AUSTIN | 300 Colorado | 446 FEET | 32 FLOORS | COMPLETE - Page 3

Jdawgboy · #1 Posted **Jul 21, 2017, 10:17 PM**

Man, they really aren't trying in any way to push the boundaries of design. Looks like a cross between the W and 3rd @ Colorado. Are we forever doomed to be stuck with boxy flat tops?

The ATX · #2 Posted **Jul 21, 2017, 10:22 PM**

44-stories and 518 feet is better than expected. The link below the renderings has a lot of info from the Design Commission.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=280776

KevinFromTexas · #3 Posted **Apr 11, 2017, 8:28 AM**

I'm hopeful this one will be nice. It seems to have some interesting details. A rendering would be nice, as we still haven't seen one yet.

Syndic · #4 Posted **Apr 13, 2017, 3:13 PM**

Hmm, this one seems to have gone under my radar. I guess I was getting it confused with the travesty that is 405 Colorado.

But this is way different! This looks to be a huge project that will be very visible in our skyline. That's exciting. However, it looks to be pretty boxy and unremarkable right now, from the sketches. Hopefully, there is some kind of defining feature to it, when it's all said and done.

Either way, due to its location and height, yeah, this is easily one of the most important projects in Austin now.

MichaelB · #5 Posted **Apr 13, 2017, 3:50 PM**

Happy for this one to NOT happen. Not worth it.
Bland. Boxy.
I think it's time we wait for building that are more than just tall.

The ATX · #6 Posted **Apr 13, 2017, 3:59 PM**

I'm withholding judgement until I see a rendering. This could be a twin to Fifth & West, since the size, developer and architect are one in the same. That would be far from terrible. On a side note, I recently had dinner at Sullivan's for the first time, and it was pretty damn good.

Nickelplate · #7 Posted **Apr 14, 2017, 8:37 AM**

So no one bit on my sarcasm but in a way the comments after supported it. Hopefully we can get some quality buildings in the future. Austin deserves it.

KevinFromTexas · #8 Posted **Jul 22, 2017, 9:05 AM**

I like it. I'm glad it's not another broadly faced (east/west) building like the W is, otherwise that area of the skyline would have appeared walled off from the south. That would have been made worse considering we're liking going to see a large east/west tower at 308 Guadalupe (the old county courthouse block) on the other side of the W. That curtain wall "spire" on the south side means glass, which will be lit nicely no doubt, and I would definitely expect some accent lighting on that terrace overhanging the main roof. The amenity deck on the podium is also at 124 feet, no doubt higher than the roof of AMLI Downtown across the street, so there will likely be some twinkly patio type lights poking above its roof at night making that area a little more interesting at night. This is going to be a nice tower. Too bad it's not pink, though. Austin definitely has a favorite color.

Jdawgboy · #9 Posted **Jul 22, 2017, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I like it. I'm glad it's not another broadly faced (east/west) building like the W is, otherwise that area of the skyline would have appeared walled off from the south. That would have been made worse considering we're liking going to see a large east/west tower at 308 Guadalupe (the old county courthouse block) on the other side of the W. That curtain wall "spire" on the south side means glass, which will be lit nicely no doubt, and I would definitely expect some accent lighting on that terrace overhanging the main roof. The amenity deck on the podium is also at 124 feet, no doubt higher than the roof of AMLI Downtown across the street, so there will likely be some twinkly patio type lights poking above its roof at night making that area a little more interesting at night. This is going to be a nice tower. Too bad it's not pink, though. Austin definitely has a favorite color.

Now that's a color I can jump on board with. Yay for Pink!

The ATX · #10 Posted **Jul 23, 2017, 1:21 AM**

This project may have some push back in getting the needed 8:1 to 25:1 F.A.R. increase to move forward. This is from the Design Commission backup file:

Quote:

We conclude that the project, as presented, is in substantial compliance with the
Urban Design Guidelines. However, we do have concerns that center on the
potential historic significance of the existing building. Research has indicated that
the building is considerably older than indicated by the applicant. The Historic
Preservation Office has concluded that the building is approximately 92 years old
and has a rich history. Given this, and the DAP priority, it should be made clear that
our conclusion of substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines does not
advocate that we support the demolition of the existing building. We would defer
this decision to the recommendation of the Historic Landmark Commission.

And this:

Quote:

There are no Community Benefits being
provided onsite. The applicant has opted to pay the fee-in-lieu. Furthermore, the
relationship of the existing building to the Warehouse District, and potential for
local historical designation, as described in the Downtown Austin Plan (DAP) is of
note. The existing building is identified as a Priority in the DAP. The Working Group
also found the lack of a detailed landscape plan made it difficult to fully envision the
streetscape. Lastly, rooftop amenities are of private use only.
We are also curious about the perceived reduction of public benefits when a Great
Streets streetscape is already in place and existing trees are to be replaced with
younger ones. A future project could potentially seek to replace more mature
streetscape trees to allow the construction staging area.

Design Commission Backup File:
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=280776

ahealy · #11 Posted **Jul 23, 2017, 4:00 PM**

Yes! Love the height and density for this area. BUT, this design needs something more. It's pretty basic to be that close to the Austonian

The ATX · #12 Posted **Jul 23, 2017, 11:11 PM**

Austin 360 had a short article about the 600 Guadalupe drone pano a few days ago. From the article:

Quote:

The company makes the images to help architects designing buildings. With a spherical panorama, they can see what a building looks like from different altitudes. Architectural animators can also build virtual reality views of huge skyscrapers using the same type of technology.

But the article was only about the drone panos - no building speculation:

http://fitness.blog.austin360.com/20...wntown-austin/

Jdawgboy · #13 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 12:25 AM**

I'm pretty sure what's holding us back in terms of height is the stupid F.A.R requirements. The city really needs to update and streamline DT zoning. Supposedly there are no height restrictions over parts of DT but that isn't really the case.

I'm glad that the commission wants to keep the existing structure.

clubtokyo · #14 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 1:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I'm pretty sure what's holding us back in terms of height is the stupid F.A.R requirements. The city really needs to update and streamline DT zoning. Supposedly there are no height restrictions over parts of DT but that isn't really the case.

I'm glad that the commission wants to keep the existing structure.

I'm so fused, is this tower being built on top of an old structures??

The ATX · #15 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 1:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

I'm so fused, is this tower being built on top of an old structures??

No, the developers plan to demo the site. But there is some question as to how historical the Sullivan's building on the site is. I don't think the Design Commission will make a decision this week. It appears that they will pass this on to the Historical Landmark Commission before they make a decision.

drummer · #16 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 7:18 AM**

I'm not as familiar with this one. Is it worth saving, in y'all's opinion?

Sigaven · #17 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 5:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

I'm not as familiar with this one. Is it worth saving, in y'all's opinion?

I think so absolutely. It's got quite a lovely and quaint street frontage compared to other buildings in the area...would be great to see the design of the tower incorporate the older structure and maybe even borrow some design elements from it.

corvairkeith · #18 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 3:24 PM**

It's one of the nicest of the handful of surviving historic warehouses in our "Historic Warehouse District" so yeah, it would be a shame to see it go.

MichaelB · #19 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 3:37 PM**

Any effort to maintain the mix of old and new is a step towards a better "texture" in a city.
We are lucky to have been a late blooming city and have the opportunity to see our past present in our future.
IMHO.

ahealy · #20 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 3:51 PM**

I will say, this is not a good enough design to allow the demo of that building. Austin has no excuse to not build within older structures. There are mid-size cities with less going on that have achieved this.