I like it, and if it makes already miserable people more miserable, I like it even more.
I dunno but it looks simple not overdone.hopeandrealchange said:techno-ag said:It needs to at least be aesthetic. Everybody is going to be looking up at that graphic for years. This seems like a reasonable expense.hopeandrealchange said:etmydst said:
It's a no win situation...you and the stars don't like a little extra paint to make this water tower more aesthetically pleasing, yet a number of folks on here complained about how ugly the more cost efficient unpainted concrete looks on the new water tower.
If it was just a little extra paint I would not have waisted my time here.
Problem is I understand the process required to paint those graphics on that project require a bit more than a little paint. And what really concerns me is that many have no idea of that.
I might agree if I knew what the expense is. If you do please share and you will have answered one of my two questions.
It looks more like a computer graphic than commissioned art. I'll allow it.maroon barchetta said:
Yes. Painting it is reasonable.
Turning it into an art display for vanity is not.
Another Doug said:
I like it, and if it makes already miserable people more miserable, I live it even more.
mason12 said:
It bothers me that they couldn't center "HOME OF" over the Kyle Field image. It just looks off.
It's not the concrete we have a problem with, its the ugly ass tan color they chose for the top.etmydst said:
It's a no win situation...you and the stars don't like a little extra paint to make this water tower more aesthetically pleasing, yet a number of folks on here complained about how ugly the more cost efficient unpainted concrete looks on the new water tower.
...and there's a country song.TyHolden said:
I once tried to take a Valentine's Day date to the O&M building to view the campus but it was locked. I lied and told her it's been open every day that I tried. I took her to ChinaWok though and she was happy. Great V-Day for me. I forgot her name but if she remembers me, it was memorable.
We could have gotten this...maroon barchetta said:
I still can't get over having the CS water tower on the water tower, or the city hall.
Vanity expenditure to add a monumental graphic to honor another taxpayer funded monument. City hall is not some iconic skyline building.
To bad they couldn't get the Instagram prop up there.
What was the additional cost to add this "artwork" vs just painting it white and putting "College Station" on the side?
I looked at the presentation materials from the City Council meeting where they approved this, but it did not have that level of detail. Would have to ask city staff, but they may not even know.maroon barchetta said:
What was the additional cost to add this "artwork" vs just painting it white and putting "College Station" on the side?
AggiePhil said:
I like it. I liked the old one too though. The only water tower I DON'T like is the old Wellborn water tower. Needs to be repainted at a minimum and possibly torn down altogether.
We look forward to the results of your FOIA request.maroon barchetta said:
There should be something in there about the painting of graphics and lettering on the exterior of the bowl.
This wasn't just "painting" where they tarp the tower, spray the whole thing one color, and take the tarp off and leave.
They did that part. And then they added the decorative maroon part. I would expect that to be an additional cost and line item, unless the contractor was told "you can just put all the painting on one line item".