AUSTIN | Third + Shoal | 389 FEET | 29 FLOORS | U/C | Complete

[Tech House]

This is kind of hilarious -- am I really the only one who likes it? I guess that smashes any hope I had of passing for gay on this forum! I just hope people understand that I didn't choose to have bad taste, it's just hard-wired in my brain.

[KevinFromTexas]

It's alright. I don't think it will be as terrible as some are suggesting, but I do get the impression it will be one of those buildings that is "just there" and doesn't really stand out, and that's ok because it's location doesn't really permit that anyway. I think they did the best they could with what will be the most visible side of the building. Same with Austin Proper. The other sides of the building are kind of meh, but the west facade is pretty interesting.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Armybrat

As I said on The Shag - it looks like the next door neighboring condos are going to lose some of their views altogether. Owners may get a little ticked about that.

I was thinking the same thing. This building seems very close to the proposed condo tower(Austin Proper?) with a very narrow space between the condo building and the office building/garage. Are there other renderings that show this in more detail? It seems like this would hamper the sale of the new condos. I wonder whether the condo dwellers would be staring into windows of the office building (or into the 11 story garage) and vice/versa.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I was thinking the same thing. This building seems very close to the proposed condo tower(Austin Proper?) I wonder whether the condo dwellers would be staring into windows of the office building (or into the 11 story garage) and vice/versa.

To some degree, some residents at the Ashton have to deal with 100 Congress. For me, I would want an amazing view, for others, especially like some of my friends in NYC, its all about convenience, they live downtown because they want all the advantages, but when I visit them, I'm the only one glued to the window. Besides the lack of a view, the residents facing this building probably won't get much natural light, but the ones who choose to live on that side probably don't care and will be out and about most of the time anyway. And unless the office workers put in a bunch of ot and work weekends, they would still get plenty of privacy. And I agree, this building will probably go pretty much unnoticed. But that's one of the reasons I don't care for it.

[drummer]

I agree with it being a pretty bland building overall. It very well may go unnoticed after being there for a bit. However, haven't we also had the discussion that not every tower needs to be signature? My argument isn't so much with the exterior appearance as much as the fact that it's got 12 LEVELS OF PARKING...I know, it's not going to change on this building or any other Austin building any time soon...I just don't like it.

[the Genral]

I agree not every building needs to be a signature one, but....can we at least get one more while I'm alive?!

[drummer]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I agree not every building needs to be a signature one, but....can we at least get one more while I'm alive?!

Fair enough. I'll see what I can do.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I agree not every building needs to be a signature one, but....can we at least get one more while I'm alive?!

How old are you?

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by austingoesvertical

how old are you?

57

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by the Genral

57

Oh you'll probably see one then. You mean "The Independent", shorter than the Austonian based on elevation, isn't signature?

[the Genral]

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.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by the Genral

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.

I think the Austonian is signature, but the Independent being similar height will take away from it a bit. I love your Key Tower example. That's really what I want for Austin, something in even the 850-950 ft range that can stand out. I do want a solid design but I really like the Comcast Center in Philly as a signature tower comp. I could totally see something like that on the post office site. I also think increased height can offset a rather generic design. I think the Independent Jenga-style is somewhat out of the box and is something that would look better with height. Imagine two to three more cubes stacked on top, and a beautifully lit crown. At 900-1,000 ft, the Independent could have been a signature tower despite the parking podium.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

I think the Austonian is signature, but the Independent being similar height will take away from it a bit. I love your Key Tower example. That's really what I want for Austin, something in even the 850-950 ft range that can stand out. I do want a solid design but I really like the Comcast Center in Philly as a signature tower comp. I could totally see something like that on the post office site. I also think increased height can offset a rather generic design. I think the Independent Jenga-style is somewhat out of the box and is something that would look better with height. Imagine two to three more cubes stacked on top, and a beautifully lit crown. At 900-1,000 ft, the Independent could have been a signature tower despite the parking podium.

