AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II - Page 245

alexjon · #**4881** Posted **Mar 31, 2009, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mopacs

Very true. Compare us to Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, which sit on relatively flat terrain.

To put things in perspective, you can see the New Orleans skyline (on a clear day) from the opposite side of Lake Pontchartrain (@ Mandeville, approx 28-30 miles to the north )...and that's with the subtle curvature of the earth. The tallest building in New Orleans is roughly the same height as the Austonian will be.

You can see Seattle's skyline from Bellevue or Medina, easily. When the tall buildings go up, you'll see the skyline more and more.

M1EK · #**4882** Posted **Mar 31, 2009, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottolini

Assuming that means the post office will not move, I will simply state that as much as people dislike the building it's better than the numerous surface parking lots scattered throughout downtown.

It really isn't. It's a 2-story parking deck with a tiny building on one edge of it - and the top story of the deck is at surface level for most of the way around, so it's really like the worst parts of surface parking and parking garages all in one crappy package.

shanny · #**4883** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 1:13 AM**

$116 million of the stimulus plan has been given to the federal courthouse to be built downtown...they now have the necessary funds to begin construction

priller · #**4884** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 2:14 AM**

That's nice, I just wish it wasn't going to be where it's planned on 5th. It will be a big dead zone as far as pedestrians are concerned. I wish that part of downtown would stay more residential and retail.

MichaelB · #**4885** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 5:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by priller

That's nice, I just wish it wasn't going to be where it's planned on 5th. It will be a big dead zone as far as pedestrians are concerned. I wish that part of downtown would stay more residential and retail.

Lord! I AGREE WITH YOU! I was just driving on 7th today wishing the courthouse had gone in on the block next to the Salvation Army. That would have been the perfect place for it. That block is a dead zone for any "business".

MichaelB · #**4886** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shanny

http://www.lightworkdesign.com/markets/architectural

I got really excited when I saw the name of the site, thinking we might get a close up night rendering of the crown. no such luck...

The crown holds promise! And I like the tower.... but does anyone else think the tower is Alien to the podium? It's like someone had a great tower and said...." hum, here, we have this generic base all designed we can stick it on". Just me? Different lines, different materials, different textures, different color.... I see the attempt to "blend them" with the little slanted glass feature and the eyebrows on the windows..... but......

If you approach the building from 2nd street heading west it really looks like there is this low square building on the corner and this sleek tower on the lot behind it!

priller · #**4887** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 9:18 PM**

Here's the lot where the new courthouse will go. It's the empty lot in the foreground with all the signs.

And this is a recent rendering of the proposed courthouse:

jgouger · #**4888** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 2:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by priller

That's nice, I just wish it wasn't going to be where it's planned on 5th. It will be a big dead zone as far as pedestrians are concerned. I wish that part of downtown would stay more residential and retail.

Priller, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. There seems to be much in the development pipeline in that general part of downtown. Example, the AMOA Tower which will be all commercial and the Tom Green / Energy Control Station redevelopment projects. Assuming they are built on schedule, it should transform that area drastically.

KevinFromTexas · #**4889** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 3:55 AM**

^True, but I think the concern about the courthouse is that because it's a government building, even worse, a federal building, that it won't offer anything to the neighborhood at the street level. I really hope that it's a truly open public space, and not a guarded fortress that no one goes close to.

crewer · #**4890** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 4:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgouger

...Example, the AMOA Tower which will be all commercial and the Tom Green / Energy Control Station redevelopment projects. Assuming they are built on schedule, it should transform that area drastically.

It was announced back in January that the AMOA project was canceled. Is it back on track?

Raining Inside · #**4891** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 4:19 AM**

Hines canceled (and not postponed) their AMOA tower plans earlier this year. I don't like the courthouse development because the closure of San Antonio St. in front of the courthouse was part part of the project.

breathesgelatin · #**4892** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 4:30 AM**

We discussed the Courthouse issue on AC's site. After reading what he had to say, I'm rather negative on the building.

I think the rendering is hideous.

Link to most recent related post on Austin Contrarian (he links back to two earlier posts where the issue is discussed more in depth):

http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2009/04/the-new-federal-courthouse.html

zx14 · #**4893** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 5:48 AM**

Are there any blueprints of the Austonian on the web? Also that rendering looks most modern but dog ugly. Ah what a happy day to be a cat fan here in lexington.

Downtown_Austin · #**4894** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

We discussed the Courthouse issue on AC's site. After reading what he had to say, I'm rather negative on the building.

I think the rendering is hideous.

Link to most recent related post on Austin Contrarian (he links back to two earlier posts where the issue is discussed more in depth):

http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2009/04/the-new-federal-courthouse.html

As I wrote about here. This building is pure brutalism.

