Pretty.

Boom.

http://i.imgur.com/vXTOwMJh.jpg

Actually, now that I'm looking at that rendering above, it might be hinting at what the top lighting may be. It is a "dusk" rendering, and does show the red light on the spire. The crown also appears lit with those vertical panels. That would be a lot of lights to maintain, but the effect would be interesting.

It's not red lighting that you are seeing at the top of the Fairmont... it's the red I'm seeing from having the design butchered from something as relevant as Frost to infill.... arrrrrghhhh

View from Seven.

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/...49706255_o.jpg
Seven-High Rise Luxury Apartments, Austin, TX - https://www.facebook.com/SevenApts/p...type=1&theater

Exactly!

Those of you out there who continue to try putting lipstick on this pig, please stop. It's still going to be a pig!

Thank you!

That's one mighty fine looking pig! Anyway, I've moved on to Waller Park Place and Block 24. We should be hearing something about Waller in the near future.

That spire is the devil's candle, I tell you.

Anyway, I don't think I've seen a single building, yet, that didn't change form from announcement to groundbreaking. i've learned to be patient and take projects as they come and announcements with a grain of salt.

And hey, it could be worse. We could be a bunch of skyscraper geeks in the 1960s. I guess you'd have to be high on something back then for them look good, but if you were a common square you'd be sol.

Looking back over the past 10 years or so of Austin's biggest projects, the only ones that I can think of off the top of my head that improved from their first rendering were the JW and Frost.

I remember Kevin posted an earlier rendering of Frost Tower back years ago. I believe the official height was planned at 375ft. or somewhere along there.

Even the Fairmont haters should give them credit for making White Lodging step up their game with the JW Marriott design. That original Marriott design was on the same low level as the Hilton.

Let's be a little more specific here: I don't believe the "haters" are not hating on the "Fairmont" in general...they hare "hating" on Manchester Texas Financial Group for downgrading the design of the Fairmont Austin.

And, IMO, they have every right to!

For what it's worth, I prefer the new design. All the previous design had going for it was height. Otherwise, its look was pretty inelegant, and the last thing the city/skyline needs is a very tall, ugly building that would have been impossible to hide.

Fifth + West building heights
 

The site plan was approved and released today with the heights, and it'll have a higher roof than the Fairmont Hotel. Also a drilling truck was spotted on the lot today.

The building elevations are files 034 and 035.
https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11056288

458 feet 9 inches to mechanical penthouse roof.

435 feet 6 inches to main roof.

422 feet to the highest occupied floor (39th floor).

61 feet 9 inches to the 6th floor podium.

Those numbers are the ones measured from the southwest corner of the building at West Avenue and West 5th Street. You can see the staircase from the rendering below in one of the elevations.

http://i.imgur.com/e1PHNYy.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/4t7onFD.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/AHPkY82.jpg

Some news on the lot east of Whole Foods on Bowie St...


New Development Expected on West 5th Street

http://austin.twcnews.com/content/ne...st-5th-street/

http://images.texas.ynn.com/media/20...5690857f3d.jpg
http://images.texas.ynn.com/media/20...5690857f3d.jpg

Isn't this part of Whole Foods' expanded office space?

I always thought that when they built their current HQ that it was too small. I think originally it was supposed to be a few stories taller but they had to DE-scale it down. Seems like I can recall the original plan was up to 10 stories. Probably doesn't matter as they would have eventually outgrown that as well.

Forward planning in Austin... no chance lol.

It was to be once upon a time. But they pulled out of it because ( As I recall) delays and displeasure with the developer. ( somewhere there is a link to the details)
They took space in the Bowie instead.

How was the original design inelegant??? If you thought the first design was ugly then the new design must be a pile of $h!t.

Four cranes have been up for the Dell Medical School for a while. Here are a few photos I took today.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5603/...4426e272_c.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7502/...c3f2f793_c.jpg

Like I said, I prefer the new design. Obviously it's subjective and isn't worth debating, but I'm glad the first version isn't getting built.

Word Homie.... I suspect the other forumer has been receiving campaign donations from Fairmont Inc. to say that :-)

My cold heart won't let me move on without bemoaning the loss of Fairmont as a game changer... somebody post pictures of the old and new design next to each other... please.... for old times sake

How about this?

The early illustrations were certainly more curvy. But I think that first set of images really emphasized the view of the slender western side (That view angle may be a strong influence on what we thought the building might look like) I added the illustrations that were posted at the actual site, with western side view and wider south-western view, and then the latest rendering of the wider south-western view, that has gendered several negative comments.

I noticed the newer renderings lack the emphasis on the bridge which really upped the exotic flavor of the illustration in the first design (in my opinion). I believe a different company is building that bridge?

http://www.venish.com/apc-Fairmont_side-by-side.jpg

Disappointing... We'd all be very happy if they would have presented this drawing originally.... It is soooo scaled back compared to the original design that the project has lost all potential to be one of the best towers in America.... I mean how amazing were those first designs!!!?