I agree with all your points, and yeah, the Comcast Center is all the superlatives I would throw at my definition of a signature tower.
Sorry ya'll for the off topic stray, but what more can be said of this yawner until its u/c

[drummer]

Key Tower would be great in Austin. I personally don't like the Independent as a "signature" tower because I'm more fond of art-deco and other more traditional designs. I do think that it'll add to the city's skyline, of course - and in a positive way - but I would (again personally) want to see it as a neat addition rather than a defining tower. Absolutely subjective, of course.

Is there any way to sneak a few hundred feet of floors under Frost to make it taller? Probably can't happen from an engineering standpoint, but one can dream. What a shame they didn't do more with it.

[JoninATX]

Originally Posted by drummer

Key Tower would be great in Austin. I personally don't like the Independent as a "signature" tower because I'm more fond of art-deco and other more traditional designs. I do think that it'll add to the city's skyline, of course - and in a positive way - but I would (again personally) want to see it as a neat addition rather than a defining tower. Absolutely subjective, of course.

Is there any way to sneak a few hundred feet of floors under Frost to make it taller? Probably can't happen from an engineering standpoint, but one can dream. What a shame they didn't do more with it.

I thought about that to Drummer. Adding another 100ft to Frost would be great, but unfortunately it's not going to happen anytime soon or if ever. But the good news is that the land where the courthouse was defeated will soon be up for grabs to private developers. We could be looking at a very tall tower, possibly a supertall since there is no height limit in that particular area.

[drummer]

Haha, yeah I doubt anything remotely close to adding floors to skyscrapers in the way I described will ever happen - probably cheaper to tear down and build a new one.

Regarding the courthouse block, I still have high hopes for that block. I'd rather not see a repeat of that lot's neighbor...four or five story full-block parking garage...

Then the old post office site is on the other side - what are the restrictions to that one?


Okay - that was my last off-topic question, I swear.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

But the good news is that the land where the courthouse was defeated will soon be up for grabs to private developers. We could be looking at a very tall tower, possibly a supertall since there is no height limit in that particular area.

That isn't a forsure thing though. At least if the county split the lot for a private developer, chances of a tall tower at that location would be more likely but with the full block in play, I'm not so sure anymore. Simply look at every full downtown block redevelopment so far and you'll see why I'm not very hopeful.

We have yet to see anything over 500 feet built on a full city block. The tallest towers we have are on half or quarter lots. Developers will build whatever is the most cost effective with the amount of land they have and a full city block doesn't give much incentive to build tall.

Unless the development team is specifically going for the tallest to make a statement or unless a major company decides to build a shiny new corporate HQ tower, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Despite what has been said about the post office site, we really don't have any idea of what (if anything) is planned in the near future plus there doesn't seem to be a tentative timeline either. It's just sitting there empty other than being used as a parking lot.

I also look at the type of office buildings that are going up like this proposed tower and that also doesn't make me feel any better.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by drummer

Haha, yeah I doubt anything remotely close to adding floors to skyscrapers in the way I described will ever happen - probably cheaper to tear down and build a new one.

Then the old post office site is on the other side - what are the restrictions to that one?

There is no height restriction for the post office block north of the park. In fact, that site was planned to have a 40-story tower on it at one point that was said to be around 550 feet. Novare was the developer, and there are still plans for as much as 800,000 square feet of space on it, but nothing definite.

As for adding floors to skyscrapers, it can be done, and even many years after they've been "finished" as long as it's been engineered to happen. The Blue Cross-Blue Shield Tower in Chicago was completed in 1997. It was 410 feet tall with 32 floors. In 2010 they completed an addition to the building that added 22 floors. So it went from being a 410 foot building with 32 floors to a 744 foot building with 54 floors.

Here's the database page.
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=6375

Here's the construction thread. It's almost 10 years old, so some of the image links don't work anymore.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=111764

[the Genral]

It looks like page 13 on that Chicago thread is where the work begins, starting with crane assembly. That's a cool find Kevin. Definately has to have a flat roof and built in strength to handle the vertical expansion. But holy cow patties, it can be done.

[drummer]

That's amazing...I had no idea they could do that on that scale. Now here's a challenge - what about adding floors from the bottom, pushing the rest of the building upward in order to keep the current crown?