SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Austin (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=446)
-   -   AUSTIN | Fifth & West Residences | 459 FEET | 39 FLOORS | Complete (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=209673)

KevinFromTexas Feb 11, 2014 6:21 AM

AUSTIN | Fifth & West Residences | 459 FEET | 39 FLOORS | Complete
 
Construction cam:
https://app.oxblue.com/open/616c9323...a4bdab4f4a73e3

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11056288

Quote:

The applicant is proposing the development of a multi-family high-rise and associated improvements.
The address is 718 West 5th Street on the lot that is east of the Austin City Lofts. The project is being called 5th & West.

The stacking plan shows the main roof at 425 feet 10 1/2 inches. The mechanical penthouse continues up for another 26 feet. So 451 feet 10 1/2 inches - or 452 feet if you round it up. The highest occupied floor, the 37th floor, tops out at 412 feet. A Capitol View Corridor runs through part of the property, so to cope with that the tower's facade will step back at an angle.

Construction cam - via The Independent cam.

https://www.workzonecam.com/projects...nt/workzonecam

http://riversideresources.com/downlo...WestBoards.pdf

http://i.imgur.com/FlfucSi.jpg

View from northwest:
http://i.imgur.com/DGjZFSl.jpg

View from northeast:
http://i.imgur.com/2oeGRal.jpg

View from southwest
http://i.imgur.com/ID8SB0W.jpg

View from southeast.
http://i.imgur.com/VbtwlYg.jpg

ILUVSAT Feb 11, 2014 11:11 PM

Kick A$$!!!

:worship:

This will be taller than The Bowie, correct? What's going on with Schlosser's expansion for Whole Foods (20+ story tower @ Sixth and Bowie)?

Kevin, the Riverside Resources link does not work...

KevinFromTexas Feb 11, 2014 11:53 PM

Yes, the Bowie is 423 feet, so this will be almost 30 feet taller.

That Riverside Resources link works for me. Sometimes PDF links can hang, though. Try it again. I always like to save them onto my computer and then open them up to view them that way. It seems to work better for me.

Digatisdi Feb 12, 2014 1:05 AM

452' will put it between Spring and the W, this'd be great for density in the area.

ohhey Feb 12, 2014 2:56 AM

Woohoo! Another moderately tall and utterly forgettable tower for Austin. Will we ever raise our architectural standards?

tie_guy Feb 12, 2014 3:11 AM

Enough of these ~400ft buildings and we'll start to resemble Vancouver! Ugh I DREAM

KevinFromTexas Feb 12, 2014 3:14 AM

It's funny this popped up. I was just looking at the skyline this weekend from the north along I-35, and was thinking that area could use another tower. 360 pops up over there all by itself. You can even see The Austonian, Frost and 360 from north of 183 along I-35. This one should be visible from there also. And it will definitely help fill in the gap between 360 and Spring.

The view of it from the south from the observation hill in Butler Park should be safe for a while at least until the ECC site gets developed, and since this tower is farther along in development than that project, we should be able to see it from there for a while. The view from the SRV statue is safe for a while, too, at least until the ECC site develops. The western towers at Green probably won't block the view of it, and nothing else will except the ECC lot.

The view from the Pfluger pedestrian bridge will be partially blocked by the Seaholm tower, but that's from the southern end of the bridge. As you move north along the western arm of the bridge especially across Cesar Chavez, the view looks safe. In fact, there is going to be an awesome view shaping up there with Gables Park Tower, Spring, the Bowie, The Monarch, 5th & West, Seaholm Residences, and 360 all in a row. Plus whatever happens at ECC will be between 5th & West and 360 in that view. And then the towers at Green will sort of frame and wrap around to the south. That is going to be one hell of a view. And of course the library will show up also.

The view from the Zilker lawn will be so-so, because it'll be behind The Monarch. It should be visible from there, but not as prominent. The clubhouse view should be pretty good, but it'll be immediately north of the Bowie and the Monarch. And from the parking garage along Mopac next to Zilker, it'll be right behind Spring and probably will poke above it.

The view from the Congress Avenue bridge will mostly be blocked by 360, except maybe the northern end of the bridge, but the tower would only stick up a little.

From the MACC on the east side of downtown, the view will be pretty good. It'll fill in the gap between 360 and the W. The view will be similar along the Boardwalk east of I-35.

From the boardwalk/Joe's Crab Shack, it might just be visible above the 17th floor setback on 360.

