AUSTIN | Modern Austin Residences | 658' | 56 FLOORS | U/C

[papertowelroll]

Meh, hard to argue with a building this tall, especially if they have nightlife on the ground level. The millennium on the other hand is a fucking disaster. Hopefully that is razed within the next 10 years.

[chinchaaa]

I think it’s kind of sad that they’re taking out some of the things that made this a cool part of town. And that’s coming from someone who hates going to Rainey. Any character that area has now will be gone in a few years. I think we have a serious problem with tearing down a lot of buildings in this city with a little bit of history. This city will feel like a plastic city in the future with hardly anything left of value from the past. Not saying container bar is something that should be celebrated, but Bungalow? It’s part of why Rainey is a unique spot.

*steps off soapbox*

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

I think it’s kind of sad that they’re taking out some of the things that made this a cool part of town. And that’s coming from someone who hates going to Rainey. Any character that area has now will be gone in a few years. I think we have a serious problem with tearing down a lot of buildings in this city with a little bit of history. This city will feel like a plastic city in the future with hardly anything left of value from the past. Not saying container bar is something that should be celebrated, but Bungalow? It’s part of why Rainey is a unique spot.

*steps off soapbox*

See the posts above. The article notes that the developer wants to integrate Container Bar and Bungalow into the project.

[The ATX]

They'll get push back from the HLC for the Bungalow displacement (but obviously not for the shipping containers.) It'll be interesting to see if hoisting the Bungalow up to the second floor of the tower will fly with the Commission.

[GoldenBoot]

Regardless of how well or quickly this proposal runs through the entitlement process...if Burns is really going to develop this site into something similar to what is currently proposed, he will require a pretty sound development/equity partner. As this is his first (major) development project, I do not see how he can secure a construction facility for something like this without a big-name, successful development/equity partner.

Or, on the other hand, is Burns trying to maximize his investment and secure the highest/densest possible entitlements to his property and sell it off to someone else (analogous to Tom Stacy's Congress & Sixth tower, Mac Pike's Waller Park Place, and many others)?!?

We shall see...it is a pretty sexy looking tower!

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by paul78701

See the posts above. The article notes that the developer wants to integrate Container Bar and Bungalow into the project.

I did see it. It doesn’t matter really. It will completely change the vibe, be that good or bad.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

I did see it. It doesn’t matter really. It will completely change the vibe, be that good or bad.

Change is the only constant in this world.

[Strayone]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

ABJ now has an article on it:

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n..._news_headline

Initial renderings look promising.

Every thing is along a parallel along the Lake. This will be another tooth of our teethy skyline. Ha Ha they didn't include the Fairmonts spire?

[AustinGoesVertical]

Now that’s what I’m talking about! That rendering with the Container Bar and Bungalow takes this to a different level imo. I think features like that are a “Keep Austin Weird” homage. I mean what other flashy high-rise literally carves out a section to integrate programmed elements like that?

If they can actually execute this, then that should be commended. I like when architecture and buildings tell a story, and what this communicates is so interesting. It’s blending the future with the past. Any onlookers unfamiliar with Austin, maybe someone visiting the city for the first time and staying at this hotel, will immediately wonder why a Bungalow House is sitting on the second floor of a new high-rise building.

And it delivers authenticity. It’s not a developer taking a white box retail approach. I’m surprised how little love the Container Bar is getting, I know the versatile use of Containers as food carts, pop-up shops, and micro-living are a thing now, but when this was built, that trend was far from mainstream.

This is a very ambitious project by Burns. As others have noted, he’ll need a seasoned developer to partner with, especially when it comes to securing the requisite financing. I’d think the partner would be local, maybe Endeavor or Aspen Heights.

[Sigaven]

Holy crap, when they said Bungalow would move into the second floor, I didn't think they literally meant they would actually put the entire Bugalow building into the second floor of the new structure.

