Austin | 311 W. 7th (Masonic Lodge) | ? Feet | ~40 Floors | Proposed - Page 4

corvairkeith · #61 Posted **Aug 28, 2019, 11:00 PM**

And just to state the obvious, brick or stone would make a lot more sense for a Masonic Lodge addition.

KevinFromTexas · #62 Posted **Aug 29, 2019, 12:08 AM**

I do like the height, though. I'm guessing it's around 550 feet based on 300 West Sixth next to it being 336 feet tall.

Jdawgboy · #63 Posted **Aug 29, 2019, 3:26 AM**

Looks like the Historic Landmark Commission still doesn't like it.

Syndic · #64 Posted **Aug 29, 2019, 3:51 AM**

Do any of y'all follow the NYC development thread? It's incredible how different the buildings are there, compared to here. They seem to rarely get cheapo all-glass buildings like this. They use way more high quality materials there. Lots of brick. I'm jealous.

Edit: Then again, maybe that has something to do with them needing better insulation due to the colder temperatures. Hmmm.

clubtokyo · #65 Posted **Aug 29, 2019, 1:20 PM**

And it’s also NYC

StoOgE · #66 Posted **Aug 29, 2019, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndic

Do any of y'all follow the NYC development thread? It's incredible how different the buildings are there, compared to here. They seem to rarely get cheapo all-glass buildings like this. They use way more high quality materials there. Lots of brick. I'm jealous.

Edit: Then again, maybe that has something to do with them needing better insulation due to the colder temperatures. Hmmm.

As an ex-New Yorker - New York gets tons of horrible infill. It's just ignored because they are also getting world class 1000+ foot tall buildings.

I was more active in the NYC stuff when I lived there, and they get real grousy about bad buildings too.

Look up a McSam hotel

ohhey · #67 Posted **Aug 30, 2019, 4:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

You don't post much, but whenever you do post something about an Austin project it's extremely negative. Are there any new (last 10 years or so) high-rise buildings downtown that you like?

I like the W hotel/residences tower and 360. Both building are designed cohesively from top to bottom and have pretty good street-level interaction. I also think the Indeed tower will be a nice addition to the skyline and to the streetscape. Generally, I do think Austin has built a LOT of bad to mediocre buildings in the past 15 years, and we're not building any great towers to balance out the banality (to make matters worse, we don't have many heritage towers to help mitigate the problem). It's disappointing, and I hope it changes.

With regard to the Masonic Lodge addition, I agree the "design" is obviously very preliminary. The awkward and overbearing cantilever is clearly the developer's attempt to maximize square footage/profit and is absolutely not part of any overall design intent. And the sloppiness of the design and rendering make me think they're not particularly invested in seeing this through. The developers are probably just testing the waters to see what the HLC will let them get away with.

The ATX · #68 Posted **Aug 30, 2019, 4:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohhey

I like the W hotel/residences tower and 360. Both building are designed cohesively from top to bottom and have pretty good street-level interaction. I also think the Indeed tower will be a nice addition to the skyline and to the streetscape. Generally, I do think Austin has built a LOT of bad to mediocre buildings in the past 15 years, and we're not building any great towers to balance out the banality (to make matters worse, we don't have many heritage towers to help mitigate the problem). It's disappointing, and I hope it changes.

With regard to the Masonic Lodge addition, I agree the "design" is obviously very preliminary. The awkward and overbearing cantilever is clearly the developer's attempt to maximize square footage/profit and is absolutely not part of any overall design intent. And the sloppiness of the design and rendering make me think they're not particularly invested in seeing this through. The developers are probably just testing the waters to see what the HLC will let them get away with.

Great response.

For anyone who thinks this project is the first of its kind for Austin, remember 416 Congress? That was also a 30ish story hotel atop a historical building with no onsite parking. The no onsite parking would have made it a first of its kind project in Austin. It got city approval but can be written off as a victim of the Great Recession. That project was embraced by the city unlike this one so far. The 416 Congress site plan was still active when Spreetail moved to Austin and used the historical building as their Austin HQ. Spreetail has since laid off much off their Austin workforce.

416 Congress

http://downtownaustinblog.org/2011/0...ings-released/

The ATX · #69 Posted **Sep 21, 2019, 12:00 AM**

The latest version trying to win HLC favor:

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=327899

the Genral · #70 Posted **Sep 21, 2019, 12:36 AM**

Well now the only unique thing about this building is the tiny floor plates on the first 10 floors and a few dopey verticle lines, actually they're the best part of this 2nd attempt. Sad that they already had this ready to present if the cooler version was rejected. Its almost like they anticipated this. But to go from whoopty doo!!! to poopy doo is disappointing.

