Austin | The Travis | 594 Feet | 52 Floors | T/O
 

http://www.statesman.com/business/st...ZhqpLgpONXWIL/

Here is the site.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/30...28!4d-97.74004

For reference, here was the old proposal that Sutton had planned.

This article from last year details the old proposal that Sutton was pursuing that would have had two towers with one of them being 60-stories. These renderings also include the three-tower project, Waller Park Place, to the north of this one.

http://www.statesman.com/business/pr...geJ8JiUYHPKgJ/

These were the renderings we saw for it.

http://i.imgur.com/5hcmkS7.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/5XOrroe.jpg

Cool! Good to finally see some movement in this area (even if it's going to destroy my view of downtown...). Does this developer own all of the WPP land? Or just the Villas? Moreso than villas on town lake, I'd love to see those 3 vacant lots/parking lots developed into something...

After reading the article in the $1 short and 2 days late AAS, I'm not that optimistic about the design of any building going up. The IP of Genesis stated that they have "No desire to build the tallest building in Austin", (which I'm ok with) "nor does it aspire to be the hippest property". They want to build something that's "respectful and appropriate". That worries me. We have too many "respectful and appropriate" (for Austin) buildings already. I see earth tones and stucco. I see one, maybe two decently tall buildings there designed with minimalism in mind but high price tags for the views and access to the lake. I suppose I should wait to see the renderings before I pass judgement, but I am bracing for a 40 story meh.

Stop draggin my heart around!

I can't take another bullshit downsize.

This should be a HIGHLY designed building by someone with soul, and they can charge and will get a grip of money for those west facing units.

70 Rainey is getting up to $1200/ft, and they are 50% sold (per the sales agent).

We are too young of a city and filled with neophytes.

I'm starting to dislike this proposal. What do they even mean by "respectful and appropriate"? Specifically the appropriate part. In this case appropriate can be subjective depending on the person. You can be respectful and still push the boundaries on design.

Also another 40 story range building? In that location??? Another 400-500ft boxy flat roofed residential in a prominent location is not acceptable. We get these initial announcements that claim that we will see some of the tallest buildings in the city ~60 floors was mentioned for this if I'm not mistaken only to downscale and diminish the final product. If they are designing the buildings even remotely close to what's in those renderings then the second tower will be the shorter of the two. The readings are out of scale as it is, no way will a 40 story residential be that tall.

Developers might as well start off announcing the most bland, dull and boxiest buildings in the 400-500 foot range so at least we don't get excited over nothing because that's what we end up with now.

Is it respectfully appropriate or appropriately respectful?

Too bad about Rainey. About the only things attractive about this neighborhood now are Hotel Van Zandt, the old residential bars and 70 Rainey (if it ever gets completed). Another ugly box is going to make everybody driving into Austin on I35 South wonder why we have such an ugly, drab downtown. I guess we can just hope that someday we can have a vibrant WPP project along an attractive Waller Creek.

The two renderings I posted are of the old project that Sutton was planning. Sutton stated that one of those towers would be a 60-story tower that would have been the tallest in the city. I'm willing to be patient. Sutton had said a year ago that they'd be starting construction right about now, but now their project has been bought out. So nothing is a done deal. I would even take the stated size of the project at the moment with a grain of salt. It could be larger or smaller. Either way, I sort of thought Sutton's plan was a bit tacky. Those towers looked like they landed there in the middle of the night hoping no one would notice. They looked like a modern interpretation of 1970s international style architecture. If that's the design they really were going with, then I'm ok with getting something else. Those would have been better suited on the other side of downtown a few blocks north of the river on a lot that is in the middle of the grid, not fronting the curving natural character of the river. I'd rather have something with a little more shape and personality if it's going to become the face of our skyline. I've always admired Corpus Christi's Shoreline Plaza towers. I'm not saying we have to copy that style, but I have always loved the way the towers face away from each other looking out over the water. I have always wanted something like that for our waterfront. It's pretty much the only way I'd ever agree to have twins on our skyline.

As for the Waller Park Place design, I'm not a huge fan. The designs seem gimmicky and too fanciful, but not in a playful creative sort of way. They just don't feel "real" somehow. I don't know. Maybe it's the renderings. I did like the plan they had for the curved towers that would have included one really tall one, but they went and changed it again. I hope they change it again before it moves forward.

I like how the new developer is underselling the project. Everybody can now get their bitching out of the way up front. Then when it's later revealed to be a decent looking 44-story tower everyone will be pleased. :)

Either beige, or glass box. :yuck:

Gotta be appropriate to the other beige and/or glass boxes in the area! Don't want to make them feel bad!

Edit: or perhaps a Craftsman-style skyscraper?.....

