Austin | The Travis | 594 Feet | 52 Floors | T/O

[zrx299]

Someone needs to forward those renders to the Independent folks and tell them *this is how you finish the top of a building!*

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't know. I'm really very underwhelmed by these towers. Maybe it's just the renderings, but so far, I'm not impressed. They just look like one more tower in a forest of high rises you'd see somewhere like New York or Chicago, except that the height of these two warrants a better design.

[The ATX]

I'm wondering why we don't have any quality/higher def renderings of the towers like we do of the podium? The crappy renderings of the towers with the out of date base photo aren't doing much for me. But the height and density for that area are pretty nice.

[ILUVSAT]

Based on those renderings...one is not 594' and the other 704'. They're much, much closer to the same height - like originally proposed.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I don't know. I'm really very underwhelmed by these towers. Maybe it's just the renderings, but so far, I'm not impressed. They just look like one more tower in a forest of high rises you'd see somewhere like New York or Chicago, except that the height of these two warrants a better design.

From day one the developer basically said don't expect too much! Their goal was not to be the most glamorous and tallest building(s) in Austin.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Based on those renderings...one is not 594' and the other 704'. They're much, much closer to the same height - like originally proposed.

I'll go with what the elevations say rather than the renderings. For one thing, the two towers are not side by side. The two towers sit caddy corner from each other and face the podium of the other building. The shorter tower is actually farther away from the camera than the taller tower is, according to what the site plan shows of the building footprints. Also, the original 595 foot heights for these were only referring to the main roofs and did not count the mechanical penthouses. This is typical for Austin developments as mechanical penthouses are exempt from height bonuses. Also, at that time when the two towers were stated as being 595 feet tall, they were both listed as having 50 floors. Later, the project stated that the taller tower would be 695 feet with 60 floors, but again, that was without counting the mechanical penthouse.

Also, 704 feet with 60 floors certainly is one of the tallest in Austin. Today it would be our tallest, and would only be our third tallest assuming 6 X Guadalupe and The Republic get built.

Something else I noticed is that the renderings showing the podium and garage section appear somewhat different in design from that of the towers themselves in the overall towers rendering. The renderings are also using an outdated photo that doesn't include 70 Rainey. Now, I don't blame them for not wanting another residential tower in their marketing info, but 70 Rainey as we all remember seemed to take forever to get up into the air, which suggests the rendering is several years old. I'm still wondering if they'll tweak the designs a bit.

In fact, they already have somewhat. The shorter tower has some detail changes from the last rendering we saw. The placement of the shorter tower also seems to be different from what is being proposed based on the site plan showing the building footprints. Notice that the podium in both of these renderings appears to be the same, but the taller tower in the new rendering is sitting on top of that same section. Also, it looks to me like both buildings are sitting a bit farther south in the 2nd rendering. Notice how much closer the podium is to The Shore condos than it is in the first rendering. Also, notice that more of the Millennium apartment building in the background is visible in the 2nd rendering than in the first.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Are we getting restaurant space in the first floors?

The only retail is a coffee shop. That was one of the criticisms of this project by the Design Commission Working Group. The Working Group does not recommend approval of the density bonus/FAR increase that this project needs.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

...the two towers are not side by side. The two towers sit caddy corner from each other and face the podium of the other building. The shorter tower is actually farther away from the camera than the taller tower is, according to what the site plan shows of the building footprints. Also, the original 595 foot heights for these were only referring to the main roofs and did not count the mechanical penthouses...

Kevin, the two towers sit on the same plat of land. And, thus, are basically right next to each other. I'd agree with your assessment should these towers be a few blocks from one another. But, they are not. So, one should see a clear difference in height - especially since this height delta is over 100'.

I would not be surprised if this is a recent release of original renderings (pertaining to the original plan of having two 595' towers).

Since there is no decorative crown, the overall height in reference to the mechanical roofline is inconsequential.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Kevin, the two towers sit on the same plat of land. And, thus, are basically right next to each other. I'd agree with your assessment should these towers be a few blocks from one another. But, they are not. So, one should see a clear difference in height - especially since this height delta is over 100'.

