AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II - Page 24

OfCourse · #**461** Posted **Apr 9, 2007, 3:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by crewer

I agree about the lower half. The ground level floors are ridiculous! 7 to 8 floors of practically solid wall? This is one high rise that needs a redesign before construction begins, if that's possible.

OMG, what the duece! The bottom half looks terrible! Agreed on the redesign!

MichaelB · #**462** Posted **Apr 9, 2007, 4:59 PM**

Re: Aquaterra. Does anyone know much about the site plan. I was wondering if thr part of the building in queston would be next to another building? It seems extremely unadorned given the rest of the design. I wonder if it will be seen? (cause it sho' is ugly!)

Jdawgboy · #**463** Posted **Apr 9, 2007, 7:53 PM**

That is one ugly lower section to say the least. They need to change that design and I agree with Kevin, its way too long it should have a smaller footprint and alittle more vertical.

ivanwolf · #**464** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 3:10 AM**

Ok guys, gals, and those inbetween i took a look at the images for Aquaterra once again and figured out how to capture them. The pic that we started with is the side that should be facing the Chamber of Commerace (southwest), so that explains it blandness. The other side (norh west facing to downtown) is a little bit more appealing. I captured the images but image shack has yet to set up my account so i will try when i can get them up for you all. I do agree the top half is interesting and at least is not just a box, but the bottom could use some more style, front or back.

MichaelB · #**465** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 4:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

Ok guys, gals, and those inbetween i took a look at the images for Aquaterra once again and figured out how to capture them. The pic that we started with is the side that should be facing the Chamber of Commerace (southwest), so that explains it blandness. The other side (norh west facing to downtown) is a little bit more appealing. I captured the images but image shack has yet to set up my account so i will try when i can get them up for you all. I do agree the top half is interesting and at least is not just a box, but the bottom could use some more style, front or back.

Ah, ha..... that's what I was wondering. I went on the site today but could not find a plan for the property..... thanks.

Mopacs · #**466** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 5:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

Ok guys, gals, and those inbetween i took a look at the images for Aquaterra once again and figured out how to capture them. The pic that we started with is the side that should be facing the Chamber of Commerace (southwest), so that explains it blandness. The other side (norh west facing to downtown) is a little bit more appealing. I captured the images but image shack has yet to set up my account so i will try when i can get them up for you all. I do agree the top half is interesting and at least is not just a box, but the bottom could use some more style, front or back.

I agree, the design is a bit more appealing than what is indicated in the above rendering(s)...especially the cantilevered pool deck. Here are a few captures from the flash slideshow.. There are several more though:

crewer · #**467** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 12:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mopacs

I agree, the design is a bit more appealing than what is indicated in the above rendering(s)...especially the cantilevered pool deck. Here are a few captures from the flash slideshow..

The cantilever pool is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. It's nice if you live there, but no one on the ground level will ever see it. And in terms of good architecture, this building is awash. It has some redeeming style to the upper levels, but the fact that they would slap that down on a bland parking garage is inexcusable. It's cheap design! I don't care if the worst side faces the back. No side should look like crap, since every side will be in the line of someone's view.

Is the front view better? I don't think so. The very least they could have done was the first floor or two in retail for at least some street appeal.

pyropius · #**468** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 1:17 PM**

Isn't this going to tucked between existing buildings? Maybe the impact of all the OVERWHELMING UGLINESS will be lessened. Seriously, if out in the open, this would go a long way to ruin the hike and bike path.

JACKinBeantown · #**469** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 2:04 PM**

POS not worthy of Austin.

Mopacs · #**470** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 2:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by crewer

The cantilever pool is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. It's nice if you live there, but no one on the ground level will ever see it. And in terms of good architecture, this building is awash. It has some redeeming style to the upper levels, but the fact that they would slap that down on a bland parking garage is inexcusable. It's cheap design! I don't care if the worst side faces the back. No side should look like crap, since every side will be in the line of someone's view.

Is the front view better? I don't think so. The very least they could have done was the first floor or two in retail for at least some street appeal.

You make a very good point, regarding the pool deck. It looks 'neat' from the renderings' birds-eye views, but wont look like much more than a protruding concrete slab from below. The only hope at this point is if the lower half renderings are preliminary and design changes are forthcoming. Street-level retail would be great.

DTAustin · #**471** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 5:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mopacs

You make a very good point, regarding the pool deck. It looks 'neat' from the renderings' birds-eye views, but wont look like much more than a protruding concrete slab from below. The only hope at this point is if the lower half renderings are preliminary and design changes are forthcoming. Street-level retail would be great.

Something has to change because street-level retail is required by the city for all new buildings downtown.

pyropius · #**472** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 5:17 PM**

Is it "downtown" even though it's across the river?

HiRyzr · #**473** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 7:21 PM**

Does anyone know the status of ground breakings for Hotel Van Zandt (other than lot is cleared), Legacy @ Town Lake (scheduled to break ground in March), and Spring (rescheduled for April)?

360 · #**474** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 7:54 PM**

Anybody bought units from Spring?
Were they able to sell well?
What is current sales figure?
I heard 360 passed 85% from salesman two weeks back.

360

sc1264 · #**475** Posted **Apr 10, 2007, 8:54 PM**

Let me be yet another to complain about the abomination that is Aquaterra. Hell, I didn't realize Soviet-style architecture was coming back in ...

Seriously, how can any self-respecting architect come up with something like that? I'm sure it's driven by the developers "specficiations" but it wouldn't take a genius to make something that is at least SOMEWHAT appealing.

crewer · #**476** Posted **Apr 11, 2007, 12:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sc1264

Let me be yet another to complain about the abomination that is Aquaterra. Hell, I didn't realize Soviet-style architecture was coming back in ...

Seriously, how can any self-respecting architect come up with something like that? I'm sure it's driven by the developers "specficiations" but it wouldn't take a genius to make something that is at least SOMEWHAT appealing.

Well, maybe if they made the cantilevered swimming pool a waterfall, then planted all sorts of tropical vegetation at the base....

What puzzles me is why in the hell there's that much parking garage for that size building. What are they doing? Reserving 12 spaces per unit?

KevinFromTexas · #**477** Posted **Apr 12, 2007, 12:55 AM**

The City of Austin's Central Austin Emerging Projects list on PDF file has been updated. It lists The Austonian as being 780 feet tall! It says they plan to break ground in the summer of '07.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/downtown/default.htm

Saddle Man · #**478** Posted **Apr 12, 2007, 1:08 AM**

Neato!

LiveattheOasis · #**479** Posted **Apr 12, 2007, 1:59 AM**

They're hoping Stacy won't foot the bill past 750.

KevinFromTexas · #**480** Posted **Apr 12, 2007, 2:06 AM**

They've been listing T. Stacy's tower at 675 feet for a while now. So it may not even crest 700 feet, unless they change their use, or unless they're holding out and trying to seem short and insignificant. Who knows? The start time for T. Stacy's tower is listed as being 2nd quarter of 2007.