Pretty cool that they are trying to preserve both bars but I am not sure how I feel about moving Bungalow. The cool thing about these bungalow bars is their outdoor spaces and open air feel. You'd totally lose that in this new building. I really like this new tower but I wish they'd find another solution for Bungalow (I don't mind Container so much being built into the new structure). I wonder if there is another lot on Rainey they could move Bungalow to?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

I wonder if there is another lot on Rainey they could move Bungalow to?

Sure, but only temporarily because virtually everything lot is spoken for. The only site in that area that I know of that does not have a project planned is the NW corner of East Ave. & River Street. That's the last lot on the East Ave. hotel row that goes from Homewood Suites > Fairfield Inn > Cambria > Lady Bird Hotel (Kimber Modern) > the corner lot.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Pretty cool that they are trying to preserve both bars but I am not sure how I feel about moving Bungalow. The cool thing about these bungalow bars is their outdoor spaces and open air feel. You'd totally lose that in this new building. I really like this new tower but I wish they'd find another solution for Bungalow (I don't mind Container so much being built into the new structure). I wonder if there is another lot on Rainey they could move Bungalow to?

There will be plenty of bungalows left that will still maintain that outdoor space feel. So I'm good with this. If they can actually pull it off as they state, it would be very unique and additive. Just about anyone could look at that and think "Oh, cool!"

[_Matt]

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

Well Rainey St. did become an entertainment district, a popular and distinct one at that. It’s filled with converted bungalows and unique, hip bars. It’s not just some bar you’d see at the base of a high rise, so I disagree that it has no character.

This whole neighborhood, at least Rainey St. specifically, does have a specific program. You can argue the merits of it but not the fact that it exists. And Contsiner Bar is very much in the context of the character of what exists.

There are plenty of vacant lots or underutilized buildings not on Rainey St. in which a 48-story tower like this could go. Even some off East Ave.

If you don’t have a problem with standalone bars being razed for high rises, then I’d say you care very little about this area as an “entertainment district” which is a valid opinion. What’s not valid is to say this specific Bar is not woven into the fabric and function of Rainey. And I’d say West 6th is indeed similar, and I feel the same way. Just like I hope SoCo doesn’t become generic 5-story midrises. These are draws. These are activations, and an open-air entertainment district not built into the bottom of high rises is a unique function. You can remove that but then what are you left with? Another 2nd Street? Not that 2nd Street is bad, it’s great, but I believe cities should maintain the vibes and culture of each neighborhood, not go for density at the cost of diluting downtown into one image and shape.

You’re right, we need more residential density in Austin. Why this specific street though when it’s already utilized and activated. Why is this where that density has to go? What about just a little north, in gap between downtown and West Campus? What about all those surface parking lots by the Omni and Westin, the ones not in a CVC. Let’s increase height overlays, if there are restrictions, in those parts of town, not bulldoze sections of an existing Austin nightlife hub.

This specific street was always designated for high density residential before it became an entertainment hub. This was a decision by city planners whose job is to make a highly functioning city. Its proximity to downtown makes it too valuable to be restricted use. But don't take my word for it--the free market has spoken.

As a side note, Austin (and the downtown) is evolving into more than only the 'entertainment hub' identity, when 6th street was the only reason most people went downtown. We don't need Rainey street preserved at that particular time time to attract tourists. There are plenty of other things the city has to offer that is more cohesive with a functioning downtown. (But of course, long live dirty 6th)

[_Matt]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I just opened the link and hit the escape button over and over to view it.



That's the Quincy/91 Red River.

-

Rendering of 90 Rainey from KXAN's story on it:


https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...XJ9gV_gzrqT5Ok

What material are the white blocks along the right side of the building? It almost looks like rock.

[_Matt]

Couple of other tidbits from the article:

"I own the land," he said, adding he has a "very modest loan" but that he would "be able to get this project fully entitled on my own."

Down the road, Burns said he will bring on an equity partner and a hotel partner.

Burns said he bought 90 and 92 Rainy St. in 2006 with plans to build a six-unit townhouse development. He soon nixed his plans when the real estate market tanked and bar owner Bridget Dunlap contacted him about building Container Bar.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by _Matt

What material are the white blocks along the right side of the building? It almost looks like rock.

