Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical
Oh you'll probably see one then. You mean "The Independent", shorter than the Austonian based on elevation, isn't signature?
|
The fact that the Austonian and the Independent are going to be the tallest buildings in Austin at this time is objective. Whether or not I think they are signature towers is subjective, so my basis for what I think would be a signature tower is totally opinionated.
Despite the goofy crown on the Austonian, I'll consider it signature, the Independent, not so much. It doesn't take my breath away. The Frost is more iconic than signature because it is at least 100' too short. Examples of what I consider signature towers I would love to see here with reasonable simularity, Key Tower...Cleveland, Devon Energy Center...Oklahoma City, BoA...Charlotte, and BoA...Dallas to name a few. And it doesn't need to be 1000', a stunning, bold, shiney, breathtaking 6 - 800 footer would be fine. The only things going for the Independent is location and height. Its unique design does not make it signature imo.
As far as this building is concerned, its anti signature, it wants to blend in. It could be curvy, with curved tiers with dramatic contrast and underground parking, but it doesn't want to be unique and stand out. Its an opportunity lost. Having suffered through the CoA induced stubby building boom of the 80s, I'm just hoping for more.