From the Hyatt garage it will just barely be visible around 360 on the southwest corner of 360. The view from the Long Center garage will be really good, at least until the ECC site develops.

KevinFromTexas Feb 12, 2014 3:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohhey (Post 6447617)
Woohoo! Another moderately tall and utterly forgettable tower for Austin. Will we ever raise our architectural standards?

I'm thinking this one will be rather nice. As it is, we don't have any triangular shaped towers in Austin, so this will be something different.

I'm hopeful that we'll eventually see something really interesting like say Dallas' Fountain Place for a lot somewhere bordering a CVC. I'd like to see a tower have some interesting angles like that to avoid the corridor. Curved towers and flat out round ones don't really do it for me, unless it's an accent in the facade such as Chicago's Trump Tower. But just round or oval towers are kind of bland actually. Angled towers to me are more interesting and appear as completely different buildings from different angles. Just look at the Bowie. It already looks like three different buildings when viewed from different angles.

the Genral Feb 12, 2014 4:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas (Post 6447678)
I'm thinking this one will be rather nice. As it is, we don't have any triangular shaped towers in Austin, so this will be something different.

I'm hopeful that we'll eventually see something really interesting like say Dallas' Fountain Place for a lot somewhere bordering a CVC. I'd like to see a tower have some interesting angles like that to avoid the corridor. Curved towers and flat out round ones don't really do it for me, unless it's an acisent in the facade such as Chicago's Trump Tower. But just round or oval towers are kind of bland actually. Angled towers to me are more interesting and appear as completely different buildings from different angles. Just look at the Bowie. It already looks like three different buildings when viewed from different angles.

I like the Fountain Place Tower too for the same reason. It looks like a different building when viewed from different angles. Because its a commercial building as with many commercial buildings, the developers and architechs seem to want dramatic designs to make their buildings stand out in the skyline. With residential, this project is about as good as it gets. I don't imagine lenders want to loan too much on cosmetics. So yes, as long as the majority of the new construction is residential, we will see more of the same, up to 40 floors, rectangular, ect...This one is at least slightly different. For us to get something like Fountain Place, we would need a major demand swing for commercial space dt, so it may be a while. In the meantime, be happy with nice new shiney 300 -400 footers popping up and filling those gaps ohhey, or not.

lzppjb Feb 12, 2014 4:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tie_guy (Post 6447648)
Enough of these ~400ft buildings and we'll start to resemble Vancouver! Ugh I DREAM

I'd rather not. Vancouver is so bland, IMO. Sure, it's dense and has decent height, but they all look the same.

GoldenBoot Feb 12, 2014 4:48 AM

Until a developer finds a way realize (or chooses to sacrifice) a particular profit margin in the development of a residential tower, I do not see any "mainstream" developer bearing the incredibly cost it would take to design a "world class" tower.

:(

KevinFromTexas Feb 12, 2014 5:21 AM

Residential buildings are mostly bland. They're only slightly better than hotels usually, and usually far less interesting than office towers, which tend to be like peacock architecture - "Hey look at me!" Most people don't really care what hotels look like and are mostly just interested in a good location and a good night's sleep in a clean room. Residential buildings aren't so important on the outside as they are on the inside. Location, amenities and good places to eat and shop nearby are key, and good materials and layouts inside. Office buildings are the opposite, though. Most are pretty bland inside except for the lobbies and conference rooms/executive suites. Where office buildings count visually is on the outside to attract tenants. Location is less important, but it doesn't hurt to be within walking distance of lunch and tenants (employees) usually want good parking.

KevinFromTexas Feb 12, 2014 6:25 AM

Anyway, this one is looking good.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11072034
Quote:

Installation of trash receptacles, benches, trees, tree wells, canopy, drain line for tree wells and pavers

Austin55 Feb 12, 2014 11:09 AM

I love the Vancouver look. dense, tall, flat, and soaked with balconies. In moderation it looks great.

GoldenBoot Feb 12, 2014 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas (Post 6447881)
Residential buildings are mostly bland. They're only slightly better than hotels usually, and usually far less interesting than office towers, which tend to be like peacock architecture - "Hey look at me!" Most people don't really care what hotels look like and are mostly just interested in a good location and a good night's sleep in a clean room. Residential buildings aren't so important on the outside as they are on the inside. Location, amenities and good places to eat and shop nearby are key, and good materials and layouts inside. Office buildings are the opposite, though. Most are pretty bland inside except for the lobbies and conference rooms/executive suites. Where office buildings count visually is on the outside to attract tenants. Location is less important, but it doesn't hurt to be within walking distance of lunch and tenants (employees) usually want good parking.

