South College Station Water Tower - Page 4

TyHolden

5:23p, 3/5/24

maroon barchetta said:
AggiePhil said:
Bottom half is maroon today. Looking good!

The photo you posted isn't displaying properly.

Let me help you.

Does the bagel go on top?

so it has mountain climbing cables? I can't wait to try this out.

maroon barchetta

5:25p, 3/5/24

In reply to TyHolden

They moved the annual rappelling event from The Hilton to the water tower.

woodiewood

5:39p, 3/5/24

Just don't paint it blue like A&M did years ago and after the FAA saw it, they had to repaint it.

Gigem314

5:52p, 3/5/24

In reply to kraut

kraut said:
EliteElectric said:
aggiepaintrain said:
Primer is on
maybe we will know the color this week

hope it's white

Wagner's jerseys from this weekend reminded me of this thread!

In John…Deere…green…

waterchick

8:42p, 3/5/24

Tomorrow's (3/6) episode of Waterful Wednesday will discuss "what's going on with the water tower?" Tune in to KAMU 90.9 FM at 7:42 AM, or catch up later at https://kamu.tamu.edu/radio/radio-programs/waterful-wednesdays/

mhnatt

9:29a, 3/6/24

In reply to waterchick

Nice update. Thanks for sharing. The kid comes out in me thinking how be cool to tour that and walk up those long inner stairs, then to peek out the top!

waterchick

6:23p, 3/6/24

In reply to mhnatt

mhnatt said:
Nice update. Thanks for sharing. The kid comes out in me thinking how be cool to tour that and walk up those long inner stairs, then to peek out the top!

Aww, thanks!

When we dedicated the Rock Prairie tower I took a video of the inside, following the staircase going up, up, uuuppp...to the top. No, I did not count the steps, no I have no desire to climb to the top. I'm scared of heights!

MeKnowNot

9:45a, 3/7/24

In the bright sunlight it looks more brown than maroon.

Thisguy1

10:01a, 3/7/24

In reply to MeKnowNot

The only ones who have been able to consistently give out a good maroon is Mississippi State. Ours is always all over the place from purple to brown.

wareagle044

10:14a, 3/7/24

at least if it came out purple -- could just paint CSHS on it.

maroon barchetta

10:27a, 3/7/24

Does the paint match the official color?

https://brandguide.tamu.edu/visual-style/brand-colors

LightningDammitt

10:19p, 3/7/24

In reply to maroon barchetta

maroon barchetta said:
Does the paint match the official color?

https://brandguide.tamu.edu/visual-style/brand-colors

User name checks out....

spike427

12:02p, 3/23/24

Coming right along!

TyHolden

2:34p, 3/23/24

In reply to spike427

spike427 said:
Coming right along!

city would make a killing if they charged for repelling off that thing. kids would be lined up for miles.

waterchick

4:39p, 3/23/24

In reply to TyHolden

Yep. One of the water chicklets already said she wanted to do that.

Stay tuned-more talented minds than me are working on some video to capture the process.

mason12

2:06p, 3/24/24

It bothers me that they couldn't center "HOME OF" over the Kyle Field image. It just looks off.

CS78

2:36p, 3/24/24

Definitely looks a little purple-ish.

maroon barchetta

2:38p, 3/24/24

In reply to mason12

Now that you mention it…

Thisguy1

3:41p, 3/24/24

In reply to mason12

I think it is centered over the image as a whole. The issue is in the painting the left side of the stadium (south side of Kyle) is longer than the right. So to center it over Kyle as a whole you can't center it over side it's directly over.

maroon barchetta

7:26p, 3/24/24

Am I seeing this correctly?

They went to the trouble of putting Rudder, O&M, Albritton, Kyle, and a whole lot more on there, but the water tower they painted on is a CoCS water tower? Not the iconic campus water tower?

Instead of putting something TAMU related they instead used the CoCS Nike Swoosh on the water tower graphic?

Is vanity a sin? I forget.

TexAg1987

8:43p, 3/24/24

Interesting concept, but driving in today, it is hard to make out driving on the hwy.

hopeandrealchange

8:54a, 3/25/24

I have two questions.
How much more did it cost to add the graphics?
Who in the City approved the decision for the extra expense ?

Edit to add.

Every time I see this tower it reminds me of the lack of respect for our tax dollars.

instapt

9:06a, 3/25/24

It looks real nice! I can't wait to see it finished!

etmydst

9:38a, 3/25/24

In reply to hopeandrealchange

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.

MiMi

9:46a, 3/25/24

In reply to instapt

instapt said:
It looks real nice! I can't wait to see it finished!

I wonder how much there is left to do? They took down the majority of the wires over the weekend.

hopeandrealchange

10:17a, 3/25/24

In reply to etmydst

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.

Bunk Moreland

10:28a, 3/25/24

I thought it looked pretty good driving by

CS78

10:31a, 3/25/24

In reply to etmydst

Hopefully spending our tax dollars wisely is more important than satisfying somes OCD need for uniformity.

Unfortunately though, vanity of those writing the checks seems to trump all.

Tailgate88

10:41a, 3/25/24

In reply to hopeandrealchange

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.

Please elaborate for the uninformed masses.

For the record I think the water tower looks great. Better than I originally expected honestly. As long as they are up their painting why not do something besides COLLEGE STATION in big letters.... assuming we're not talking a huge increase in the costs of course.

techno-ag

10:54a, 3/25/24

In reply to hopeandrealchange

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.

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.

maroon barchetta

11:01a, 3/25/24

In reply to techno-ag

It's as reasonable as the Instagram prop.

techno-ag

11:02a, 3/25/24

In reply to maroon barchetta

maroon barchetta said:
It's as reasonable as the Instagram prop.

No. The water tower is a needed part for running a city. No one wants to stare at an ugly water tower every day. Painting it is a reasonable taxpayer expense.

maroon barchetta

11:13a, 3/25/24

In reply to techno-ag

Yes. Painting it is reasonable.

Turning it into an art display for vanity is not.

maroon barchetta

11:15a, 3/25/24

In reply to hopeandrealchange

hopeandrealchange said:
I have two questions.
How much more did it cost to add the graphics?
Who in the City approved the decision for the extra expense ?

Edit to add.

Every time I see this tower it reminds me of the lack of respect for our tax dollars.

Good news. It's probably not tax dollars.

It's probably the slush fund that comes from having higher utility rates so the city can fund their pet projects that happen to not be considered "capital" projects so they don't appear on the totally informative and absolutely transparent capital projects webpage.

hopeandrealchange

11:53a, 3/25/24

In reply to techno-ag

techno-ag said:
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.
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.

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.