Austin | Block 185/Google Tower #2 | 594 Feet | 35 Floors | Complete

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Its pretty awesome. I wonder how they are planning to keep the creek full.

Since that part of Shoal Creek is near the mouth into the river, theres always water.

[The ATX]

KXAN has an article. They are using the same fuzzy screen shots from the Design Commission meeting that are posted here. Maybe now Trammell Crow will release some high quality renderings.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...wn-/1880667489

[Syndic]

Many improvements. Especially in the parking podium (maybe, it's hard to tell). But it's still too bulky for me.

I dunno. I'm going to need some time to adjust to the idea that this will actually be in our skyline.

[ahealy]

I need construction photosssssssss

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ahealy

I need construction photosssssssss

There isn't much to see. They'll be doing diaphragm wall construction followed by excavation through May.

[myBrain]

My proposal for lighting scheme:

[Geckos_Rule]

I'm thinking more or vertical lighting along the north side, then horizontal along each of those steps

[Echostatic]

I'd like to see this type of lighting (as seen on the AIA Central Tower in Hong Kong



I'd like to see the rainbows on any of our Austin towers... Tacky, I know, but colorful (and pride!)

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Echostatic

I'd like to see this type of lighting (as seen on the AIA Central Tower in Hong Kong



I'd like to see the rainbows on any of our Austin towers... Tacky, I know, but colorful (and pride!)

Hell yea and not tacky at all. Our skyline really needs more color. Austin may be moving up in stature but I say we need to step up a couple of notches in highrise lighting big time which will create a more cosmopolitan night feel.

[Jdawgboy]

Oh I took a photo tonight of the site but need a new image hosting app.

[Syndic]

I don't find that tacky. I've love some fancier lighting to give our skyline more character at night but developers have REALLY moved away from adding any special lighting lately. My guess is it will look boring like this:

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Oh I took a photo tonight of the site but need a new image hosting app.

I've started using imgbb.

[KevinFromTexas]

Maybe I'm full of it, but wouldn't the cost of lighting up residential buildings fall to the building residents? Specifically the HOA or the equivalent of that? Some people in the building likely have zero interest in paying extra for that.

Another reason I've assumed few residential buildings are lit in a grand way is that they want to be good neighbors. If they play it safe and don't crazy with bright and distracting lighting, then their neighbors likely won't either. Residential buildings also don't have to advertise in the same way that office buildings do. Hotels are also pretty dark.

Office buildings though have no reason to worry about how they light their buildings since they don't have tenants who would likely complain about bright lights in a neighboring building.

I think the big reason our skyline is so dark is that most of what's been built in the last 20 years has been residential rather than office space. Look at the office towers we do have and compare them to the residential ones. Almost every one of them is much brighter than any of the residential towers. Block 185, Block 71 and The Republic will likely be lit in pretty significant ways compared to the residential buildings that have relied more on delicate accent lighting or none at all.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Maybe I'm full of it, but wouldn't the cost of lighting up residential buildings fall to the building residents? Specifically the HOA or the equivalent of that? Some people in the building likely have zero interest in paying extra for that.

Yup. I don't think a lot of residents would care about our feelings about a well lit skyline if it meant their HOA fees went up.

[Geckos_Rule]

I don't think those rainbow lights look tacky at all. I think it really boils down to good lighting is good, regardless of color. So if they went rainbow, it'd look tacky only if it was crappy lighting in the first place.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

I don't think those rainbow lights look tacky at all. I think it really boils down to good lighting is good, regardless of color. So if they went rainbow, it'd look tacky only if it was crappy lighting in the first place.

It doesn't have to be rainbow all the time, it'd be nice to have a lot more buildings like Dallas where the lighting changes colors. It can be rainbow during gay pride month.

And red white and blue on fourth of july, red and green at christmas, etc...

Apparnetly as someone mentioned in the other thread, the Fairmont has the ability to do all sorts of colors like this but the people who operate the hotel don't know how to do it!

[Vexal]

While on the subject of lighting, does anyone know what happened to the blue ring light at the top of the Austonian?

[gabetx]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Apparnetly as someone mentioned in the other thread, the Fairmont has the ability to do all sorts of colors like this but the people who operate the hotel don't know how to do it!

The Fairmont constantly changes colors form blue to green, to orange, to purple from day to day or week to week.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by Vexal

While on the subject of lighting, does anyone know what happened to the blue ring light at the top of the Austonian?

I (assume) they are coming back, but it's being renovated at the moment.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by gabetx

The Fairmont constantly changes colors form blue to green, to orange, to purple from day to day or week to week.

But its solid colors, they don't change or have effects and the spire hasn't been lit at all aside from the flood lighting. It can do a whole lot more than what we've seen.