AUSTIN | Third + Shoal | 389 FEET | 29 FLOORS | U/C | Complete - Page 11

AusTxDevelopment · #**201** Posted **Dec 5, 2015, 3:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Screenshots.

That building is literally shoehorned in there. It's sad when even the architects acknowledge the inevitable and shade in the narrow canyon between the buildings as dark and foreboding in the renderings. If its that bad in the rendering, which is the best-case scenario, what will it look like when built? And think about those poor lower floor residents facing the garage levels.

KevinFromTexas · #**202** Posted **Dec 5, 2015, 3:29 AM**

It's almost a case of, why don't they just stack the two together into one single tall and more slender tower? I know they're two separate developments, but that would make some sense. Then they could have a plaza or some other public use space on the west side of it facing the creek. Or a low rise wing with retail/restaurant space.

Tech House · #**203** Posted **Dec 5, 2015, 4:20 AM**

Wow, I really don't get the negativity on this forum regarding 3rd and Shoal. The rendering showing it next to the Proper looks amazing to me. They look great together and it's great that they'll be combining to create a truly urban space right next to a semi-natural creek and across from the Independent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

That building is literally shoehorned in there. It's sad when even the architects acknowledge the inevitable and shade in the narrow canyon between the buildings as dark and foreboding in the renderings. If its that bad in the rendering, which is the best-case scenario, what will it look like when built? And think about those poor lower floor residents facing the garage levels.

^ This comment really perplexes me. These are not epic monoliths blotting out the sky, they don't even approach that. "...narrow canyon between the buildings..." Seriously? I know absolutely nothing about you so I'm only responding to what you said, not an impression I have about you. I'm just genuinely befuddled by your negativity about what looks to me like a gorgeous urban scene!

austlar1 · #**204** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 2:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech House

Wow, I really don't get the negativity on this forum regarding 3rd and Shoal. The rendering showing it next to the Proper looks amazing to me. They look great together and it's great that they'll be combining to create a truly urban space right next to a semi-natural creek and across from the Independent.

^ This comment really perplexes me. These are not epic monoliths blotting out the sky, they don't even approach that. "...narrow canyon between the buildings..." Seriously? I know absolutely nothing about you so I'm only responding to what you said, not an impression I have about you. I'm just genuinely befuddled by your negativity about what looks to me like a gorgeous urban scene!

The two buildings might look good when viewed from the street, but it is not going to look so great to residents of Austin Proper when they step out onto their balconies where they will be fully visible to occupants of the offices next door. Similarly I can imagine that indoor privacy will be compromised at night since those same office windows will probably have partial views into many of the glass walled condo units. I just don't see how Austin Proper expects to sell these high priced units under those circumstances.

the Genral · #**205** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 3:38 AM**

They are too fucking close together

.....

drummer · #**206** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 8:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

They are too fucking close together

.....

What exactly are you trying to say?

The ATX · #**207** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 1:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech House

Wow, I really don't get the negativity on this forum regarding 3rd and Shoal. The rendering showing it next to the Proper looks amazing to me. They look great together and it's great that they'll be combining to create a truly urban space right next to a semi-natural creek and across from the Independent.

I like Third + Shoal as well. I think the setback rule helped create two nice looking looking towers. The fact that they are so close together helps with the aesthetics.

427MM · #**208** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 4:15 PM**

It feels as though true density is making some of you squeamish. While it has a bit more parking than I would hope to see, I think that all in all it is a beautiful tower and should fit nicely in what may soon be the densest place in TX.

the Genral · #**209** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 427MM

It feels as though true density is making some of you squeamish. While it has a bit more parking than I would hope to see, I think that all in all it is a beautiful tower and should fit nicely in what may soon be the densest place in TX.

www.loganrupple.worldpress.com

This is the definition of true density, which I am ok with and spent considerable time around back in the 70s. Its dense because it has to be. For Austin, maybe not so much, mostly because I like to see all four sides. I also think if you are going to build a wall of buildings, you need to do so block by block and not in clumps like this in one part of town and like the Ashton in another. It looks awkward and in our case, takes something away from each building. I'll concede that the two here complement each other, but that's all. A street with sidewalks seperation, though not possible at this location, would have looked much better and still provided density. If one of the buildings was slimmer and considerably taller, that would have looked better to me. This need to squeeze in every inch seems a bit premature to me at this point since there are still sites to build on downtown and in many cases, taller and nicer than developers are willing to do. I feel both developers here already invested in their plans and regardless of the outcome, were unwilling to compromise with the designs at the expense of the proximity to each other. In other words, I can't believe this was a collaborative outcome, and one either developer is thrilled about. IMO.

The ATX · #**210** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

www.loganrupple.worldpress.com

This is the definition of true density, which I am ok with and spent considerable time around back in the 70s. Its dense because it has to be. For Austin, maybe not so much, mostly because I like to see all four sides. I also think if you are going to build a wall of buildings, you need to do so block by block and not in clumps like this in one part of town and like the Ashton in another. It looks awkward and in our case, takes something away from each building. I'll concede that the two here complement each other, but that's all. A street with sidewalks seperation, though not possible at this location, would have looked much better and still provided density.

Density has to start somewhere. New York's density probably started in "clumps" as well.

