KCRag Forum

Eon Blue wrote:

chaglang wrote:

smh wrote:My only (mild) complaint about these new developments, specifically the ones on 30th, is the terrible job done containing runoff from the site. The street looks like a dirt road. I would be somewhat displeased if I were a resident up there.

That's the responsibility of the contractor to contain. Surprised no one has called them in on that.

I'd be more concerned about the gigantic blank facades on the north and south faces of the building on Gillham.

No kidding. Wouldn't those end units fetch higher rents with more windows, or is the architect unable/unwilling to modify the unit layouts to accommodate them?

They have to be planning on building next door, right? There's no way those blank walls make any sense otherwise.

Eon Blue wrote:

chaglang wrote:

smh wrote:My only (mild) complaint about these new developments, specifically the ones on 30th, is the terrible job done containing runoff from the site. The street looks like a dirt road. I would be somewhat displeased if I were a resident up there.

That's the responsibility of the contractor to contain. Surprised no one has called them in on that.

I'd be more concerned about the gigantic blank facades on the north and south faces of the building on Gillham.

No kidding. Wouldn't those end units fetch higher rents with more windows, or is the architect unable/unwilling to modify the unit layouts to accommodate them?

here's the floor plans
http://unionhill.com/wp-content/uploads ... Plans1.pdf
http://unionhill.com/wp-content/uploads ... Plans1.pdf

I don't see any reason they couldn't have added some windows on the side

Building wrap was being applied to the Gillham building this morning.

Amid all the complaining, I must say that stone and brick facade looks beautiful, timeless and lux...like something on the coast. Great job!

Midtownkid wrote:Amid all the complaining, I must say that stone and brick facade looks beautiful, timeless and lux...like something on the coast. Great job!

Absolutely!

Wow... that really does look beautiful. Is it just a camera/ post-production effect or did they actually make the brick and stone look aged and weathered? That building looks like its been there the last century.

Very nice work, though there's still room for one complaint from me

This building really needs buildings close by on both sides, much like the new apartment buildings being built on 27th in Beacon Hill. The blank side walls look really nice with that worn brick, but this is an urban building here, with no side windows. This is the kind of building that should almost be a rowhome, so we barely see the side if at all.

Other than that though, no complaints whatsoever. Beautiful building!

Demosthenes wrote:Wow... that really does look beautiful. Is it just a camera/ post-production effect or did they actually make the brick and stone look aged and weathered? That building looks like its been there the last century.

I did play around w/ the editing features of Google+ photos, so it doesn't look quite so 'aged' in person.
Original:

Either way, the materials are well done. Looks like it would be at home in the Crossroads, with surface parking lots on either side.

That building would fit in well in so many locations around greater downtown. It's a very suitable infill building.

Nice building. Assuming this is a Jimmy John's.

Yes, its so "old timey!" Actually they did use tumbled bricks to give it that aged appearance. The official spiel is that the developer is an architect and that on the design of this phase he is using what he learned from first phase experience and comments from tennants. I just cannot imagine tennants complaining about rooms with windows on 2 sides and the undesirable cross breezes this creates.

moderne wrote:Yes, its so "old timey!" Actually they did use tumbled bricks to give it that aged appearance. The official spiel is that the developer is an architect and that on the design of this phase he is using what he learned from first phase experience and comments from tennants. I just cannot imagine tennants complaining about rooms with windows on 2 sides and the undesirable cross breezes this creates.

Well hopefully the implication is that there are long term intentions to build on the neighboring parcels. In which case no windows would definitely be a positive. If there were side windows it would probably mean the developer controlled the adjoining lots and had no intention of ever doing anything with them.

Not so.
The previous phase I buildings haveside windows and abut the other buildings quite closely. And on the new buildings @ Gilham and either side of 30th St. the blank windowless walls face 30th St.

.

The developer would have to regrade the hill to slope the other direction to make that rendering accurate.

The embassy style fence is a little off-putting, but it doesn't look like there's going to be room for anything that big.

chaglang wrote:
The embassy style fence is a little off-putting, but it doesn't look like there's going to be room for anything that big.

Doesn't put me off at all. I love a fenced in "front garden".

.

pash wrote:

chaglang wrote:The developer would have to regrade the hill to slope the other direction to make that rendering accurate.

There are three of the same building. The rendering is of the one down the street.

Well, that makes more sense.

I wouldn't have minded that type of building on Armour where the current fiasco is happening.

chingon wrote:

chaglang wrote:
The embassy style fence is a little off-putting, but it doesn't look like there's going to be room for anything that big.

Doesn't put me off at all. I love a fenced in "front garden".

In Europe, it's very common to have fenced, or walled, front gardens.