"Respectful and appropriate" -- as weird as they are -- are marketing words. They're pitching this project to a specific demographic that would appreciate a "respectful and appropriate" condo building on a lake.

A certain type of moneyed retiree, maybe?

The Amish?

The residents of the Villas got their sale proceeds last summer, and the developer of the site (Genesis Real Estate Group) indicated that development of the site was not happening any time soon.
I know we have some posters living in the area. So I was wondering if the Villas are abandoned? If they are still occupied, I suspect Genesis is just renting them out until they are ready to move forward with the project.

This means they sold enough units to build a cheaper building and move on.

I don't live at the Villas, but we share the same driveway. Honestly I hadn't noticed it, but there does seem to be less people going in and out. I'm inclined to believe you that the residents can rent until demo, but many have just decided to take their bundles of cash and leave

Here we go. Some movement on this project. A demo permit was filed today to demolish the condos and make more condos:

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=524421

Would be nice if they released updated renderings. The current ones are most definitely preliminary. Hopefully the next version that comes out looks much more polished and realistic. Also I would expect the Sutton towers will no longer be shown since its safe to say the origional plan won't happen. I wouldn't hold my breath either for the second proposed tower.

Yeah, I hope we see some real renderings soon. The previous "renderings" were just massings by the previous owner - Sutton - who had no intention of developing the site. The demo permit is actually a site plan which implies they might be moving more quickly now. Also, the permit says the future development is condos which I believe is a switch from previous references to to this project as apartments.

This project just got better. It's called The Travis and will consist two 55-story towers. An all residential tower (Phase I) will be 595' and a residential and hotel tower (Phase II) will be 695'. Here's the info from AULCC:

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...avis_PLANS.pdf

If we can get one building supposedly breaking 800 feet (800 Guad) surely we can have at least one building break 700. Lol this is comical to the point of disgust. Still glad to see things are moving with this project.

Well being that it's phase II, the plans for the second tower could either increase or decrease, and that's if the 2nd phase moves forward at all.

...also from AULCC. The estimated start of construction is listed as between 01/01/2019 and 12/31/2019.

So what's the discrepancy for the all residential tower only rising to 595 feet when the Austonian has 56 residential floors and rises about 100 feet higher? No garage podium or no mechanical roof crown??

All we have are the ground floor drawings, parking and crown info is not yet available. But there is a lot of small print on those drawings. Additional info might be there somewhere.

The height is listed in two places on each site plan. Phase I has 595' listed in both places. Phase II has it as 695' in one place and 595' in another. Considering that the floor count and uses are basically the same, it's reasonable to assume the 695' height for Phase II is a typo.

That's fantastic. I'll say one thing, our skyline is consistent in its incremental-ness.

The 595' height is probably the roof line since that is what is measured for the F.A.R. So these should definitely break the 600' barrier with the mechanical screen or a crown. The actual height could easily be 650'. Damn that 700' plateau.

The Austin I knew and loved from the late 80's / early 90s is gone. It's starting to resemble Miami of the late 90s (minus the Atlantic Ocean of course).

I'd rather not have twin towers. Hopefully the hotel/residential will look a little different but if both towers end up being the same height, that would suck.

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that.

Phase I is listed in the box to the left as being 595 feet with 422 residential units. Those numbers are listed as the same in the building's footprint on the site plan to the right.

Phase II is listed in the box to the left as being 595 feet with 422 residential units. The odd part is that in the building's footprint on the site plan to the right it lists the building as a 695 foot building with 147 units, but it also lists 280 hotel rooms. I'm guessing the 147 units are residential.

The mixed use of hotel and residential could account for the extra height. Hotels have a tendency to have higher floor-to-floor heights than residential sometimes. One example is Fifth & West, which is 459 feet with 39 floors and is all residential. The W Hotel & Residences, on the other hand, is hotel and condos. It's 473 feet with 37 floors. It's not a huge difference between those two, but it's something. I'm wondering if the hotel/condo "Travis Towers" has a spire or something.

It makes sense that developers would want to go tall in that area to take advantage of the views of the river and to get over the rest of the pack.

I'm starting to think the 695' height for the residential/hotel tower may be correct. It has a smaller foot print, and much of that info on the left side of the drawing that says 595' seems to have just carried over from the Phase I drawing.
The bottom line is we need more info. A second site plan for the towers should be filed soon since this is already scheduled for AULCC. (The first site plan that was already filed is for Demo and site Prep.)