Looks like marble or travertine. Wouldn't that be awesome, you don't see much of that these days. Could be concrete/composite panels though, similar to the Proper.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by _Matt

This specific street was always designated for high density residential before it became an entertainment hub. This was a decision by city planners whose job is to make a highly functioning city. Its proximity to downtown makes it too valuable to be restricted use. But don't take my word for it--the free market has spoken.

As a side note, Austin (and the downtown) is evolving into more than only the 'entertainment hub' identity, when 6th street was the only reason most people went downtown. We don't need Rainey street preserved at that particular time time to attract tourists. There are plenty of other things the city has to offer that is more cohesive with a functioning downtown. (But of course, long live dirty 6th)

Nobody is saying DT should be nothing more than an entertainment district, but there's something to be said about having a centralized hub with a large amount of entertainment venues all in walking distance. SXSW wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the high amount of entertainment venues and DT Austin wouldn't be what it is today without it. It's why people were attracted to living DT to be able to live, work and play. Kind of defeats the purpose of the play part when one has to drive or Uber out of DT for entertainment. (If 6th isn't their cup of tea) SXSW is already changed due to the shift east of 35. I've been walking around for the past 4 days and can see that it's just not the same anymore and it's pretty sad. I say we need Rainey to continue to be an entertainment district for the continued health of Austin's nightlife. A balance needs to be found to keep DT the entertainment heart of the city as it has been for the last 30+ years.

[Jdawgboy]

Regarding the rendering, I'm glad that they are incorporating both venues into the tower. I wish more developers would do that to replace what they take away.

[Urbannizer]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Check out the Container Bar and Bungalow in this rendering. This would be cool. Google credits it back to the original ABJ story, but I don't see it there.

Terrible way of incorporating the bungalow. I find it very odd, why not have the building cantilever above it?

This is a good example:

https://www.dezeen.com/2017/03/31/lu...rchitecture/ya

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

Terrible way of incorporating the bungalow. I find it very odd, why not have the building cantilever above it?

This is a good example:

https://www.dezeen.com/2017/03/31/lu...rchitecture/ya

If and only if the building cannot structurally cantilever the distance from one side of the preexisting Container Bar (in its current location) to where the property line is, the architect would need to take one of three paths to make the building structurally sound:

1. Decrease the length of the cantilever until is structurally sound.

This strategy decreases the amount of usable square footage because it would forfeit square footage on every floor above the Container Bar in an amount corresponding to the distance between where the cantilever ends and where the property line is.

2. Move the Container Bar to abut the property line and cantilever as far above the relocated Contained Bar as is possible.

This strategy incurs the unnecessary cost of the relocation (albeit chump change in a development like this), it incurs political & bureaucratic costs (will it even pass permitting or council now that you’re adding another layer to the development), it still isn’t clear that they’d be able to cantilever over the entire distance between the edge of the base of the new structure and the property line to remain structurally sound without significant added cost to recoup the (still) lost square footage (thereby having the same problem as number one above — see Citigroup Tower in NYC for a good example of the limitations and incurred costs of improper structural design over a preexisting building), and it definitely isn’t clear (although it is likely, IMHO, that it would) that the first floor above the cantilever in this approach could support the weight of the relocated bungalow.

3. Simply take advantage of the fact that the Container Bar does not abut the property line by discarding the cantilever approach and build the entire tower such that it is supported on three and three quarters sides and four corners on the ground rather than two full sides and two partial sides with three corners on the ground.

This is the approach taken. It is much more structurally sound, recoups the square footage lost in the above two approaches without the significantly added cost to make the building structurally sound not does it incur any extra problems discussed above.

Also, it’s way more unique to do it this way than a cantilever, which is a strategy used in many places and many towers. In fact, I’d be hard pressed to think of a structure that has a notch like this cut out for an existing building that is not a traditional cantilever. I like it.