AUSTIN | Photos & Videos Thread - Page 99

We vs us · #**1961** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 2:30 AM**

Excellent job, H2. Truly beautiful. I owe you a five spot — either on your patreon or gofundme or I’ve got your first adult beverage whenever we do our first skyscraperpage meetup.

It’s true — for whatever reason, it’s the Republic that puts our skyline over the edge finally. 6x, yes, a bit .... but everything seems changed with the Republic.

hequals2henry · #**1962** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 2:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

Excellent job, H2. Truly beautiful. I owe you a five spot — either on your patreon or gofundme or I’ve got your first adult beverage whenever we do our first skyscraperpage meetup.

It’s true — for whatever reason, it’s the Republic that puts our skyline over the edge finally. 6x, yes, a bit .... but everything seems changed with the Republic.

Hahaha I appreciate We vs us. Some creative ways to pay me that you came up with, why would you think I haven't had my first adult beverage? hahaha

Austinite101 · #**1963** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 7:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hequals2henry

Hey guys, just added 5th and Brazos to this image. This was really difficult to add. All the existing renders out there do not provide an adequate overview of this building. Same goes with some other buildings out there. Many of them are either bird eye views or ground level views. Those are the ones that are hard to add.

From certain angles, Austin is going to look like a much much bigger city than it is in reality. What skyline "tier" would this one be in relative to other cities if this is what gets built?

StoOgE · #**1964** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 12:16 PM**

Assuming Austin gets all of these I would put it right in that "tier 3" skyline for large cities. Assuming Chicago/New York are "tier 1" and then Dallas, LA, San Fran, Houston, Atlanta, Philly, Miami are "tier 2".

On the small side, but in the same conversation and Minneapolis, Cleveland, Detroit, Seattle, Denver, Charlotte, Boston.

Given our MSA rank compared to those cities, Austin is *really* outpunching it's weight class.

Geckos_Rule · #**1965** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 3:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Assuming Austin gets all of these I would put it right in that "tier 3" skyline for large cities. Assuming Chicago/New York are "tier 1" and then Dallas, LA, San Fran, Houston, Atlanta, Philly, Miami are "tier 2".

On the small side, but in the same conversation and Minneapolis, Cleveland, Detroit, Seattle, Denver, Charlotte, Boston.

Given our MSA rank compared to those cities, Austin is *really* outpunching it's weight class.

We'd be better than Cleveland, Detroit, and Charlotte (save for the amazing BofA tower), and worse than Boston, Seattle, and Minneapolis. Right around in the realm of Denver and Portland...I think.

clubtokyo · #**1966** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 4:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

We'd be better than Cleveland, Detroit, and Charlotte (save for the amazing BofA tower), and worse than Boston, Seattle, and Minneapolis. Right around in the realm of Denver and Portland...I think.

I thought we already passed Portland? I remember being underwhelmed by Portland's skyline, has it changed a lot?

urbancore · #**1967** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 4:48 PM**

Which vantage point will be most impressive? From which location will we see the best view of the skyline, yielding the most number of buildings?

StoOgE · #**1968** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

I thought we already passed Portland? I remember being underwhelmed by Portland's skyline, has it changed a lot?

Yeah, we're clear of Portland already.

StoOgE · #**1969** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

We'd be better than Cleveland, Detroit, and Charlotte (save for the amazing BofA tower), and worse than Boston, Seattle, and Minneapolis. Right around in the realm of Denver and Portland...I think.

Yeah, That's about how I see it (minus Portland - I assume you means MPLS)

Which, when your talking about cities at 50% greater MSA than you that's pretty sweet.

urbancore · #**1970** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 5:00 PM**

Portland’s skyline is decidedly unimpressive, but when you are downtown, the density is strong.....so walkable. What a great city.

clubtokyo · #**1971** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancore

Portland’s skyline is decidedly unimpressive, but when you are downtown, the density is strong.....so walkable. What a great city.

Yes I do not want anyone to think I was knocking Portland. I was just talking skyline.

ahealy · #**1972** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 6:07 PM**

Portland ....

urbancore · #**1973** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

Yes I do not want anyone to think I was knocking Portland. I was just talking skyline.

i didn't take it that way. Just noting that, like New Orleans, when you are in the middle of downtown....its so dense...little wasted space. Just a boring skyline is all.

the Genral · #**1974** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 7:27 PM**

