Yeah, as someone who lives in a 400+ft building I appreciate tall slender towers, but I'm more concerned with density, public transit, and affordable options downtown.

It doesn't have to be one or another. We can hope for both.

I agree on the balanced approach of moistly infill but an occasional tall tower. We aren't big enough to have a super-tall just yet, and that stands the chance at sucking up market oxygen and counteract the infill we desperately need.

I want a supertall.

I think a super tall mixed use tower could be feasible if done the right way. It wasn't that long ago we had T. Stacy.....but I don't wanna start a thread about that disaster.....

I'd like to see at least one supertall in Austin's skyline at some point in my lifetime. But if it ever happens there might be other cities with incredible skylines that it probably would not matter anymore up to that point. I guess what I'm saying is that I feel a lot more American cities will have much bigger skylines than today. And ever since I've lived here in San Francisco one more building getting built doesn't really seem to make much of a difference since the skyline is already so concentrated its hard to tell the difference. Its like going to NYC and seeing all the skyscrapers getting built on top of the so many already there... it would be hard to keep track of them.

I'd be happy with like an observation type of a supertall, like perhaps a futuristic version of San Antonio's Tower of the Americas (which is 750'). What is considered "super tall" -- above 700' ..??

Austin would be a great city for a mega sized observation tower because it's sort of compact, plus- would have nice views of all the hills to the west, and the winding, snaking Colorado River.

Let's have a 1,000 footer!!

Count me down as someone who doesn't want a supertall. Those are gaudy and tacky in a city they don't belong in. I want more height across the board. Only then will a supertall not look out-of-place. Right now, a supertall would only be a status symbol and that's not in keeping with Austin's personality.

I totally agree with the "affordable options" from your comment. I contend that perhaps 10% of the square footage of all residential buildings be set aside for small one bedroom units and studio/efficiency units AT THE SAME $$/sq.ft. the rest of the units sell/rent for. I know this is "socialism" to a degree, however, "capitalism" as practiced now is buying affordable housing complexes all over Austin and tearing them down to build Luxury Only buildings with few if any small units. I believe many people would live in smaller places they can afford...to live in the hood they want to live in.

A "super Tall" defined on this forum are projects with a minimum height of 300 meters / 984 feet.

A "super tall" in Austin now would be 750 tall. That height would rise above everything else. Any building higher would probably look "gaudy and tacky' as you mentioned. I certainly do not want a trophy tower in Austin...we are a much more relaxed and self confidant populous than that.

Super Tall?
 

Frankly I'd be excited to see some 250–400 footers, with really good ground-level attractions filling these empty lots, before some sort of extra tall building (750+ feet) sucks up all the oxygen. Although I suspect some of those lots might be in a capital view corridor.

http://venish.com/apc-open-lots.jpg

I am sorry, but I don't think a super tall ever looks tacky. I know by definition it isn't(or maybe it is, I am too lazy to look up its height) a supertall, but Devon Tower in Oklahoma City does not look tacky, at all. It might look a little out of place, but it looks freaking awesome compared to the rest of the skyline, its not like a 1,000 ft tower in Pflugerville.

Austin's skyline is plenty filled-out and has enough height to look amazing with a 700-1,000 ft tower.

And if any person on here saw that a 1,000 ft tower was being constructed in Austin and were....eh....about it, I would die in astonishment. It would look bad ass and all ya'll know that :D

* I am talking just ascetically of course, I would rather have 10 100' ft buildings scattered around downtown than a super tall in regards to market and urban conditions.

To me it's not that a very tall building itself would look tacky, it's what it would do to the skyline as a whole. The Devon Tower is a lovely building but the city skyline as a whole, because of the inclusion of that 840 foot tower, looks kinda silly and out of scale. Most likely, when the city grows up around it, it will fit in better, but I don't think that's a particularly pretty skyline.

http://venish.com/apc-Devon%20Tower.jpg

Original [http://vimeo.com/49098366]

I'd rather we build up what we've got to a cresendo of a supertall. Why put the grand finale first? A supertall (1,000+ footer) would be a huge distraction from everything else.

Also I'd rather not have a supertall on Congress. I've always wanted one in the middle of downtown to anchor the skyline from all angles and spur development outward from it. My pick for the best site for a supertall would be the downtown post office site. It's next to the park and there is decent tall density around that block now and more coming that would support that kind of height there. I had been thinking the county courthouse block was best, but really having a supertall there isn't likely to happen because it's so close to the river. The Nimbys would throw a fit.

Anyway, we drove down Congress this afternoon crossing the bridge, and I was really taken aback by how impressive the skyline appeared. We really have developed a decent skyline in a short time. Also I noticed while on I-35 today how the UT/West Campus skyline and the downtown skyline really are two very different kind of districts and as a consequence their skylines are very different. Even if they complete one long skyline, they have a disinct difference that makes them seem separate.

As for the Oklahoma City comparison with the Devon Tower, no offense to Oklahoma City, but we have significantly more tall buildings than they do.

Hey Kevin, that is why I brought up OKC. We have a lot more tall buildings, so a nice tall building, like the Devon Tower would look even better here.

The picture of OKC and Devon Tower is a bad angle. I won't deny though, that it is out of place as of now, no doubt. But a beautiful 800+ ft building, I would take that in any city any time.

I was just thinking today actually how much I wish the Frost Bank Tower and 360 Condos had both been taller. Frost Bank Tower about 900 feet or so and 360 Condos about 200 feet taller for 781 feet. Oddly enough, even at that height with the spire, 360 Condos would still have a shorter roof than The Austonian. I really think the Frost Bank Tower and 360 Condos are our two best "tallest building designs" we've seen yet. They just scream to be taller in a way that none of the others, not Spring, not Ashton, the Four Seasons Residences and not even the W do. I actually think the W Hotel & Residences is really at a perfect height for its location. It makes a major impact on the skyline. It is a hulking sleek dark tower, but isn't opressive with its dominance even at its very prominent location. I also think the JW Marriott is pretty much at a perfect height for its location and design. I was looking at the glass today while we were driving on I-35, and it's going to look really impressive from that side. I'm not sure about The Bowie yet, but I think its height is probably about right for its design.

The Williams Tower in Houston is (I think) a 'supertall' that really sticks out, but it's pretty awesome nonetheless. It's supposedly the tallest building outside of a CBD in the US? (not counting NYC or Chicago probably)
http://i.factmonster.com/images/transco.jpg
Love that rotating beacon at night!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iams_Tower.jpg
http://0.tqn.com/d/architecture/1/0/...owerFlickr.jpg

If Frost was 900' :slob:. That'd be one of the best buildings in the U.S.

I know you meant aesthetically, but this was particular ironic given that ascetic (the word whose derivative you used) means to "practice strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline". I.E. it fit perfectly into your argument anyway.

Yeah man, my bad. I click submit without looking things over.

lol