This project is named 80 Red River in the design docs. Might want to add that to the thread title.
-1,236,806 total square feet
-13:1 total proposed FAR
-Phase I – 575 feet in height
-Phase II – 695 feet in height
-Apartment - 662,636 Gross SF
-Condo - 377,247 Gross SF
-Hotel - 194,523 Gross SF
-Coffee/Bar - 2,400 Gross SF
This project is named 80 Red River in the design docs. Might want to add that to the thread title.
-1,236,806 total square feet
-13:1 total proposed FAR
-Phase I – 575 feet in height
-Phase II – 695 feet in height
-Apartment - 662,636 Gross SF
-Condo - 377,247 Gross SF
-Hotel - 194,523 Gross SF
-Coffee/Bar - 2,400 Gross SF
80 Red River is just referring to the location. The developer has been calling this the Travis for a long time.
I think it was also already pointed out that the heights of 575' and 695' were from median grade, correct? And that 594' and 704' shall be the official heights. OR...have things changed again?
__________________ AUSTIN (City): 974,447+1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,473,275+8.32% - '20-'23 SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909+2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,703,999+5.70% - '20-'23 AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,177,274+6.94% - '20-'23 | *SRC: US Census*
I think it was also already pointed out that the heights of 575' and 695' were from median grade, correct? And that 594' and 704' shall be the official heights. OR...have things changed again?
Nothing has changed based on available public info.
They are all correct. It just depends on what is being measured. The height varies depending on which side of the building is being measured and where the stopping point is. City documents tend to show the height up to the roof line without taking into account mechanical screens/crowns.
They are all correct. It just depends on what is being measured. The height varies depending on which side of the building is being measured and where the stopping point is. City documents tend to show the height up to the roof line without taking into account mechanical screens/crowns.
No Density Bonus for you. The Design Commission postponed this one until September mainly because they were not happy with the ground floor.
I applaud that decision. I mean, I know it is a difficult site, but I think they could have done a much better job of responding to the context in a positive way, especially on the creek / trail side.
The latest version of this project heading to the Design Commission features a more public plaza. The towers themselves don't appear to have changed other than the ground floor.
I don't think the rendering for the taller tower actually depicts what's shown in the building elevations. This one has a more flat top, whereas the design in the elevations shows it with a ridge running across the middle of the roof. I actually prefer the elevations version. It reminds me bit of some of the towers in Sydney, Australia. Sort of like their Citigroup Tower, but without the spire:
I don't think the rendering for the taller tower actually depicts what's shown in the building elevations. This one has a more flat top, whereas the design in the elevations shows it with a ridge running across the middle of the roof. I actually prefer the elevations version. It reminds me bit of some of the towers in Sydney, Australia. Sort of like their Citigroup Tower, but without the spire:
The latest version of this project heading to the Design Commission features a more public plaza. The towers themselves don't appear to have changed other than the ground floor.
I approve! The only thing more I could hope for would be to dedicate the driveway as Red River ROW (the City would need to acquire the Shore's driveway so we have any actual street between the two properties) rather than two separate, adjacent private drives.
Their latest design is much better! Towers that big need more public spaces because there were bill thousands of people who live in them and want to get out of their cramped apartments. Asian cities that have large residential high rises usually have vibrant public spaces around them because people want to get out of their tiny apartments.
That backup file was incorrectly posted for tonight's meeting. It was actually the July presentation that got rejected. The presentation for tonight's meeting included a ground floor resident artist shop and has both an inside and outside gallery at street level. I'm working tonight and couldn't wait for the vote. So I don't know if the third time was a charm for this one. The same goes for the Masonic Lodge tower as I missed the vote at the HLC for that one as well.
Prev
which is not Austin's personality at all.
Linear Mode