Come on Kevin. You and I both have been on this board for more than 10 years. I know you know better than that.

“Residential buildings are mostly bland” is subjective, and a very broad stroke of a comment, don’t you think?

I also disagree with your dictum regarding hotels. People do care what they look like. And it is another broad stroke to speak for “most people” in that allegation.

When you are fighting for tenants or buyers, heck, yes, the external façade is important. I will say, maybe not the most important aspect of the entire development; but an important one nonetheless.

With regard to office towers, the interior finish out, in most cases, is up to the tenant. So some may be “bland” while others will be pretty cool.

Also, location is ALWAYS important…not matter what the context.

ahealy Feb 13, 2014 6:10 AM

This isn't bland, but it certainly could use a lil something on the crown. Perhaps a simple spire or two?? It's not awful, but also doesn't really make me remember it. Austin has a limited amount of city blocks left for 30+ story buildings. I'd rather see us improve from here on out than get a bunch of mediocre fillers.

Jdawgboy Feb 13, 2014 8:12 AM

I agree, although I keep thinking that it will get to the point to where we will see taller and taller towers as we see more lots filling in.

NYC2ATX Feb 13, 2014 8:27 AM

I just hope that at this point we start to see a few more proposals with real potential that break the 500' or even 600' barrier. Especially in this corner of Downtown, you have the Bowie, GreenWater Block 1, and now this tower all at some stage of planning/construction, and all within a range of 50' of one another. Seaholm's tower will also visually appear close in height, and closer to Congress you have the JW and Colorado towers within 10' of each other. I worry about a tabletop effect, except it's a tabletop with a centerpiece called the Austonian. However, some new peaks would go a long way towards elevating its profile as an iconic skyline. Maybe the ECC site will surprise us with something tall! One can hope :rolleyes:

lzppjb Feb 13, 2014 12:30 PM

Yeah, hopefully ECC is a nice, tall tower. It would help balance the skyline with Austonian and Fairmont.

JACKinBeantown Feb 13, 2014 8:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy (Post 6449985)
This isn't bland, but it certainly could use a lil something on the crown. Perhaps a simple spire or two?? It's not awful, but also doesn't really make me remember it.

Yea, it's actually kinda bland. I love Austin and all, but this is kinda bland.

What's not bland in Austin are Frost, UT Tower, Capitol Building, Austonian, One Congress, One American, San Jacinto, 100 Congress, 301 Congress and maybe even 360. But this is pretty bland.

migol24 Feb 13, 2014 9:06 PM

Even the word bland has a vague and subjective meaning... the monarch, shore and spring aren't bland to me. The ashton and four seasons are bland. This design is bland but maybe because it looks like its just a rough draft and not the final design?

KevinFromTexas Feb 16, 2014 4:16 AM

I just meant that a lot of residential highrises are bland. Look at Honolulu, Seattle, San Francisco, Vancouver, Miami and most of Florida's residential highrises. Texas' coastal cities are the same way. Most of them are white and boxy with a few exceptions thrown in. Part of them being white is just smart planning since they reflect sunlight and stay cooler in the summer.

pscajunguy Feb 16, 2014 9:42 PM

Some of these are GORGEOUS! And they would fit in very well in Austin - Obviously not all of them, but some of these are very nice!

600 Brickell 68 floors 903ft Office/Hotel/Residential --Proposed (Brickell)


100 S Biscayne 75 floors 900ft Office/Residential --Proposed (CBD)


Met 3 74 floors 866ft Residential --Approved (CBD)


1101 Brickell 74 floors 849ft Office/Residential --Approved (Brickell)


Brickell CitiCenter 1 76 floors 808ft Residential/Office --Approved (Brickell)


Flatiron 70 floors 794ft Office/Residential --Proposed (Brickell)



Brickell CitiCenter 2 69 floors 790ft Residential/Office --Approved (Brickell)
Four Seasons 64 floors 789ft Office/Hotel/Residential --Completed 2004 (Brickell)


Paramount Park 68 floors 756ft Residential/Hotel --Approved (CBD)


Lynx 75 floors 745ft Office/Hotel/Residential --Approved (CBD)