Comparing Austin's skyline to others, for me, is somewhat complicated. After an hour of googling my way around the subject, there are many variables; population, number of buildings over certain feet, total floor count, design, density, surrounding area, ect...
It comes down to "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" for me, as well as expectation.
In one list, I saw Nashville as the 12th most beautiful skyline in the US, a list Austin wasn't even an honorable mention. I dislike Nashville's skyline.
I like San Antonio so much, I don't feel it needs a better skyline yet for a city of that size you'd expect more from it. I have to wonder how our skyline would look if Austin didn't harbor the State Capitol Building. No capitol view coridors, no set backs and stunted buildings. The city leaders back in the 70s and 80s wanted to keep the Capitol Building the dominant structure downtown. Not saying this was a bad thing, just saying it affected the shape of the skyline and continues to do so. Density is another player in public opinion about skylines where sometimes overall height of the buildings takes a back seat to downtowns that pack in more but shorter buildings within the downtown borders. Our cvc affects our density. One more factor that complicates comparisons to other cities, having been here for 30 +years, its like watching your kids grow. When friends or family you haven't seen for years come by, they always notice how much they have grown and changed, but for me the growth and change is so gradual its not nearly as dramatic. The shopped images by h2h, though amazing, are not of a current reality, so I can't compare based on those pictures. If I could, then I would have to put Austin much higher on my personnal list. As of now, I tend to agree with what has already been said. One last thing. A make it or break it for my favorite skylines is whether or not it has a signature tower or two. What defines a signature tower is always debatable, but the best ones seem to be all office and no habitational towers. I'm still waiting although the Republic and 6X could be the answer for me. My highest marks for Austin would be that it has to be in the top 3 most improved skylines. Then that even opens the debate of over the period of time its taken us to get where we are now and how far into the future vs other cities with fast changing skylines. Ok, maybe I am over thinking this...

gabetx · #**1975** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 9:53 PM**

If I had to choose between 6x or The Republic, Republic really has to happen. 6x would be great, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if it fell through like I would if The Republic did.

ATXboom · #**1976** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 10:36 PM**

downtown is split right now thanks to the surface lots for Republic, 6X and the post office site. Need to start filling these up from the river first toward the north IMO

KevinFromTexas · #**1977** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 11:28 PM**

Honestly, I haven't been paying too much attention to what tiers we might find ourselves in with our skyline. I would have to go list all the big cities and add up their talls and compare.

There really isn't just one simple system of categorizing cities, because if you go simply by height, then you run into the problem of some unique situation where a city has a building that is taller than your city's tallest, but then your city has many more tall buildings than that one does.

And likewise, you may have a very large amount of high rises, but few of them are truly very tall.

One system I remember we used to use on the forum for measuring skylines was to simply take a set number of their tallest buildings, say, the top 10 tallest, and add up their heights and floor numbers. That gave you an idea of the vertical reach of their skyline. Even so, that's a bit misleading because office buildings tend to have fewer floors than residential buildings, while still being taller. Just look at the situation between 360 Condos and Block 185. One is condos and is 581 feet with 44 floors, Block 185 is office space and will be 589 feet with 35 floors. Residential buildings tend pack in the floors, and that's even while considering that 360 has a spire. It actually has 44 floors under a 474 foot roof. A 44-story office tower would be close to 700 feet with whatever top it had. The Republic, for example, will be 708 feet with 46 floors.

I would rather just go city by city and list the talls and compare side by side...the numbers.

I also resist the urge to use words like more impressive or less impressive...than X city simply as to not step on toes or start up any city versus city stuff.

lzppjb · #**1978** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 11:38 PM**

I just go by my initial reaction. Do I like how it looks? Many things can go into that.

Pittsburgh, for example, looks cool to me. Sports-wise, it's a city I hate. But I like all of the yellow bridges and how the river runs through the city.

An opposite example is Vancouver. Tons of highrises and density. But I just don't like how it looks.

KevinFromTexas · #**1979** Posted **Feb 12, 2019, 11:51 PM**

I know what you mean. I used to look to places like Vancouver and Honolulu as an indication of what we might expect with residential high rises here. This was years ago back when they were first announcing they wanted more housing downtown. I have to admit that at the time I wasn't optimistic. I had always favored office towers up to that point, but we've had a good bunch of residential buildings that have changed the way I see them. I always assumed balconies would muddle up the skyline for some reason.

I will say one thing, someone had mentioned the other day how dark our skyline is and that it's really kind of lacking a visually interesting appearance at night, but I think that's mostly a consequence of having so many residential towers. Office buildings don't have any incentive to be dark at night. Their workers aren't stuffing a pillow over their head at their desk to block out the light from a neighboring tower. Residential buildings though, they have an incentive to not go crazy with their lighting since if they don't their neighbors won't either.

KevinFromTexas · #**1980** Posted **Feb 13, 2019, 1:40 AM**

The Independent Austin - https://www.facebook.com/independentaust...2122456/2323758931238009/?type=3&theater