Even the 3rd rendering was still pretty awesome.... Then the tower got neutered

Very interesting given the "financial strength" of the investment group, in the end it got simplified because someone didn't want to make that type of investment

I'm sure it didn't make sense financially for them, but so disappointed about this tower isn't what it was promised to be... What's happening here in austin is so unique in terms of growth that I think they are making a mistake by not going balls deep on the original design

I like the third design the best too, but I'm happy that Austin's getting what they're getting rather than the first. It's hard to tell, but the second design looks like a rounded cornered version of the third, which wouldn't have been bad, but it's hard to tell. The first though...barf.

Think "Three Amigos..." It's as if Manchester and Colony Capital had a similar relationship as did Carmen and Rodrigo with the telegrapher: They both wanted a "23-peso" version; but, could only afford the "10-peso" version.

As purported in this forum...Manchester's budget was ballooning out of control. I would guess that this was an accurate report as Manchester seemed to have been forced to "dumb-down" their design while increasing their overall budget by $20 million (from $350 million, originally, to $370 million now).

It's safe to assume that the tower, in its original design, was going to cost north of $400 million and most capital investors required Manchester to cut the budget down to no more than $370 million (where it is today).

It's sad! The project has been brought from being a one-of-a-kind here in Austin down to the pack...The JW Marriott (~$350 million) and the W (~$325 million).

To be fair, I bet the original design would have been closer to 500-600 million... remember the Bank of America Tower in New York was a billion (I think)....

The fact that Fairmont people were debating a helicopter landing pad versus a spire tells us they were probably thinking big at some point.

Th fourth design is really disappointing, partly because the materials look to be downgraded.... I would have preferred a shorter building of higher quality (like Frost), then a taller JW marriot.

It isn't all that bad, but still.

When he said he liked the 3rd design, he meant the 3rd one over, it was also the 2nd design but from a different angle. The last rendering at the end is the one that is crap and ugly as hell.

When NYC_Longhorn said he liked the 3rd design, I believe he meant the 3rd one over, it was also the 2nd design but from a different angle which is why it also says 2. The last rendering at the end is the 3rd one that is crap and ugly as hell.

I'm pretty excited about this building. I think it's going to be a great addition to the skyline. Great future home for Google in Austin???

http://s.lnimg.com/photo/poster_1920...c864a95884.jpg

Oh lala. I like! I just wish it could be a liiiiiitle bit taller.

Nice. I haven't seen that rendering yet. Where do you find it?

I found it on the CBRE website. http://looplink.natl.cbre.com/xNet/L...RID=5065958968

Interestingly, they indicate that 16 spaces totally more than 400K SF are available. Thus, if they have inked a deal with Google, they are not blocking this out yet. Perhaps that is not unusual.

It says the availability date is November 2017, which seems a long way off.

This article from the Business Journal said the cranes would go up in April of 2015. So that would be at least 19 months.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...ects-move.html

That's also the one I'm speaking of, the third one over. That's the one that was my favorite.

Third one over is what I meant for sure... I'm going to call the latest fairmont design "the comb over" in honor of UT kicker nick rose... Anyone got a photo of him? Lol

So wait, what (where) are we seeing there in that new W. 2nd street building?
Is that looking North East at the South West corner of the building, with the back of the (currently underconstruction) Green Water building on the right edge of the picture? Are the roads we see, Second and Nueces?

Yes you are correct. The new sections of 2nd and Nueces

Our forum needs diagrams������

Like what sort of diagrams?

Like the super tall posters.... The little cartoon looking images that are on the emporis website

Uhhhhhhh.... hello anyone in the forum here? I feel like Will Smith in "I am Legend." Guess I'll go hit golf balls off a plane at Camp Mabry.

We're all on the Austin subforum.

Updated renderings for GreenWater Block 23 Office.

http://i.imgur.com/Zju2Fyr.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/0ndxuQ4.png

http://i.imgur.com/TtLj7kB.png

http://i.imgur.com/G6VDy4b.png

Seaholm Residences (left with single tall yellow crane), GreenWater Block 1 Residential, (building with two blue cranes).

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...41012303_o.jpg
Over Austin - https://www.facebook.com/overaustin/...type=1&theater

Would a building with a hole in the middle be sufficient to preserve the capitol view corridor? For example:

http://www.nikdaum.com/news/09shanghai1013.jpg
http://www.nikdaum.com/news/09shanghai1013.jpg

No.

Oh, come on. A building like that would keep Austin weird.

I wasn't saying no to a building with a hole in it. I was answering his question if that would satisfy a CVC, and the answer is no.

As for that design specifically, it's hideous. As for holes in buildings, they can be well done.... I like Kingdom Center for instance.