AUSTIN | The Independent | 690 FEET | 58 FLOORS | Complete - Page 18

MichaelB · #**341** Posted **Apr 6, 2015, 1:32 PM**

If this hasn't been noted: The ground plans are up on the Independent site.

While the plans themselves are very straight forward, you can tell the offset in the plates from the lower to the higher block by how the elevators line up.

Syndic · #**342** Posted **Apr 6, 2015, 5:25 PM**

Is it me or is this the furthest along a project has gone without us seeing any renderings?

What's the hold up, guys? Show us the goods!

The ATX · #**343** Posted **Apr 6, 2015, 8:44 PM**

The Independent confirmed on their Facebook page that there is no office component and that there is ground floor retail.

Quote:

"Al Waysright Will there still be office space in this project? I haven't seen any mention about that since the August Statesman and ABJ articles.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 2:04pm

The Independent Austin Hi Al Waysright: There will not be an office space component in The Independent, but there will be a ground floor retail component. Thank you!
Like · 5 hrs"

https://www.facebook.com/independentaustin

drummer · #**344** Posted **Apr 6, 2015, 11:07 PM**

They really are sneaky with the designs, though - I agree. Let's see some renderings!

Great to hear about the retail component! Great for the area!

_Matt · #**345** Posted **Apr 6, 2015, 11:48 PM**

I'm not sure if the comparison to the Austonian on the luxuriousness/ceiling height holds up. The heights may be similar, but that's where the comparison ends. They are vying for different parts of the housing market. The numbers speak for themselves:

Austonian....... $1000/sqft
Independent... $520/sqft (Assuming 675 sqft @ "mid $300s")

While the premium paid by Austonian buyers may justify the higher ceilings, the pricing for Independent is closer to 360 Condos and Spring Condos--which have 10ft ceilings (mostly) and 9ft ceilings, respectively. The 9ft ceilings at Spring felt low to me. If I recall correctly, the 9ft ceilings at Spring was a cost cutting measure during the recession.

ILUVSAT · #**346** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 3:35 AM**

I have a feeling Austin is going to be very disappointed with the final design of this tower. They have already cut the height and it seems that they will continue to cut costs until they have to release a rendering prior to their official sales kickoff. If I remember correctly, GoldenBoot commented about being nervous of how one can build anything "iconic" at a mere $140 million? The Austonian was built for almost $250 million, I believe.

If you're going to be truly "iconic," you're going to have to pay for it!

What a disappointment. Rumored at 70-ish stories, then down to 62 (according to SCRAPERWILL) at the beginning of this year, and now down to 58 (according to H20; after taking out the four levels of offices and roughly 60' in height).

The office component may have brought too many car trips per day to the site...In any case, a once great possibility of a new "iconic" tower has been reduced to something which will be less imposing on Austin's skyline than the Austonian. Hell, the 35-story tower being built right in front of it will much more interesting architecturally (Austin Prosper).

Kevin Burns, your boner for this tower is beginning to look really pathetic. This tower has lost it's "iconic" stature. It HAD the opportunity. And once again, Rhode Partners has a tower trimmed down. Perry Lorenz, you are a cheap...you know what.

texastarkus · #**347** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 4:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

I have a feeling Austin is going to be very disappointed with the final design of this tower. They have already cut the height and it seems that they will continue to cut costs until they have to release a rendering prior to their official sales kickoff. If I remember correctly, GoldenBoot commented about being nervous of how one can build anything "iconic" at a mere $140 million? The Austonian was built for almost $250 million, I believe.

If you're going to be truly "iconic," you're going to have to pay for it!

What a disappointment. Rumored at 70-ish stories, then down to 62 (according to SCRAPERWILL) at the beginning of this year, and now down to 58 (according to H20; after taking out the four levels of offices and roughly 60' in height).

The office component may have brought too many car trips per day to the site...In any case, a once great possibility of a new "iconic" tower has been reduced to something which will be less imposing on Austin's skyline than the Austonian. Hell, the 35-story tower being built right in front of it will much more interesting architecturally (Austin Prosper).

Kevin Burns, your boner for this tower is beginning to look really pathetic. This tower has lost it's "iconic" stature. It HAD the opportunity. And once again, Rhode Partners has a tower trimmed down. Perry Lorenz, you are a cheap...you know what.

