Austin | Conrad Residences (307 E. 2nd St.) | 755 Feet | 62 Floors | Never Built

[H2O]

Yeah, whoever they hired to do the renderings really just kind of mailed it in on the skyline. Literally. Probably from China or India. Must have used an old skyline photo and didn't bother to research any of the newer projects.

[Atom_Mirny]

I mean it's their job to sell the new tower - not other people's buildings.

[kingkirbythe....]

Here’s Our First Look at the 65-Floor Tower Headed for Second and Trinity

https://austin.towers.net/heres-our-...d-and-trinity/

Remember the “extraordinary” downtown Austin condo and hotel tower planned by our friendly local Canadian developers Intracorp Homes at 307 East Second Street? Thanks to the project’s appearance at next week’s meeting of the city’s Design Commission seeking its density bonus, we’ve now got our first glimpse at the 65-story, 756-foot tower imagined for this 0.53-acre site at the corner of East Second and Trinity Streets near the convention center — and isn’t it remarkable that we can so casually note the appearance of a new tower rising more than 700 feet around here? If you’re a fan of tall buildings, this city in the 2020s is a brave new world.

[GoldenBoot]

So, is this 775' or 756' (as indicated in design commission documentation)?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

So, is this 775' or 756' (as indicated in design commission documentation)?

It depends on whether you want to use the roof height or the tallest point on the building.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by The ATX

It depends on whether you want to use the roof height or the tallest point on the building.

I believe the CTBUH defines height as:

"Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open-air, pedestrian entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment."

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

I believe the CTBUH defines height as:

"Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open-air, pedestrian entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment."

And that's why 775' is is listed as the height. But I think there may be another height change before this gets approved. The first elevations had it as 786', the most recent have it as 775'. But neither set of elevations show the two pointed crown. Floor count still matches the last elevations, but we don't know if the crown change will affect the height.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by The ATX

And that's why 775' is is listed as the height. But I think there may be another height change before this gets approved. The first elevations had it as 786', the most recent have it as 775'. But neither set of elevations show the two pointed crown. Floor count still matches the last elevations, but we don't know if the crown change will affect the height.

Cool. Thank you.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by migol24

Kinda reminds me of the T. Stacy tower that could have been.

My thought too. But this one is three very different buildings stacked on top of each other!

Originally Posted by The ATX

[migol24]

Yeah, I definitely think this one is nicer. By far.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by migol24

Yeah, I definitely think this one is nicer. By far.

I'd actually prefer the middle section on top where it's most visible. The top of this looks kinda weird. The balconies are just enough out of alignment that it looks accidental, not intentional. The roof is strange for some reason... could've benefit from five minutes more thought. Even the top third is two halves. It's not ugly, but it is disjointed and won't be one of Austin's nice buildings.

I will say that I like the Independent better in this rendering than in real life.

[migol24]

Aside from the crooked balconies, I don't mind this building. Even the top, may actually look unique and interesting over the years. But if they switched out the bottom with the top, I wouldn't mind it either. Or if they made the entire building the same as the middle all the way through. I think I would prefer it. Instead of them trying to make something cute and quirky.

[wwmiv]

I disagree with those who say this building is not cohesive. The three sections use the same materials, but in different ratios as the building rises:

1. The bottom section uses roughly 2:1 glass to opaque material.
2. The middle section uses roughly 1:1 of the same two materials.
3. The top section uses roughly 1:2 of the same materials.

This allows for subtle external differentiation of the uses in tandem with the way the exteriors must function (balconies, for instance, for residences but not hotels) actually helps to distract from those other necessary differentiations, while also tying them together into a single whole.

I really dislike towers that are mixed-use that use the same glass finish throughout the whole structure but only have vertical rows of balconies on the top 1/3 of the building, calling unnecessary attention to the balconies both architecturally and for the people using them. This helps blend those necessary but unflattering features from dominating the impression the building leaves.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I disagree with those who say this building is not cohesive. The three sections use the same materials, but in different ratios as the building rises:

1. The bottom section uses roughly 2:1 glass to opaque material.
2. The middle section uses roughly 1:1 of the same two materials.
3. The top section uses roughly 1:2 of the same materials.

This allows for subtle external differentiation of the uses in tandem with the way the exteriors must function (balconies, for instance, for residences but not hotels) actually helps to distract from those other necessary differentiations, while also tying them together into a single whole.

I really dislike towers that are mixed-use that use the same glass finish throughout the whole structure but only have vertical rows of balconies on the top 1/3 of the building, calling unnecessary attention to the balconies both architecturally and for the people using them. This helps blend those necessary but unflattering features from dominating the impression the building leaves.

I respect your right to have an opinion that differs from mine.

And it's not a plain glass box; I'll give it that.

[RyanfromTexas]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Here's a wider view of the rendering:


https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/do....cfm?id=377168

If they use green glass on this one….

Can anyone please photoshop Gumby’s features please?

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by RyanfromTexas

If they use green glass on this one….

Can anyone please photoshop Gumby’s features please?

The Gumby Building!


https://www.mcgoldrickmarketing.com/gumby-building

Quick job showing that you are correct without making Gumby part of the actual rendering. That would require flipping Gumby or the building around.

[ahealy]

Here we go with the Gumby references. I just twitched from my PT.StacyD

[migol24]

The Gumby Tower. It's official.

[sewaneetigers]

I was told this is definitely going up. On height, all I got was 600' +

[sewaneetigers]

Those top two sections on the top floor facing west look brutal. The one on the east below the top or top two needs to come with a liability waiver from that brutal light refraction.