Austin | The Republic | 710 Feet | 47 Floors | Complete - Page 25

N90 · #**481** Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 12:43 AM**

I like that Austin's skyline is gradually getting taller. It would be weird if this were a supertall IMO because the tower would stick out and have 315 feet on the next tallest building (assuming that the supertall would be the minimum 1,000 feet and not any taller).

We probably will get taller in the future but it's great that we're not skipping any steps (height wise) to get there.

tie_guy · #**482** Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 5:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by N90

I like that Austin's skyline is gradually getting taller. It would be weird if this were a supertall IMO because the tower would stick out and have 315 feet on the next tallest building (assuming that the supertall would be the minimum 1,000 feet and not any taller).

Agreed. Point and case: Oklahoma City's Devon tower

wwmiv · #**483** Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 5:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tie_guy

Agreed. Point and case: Oklahoma City's Devon tower

If we got a 900-1000' tower (slightly shorter than a super tall) after this one is built (if built at this size) it'd be similar to Cleveland or Charlotte, and less like OKC or Mobile, given that we'll at that point have three built towers between 680' and 750'.

I do agree that once we start approaching 1100' that a tower that height would be out of place.

N90 · #**484** Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 6:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

If we got a 900-1000' tower (slightly shorter than a super tall) after this one is built (if built at this size) it'd be similar to Cleveland or Charlotte, and less like OKC or Mobile, given that we'll at that point have three built towers between 680' and 750'.

I do agree that once we start approaching 1100' that a tower that height would be out of place.

With the Austonian, the Independent, this 308 Guadalupe, and if the Waller Park towers (tower C I think) come through we'll then have a nice 600 foot plateau forming with 308 Guadalupe's peak rising above the plateau into the 700 foot territory.

With those in place, then 800 or 900 footers would make more seamless transitions into the skyline. Austin's skyline represents an organic growth look. By looking at it you can tell that it's skyline just kept growing higher.

OKC's looks inorganic. Just looks like 1 company consolidated HQ into a single building and built a tower that dwarfed the rest of the skyline. OKC's skyline is much improved and will probably keep improving but now it has to work harder to plug in the gaps. Devon Tower is 350 feet taller than the next tallest building. And because it's such a wide and bulky building, it looks even bigger than 350 feet when compared to the next tallest at ground level.

wwmiv · #**485** Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 8:46 AM**

I wouldn't be surprised to also see something 600'+ in the Brackenridge redevelopment.

ahealy · #**486** Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 3:24 PM**

I'm all for the height and placement of this, but it kinda screams late 00's Miami condo shake 'n' bake--Which freaks me out for being one of Austin's premiere structures. The height for this area is

MichaelB · #**487** Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 4:14 PM**

Feels like a massing study. Not detailed... exploring where mass will be, etc.
Thinking/Hoping its and early sketch.
I wouldn't be counting too many chickens before they hatch on the design here.
Very happy to see they are considering a lower profile toward the park and are including public space on that side as well.

Fingers crossed!

JACKinBeantown · #**488** Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 6:04 PM**

It looks pretty detailed for a massing study. I'd say it's pretty much what you'll get if this design is going forward. Look at the massing model for 432 Park Avenue in New York... it's almost exactly what is being built. I don't mind this, but it does look like Aura in Toronto.

Syndic · #**489** Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 12:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy

I'm all for the height and placement of this, but it kinda screams late 00's Miami condo shake 'n' bake--Which freaks me out for being one of Austin's premiere structures. The height for this area is

Agreed. The top park looks super corny and cheap. Not Austin quality. I would hope they change that part. It looks like something you'd see in a beach city which is NOT our city's personality.

Love the height, though. This is exactly why we fought against that shitty courthouse development. It had no business being there. This actually belongs.

the Genral · #**490** Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 1:12 AM**

I am so on the fence with this that my voice is actually two octaves higher as I write this.
Like the tripled tiered neighbor to its west, by not giving our potential tallest a clean long and lean ground to crown facade, it doesn't look like the signature tower I was hoping for. It looks like 3 distinct sections stacked on each other. The crown looks similar to two other towers downtown and is not unique. I do like the height, and if this is THE design they are going with, then choice of color on the glass and facade will make or break it for me. For me the exterior would have to be, silver, aluminium, grayish, with black accents and windows. I wonder if Sears still does aluminium siding?
I'm not getting excited until the final rendering is released. As someone suggested, a double spire might help.

myBrain · #**491** Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 1:12 AM**

Reminds me a little of this failed 501 congress proposal:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=131529

It just looks too squat to me. Elongate the top half, maybe add another setback so it narrows as it rises, and the general concept could work -- kind of like the Austonian meets the W.

wwmiv · #**492** Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 1:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndic

Agreed. The top park looks super corny and cheap. Not Austin quality. I would hope they change that part. It looks like something you'd see in a beach city which is NOT our city's personality.

Love the height, though. This is exactly why we fought against that shitty courthouse development. It had no business being there. This actually belongs.

Not Austin quality? Super corny and cheap IS Austin quality...

Spaceman · #**493** Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 2:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Not Austin quality? Super corny and cheap IS Austin quality...

No need to quibble over the details of this project...0.0 chance of being built

wwmiv · #**494** Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 2:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaceman

No need to quibble over the details of this project...0.0 chance of being built

What do you know!?

The ATX · #**495** Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 3:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaceman

No need to quibble over the details of this project...0.0 chance of being built

Oh, Spaceman. You've been saying that about many, many projects over the years, and just look at all of the towers that have been built.

AusTxDevelopment · #**496** Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 3:37 AM**

It'll be interesting to see what this ends up looking like when it's done. Most of Austin's towers end up looking very different from their very first 'concept' renderings.

I'm going to guess it will shrink quite a bit. Especially since interest rates are going up. Both investment cash and construction loan money will become significantly harder to get now.

We vs us · #**497** Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 2:00 PM**

Yeah, I'm not a fan of this one as presented, either. Too bulky (too Fairmontian?), too jarring in it's current place in the skyline, too standardized. And whoever compared it to a Miami condo building is right on. We deserve better.

This is just one more support for the idea that we're not an expensive enough market to support the extra cost of unique design.

ahealy · #**498** Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

This is just one more support for the idea that we're not an expensive enough market to support the extra cost of unique design.

THIS. Austin really needs to step her pu**y up with these new ones.
BUT, lets be real...this will probably be cut down to 400 ft and blend completely in with 500 w 2nd and everything else around thats blue.

I so so so wish we could get something like what was proposed with the HEB greenwater development. I don't have a photo, but it was that giant red/copper glass tower with the huge disc on top. THAT is what Austin's skyline needs.

wwmiv · #**499** Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy

I so so so wish we could get something like what was proposed with the HEB greenwater development. I don't have a photo, but it was that giant red/copper glass tower with the huge disc on top. THAT is what Austin's skyline needs.

http://imgur.com/KCUxup1

It was the Stratus proposal, which was beautiful.

Spaceman · #**500** Posted **Jun 20, 2017, 7:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Oh, Spaceman. You've been saying that about many, many projects over the years, and just look at all of the towers that have been built.

I have been very specific about the projects I have been doubtful about being built..Waller Place, Planetarium, anything attached to Tom Stacy, Sutton, etc
The moderator of this forum should start a betting pool for those who disagree on the viability of certain endeavors being discussed..
Don't misunderstand my philosophy on Austin's buildings...I wish our skyline looked like Dubai.