Brickell CitiCenter 3 69 floors 740ft Residential/Office --Approved (Brickell)
-for image see above-

Infinity II 65 floors 736ft Residential --Approved (Brickell)


1501 Biscayne 66 floors 700ft Residential --Proposed (Upper East Side)
1601 Biscayne 64 floors Residential --Proposed (Upper East Side)
1601 Biscayne 62 floors Residential --Proposed (Upper East Side)
1701 Biscayne 62 floors Residential --Proposed (Upper East Side)
1501 Biscayne 61 floors Residential --Proposed (Upper East Side)
1701 Biscayne 58 floors Residential --Proposed (Upper East Side)
-Graphic of complex, click on PACked Map graphic. Complex #7:-
http://www.miami.com/multimedia/miam...t/archive/pac/

Marquis 63 floors 679ft Residential/Hotel --Construction (CBD)


1490 Biscayne 65 floors 657ft Residential --Approved (Upper East Side)


Capitol Brickell I 57 floors 649ft Residential/Office --Proposed (Brickell)


900 Biscayne 63 floors 649ft Residential --Construction (CBD)


600 Biscayne 62 floors 649ft Residential/Office --Approved (CBD)


Florida Grand Opera 57 floors 649ft Residential/Office --Proposed (Upper East Side)
-rendering pending-

Chelsea 52 floors 649ft Residential/Office --Approved (Upper East Side)


One Herald Plz 64 floors 649ft Residential --Proposed (Upper East Side)
One Herald Plz 64 floors 649ft Residential --Proposed (Upper East Side)


City Square 62 floors 640ft Residential --Proposed (Upper East Side)
City Square 62 floors 640ft Residential --Proposed (Upper East Side)


Riverfront West 1 630ft Residential --Approved (CBD)


1490 Biscayne2 60 floors 619ft Residential --Approved (Upper East Side)
-see 1490 Biscayne for rendering-

Met 2 46 floors 617ft Office/Hotel --Approved (CBD)
(The one on the right)

Jdawgboy Feb 16, 2014 11:35 PM

Oh yes, I agree that a lot of the residential towers in Miami are stunning and I could definitely see towers like that here.

AusTxDevelopment Feb 18, 2014 8:30 PM

Austin American-Statesman:

Austin Developer Plans 37-Story Condo Tower Downtown
http://www.statesman.com/news/busine...-downto/ndSLn/

In front of the paywall for a change. ;)

ATXboom Feb 18, 2014 9:18 PM

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...ial-tower.html

bearinaustin Apr 21, 2014 7:08 PM

Bump:


http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=208892

Someone on reddit posted this gallery:
http://imgur.com/a/Ui5pV

Source:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comme...lding_at_west/

KevinFromTexas Apr 21, 2014 7:46 PM

That lists the height as 430 feet with 39 floors, but that's only to the main roof according to the stacking plan on that page. It'll probably still be around 450 feet.

JoninATX Apr 21, 2014 8:10 PM

Hope the city council approves it tomorrow.

IluvATX Apr 21, 2014 8:29 PM

http://imgur.com/o8s39B8.jpg
I think this is the best angle rendering from the site plan.

Digatisdi Apr 22, 2014 1:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoninATX (Post 6547892)
Hope the city council approves it tomorrow.

Let us know what happens with the vote because I'll have classes all day...

If I were to put money down, I'd say it gets approved, with Morrison and Tovo casting "Nay" votes, despite all of the neighbourhood associations they claim to vote in the interests of who've thrown their support behind this project.

The ATX Apr 22, 2014 2:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digatisdi (Post 6548312)
Let us know what happens with the vote because I'll have classes all day...

If I were to put money down, I'd say it gets approved, with Morrison and Tovo casting "Nay" votes, despite all of the neighbourhood associations they claim to vote in the interests of who've thrown their support behind this project.

Those two are also supposed to be big supportes of affordable housing and were in full support of the fund developers have to pay into to get density bonuses. But yet they vote no on these projects denying the affordable housing fund of money, and they help increase rents because they want to limit the supply of apartments. It's pretty clear that they are really just against development and use the affordable housing issue as a smoke screen.

lzppjb Apr 22, 2014 5:41 AM

This tower is sleek and attractive.