I would not be surprised if this is a recent release of original renderings (pertaining to the original plan of having two 595' towers).

Since there is no decorative crown, the overall height in reference to the mechanical roofline is inconsequential.

Renderings are not the best or most definitive source for a building's height. The height of the buildings cannot vary from what is approved by the City. And right now all the permits and documents filed with the city show one tower of ~600' and one tower of ~700'. I only use renderings for height info when there are not yet any permits or documents filed with the city.

[bigdogc]

Lot Size: 2.291 acres / 99,796 square feet
1,236,806 total square feet
13:1 total proposed FAR


Phase I – 575 feet in height, 56 stories
Phase II – 695 feet in height, 61 stories

Apartments - 662,636 Gross SF
Condos - 377,247 Gross SF
Hotel - 194,523 Gross SF
Coffee/Bar - 2,400 Gross SF

Developer asking for 13:1 FAR (vs 8:1) and in exchange willing to pay the city ~2MM.

This is going to the design commission on Monday 6/24/19.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by bigdogc

Phase I – 575 feet in height, 56 stories
Phase II – 695 feet in height, 61 stories

Just to clarify, those heights and floor counts are what are stated on the density bonus application that was filed in February. Updated elevations were released in late April, and the height and floor counts in the thread title come from the elevations.
Stated floor counts tend to include mechanical levels which we don't count. Also, stated building heights tend to only be to the roof, and we include the height of mechanical screens or crowns.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The only retail is a coffee shop. That was one of the criticisms of this project by the Design Commission Working Group. The Working Group does not recommend approval of the density bonus/FAR increase that this project needs.

That just doesn't make business sense... With how close these are to the lake, how could they not plan for some restaurants/bars? All they need to do is take one look at the places at the 4 seasons, and the Line Hotel to know that those print money regardless of whether they're good.

[Geckos_Rule]

The Design Commission presentation was delayed today, so as to give the surrounding neighborhood "time to review the drawings and meet with various stakeholders."

Which in reality, I think means so condo-owners (besides me, since I like this project) in the area can go and complain about a building being built in a downtown....

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

The Design Commission presentation was delayed today, so as to give the surrounding neighborhood "time to review the drawings and meet with various stakeholders."

That's a rather unusual move for the Design Commission. City Council, not so much.

EDIT: After watching the video, I see that the developer voluntarily pulled the plug to work with the Rainey ST. NA.

[The ATX]

The Rainey St. NA has two months to complain about the views and traffic (but it's really about the views), and this project returns to the Design Commission in August.

[The ATX]

Ruh, roh. There are most likely big changes afoot. No doubt that was the reason for this being pulled from the Design Commission. The site plan was withdrawn and re-submitted today. The original site plan application mentioned two towers, and the first tower to be built was the rental tower. This one doesn't mention two towers, and states the use as condo. It's too early to know for sure, but I'm guessing they are scaling this project down to single condo building. But that's just a guess.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=524421

[drummer]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Ruh, roh. There are most likely big changes afoot. No doubt that was the reason for this being pulled from the Design Commission. The site plan was withdrawn and re-submitted today. The original site plan application mentioned two towers, and the first tower to be built was the rental tower. This one doesn't mention two towers, and states the use as condo. It's too early to know for sure, but I'm guessing they are scaling this project down to single condo building. But that's just a guess.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=524421

It doesn't specify only one tower, but the fact that it doesn't specifically mention two is concerning. That said, it also doesn't mention any height...so probably a 400 ft rectangle. Maybe 420 ft.

[KevinFromTexas]

That's a huge site, though. It could easily support two towers, and that area isn't exactly wanting for park space or access to it.

[The ATX]

A second site plan was filed today. This one is just for a waste water line relocation. That shouldn't take long to get approved. So we may see some site prep before the tower site plan is approved.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=524421

[The ATX]

After the developer pulled the plug on the June meeting with the Design Commission, the meeting is back on for this Monday. There were no apparent changes to the project because the same presentation planned for June is posted for August.

Also, after withdrawing the original site plan and re-submitting a new site plan application, the new site plan application was allowed to expire about two weeks ago. No site plan is currently filed.