AUSTIN | 300 Colorado | 446 FEET | 32 FLOORS | COMPLETE

[The ATX]

There are some differences in the renderings. I would say this is probably the current version because of Sullivan's and the updated street level brick facade to help it look more "warehousy". The overhanging pool is new in this rendering as well.


http://gda-architects.com/gda-3rd---colorado.html

[clubtokyo]

Originally Posted by The ATX

There are some differences in the renderings. I would say this is probably the current version because of Sullivan's and the updated street level brick facade to help it look more "warehousy". The overhanging pool is new in this rendering as well.


http://gda-architects.com/gda-3rd---colorado.html

The pool is neat!

[AustinGoesVertical]

I really hope the one with the pool overhang is the final version. That is an incredibly awesome feature and removes the "standard" appeal of this building. I think the scale at the street level is better too. I'd hope some of the current brick is even preserved. Also, notice the addition of balconies on those corner units. That rendering makes me more optimistic on this being more than a cookie cutter design.

[We vs us]

While I understand why parking podiums are necessary, I hate this one. And really not just this one, pretty much all of them. Yes we'll have street level retail/restaurant, but we keep chopping out the possibility of having living/working units from floors 2-10ish, and that essentially darkens a whole middle level of eyes on the street. IMHO that's an important neighborhood-making factor that we consistently miss.

[the Genral]

I don't like parking podiums either, but I hate surface parking more. But you know, I never realized, before you mentioned it, but they do create a darker barrier between the street level and actual occupied section of the building. Even with creative lighting, its still basically dead space and never appealing.

[Jdawgboy]

Okay I can get on board with this one now. It shows that Sullivan's will stay or at the very least shows that there will be street interaction with restaurant space. The pool is awesome. I really hope that is a digital screen facing Colorado. Something that we are long overdue in having DT. Still concerned about residential right next to several rooftop lounges like Hanger. They better plan to sound proof or the city needs to push that requirement. If they do not, I will remove my support for this building again and fight it. 4th Street can get pretty loud, like for instance last night during the Pride Parade, I will not tolerate anyone trying to change it because of some new residencies.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I don't like parking podiums either, but I hate surface parking more. But you know, I never realized, before you mentioned it, but they do create a darker barrier between the street level and actual occupied section of the building. Even with creative lighting, its still basically dead space and never appealing.

As long as there's ground level retail, I'm all for parking starting at the second floor. It makes the building taller (which we like) and it makes the units that much higher off the ground (which the tenants like).

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

As long as there's ground level retail, I'm all for parking starting at the second floor. It makes the building taller (which we like) and it makes the units that much higher off the ground (which the tenants like).

Virtually all Austin skyscrapers proposed or built over the past several years have ground level retail (which often means a restaurant at the very least.) So that is typically not a concern.

I understand the desire to have the facade match the context the Warehouse District at street level. But the new design isolates the building from the street IMO. The original design was open (like the JW) at street level as seen in the rendering below.
If this tower is going to be built, I would prefer the open design that improves the street interaction rather than mostly closed brick walls that match the current warehouse. But we really don't know the final design yet.

[Jdawgboy]

Nvm

[drummer]

I'd say keep the open design in the original rendering and the overhanging pool in the new one. Good work, guys. I'm gonna go grab a beer.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by The ATX

I understand the desire to have the facade match the context the Warehouse District at street level. But the new design isolates the building from the street IMO. The original design was open (like the JW) at street level as seen in the rendering below.
If this tower is going to be built, I would prefer the open design that improves the street interaction rather than mostly closed brick walls that match the current warehouse. But we really don't know the final design yet.

I see what you're talking about and I agree.

[Max Tower]

Bad news about those renderings.

Downtown’s 3rd & Colorado Tower Moves Forward, with a Few Tweaks - TOWERS.net

Editor’s Note: Since publishing this story, we’ve heard back from developer Riverside Resources with some clarifications about these images. As it turns out, despite the renderings portraying the brick facade and swimming pool cantilevered out over the street only recently being uploaded to the portfolio of GDA Architects, that doesn’t make them new — they’re early concepts that don’t reflect current plans for the building. According to the developers, the building seen in the two renderings above this note are the most current design for the 3rd & Colorado tower, and that’s that.

[drummer]

I'm actually okay with the open concept restaurant at street level though.

[The ATX]

I prefer what ended up as the final (more like current as nothing is final 'till it's built) version even though it didn't make a huge difference to me. But I wish they would have kept the lighting as shown on the other two versions.

[JACKinBeantown]

I like the restaurant at street level and I'm OK with the parking levels, but the majority of the tower is boring. This will be one of Austin's tallest... and plainest. I think the garage portion actually looks better than the residential portion (and that's not saying much).

[The ATX]

GDA has removed the recently added "new" renderings from their website that turned out to be old renderings. I suspect it had something to do with them being posted online here; then at TOWERS.

[brando]

I was told the closure of Sullivans was delayed form the beginning of 2018 to the summer due to delays with city permitting for the new project.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by brando

I was told the closure of Sullivans was delayed form the beginning of 2018 to the summer due to delays with city permitting for the new project.

There didn't appear to be any delays going forward based on the commission meetings. But the site plan went "inactive" a few weeks ago meaning they are tweaking the project.

[MichaelB]

Hopefully tweeting the design to make it worth building.
Oooops sorry.... was that outloud?

[masonh2479]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Hopefully tweeting the design to make it worth building.
Oooops sorry.... was that outloud?

The design is pretty plain. I would be ok with a lengthy delay if the building magically looks amazing afterwards