It seems someone has a case of penis envy....BITTER part of one

The ATX · #**348** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 4:51 AM**

It's always disappointing to a lot of people when a tower is downsized. But this will still be a new tallest (as far as we know now) and a nice looking one at that. It will cost a lot more than than that $140 million number that has been quoted. The initial Statesman article about this project last August said the construction costs would be over $200 million.

The ATX · #**349** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 4:59 AM**

I just noticed that they got a 180 day site plan extension today.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devreview/b_showpublicpermitfolderdetails.jsp?FolderRSN=11224270

KevinFromTexas · #**350** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 5:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

I have a feeling Austin is going to be very disappointed with the final design of this tower. They have already cut the height and it seems that they will continue to cut costs until they have to release a rendering prior to their official sales kickoff. If I remember correctly, GoldenBoot commented about being nervous of how one can build anything "iconic" at a mere $140 million? The Austonian was built for almost $250 million, I believe.

If you're going to be truly "iconic," you're going to have to pay for it!

What a disappointment. Rumored at 70-ish stories, then down to 62 (according to SCRAPERWILL) at the beginning of this year, and now down to 58 (according to H20; after taking out the four levels of offices and roughly 60' in height).

The office component may have brought too many car trips per day to the site...In any case, a once great possibility of a new "iconic" tower has been reduced to something which will be less imposing on Austin's skyline than the Austonian. Hell, the 35-story tower being built right in front of it will much more interesting architecturally (Austin Prosper).

Kevin Burns, your boner for this tower is beginning to look really pathetic. This tower has lost it's "iconic" stature. It HAD the opportunity. And once again, Rhode Partners has a tower trimmed down. Perry Lorenz, you are a cheap...you know what.

I don't think they've cut the height at all. The building was never said to be 70 floors, and if it was "rumored" to be, then that's all it was. A rumor. As I already said, I never got the impression the building would crack the 700 foot mark based on what I saw of the model. All of the talk of 700 feet to 800 feet was just wishful thinking by forumers. And actually, scraperwill had already said the building would be 675 feet with 61 floors, while it's now being rumored to be 694 feet with 58 floors by H20. 3 floors seems more like a design adjustment based on the change of use (they dropped the office component) than them scrambling to cut costs. Now if they chopped off 10 floors I'd be willing to agree.

Tech House · #**351** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 8:12 PM**

If it really does turn out to be a 58-floor offset variant of the original 7 Rio proposal then I'll call 911 for emergency treatment of priapism, and while I'm on the phone with the 911 operator, I'll have them send a waahmbulance for ILUVSAT.

GoldenBoot · #**352** Posted **Apr 7, 2015, 9:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I don't think they've cut the height at all. The building was never said to be 70 floors, and if it was "rumored" to be, then that's all it was. A rumor. As I already said, I never got the impression the building would crack the 700 foot mark based on what I saw of the model. All of the talk of 700 feet to 800 feet was just wishful thinking by forumers. And actually, scraperwill had already said the building would be 675 feet with 61 floors, while it's now being rumored to be 694 feet with 58 floors by H20. 3 floors seems more like a design adjustment based on the change of use (they dropped the office component) than them scrambling to cut costs. Now if they chopped off 10 floors I'd be willing to agree.

Kevin, let's be fair. SCRAPER WILL noted that the building will have a height of 675' to the roof of the mechanical penthouse. He made no mention of the building's overall height (which would/may include some type of crown or screening).

As we have seen, rather large/tall "screening" structure seems to have been depicted in the early release of "massings." And with some simple measurements, this tower easily cracked the 700' mark at that time. Removing the four levels of offices would have at least a 60' effect on the building's overall height - should those levels not be replaced with some other use.

Oh, the building was 62 levels when including the mechanical penthouse. And, AHEALY was the one who "teased" us with the 70-story story. However, with AHEALY's good report record, it was, at least, something in which we all could believe.

KevinFromTexas · #**353** Posted **Apr 8, 2015, 12:19 AM**

I think his 70-story comment was more talking about the potential height of the building, not the number of floors. We all know 70-stories is a generic term for 700 feet. The person who told him that number may not have known the exact height or the exact number of floors.

Renderings of buildings are rarely accurate to scale and are always embellished a bit to make them stand out, both in prominence (size) and in appearance with goofy lighting, etc. Models, though, are a physical representation of the building that are typically spot on to the design and scale. That's why I relied on the model.

