AUSTIN | 300 Colorado | 446 FEET | 32 FLOORS | COMPLETE

[eskimo33]

I agree H2O, the Dumas Blacksmith Shop facade incorporation is very well done!
I also agree with wrapping the brick around the side adding the extra window made a big difference.

I tried to go back to previous street views to see how both of the historic buildings looked before they were demoed, however street view does not go back that far.

It gives me hope to think that people might use Dumas Blacksmith Shop facade incorporation as an example to follow.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by eskimo33

I agree H2O, the Dumas Blacksmith Shop facade incorporation is very well done!
I also agree with wrapping the brick around the side adding the extra window made a big difference.

I tried to go back to previous street views to see how both of the historic buildings looked before they were demoed, however street view does not go back that far.

It gives me hope to think that people might use Dumas Blacksmith Shop facade incorporation as an example to follow.

Actually you can go back to 2008 to see the 300 N Lamar Bldg (on the main part of Lamar). Back then it was painted mosly beige to match tbe bricks of the old facade, much better incorporated that way. (except it was...you know...BEIGE!!)

You can also kinda see in this pic:
https://blog.lincolnapts.com/wp-cont...mar-austin.png

[The ATX]

This one is a go if the Historic Landmark Commission follows their staff recommendation at Monday's (09/25) meeting:

SUMMARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends release of the permit upon
completion of a HABS Level documentation package, consisting of drawings on mylar and a
narrative history of the building, for archiving at the Austin History Center. The building,
while representing a rich history of various commercial and warehouse uses, has been
significantly modified over the years with new face bricks, infill, and other modifications
that have compromised its historic appearance. Documentation of this building appears to
be the best means of preserving the history of the building and the Warehouse District.
Staff therefore cannot recommend historic landmark designation for this building.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=284412

[masonh2479]

Originally Posted by The ATX

This one is a go if the Historic Landmark Commission follows their staff recommendation at Monday's (09/25) meeting:



http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=284412

Is part of the old Sullivan's building going to be incorporated into this new one?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by masonh2479

Is part of the old Sullivan's building going to be incorporated into this new one?

It doesn't appear so based on the quote in my post if the Commission follows the staff recommendation. But we won't know for sure until the vote on Monday.

[ATXPhil]

Nice! I'm excited for another 500'+ tower. It's a big win for the city's affordable housing fund too. $2.8MM will go a long way. Glad the Historical Commission came to their senses.

[MichaelB]

Really do not want this building to happen.
encroachment on the warehouse district is not a good thing for the long
term texture and interest of downtown.

I was walking into that district this week and felt that sense of vibrancy you just don't get from canyons of new generic buildings.... which this one will be.
It is filler with no public space and very generic street level design.

I encourage more of you to actually be.... exist....walk.....live.... downtown before so enthusiastically wanting it to become "anywhere" USA.
The days of "oh yeah something big" really need to be gone. We need better design and
street interaction.... not just tall and generic.

This is not a building worth waiting for. If I am going to give up part of the district...
THEN This building IS NOT worth giving up this location for. If you want me to buy in. Build something original, significant.... something that contributes artistically or culturally. Just some good design would be great. Try picking it out of a skyline if you want a standard.
This is truly JUST FILLER>......
Aim higher.

[KevinFromTexas]

I still like this one a lot, even more than the Block 71 office tower. I've always been big on facade detail, and this one has tons more detail than the Block 71 office tower does. One of my biggest complaints with modern architecture these days is that the facade designs and detail have become very boring. They're just curtain walls from top to bottom. I suppose that's the right look for the Block 71 office tower because of the angles, but the facade on this one is more what I like to see, even if the form isn't as attention grabbing. The Block 71 office tower looks like many other buildings. Houston and Dallas each have buildings that could be stand-ins for it.

Besides, it's not true that this building won't have public space. It'll have restaurant space.

My only gripe with this building is that we'll lose a nice old building in downtown, even if it isn't historic.

[Jdawgboy]

I'm concerned about it affecting the club's on 4th. I also will not like it if they don't incorporate the existing building. I'd rather fight this one than to let it happen, and I think it's time that we start sending emails to voice our concerns.