If these do end up being this tall it'll likely force the Waller Park Place project to go big, too, not just because of precedent of height in the area, but because they'll likely want the extra height to have the views. Waller Park Place had been presented as being on a scale that was way above what Austin had seen so far. Remember, one of the proposals for it showed one of the buildings with around 65 floors and about 750 feet tall. Anything around the height of the Travis towers or less would make their project not have much of a view to the south. I know the real money view is the one to the west looking down the river, but I would assume they'd want to take advantage of the views in both directions. The tallest tower in the Waller Park Place project was on the lot south of Willow Street where it would pretty much have unobstructed views to the west. It just makes sense that they'd go for as much height for that lot as possible because those lots in that area are really unparalleled in Austin for river views.

A site plan was filed today for both towers. According to the drawings in the AULCC link previously posted, there is a reference to the second tower as being condo. So I suspect the 695' height is correct for the second tower.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=524421

Here's the site plan for the second tower. Just to the right of the text box that indicates a 695' height is the "condo lobby". A 55-story condo/hotel project would be around the same height as the Austonion and Independent.

The site plan status is "CC Pending." Based on what usually happens, it will change to "CC Approved" in a few days; then about a week later it will go "In Review." Within a week or so of going "In Review" an attachment will be added that includes some basic info about the building(s). So in two to three weeks we should have some good info about this.

https://i.imgur.com/Zjia7pS.png
ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...avis_PLANS.pdf

And hopefully some updated renderings.

Some new ABJ coverage -- Pres of the development company says the first apartment tower will be 45-50 stories. The second phase is still a ways away -- they're looking for "market validation" before building the other tower.

Financing isn't complete, but things are progressing and they're still aiming to break ground in early 2019.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...5-stories.html

They're kind of all over the place with the numbers on the 2nd tower. 30 to 35 floors, but they aren't ruling out 50 to 60.

Yeah. They're going to need a LOT of market validation for the 50-60 version.

Austin doesn't have a good record with double tower proposals especially if the second tower is a "wait and see" type of deal. Odds are high that only one tower will be built with the other eventually being scrapped.

It would be interesting to know when this new reporter for the ABJ spoke with Genesis. What the president of the company said sounds pretty much exactly like what Genesis said in July of last year (to the Statesman) - when they bought the property:

~Roughly 40-story, 400 unit apartment tower.
~Second tower to follow if market demanded it.


This may be some hot air being spewed out by Genesis. As some might say...throwing one off the scent trail.

Wasn't a site plan submitted indicating two 55-story towers very recently?

Hummmm...

The site plan has to have accurate info about the height and uses. So I don't know why the developer would be all over the place about the project - unless the comments to the ABJ were before the filing.

Media outlets constantly use published reports as sources instead of primary sources, but they usually follow the statement with "according to a report in the (media outlet)"

The formal site plan filing was added to the site plan application this morning.

It confirms that both towers will be 55-stories. Our 400' plateau has turned into a 600' (maybe 700') plateau.

Phase I tower is 950k sq. ft. with 422 rental units.

Phase II tower is 877K sq. ft. with 147 condos and 280 hotel rooms

Site Plan:
https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=524421

I just hope they have a very complete vision for the first tower and address the street level in the short term so we are not stuck with the likes of the "incomplete " Shoal Creek Walk. !

I'm gonna say something nimby, and don't slap me for it. Ok? I wish I could switch The Travis towers and The Republic. I'd rather have two tall towers on The Republic block, preferably away from the river so they're not so imposing. And, hear me out, I'd rather have The Republic design on the Travis site. I actually think we're going to like The Republic design (excluding the podium, of course). But that design is really unique. It kind of deserves to be a showpiece type tower. I guess its current location is good, too, but having it closer to the water would have really made it stood out being that there wouldn't have been much competition height-wise for it.

Although, I suppose there is something to be said for The Republic design being appropriate for its block. I think that tower and the Block 71 tower will likely end up complementing each other. Both are near the same height, roughly, and are both sloped towers. There could be an interesting synergy there between them that could redefine the skyline a bit.

I was going to virtually slap you for it, but there are no slap smilies.

I agree with you. In an ideal world, we would get both sides to come together and mutually agree to swap properties. Although, on the other hand, where would you rather live? On the water by Rainey Street or by Republic Square Park? Easy choice for me. I'll take water, trails, great views of the skyline, and Rainey Street a block away any day of the week. This area would also be an odd (but cool?) location for an office building.

So, in a sense, these buildings are right where they should be. Though I still wish The Republic was broken in two.

This is another project that is apparently undergoing a change. The site plan status very recently changed to "inactive". That usually means something like a floor being added as with 91 Red River. But after the Republic tower height increase, I have hopes for something more significant. BUT that could just as easily mean a downgrade.

Maybe they've decided to move forward with the second tower? I seem to remember that they originally wanted to start with one tower to gauge the market, and then do the next one if business warranted.

TBH, business almost certainly warrants it.

The site plan already included both towers.