When scraperwill said the mechanical penthouse height would be 10.75 feet, I took that as meaning the whole mechanical penthouse, including any screen that might be on it. There's no point in saying that's the height of the mechanical penthouse if there's more to it, but again, it was rumored height.

They seem pretty set on the design they're choosing since they've hinted toward it heavily with their marketing so far. It would be odd to change it drastically by adding anything to the top which would change the silhouette. Spires almost never get added later on. They're usually the thing to get removed. And if they had any plans for a grand crown, why not advertise that now in the marketing material?

You guys should know I'm hoping it'll be taller. Even at the height is now I'm going to be able to see this thing from all over my neighborhood. Having it be taller would be icing on the cake.

scraperwill · #**354** Posted **Apr 8, 2015, 1:53 AM**

My 675' height came from the plans and was to the top of the mechanical penthouse:
Lobby/Retail 1 14'
A/G Parking 7 9'
Office 4 15'
Amenity 1 10.75'
Residential 48 10.75'
Mech Penthouse 1 10.75'

If they've deleted the 4 levels of office and added an amenity level, it is now 615' to the top excluding any mechanical levels. Also assumes there is not a missing 13th floor.
That would make the cube on top 79'

The ATX · #**355** Posted **Apr 8, 2015, 2:23 AM**

Depending on what they do on the top, the tallest Waller Park Place tower could now end up being taller than this one.

drummer · #**356** Posted **Apr 8, 2015, 6:17 AM**

Just think - sometime in the future there may be a 1000 footer and we'll all laugh at how we used to worry about a few feet.

That said, I agree with many of you guys that tall buildings are cool to look at but not helpful to a vibrant city without retail and 24/7 usage. While I'd love to see a 1000 footer, I like some of the stuff that's been developed or proposed of late. What they lack in height they make up for in contributing to the overall downtown area. I think the Independent has potential to be a great addition to Austin - hopefully they don't do something to royally screw it up between now and construction.

Side note - I was in Kunming the other day for work and across the street from my hotel was an apartment complex under construction - every building was north of 40 stories (and rising; don't know what the final top-out is supposed to be). There had to be twenty buildings of the same height...and all the exact same design. Not aesthetically pleasing, really, but talk about dense! They often have these complexes in the middle of city blocks and have retail and restaurants surrounding them on the roads. My old complex on the east coast had somewhere around 10,000 residents, according to the property management company.

GoldenBoot · #**357** Posted **Apr 8, 2015, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

Just think - sometime in the future there may be a 1000 footer and we'll all laugh at how we used to worry about a few feet.

I agree. However, it will be a very, very long time before Austin sees a 900'-1000' proposal. Heck, it may be a decade or two before an +800' tower is proposed. As long as the tallest buildings in Austin are being developed by Austin-based developers, I don't see it (at least in coming 10-15 years or so).

To see anything, in the near future, exceeding 800', the lead developer will be an out-of-towner (more than likely an out-of-state or an international firm).

The Austin commercial real estate market may be "hot," but, it is not that "hot." Out-of town development firms are just now looking at Austin as an investment. And it is hard to imagine any one of those jumping into this market head first, without knowing if it is the shallow or deep end of the pool.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see an 800', 900' or even a 1000' tower go up in my home town. However, I am a realist. And I believe it is not going to happen anytime soon. So, for now, I'll just have to envy Asian cities (including the UAE and other Gulf States), New York and Miami.

Texas Jeff · #**358** Posted **Apr 8, 2015, 8:31 PM**

Austin is at about 490 feet above sea level. It's pretty wild that you'll be able to ride to the top of this building and more than double your distance from sea level.

The top of the building would be at an elevation of about 1165 feet, higher than a full Lake Buchanan.

The ATX · #**359** Posted **Apr 8, 2015, 10:15 PM**

By this reply to a comment on their Facebook page it seems there may be penthouse levels above floor 58. But of course, it's not completely clear.

Question: "Will there be penthouse levels above floor 58?"

Reply: "Details on Penthouse levels will be shared upon sales outreach."

https://www.facebook.com/independentaustin?fref=photo

Tech House · #**360** Posted **Apr 8, 2015, 11:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

...it will be a very, very long time before Austin sees a 900'-1000' proposal. Heck, it may be a decade or two before an +800' tower is proposed. As long as the tallest buildings in Austin are being developed by Austin-based developers, I don't see it (at least in coming 10-15 years or so).

If Michael Dell had an ego half the size of Donald Trump's, we'd probably have topped a thou already.