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

[urbancore]

HLC can't kill it? Are they just advisory?

[Sigaven]

Am I the only one that likes this redesign? The diagonals add some great texture to the fabric of buildings downtown.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Am I the only one that likes this redesign? The diagonals add some great texture to the fabric of buildings downtown.

The original was...well...original. The new rendering seems like a preset backup plan, theirs and ours second choice and not the winner, winner, chicken dinner. Other than a few diagonal lines and the skinny base, nothing to get too excited about. I don't really care for either design but preferred the first rendering to this one. Also, if the diagonal lines are part of the structural engineering, I love the visibility of them. If they are purely decorative, then its like putting diagonal lines on a pig.....

[myBrain]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Am I the only one that likes this redesign? The diagonals add some great texture to the fabric of buildings downtown.

No I am 100% on board with this and am honestly am surprised by the reaction of some of the other users.

Also, is this a rendering or a massing study? It seems to be highlighting structural components rather showing us what this building will actually look like. If they do more with the facade to emphasize the zig-zags I think that would be great.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by The ATX

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.

And I just gotta say it. As historic landmarks go, the building in question is really very unremarkable. It is bland in appearance, and, even in it's day, it was built to a very low standard using very ordinary materials and uninspired historical references. If it had been torn down a few decades ago, nobody would even remember it.

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't mind the new design, but the first one was more daring, though, not exactly beautiful and it could have been a little more...polished? I don't know. I liked the idea that it was sort of a nod to the Independent, but the facade was a bit boring. I did like the idea of the setbacks and "notch" allowing for outdoor areas. I think it's good for the health of an urban environment to encourage people to go outdoors anytime you can. By acclimating them to stepping outdoors as often as possible, you're going to increase the chance that they're conditioned to preferring walking. I wish we could have a mix of both of these designs. The form of the first one, but with the facade and structural elements of the 2nd.

[zrx299]

Why don't they just move it, or disassemble/reassemble on another spot and let the tower have a normal block to work with?

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Why don't they just move it, or disassemble/reassemble on another spot and let the tower have a normal block to work with?

Integrity? Practicality? Willingness to create something interesting?

[urbancore]

such dark clouds on both.

foreshadow much?

[MichaelB]

Oh... I think it's just a rendering technique so that people won't complain it's a "Blue" building. ;-)

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Oh... I think it's just a rendering technique so that people won't complain it's a "Blue" building. ;-)

Agree. When looking just at the top of these buildings, either rendering (in real life) is going to look like another blue glass rectangle.

[gillynova]

The first design is so much better :\

[AusTex]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I don't mind the new design, but the first one was more daring,.... I wish we could have a mix of both of these designs. The form of the first one, but with the facade and structural elements of the 2nd.

I agree with you Kevin. A mix of the two would be best. The diagonals of the second placed on the first would be a much more interesting tower. Plus the connection of the second looks more substantial. Add it together and it might be nice and add some vitality to the otherwise (as stated before) fairly average look of most of the newer builds in the skyline.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by the Genral

The original was...well...original.

I disagree. I think the first "Design" was anything but original. Design in quotes since I don't know if that was just massing or what, but the blue glass windows is just about the most boring thing I can imagine. The setbacks were sort of interesting but I don't think interesting enough to offset the rest of the blandness, and not very well executed.

In my opinion, the new design's diagonals are a subtle but effective tweak to add interest in texture while the straightened mass itself looks more sleek. The building widens from the bottom with exposed structure not like anything seen anywhere else in downtown. I'm excited for this new design.

[The ATX]

Even though the HLC probably won't approve this at the October (10/28) meeting just because they don't like the height and the developer wants the height as is, they did ask for more renderings. So we'll at least have that.

Here's Towers' take on it:

https://austin.towers.net/this-new-m...-it-yesterday/

[The ATX]

The backup files for Monday's Historic Landmark Commission were posted online. The meeting presentation for this project is the same as last month - no changes. I'm guessing the developer just wants a formal vote, and the developer and HLC will basically agree to disagree. The project will then use alternative methods to gain approval.

http://austintexas.gov/cityclerk/boa...tings/31_1.htm

[The ATX]

The HLC staff recommends approval at tomorrow's meeting. I don't recall if the staff had any prior recommendations. I guess this is somewhat positive.

Approve as proposed. The proposed addition is very large, but the applicant has worked with the Commission to refine the design and make the addition more compatible with the character and integrity of the historic building at its base. Staff does have concerns about the precedent that will be set for other historic landmarks upon approval of this proposal, and recommends that the Commission, if there is a vote for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness, to state clearly that this approval is based upon the unique conditions and sightlines at this property.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=330135

[the Genral]

If this gets built, this will create one of the taller clusters and THE tallest cluster this far north away from the river. Rainey will eventually have the next tallest cluster.

[The ATX]

This one just squeaked by the HLC. The Certificate of Appropriateness for the project was approved 6-4 with an asterisk. The asterisk being that the project must not vary from the proposed plans for the historic building.

[enragedcamel]

I know a few people in this thread have misgivings, but I'm actually excited for this project. I hope it comes to fruition.

What is the next milestone?