[the Genral]

I like this building, not with gleeful anticipation, but I like it. I think its different, its more slender than rectangular, and its got a nice floor count. Don't care much for the color. But...I like the Sully's building where it is more. I think that building looks smart, as in a smart dressed person. I think the Hobby cluster works there, albeit it could use a bit of a clean up. I appreciate MichaelB's passion for keeping the canyon effect out of these few blocks and I agree. What's left of the Warehouse district is worth preserving. I enjoy cruising around that part of town. It offers unobstructed views of the surrounding high rises, something lost when they are clustered too close together. I hung out downtown frequently in the 80s to 90s and remember a really, REALLY, cool Austin when our skyline was, well, pathetic. Yet Austin was still cool. I have never objected or voiced any sort of disapproval to any of the changes that have brought Austin to where it is today. In fact, I'm thrilled about it. But I stand with MichaelB on this one. Leave this part of town alone. Put this lovely building somewhere else, like where they want to plant that hidious parking garage with an office on top. And one more thing, the more you nip away at something, the easier it gets to just keep nipping away until there's nothing left...think Rainey.

[Armybrat]

About 1980 while looking out of the Headliner's Club in the American Bank tower (which was clad in shiny gold tint glass then) I overheard a couple of visiting businessmen commenting about the view, "this downtown area sure is ugly".

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Armybrat

About 1980 while looking out of the Headliner's Club in the American Bank tower (which was clad in shiny gold tint glass then) I overheard a couple of visiting businessmen commenting about the view, "this downtown area sure is ugly".

And they were absolutely correct. And they were saying it while looking out of a god awful ugly gold building.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Really do not want this building to happen.
encroachment on the warehouse district is not a good thing for the long
term texture and interest of downtown.

I was walking into that district this week and felt that sense of vibrancy you just don't get from canyons of new generic buildings.... which this one will be.
It is filler with no public space and very generic street level design.

I encourage more of you to actually be.... exist....walk.....live.... downtown before so enthusiastically wanting it to become "anywhere" USA.
The days of "oh yeah something big" really need to be gone. We need better design and
street interaction.... not just tall and generic.

This is not a building worth waiting for. If I am going to give up part of the district...
THEN This building IS NOT worth giving up this location for. If you want me to buy in. Build something original, significant.... something that contributes artistically or culturally. Just some good design would be great. Try picking it out of a skyline if you want a standard.
This is truly JUST FILLER>......
Aim higher.

Totally agree.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Totally agree.

agreed as well...while I don't mind mind the building itself (nice height, decent design even though it's fairly generic), I don't think it's worth demolishing another part of the warehouse district. I frequent the clubs on 4th a lot and I worry about the effects this building will have...will the rest of the WH district be under threat too now?

I'm all for building this building...but somewhere else! (wish it was easy as saying that!)

[masonh2479]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

agreed as well...while I don't mind mind the building itself (nice height, decent design even though it's fairly generic), I don't think it's worth demolishing another part of the warehouse district. I frequent the clubs on 4th a lot and I worry about the effects this building will have...will the rest of the WH district be under threat too now?

I'm all for building this building...but somewhere else! (wish it was easy as saying that!)

Isn’t there some historic commission meeting today to decide the fate of 3rd and Colorado?

[The ATX]

This passed on consent 9-0-1. It will now work its way back to the Design Commission, but the only issue they had was getting clarity about Sullivan's from the Historic Landmark Commission. So there doesn't appear to be any issues with the City in getting this approved.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by The ATX

This passed on consent 9-0-1. It will now work its way back to the Design Commission, but the only issue they had was getting clarity about Sullivan's from the Historic Landmark Commission. So there doesn't appear to be any issues with the City in getting this approved.

Damn. I would have loved to hear the arguments for saving the old oar house.

[verybadgnome]

It's a little weird hearing about the canyon effect in this of all forums, especially on a non-CVC encumbered site in a downtown where they are in short supply.

For their to be an individual historical designation I believe it has to meet 2 of the 5 criteria and the fact that this was passed on consent suggests that staff could not find enough evidence. Obviously the owner is for demolition so I am having a hard time suggesting going against their wishes. And then there is the history itself having been part of boys town with its brothels before it was ever designated part of the warehouse district. I do agree it has some value, but I would also argue there is more in the Sullvan's name that the building itself. Whatever goes in the owners (if they are not the owners of Sullivan's themselves) should give the steakhouse the right of first refusal for ground floor retail and get on with developing this site.

I guess another issue I have is with the term 'filler.' How would that be defined and more importantly how would you write language governing development in this city with that definition? I really hate these subjective aesthetic arguments so that is why I think municipalities should not get involved in such murky subjects defined by personal tastes.

[The ATX]

Sullivan's will be the restaurant in the new building. I don't recall which article it was, but that seems to have been the plan all along.

[The ATX]

Here are some slightly tweaked and new renderings. Check out the pool in the first one. There's the Sullivan's confirmation as well.





http://gda-architects.com/gda-3rd---colorado.html