final product looks like and a say in minimizing its impact on my property and overall quality of life as I'm also concerned about the traffic this thing will generate in an already very congested area of North Montrose.

 

I did notice this for sale sign go up at the car wash directly across West Clay from Khun Kay Thai.  Any thoughts on what this might mean?  My initial thought is that maybe the lot is needed initially as a laydown yard for all the construction equipment and material and that after the 20 story tower is built something else will be put in on this corner.  But that's based on my assumption that because of the small lot size for the 20 story project, a separate lay down area will be needed.  Any thoughts on this??