MichaelB · #**4895** Posted **Apr 3, 2009, 9:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downtown_Austin

As I wrote about here. This building is pure brutalism.

I like it. I don't LOVE it. But I like it. I would never call it Brutalism. And it doesn't even fit the "Wikipedia" definition. Just because the lines are blocky does not make it Brutalism. I think you might be trying to call it Brutalism 'cause that sounds like something we "should not like" and you just happen to not like the building.

It is too light and airy.... Too much glass.... To open to be Brutalism. It is blocky. But the materiality is also too rich and interesting. Not "uncommunicative and unfriendly".

Downtown_Austin · #**4896** Posted **Apr 4, 2009, 2:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

I like it. I don't LOVE it. But I like it. I would never call it Brutalism. And it doesn't even fit the "Wikipedia" definition. Just because the lines are blocky does not make it Brutalism. I think you might be trying to call it Brutalism 'cause that sounds like something we "should not like" and you just happen to not like the building.

It is too light and airy.... Too much glass.... To open to be Brutalism. It is blocky. But the materiality is also too rich and interesting. Not "uncommunicative and unfriendly".

I don't like it. Neither do a lot of other people. "Light and airy... Too much glass" - those are words to describe Philip Johnson. Not this.

In most cases, brutalist design is something we should not like. Increasingly, Austin covets social inclusion, and desires more neighborly use and architecture that fits the location. Sure, this photo rendering might not neatly fit into the wikipedia analysis, but I view this as post-modern brutalism. I'd love to see more renderings of the building if you have them.

I don't believe the materials list has been announced, and I don't see much interesting about what's been applied to the rendering. The massive continuous surface areas will dominate the streetscape. The 7' high concrete wall that will surround the building along the sidewalk will be imposing and unrelenting. This building is out of context for its location in downtown Austin.

MichaelB · #**4897** Posted **Apr 4, 2009, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downtown_Austin

I don't like it. Neither do a lot of other people. "Light and airy... Too much glass" - those are words to describe Philip Johnson. Not this.

In most cases, brutalist design is something we should not like. Increasingly, Austin covets social inclusion, and desires more neighborly use and architecture that fits the location. Sure, this photo rendering might not neatly fit into the wikipedia analysis, but I view this as post-modern brutalism. I'd love to see more renderings of the building if you have them.

I don't believe the materials list has been announced, and I don't see much interesting about what's been applied to the rendering. The massive continuous surface areas will dominate the streetscape. The 7' high concrete wall that will surround the building along the sidewalk will be imposing and unrelenting. This building is out of context for its location in downtown Austin.

I'll leave most of this to "opinion".... which is totally cool.

What I will agree with you on whole heartedly is that I do not like the location at all. I think it was a not a good choice for the city. I think it should have been on the block next to the Salvation Army on 7th. It is the perfect fit for a location that will not be friendly to retail or office.

Saddle Man · #**4898** Posted **Apr 4, 2009, 5:26 PM**

I like the location of this building (except the closing of that block of San Antonio). It'll add to the mix of neighborhood.
On 7th by the Salvation Army, it would only solidify that neighborhood's position as a government building/social services ghetto. That would only make it that much more difficult to get people to live in in the future.

MichaelB · #**4899** Posted **Apr 4, 2009, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saddle Man

I like the location of this building (except the closing of that block of San Antonio). It'll add to the mix of neighborhood.
On 7th by the Salvation Army, it would only solidify that neighborhood's position as a government building/social services ghetto. That would only make it that much more difficult to get people to live in in the future.

I hear you... but I saw it as a destination business that would bring people to the area.... and a "business" that is not dependent on location or attractiveness to customers to succeed. There will be plenty of other housing and retail in that area eventually, but that particular block will be a hard sell anytime in the near future.

hookem · #**4900** Posted **Apr 4, 2009, 10:08 PM**

The way I see it,

Courthouse > Intel Shell, post office, or surface lot
Courthouse > 4 story office complex (like CSC buildings)
Courthouse > 4 story stick-built apt complex (like old Goodwill site)
Courthouse > Most things that could become "abandoned" in bad economic times

and

Tower (over 10 stories) > Courthouse
Anything with retail > Courthouse

So, not too bad IMO. What the rendering doesn't sufficiently show, at least to me, is size of the building. It looks like a small 4 story building in the middle of a big lot... however, if it is indeed 135 feet and 7 stories as the description says, it will be a very huge and visible building (if we are to believe the proportions that we see in the rendering). Whether you hate the architecture or like it, I think it will be a quite visible piece of non-standard architecture in downtown. That's something we don't have much of in this town... it may be quite a sight from Republic park.