AUSTIN | Projects & Construction III - Page 199

The ATX · #**3961** Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 8:57 AM**

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.

GoldenBoot · #**3962** Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

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!

eburress · #**3963** Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 7:55 PM**

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.

KevinFromTexas · #**3964** Posted **Nov 5, 2014, 5:21 AM**

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.

Mopacs · #**3965** Posted **Nov 6, 2014, 5:14 AM**

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/

Quote:

Schlosser Development is planning to build an office building in a parking lot in the area known as the Market District, which is at West Fifth and Sixth streets and Lamar.

Developers closed the lot Monday to comply with a flood zone city ordinance. They did not give any details about the building or when construction will begin...

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

OU812 · #**3966** Posted **Nov 6, 2014, 6:45 PM**

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.

ATXboom · #**3967** Posted **Nov 6, 2014, 9:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OU812

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.

MichaelB · #**3968** Posted **Nov 6, 2014, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OU812

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.

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.

Jdawgboy · #**3969** Posted **Nov 8, 2014, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress

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.

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.

Clev · #**3970** Posted **Nov 8, 2014, 6:32 AM**

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

eburress · #**3971** Posted **Nov 10, 2014, 12:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

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.

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.

NYC_Longhorn · #**3972** Posted **Nov 10, 2014, 3:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

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.

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

NYC_Longhorn · #**3973** Posted **Nov 10, 2014, 3:06 PM**

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

Kotliz · #**3974** Posted **Nov 13, 2014, 1:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC_Longhorn

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?

NYC_Longhorn · #**3975** Posted **Nov 13, 2014, 3:40 PM**

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

eburress · #**3976** Posted **Nov 13, 2014, 6:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC_Longhorn

Even the 3rd rendering was still pretty awesome...

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.

GoldenBoot · #**3977** Posted **Nov 13, 2014, 11:34 PM**

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).

NYC_Longhorn · #**3978** Posted **Nov 14, 2014, 1:43 AM**

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.

Jdawgboy · #**3979** Posted **Nov 14, 2014, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress

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.

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.

Jdawgboy · #**3980** Posted **Nov 14, 2014, 10:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress

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.

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.