AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II - Page 506

nixcity · #**10101** Posted **Mar 24, 2012, 1:58 PM**

^I totally agree, west campus or the domain. I just cant understand, I was looking back at how the process went down with all the firms putting so much time and effort into developing a plan and then we get something completely different. If this is how it is then they should open up the competition again and give some of the other projects a chance. Why rush on such a crucial area connecting the west with downtown. Does anyone know if they actually changed the total number of residential units? Due to how slender the original towers were I would expect that it would be around the same number so why cut the height?????

ahealy · #**10102** Posted **Mar 24, 2012, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nixcity

^I totally agree, west campus or the domain. I just cant understand, I was looking back at how the process went down with all the firms putting so much time and effort into developing a plan and then we get something completely different. If this is how it is then they should open up the competition again and give some of the other projects a chance. Why rush on such a crucial area connecting the west with downtown. Does anyone know if they actually changed the total number of residential units? Due to how slender the original towers were I would expect that it would be around the same number so why cut the height?????

They should open it back up. From all the different and amazing renderings we got during that time in 2008, this is a joke.
Let's have a look back at our old contenders.

and then this...

Jdawgboy · #**10103** Posted **Mar 24, 2012, 5:39 PM**

While it may be more expensive to build higher it is well worth the benefits of smaller footprints and less of a carbon print. I had a suspicion that taking as long as they have to get things going that it would be a watered down version, I was hoping it wouldn't but that is exactly what it is. I don't have any problem complaining to the city council that it too bland and ugly IMO, the crowns would look nicer on more impressive towers than what is shown. It almost looks as if they just plopped them up there so as to detract from the fact that they are just square blocky buildings like the BOA. I like the BOA for what it is but come on lets not ruin our recent good luck with new highrises and build that crud.

Cloud92 · #**10104** Posted **Mar 24, 2012, 8:00 PM**

Dont forget this one

and i remember the stratus proposal had an HEB plan for it which i thought would have been fantastic

KevinFromTexas · #**10105** Posted **Mar 24, 2012, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nixcity

^Yea, it looks pretty good, although it looks like the tallest tower will only be a little over 400 feet

. The original plan looked much better and included at least 2 towers that were over 600 feet. I don't understand why some projects put so much money into the original planning and then end up changing it so much. Could someone put up the old rendering to compare please?

Actually these towers look to be well over 550 feet. Remember that 360 is 473 feet to the roof and 563 to the spire. These buildings may very well be 600 feet tall after all. In the rendering it seems to show 3 towers, or maybe 2 with one of them being L shaped? Either way, I see 3 crowns in the rendering which would suggest 3 towers. There's a 4th tower shown also in the rendering to the left. It seems to be nearly 300 feet tall itself. The counted ~35 floors in the three tallest towers. It's sort of hard to see how many floors exactly, it's a bit fuzzy.

As for the design, while they may not be as flashy as what we're used to, if they do go with this design this will be a huge development that will majorly change our skyline. They'll have higher roofs than 360, the W and Frost and will have more bulk than the Austonian.

I want to see more renderings, too. I'm worried that the white dull facades may be a little bland, but I am enthusiastic about the crowns. Having crowns like that on the skyline, and 3 of them, would probably upstage Frost.

One thing, though, this project was aiming to be very green and energy efficient. So that might be one reason the buildings are such a light color. It's better to reflect that Texas sunlight and heat than to absorb it and then have to cool your building.

nixcity · #**10106** Posted **Mar 24, 2012, 11:45 PM**

Oh no I think you are right, another L shaped building like the Hyatt,,,noooo

Jdawgboy · #**10107** Posted **Mar 24, 2012, 11:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Actually these towers look to be well over 550 feet. Remember that 360 is 473 feet to the roof and 563 to the spire. These buildings may very well be 600 feet tall after all. In the rendering it seems to show 3 towers, or maybe 2 with one of them being L shaped? Either way, I see 3 crowns in the rendering which would suggest 3 towers. There's a 4th tower shown also in the rendering to the left. It seems to be nearly 300 feet tall itself. The counted ~35 floors in the three tallest towers. It's sort of hard to see how many floors exactly, it's a bit fuzzy.

As for the design, while they may not be as flashy as what we're used to, if they do go with this design this will be a huge development that will majorly change our skyline. They'll have higher roofs than 360, the W and Frost and will have more bulk than the Austonian.

I want to see more renderings, too. I'm worried that the white dull facades may be a little bland, but I am enthusiastic about the crowns. Having crowns like that on the skyline, and 3 of them, would probably upstage Frost.

One thing, though, this project was aiming to be very green and energy efficient. So that might be one reason the buildings are such a light color. It's better to reflect that Texas sunlight and heat than to absorb it and then have to cool your building.

I don't think those renderings are to scale at all so I would not put too much faith in those pics as far as height goes. If those towers are only 30 floors minimum, neither will be anywhere near the height of the 360 tower.

Also I think that shorter tower is a different building all together I think its the hotel they mentioned at 17 floors.

the Genral · #**10108** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 3:01 AM**

If built in phases like I thought I read, they would build one of the condo towers first and depending on the economy build or not build the second one. We could end up like the San Jacinto site where the twin tower was never built. I don't much care for the renderings, but I would at least like to see both towers rise together.

actham · #**10109** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 3:14 AM**

I bet the third tower in the background is the office tower.

Sterling · #**10110** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 4:23 AM**

They do look rather large and blocky. I hope someone didn't get paid a lot of overtime to redesign the lighted crown of the Time Warner building at Columbus Circle and Central Park West. Otherwise it looks like a large unfriendly hospital.