AustinGoesVertical · #**211** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 7:09 PM**

I'm generally a fan of Third + Shoal. The setbacks and expansive public decks are nice. It has a green tint, and the exterior lighting plan looks like it'll be pretty cool. The interior photos indicate that this building will have a modern industrial feel, with the exposed concrete and lofted spaces. It's not just a cookie cutter office building.

Obviously, the issues lie in the amount of stacked parking, and the fact that they couldn't incorporate a new, street level music venue to replace the loss of AMH. I think the face adjacent to Proper looks a little out of place, with the thin horizontal windows (kind of dated and maybe even a cost cutting measure). I don't mind the proximity, I just wish Austin Proper was 100 ft taller, where the high-level units and the penthouses would have 360 views (no pun intended) . It would break up the whole development. Honestly, if the Northshore and Proper were each closer to 500 ft, they could have played off of eachother.

the Genral · #**212** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 7:42 PM**

For the record, I think this part of town will look pretty cool in a few years especially when the Independent adds some needed verticle.

Syndic · #**213** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 7:50 PM**

I'm not sure why people are up-in-arms over an alley being shady.

Who cares? It's an alley. It's supposed to be like that. This is density. This is what we want.

austlar1 · #**214** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 8:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndic

I'm not sure why people are up-in-arms over an alley being shady.

Who cares? It's an alley. It's supposed to be like that. This is density. This is what we want.

I don't think the shady alley is the issue. It would be interesting to know whether the Proper will have windows facing the alley, and whether these windows will be visible from the office building.

I like the way these buildings look in the renderings, but I don't think I would want to live in a condo unit with vastly compromised privacy. The problem could be partly solved by eliminating the setback on the Austin Proper, but then there would be no place for a pool deck, etc.

Syndic · #**215** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by austlar1

I don't think the shady alley is the issue. It would be interesting to know whether the Proper will have windows facing the alley, and whether these windows will be visible from the office building.

I like the way these buildings look in the renderings, but I don't think I would want to live in a condo unit with vastly compromised privacy. The problem could be partly solved by eliminating the setback on the Austin Proper, but then there would be no place for a pool deck, etc.

I'm pretty sure Austin Proper is a boutique hotel, not condos.

KevinFromTexas · #**216** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndic

I'm pretty sure Austin Proper is a boutique hotel, not condos.

It's both. This was posted in the Austin Proper thread.

https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hp...46698287_o.jpg

drummer · #**217** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 1:25 AM**

I really like the density in the rendering. Also, as neither of these towers have started yet, I think we can play the "wait and see" game. Perhaps the Proper folks are seeing these renderings of Third & Shoal and saying, "Hmm, maybe we should make some changes on the north side." If they're spending this much money to put up a building, I'm sure they're thankful (albeit frustrated) to discover issues like this prior to the start of construction. If they put windows on the north side facing a close lot (~20 ft) that is allowed to be fully developed, that's their own fault.

This is unlike the issue with the Zaza plot and the condos to the north...who built thinking that there would never be any development whatsoever on a lot that they did not own in a central business district of a growing city. It's not Zaza's, or anyone else's, fault that they didn't plan ahead.

I'm sure there are plenty of towers in New York and other older cities that have balconies or windows facing an alley with a very close neighbor because of these same issues. It's one of the parts of a growing, organic city...and is why planning is so important, but even then you can't always know completely how things will change around your building.

Jdawgboy · #**218** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 6:12 PM**

I mentioned this in the Austin Proper thread but it's possible that most of the north side of that building will not have windows. The one rendering (albeit the earliest one), showed most of that side with windows wrapping alittle around the corners but that was about it. Then there was the wall with lines crossing at angles. The design has since been altered but I haven't seen any other renderings since the first one showing the north side of the building.

Also, do we know if there will be windows the whole way across along the south side of 3rd and Shoal?

Flatiron · #**219** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

I really like the density in the rendering. Also, as neither of these towers have started yet, I think we can play the "wait and see" game. Perhaps the Proper folks are seeing these renderings of Third & Shoal and saying, "Hmm, maybe we should make some changes on the north side." If they're spending this much money to put up a building, I'm sure they're thankful (albeit frustrated) to discover issues like this prior to the start of construction. If they put windows on the north side facing a close lot (~20 ft) that is allowed to be fully developed, that's their own fault.

This is unlike the issue with the Zaza plot and the condos to the north...who built thinking that there would never be any development whatsoever on a lot that they did not own in a central business district of a growing city. It's not Zaza's, or anyone else's, fault that they didn't plan ahead.

I'm sure there are plenty of towers in New York and other older cities that have balconies or windows facing an alley with a very close neighbor because of these same issues. It's one of the parts of a growing, organic city...and is why planning is so important, but even then you can't always know completely how things will change around your building.

I especially agree with the third paragraph. Also, some people don't care about the view as much as the location or amenities...

austlar1 · #**220** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 10:05 PM**

This should probably post on the Austin Proper thread, but here is a link to the Austin Proper floor plans. It appears that the units with exposure to the alley will indeed have lots of windows or glass facing the office tower. These units are on pretty high floors, but they will still have office workers for close by neighbors. I would imagine that makes for an interesting sales pitch from the Austin Proper folks. http://www.liveaustinproper.com/cont...x17-100515.pdf