AUSTIN | The Independent | 690 FEET | 58 FLOORS | Complete - Page 26

Tech House · #**501** Posted **Apr 18, 2015, 5:21 PM**

The skeleton look could actually be achieved with existing technology. The cost would be a wee bit prohibitive, but it would look very cool. Anyone willing to cough up, say, a billion spare Washingtons for special effects?

the Genral · #**502** Posted **Apr 19, 2015, 4:57 AM**

Once construction starts above the parking podium, the main tower looks like it could rise quickly, perhaps one cement pour per floor compared to two pours, several days apart per floor, like they did on the Colorado tower.

drummer · #**503** Posted **Apr 19, 2015, 6:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

Here's the one of the skeleton

Interesting. I thought in the original massing the podium would take the whole block.

KevinFromTexas · #**504** Posted **Apr 20, 2015, 9:39 PM**

Of course the background is very vague as have been most of the imagery for this building, but if that's supposed to be Seaholm Residences, then that sure does look taller than 685 feet. Seaholm Residences is 341 feet, and it looks at least twice as tall and more. Anyone care to tinker with a photo editor and double Seaholm just for fun?

Jdawgboy · #**505** Posted **Apr 20, 2015, 10:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Of course the background is very vague as have been most of the imagery for this building, but if that's supposed to be Seaholm Residences, then that sure does look taller than 685 feet. Seaholm Residences is 341 feet, and it looks at least twice as tall and more. Anyone care to tinker with a photo editor and double Seaholm just for fun?

The background looks generic cause I don't see Shoal Creek at all.

corvairkeith · #**506** Posted **Apr 20, 2015, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

Interesting. I thought in the original massing the podium would take the whole block.

I think that's a cross section to show the core, so only the back half of the building is shown.

GoldenBoot · #**507** Posted **Apr 20, 2015, 10:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

The background looks generic cause I don't see Shoal Creek at all.

The creek runs behind the tower and into the foreground on its right (east) side. It's there...

drummer · #**508** Posted **Apr 20, 2015, 10:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

I think that's a cross section to show the core, so only the back half of the building is shown.

Well, that makes sense. Thanks.

JACKinBeantown · #**509** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 3:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Of course the background is very vague as have been most of the imagery for this building, but if that's supposed to be Seaholm Residences, then that sure does look taller than 685 feet. Seaholm Residences is 341 feet, and it looks at least twice as tall and more. Anyone care to tinker with a photo editor and double Seaholm just for fun?

Twice as tall is 682 feet. And 685 feet is more.

Jdawgboy · #**510** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 4:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

The creek runs behind the tower and into the foreground on its right (east) side. It's there...

Oh I see it now, I didn't notice the lower right corner with the trees. So this would be looking to the north.

IluvATX · #**511** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 7:07 AM**

It looks like they threw the JW Marriott in the massing.

The ATX · #**512** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 7:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IluvATX

It looks like they threw the JW Marriott in the massing.

That's what I thought too. It looks a lot more like the JW than Seaholm.

ivanwolf · #**513** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 5:34 PM**

Um your all a bit off I think. I see it this way.

Seaholm is the lower left high building as it sits a street south of 3rd.

The low building is the Gables apartments like 4 stories north of 3rd.

The tall building back left is Monarch, just drawn with only one wing and not rounded.

MichaelB · #**514** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

I think that's a cross section to show the core, so only the back half of the building is shown.

wwmiv · #**515** Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 12:46 AM**

Definitely not going to be an extension of 3rd across the creek according to this plaza plan:

https://www.facebook.com/recaonline/phot...918264/10153758438693265/?type=1&theater

https://www.facebook.com/recaonline/phot...50033./10153758439498265/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/recaonline/phot...50033./10153758439468265/?type=3&theater

LoneStarMike · #**516** Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 12:57 AM**

From this rendering it looks like they might make the trestle bridge a pedestrian bridge.

Link

wwmiv · #**517** Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

From this rendering it looks like they might make the trestle bridge a pedestrian bridge.

A) I beat you

B) If you'll notice that, at the entrance to the trestle bridge, there's a fence. I'm gonna go with it won't be pedestrian accessible.

Digatisdi · #**518** Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 2:20 AM**

I'm personally very pleased with the decision to have a public plaza. I feel like it compensates nicely for any open space lost by the low-rise at Seaholm. I also like the redesign of the trail, and that it looks like the city is still moving forward with the pedestrian bridge connecting the trail and 4th and Rio Grande. I'm hoping it leads to people using the sidewalks on that corner because every time I drive that corner there's someone walking out into traffic right where the parked cars create a blind corner, and it's like, seriously? PGI has a sidewalk. Use it—but I digress.

I'm very much looking forward to this

LoneStarMike · #**519** Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 2:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

A) I beat you

You beat me with the first image, but you added the second two after I made my post. So naa naa naa

Quote:

B) If you'll notice that, at the entrance to the trestle bridge, there's a fence. I'm gonna go with it won't be pedestrian accessible.

Yeah, I was wrong. The trestle bridge is fenced off. It's the other bridge - the one that's lighter in color) that will be for pedestrians, because in that huge version you originally posted, you can people on the bridge on the big rendering at the top and the middle rendering on the bottom.

drummer · #**520** Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 3:05 AM**

That looks awesome. I really like it, even though I wouldn't necessarily oppose extending 3rd (while it's not at all necessary with the new 2nd St. bridge). I think this is a great plan for the space.

Anyone know why they're keeping the rail bridge? Or why they've kept it all these years? Does it just go down to money or is there another reason? I know it's not hurting anything, just curious.