The pace we have reached in SW downtown is dizzying.

gmsalpha Apr 23, 2014 2:35 AM

I'd really need to see a more traditional "computer-generated" rendering of this building because the watercolor version makes it look like wood and stucco, which is very odd to me. Let's see one of those beauty shots at sunset that firms like to produce so often these days.

I'll hold my judgement, but I am not a fan at this point in time.

JACKinBeantown Apr 23, 2014 3:11 AM

It's fugly.

Urbannizer Apr 23, 2014 3:22 AM

Wow I really like that, much better than the initial rendering. Easily one of my favorite projects underway for Austin right now.

The ATX Apr 23, 2014 3:34 AM

I agree. I'm not jumping on the ugly band wagon for this:

http://i.imgur.com/6c2HR0r.jpg?1

JACKinBeantown Apr 23, 2014 2:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country (Post 6549935)
I agree. I'm not jumping on the ugly band wagon for this:

That's good. You should definitely have your own opinion. :cheers:

It reminds me(in spirit, not exact design of course) of the clump of buildings in the middle of this... Broadway and about 69th in NYC. All those buildings are from the 60's I think.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7786...mRIA!2e0?hl=en

Digatisdi Apr 23, 2014 2:41 PM

Do we know how the vote went yesterday? They posted a video on ATXN but I'm having trouble getting it to load.

The ATX Apr 23, 2014 3:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown (Post 6550209)
That's good. You should definitely have your own opinion. :cheers:

It reminds me(in spirit, not exact design of course) of the clump of buildings in the middle of this... Broadway and about 69th in NYC. All those buildings are from the 60's I think.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7786...mRIA!2e0?hl=en

And your opinion is wrong. :)

The ATX Apr 23, 2014 3:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digatisdi (Post 6550257)
Do we know how the vote went yesterday? They posted a video on ATXN but I'm having trouble getting it to load.

The vote was at the Planning Commission, not the City Council. I'm sure the Planning Commission rubber stamped it. The City Council will be the usual 5-2.

Digatisdi Apr 23, 2014 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country (Post 6550352)
The vote was at the Planning Commission, not the City Council. I'm sure the Planning Commission rubber stamped it. The City Council will be the usual 5-2.

Yeah I figured the Planning Commission would approve it, I guess I wasn't clear in my earlier post that I was referring to the later council vote would be the 5-2 split.

Which, by the way, has a date been set for that? I'm still having trouble with the videos on the council website.

JoninATX Apr 23, 2014 11:36 PM

Cool. But a bit surprised. Isn't that site historical. because I do see a Texas historical marker right out front.

Digatisdi Apr 23, 2014 11:47 PM

I'm pretty sure (I'll probably go and check later tonight) that the historical marker refers to the Texas Press Association itself rather than the building, and if I'm not mistaken the TPA has indicated they're not opposed to moving from the site.

JoninATX Apr 23, 2014 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digatisdi (Post 6551112)
I'm pretty sure (I'll probably go and check later tonight) that the historical marker refers to the Texas Press Association itself rather than the building, and if I'm not mistaken the TPA has indicated they're not opposed to moving from the site.

If there wasn't any delay about it in the Planning Commission, then it's all systems go. :cheers:

Jdawgboy May 13, 2014 11:23 AM

I'd really like to see this building get built. Will make a great addition to the West End skyline.

Jdawgboy May 21, 2014 8:33 PM

It's going to be up for city council vote the 22nd.

http://m.bizjournals.com/austin/blog...-councils.html

They are saying its 39 floors now but only 430 feet?

GoldenBoot May 21, 2014 8:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy (Post 6586416)
It's going to be up for city council vote the 22nd.

http://m.bizjournals.com/austin/blog...-councils.html

They are saying its 39 floors now but only 430 feet?

Don't believe everything you read in the papers. To most "journalists" the story is far more important than the facts.

I assume one of the two (39-floors or 430' tall) is a typo or a misunderstanding by R. Grattan (the story's author).



*If the building was proposed at 37-levels and 452' in height (or ~12.22'/level)...extrapolate that out to 39-levels and you arrive at ~476'. So, maybe Grattan meant to write 480' instead of 430'!?!

LoneStarMike May 21, 2014 9:21 PM

This document from April 22, 2014 indicated 39 floors at 430 feet.

lzppjb May 21, 2014 10:55 PM

On p.27 of that document it shows the heights. The 430' number is at the top of the last residential floor, but does not include the top of the white section. That little part looks to be almost twice the height of the other floors. That could be the 452' number.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.