I hope maybe they're showing maximum density to test city approval, knowing they'll have to reign it in when the citizens revolt.

Finally, I hate all this architectural competition nonsense. That was an expensive fight for all the designers that participated. Lots of research and hand holding. Trammell the King ended of winning. All that to flip a piece of property. If he abdicates, shouldn't the chance go to the design that was the runner-up? Torturous process to wind up with THIS.

ahealy · #**10111** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 7:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sterling

They do look rather large and blocky. I hope someone didn't get paid a lot of overtime to redesign the lighted crown of the Time Warner building at Columbus Circle and Central Park West. Otherwise it looks like a large unfriendly hospital.

I hope maybe they're showing maximum density to test city approval, knowing they'll have to reign it in when the citizens revolt.

Finally, I hate all this architectural competition nonsense. That was an expensive fight for all the designers that participated. Lots of research and hand holding. Trammell the King ended of winning. All that to flip a piece of property. If he abdicates, shouldn't the chance go to the design that was the runner-up? Torturous process to wind up with THIS.

I agree with all of that. It's kind of crazy. Today even my co-workers were talking about how shitty the design was, and how it looks pretty "west campus"....and they don't even follow urban development!

kingkirbythe.... · #**10112** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 5:54 PM**

It may be time to get loud to get the design changed for the better.

migol24 · #**10113** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 6:08 PM**

I wonder if developers keep up with these kinds of sites to read people's feedback on their plans. I doubt it, but it still would be interesting if they took it into some consideration what others have to say. Btw, on the other plans I'd still take the 1st stratus proposal over the trammel one anytime. I'd even take the 3rd proposal over this current one.

Syndic · #**10114** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 8:58 PM**

You know, I wouldn't mind this too much if this is what we get. It's not awe-inspiring, but it's just enough to not be a total disappointment.

I agree that twin towers are gimmicky. I wish they would make one slightly taller than the other and change the crowns so that they each look different and unique in some way. As you can see, they are different-looking. They're not identical. But the difference is mostly at the bases. What matters to me if the tops of the buildings. Because that's what people notice.

I wouldn't panic about the bland design. I trust that Trammel Crow would make the finished product look pretty cool. I'm intrigued by the idea that there's a third tower we're not really seeing in that rendering. Better (and more) renderings would be nice.

Regardless, building these would invigorate that area of downtown to an extent we've never seen before. With this and the Seaholm district done, I would actually feel like my city is something to be proud of. Right now, it just feels unfinished and kind of a mess. I mean, just think about it. This is going to create new blocks and streets and intersections! Places to go in Austin that weren't there before.

So, with some minor modifications to this design, I'll be satisfied. Those buildings are pretty tall. It could have been a lot worse. I wish we could just get some sort of guarantee from them, though, instead of this "based on market conditions" crap.

Cloud92 · #**10115** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 8:59 PM**

is it possible to get the design change if people voice their opinion? if so how can we?

KevinFromTexas · #**10116** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 9:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I don't think those renderings are to scale at all so I would not put too much faith in those pics as far as height goes. If those towers are only 30 floors minimum, neither will be anywhere near the height of the 360 tower.

Also I think that shorter tower is a different building all together I think its the hotel they mentioned at 17 floors.

I counted roughly 35 floors in the two tallest ones. That would make them just a floor or two shorter than the W and Ashton. So they'd be around 475 to the main roof. But they also have some large crowns that are probably 60 to 75 feet tall. Also, look at the base. Their podium areas are around 10 floors. The two Silicon Labs buildings are each 100 feet tall, and the podium levels on these towers look to be a good 20 to 30 feet higher than that.

I like the height. My big gripe is the color and bulkiness of them. And yeah, I'm not crazy about twins/triplets.

The ATX · #**10117** Posted **Mar 25, 2012, 10:14 PM**

The only good thing about those buildings is that whole lot of additional people people will be hanging out/supporting the 2nd St. and Warehouse Districts.

If you look at how large the development site is on Cesar Chavez and imagine that just two buildings will fill it up, the bulkiness is quite apparent.

East7thStreet · #**10118** Posted **Mar 26, 2012, 2:33 AM**

I think it's pretty crazy that we have a dozen highrises going up between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Street.

1st Street:

1.Park Plaza 15 story apartments
2.Seaholm 20 story hotel/condos
3.Green Site 30+ story apartments
4.Green Site 30+ story apartments
5.Manchester 50 story hotel

2nd Street

6.Green Site 17 story hotel
7.Green Site 28 story office
8.White Lodging 34 story hotel

3rd Street

9.Power Station Site ~500 ft Condo Tower
10.Power Station Site ~500 ft Condo Tower
11.Hyatt Place 17 story hotel
12.Whitley Site 17 story apartments

East7thStreet · #**10119** Posted **Mar 26, 2012, 2:37 AM**

And if Travis County ever gets around to picking a partner for their downtown block we can add another to 3rd Street.

Sterling · #**10120** Posted **Mar 26, 2012, 3:50 AM**

The 2nd street Marriott certainly changed it's whole approach, at least partially based on public shock over it's banal massing and design. Certainly the new one is better designed. Perhaps because people thought it should be.

As for the comments about streets where there were no streets... We're also putting concrete where there was no concrete. If something can be done, it's before the drawings/approach get much further. I love density, but it can and has been expressed far more inspirationally than this. The other contest winners bear that out.