KevinFromTexas · #71 Posted **Sep 21, 2019, 1:18 AM**

It's not really the same, but it reminds me a bit of that oil tower Midland was supposed to get a few years back that ended up being chopped in two, and then canceled.

https://www.mrt.com/news/article/Dev...he-7434224.php

Geographer · #72 Posted **Sep 21, 2019, 1:56 PM**

That design is awful.

Would it be possible to design a building that uses on the Masonic Lodge architecture with similar shapes and exterior materials and colors? That way they should make the first floors must closer in size to the Masonic Lodge perimeter. Their latest design has a large air gap between the roof of the Lodge and the bulk of the tower is order to avoid the striking visual contrast that would be apparent to a pedestrian.

MichaelB · #73 Posted **Sep 21, 2019, 2:55 PM**

Cool. I like that they are not trying to do some type of "faux historical" addition. My fave versions of this are always where you clearly see two periods creating a tension.

Sigaven · #74 Posted **Sep 21, 2019, 3:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geographer

That design awful.

Would it be possible to design a building that uses on the Masonic Lodge architecture with similar shapes and exterior materials and colors? That way they should make the first floors must closer in size to the Masonic Lodge perimeter. Their latest design has a large air gap between the roof of the Lodge and the bulk of the tower is order to avoid the striking visual contrast that would be apparent to a pedestrian.

I think actually the historic commission dislikes when modern add-ons try to look like their historic originals. They want to make sure there's a clear distinction between what's historic vs what's new.

Geographer · #75 Posted **Sep 21, 2019, 3:56 PM**

I see. The new building doesn't have to be in the exact form of the Lodge but can use similar colors and materials so that the visual transition from Lodge to new tower isn't so jarring.

Quote:

My fave versions of this are always where you clearly see two periods creating a tension.

Why do you like tension? Doesn't that create subconscious discomfort?

MichaelB · #76 Posted **Sep 21, 2019, 5:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geographer

I see. The new building doesn't have to be in the exact form of the Lodge but can use similar colors and materials so that the visual transition from Lodge to new tower isn't so jarring.

Why do you like tension? Doesn't that create subconscious discomfort?

If this is a serious discussion I'm happy to engage ... not being a smart ass ...there just too many folks on here who argue for arguments sake.

IMHO:
Tension .... in art and design is just an energy that creates a vibration.
That can be very exciting. Not tension as in "omg were gonna fight".
We only understand effect thru contrast. In some cases and in some hands it doesn't work. I'm not going to defend this building as a perfect example. I"m just glad to see the exploration. Let each aesthetic stand alone and let the contrast/tension create the effect. We have many examples. You have no further to look than all the re-designs that were done for Notre Dame. Some good...some not so.... but the ones that had it right were really exciting. ( FYI... I'm happy they decided on a straight up restoration)

Echostatic · #77 Posted **Sep 21, 2019, 5:38 PM**

If the cross beams are visible from the ground in the final design this could be my favorite building in the city. Diagonals make any design better. I like the separation between the tower and the historic lodge, and the contrast between the old and the modern really puts this one over the top. Hope the HLC approves this rendition.

The ATX · #78 Posted **Sep 24, 2019, 6:13 AM**

The HLC voted to postpone this until the October meeting because they are not on board with it. To sum it up, the HLC would prefer a shorter tower, but the developer wants to stay around 40-stories in order to get an acceptable return on investment.

KevinFromTexas · #79 Posted **Sep 24, 2019, 6:53 AM**

Lame. What difference does it make if you put a 20, 30 or 50-story tower atop a "historic" building? Any new building of any height above it is going to change the look of it. If you're going to allow it at all, you might as well make the best of the situation and let them go big. The way I look at it is that the more profit the developer makes the easier it'll be for them to renovate and restore the old building. Just look at the Indeed Tower and what they're being able to do with that site with respect to the restoration they're doing and the public space the city will gain.

The ATX · #80 Posted **Sep 24, 2019, 8:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Lame. What difference does it make if you put a 20, 30 or 50-story tower atop a "historic" building? Any new building of any height above it is going to change the look of it. If you're going to allow it at all, you might as well make the best of the situation and let them go big. The way I look at it is that the more profit the developer makes the easier it'll be for them to renovate and restore the old building. Just look at the Indeed Tower and what they're being able to do with that site with respect to the restoration they're doing and the public space the city will gain.

IMO this is too big city, out of the box thinking for the Austin HLC. The HLC would rather have the building continue being neglected than see it fixed up and by the way have a tower built above it.

I don't think it will get HLC approval. In fact it was discussed what the next steps would be for the developer if the HLC won't approve it. The next stop would be the Planning Commission. If the PC denies it, the CC could take it up. I have a lot more faith in the Planning Commission on urban issues than the CC or other planning boards.