Austin | 6G | 874 Feet | 65 Floors | Complete - Page 173

bobbywest87 · #**3441** Posted **Jul 29, 2023, 1:37 AM**

I like it more than I thought I would.

ohhey · #**3442** Posted **Jul 29, 2023, 3:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armybrat

Some folks are getting mighty picky picky picky. Lol
If in 2000 they could’ve had a crystal ball look at today’s Austin skyline, they would’ve crapped their onesies with joy

I've always been proudly "picky". Austin sells itself short (no pun intended) with such low standards for design.

Definitely wouldn't have had any joyful defections looking in a crystal ball at all this copy/paste developer-driven architecture.

KevinFromTexas · #**3443** Posted **Jul 30, 2023, 3:13 AM**

Honestly, the two things that bug me the most about it are the parking podium and the name. lol

Guadalupe Tower would have sounded so much cooler, and, it would be funny watching the implants do faceplants trying to get the pronunciation right. lol

ohhey · #**3444** Posted **Jul 30, 2023, 1:33 PM**

I don't really care what they end up calling it, but that parking "podium" (we need a better word for that particular building part) is surely a big problem from street level. Parking podiums in general are a problem in Austin.

What bugs me the most is the building has attention-grabbing height and boring-at-best aesthetics. It's background building architecture... Everything tall in Austin is background architecture. The few example of placemaking, statement architecture we have (Frost; the mostly-empty Google building) are relegated to middling heights that get lost on the skyline.

Bblasa · #**3445** Posted **Jul 30, 2023, 6:24 PM**

I think we just need to be patient. The republic and waterline will both make quite a statement. From here all of our future proposals are very well done if they do get the greenlight. We have several sites like the rail yard and post office that can be very tall and done nicely, and all of the bronze influence coming to the mid heights soon will be very tastefully done. Once you start having a few nicely done buildings, the others will follow to stay competitive in market share.

Riverranchdrone · #**3446** Posted **Jul 30, 2023, 8:54 PM**

Ehh Austin is turning into Houston with all the rectangles. We need something iconic. Something that will define the Austin skyline.

austlar1 · #**3447** Posted **Jul 30, 2023, 10:48 PM**

Driving up Mopac from around Ben White, the combined profiles of the Independent and this monstrosity of a building merge into a huge blob of dark vaguely geometric shapes that don't emerge as separate structures until you get close to downtown. It is not an inspiring view. Instead it looks a bit menacing. I actually like the Independent and think it got short-changed when 6G, or whatever they are calling this clumsy mess these days, disturbed the view from down south.

KevinFromTexas · #**3448** Posted **Jul 31, 2023, 12:12 AM**

A lot of our taller buildings border on being point towers, though, I'm not sure they truly are when you compare what crazy things New York and Chicago are doing. Point towers do tend to be boring architecture. Look at the cities that have tons of infill residential that popped up on small lots and blocks. Most of them are pretty boring. The phenomenon of them being our tallest ones actually makes sense as a smaller lot is going to necessitate having a taller building to make up for the small lot size. That we had an 874 foot building on a full block with 6G and are getting a 710 foot building on a full block with The Republic is pretty remarkable. Those are more the type of towers that a lot of cities got in the 80s and 90s. I grew up watching those kind of towers go up, and maybe that's why I wasn't so much of a fan of the Wilson Tower. It just felt really out of place. I'm not sure that kind of tower would feel right in any Texas city even with a bigger skyline than ours.

GoldenBoot · #**3449** Posted **Jul 31, 2023, 4:22 PM**

"Fit" is an incredibly subjective opinion. If everything "fit," we'd have enormously boring skylines. Yes...I know, that too is subjective.

Anyway, it's the buildings that stick out which make the fabric/texture of a skyline more interesting. Whether one likes a specific design or not - it forces one to look/stare because it is interesting.

I loved the original Wilson design. It would have made our skyline that much more interesting. However, now...meh! I'd almost rather Wilson sell and let someone else develop that site.

78701 · #**3450** Posted **Jul 31, 2023, 4:23 PM**

They're offering hard-hat tours now.

KevinFromTexas · #**3451** Posted **Jul 31, 2023, 4:40 PM**

The design of the Wilson Tower hasn't changed, only the height, which begs the question is height more important in some cases than the design? I know some people don't like it, but 6G is more interesting than the Wilson Tower. 6G's appearance varies greatly from one side to the other, while the Wilson Tower really only has two different sides. This really is a case of height not being everything. Ironically, though, 6G's design with all the setbacks and corners wouldn't really work as a shorter building. Wilson Tower works at any height, 4 floors, 40 stories or 80.

wwmiv · #**3452** Posted **Jul 31, 2023, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The design of the Wilson Tower hasn't changed, only the height, which begs the question is height more important in some cases than the design? I know some people don't like it, but 6G is more interesting than the Wilson Tower. 6G's appearance varies greatly from one side to the other, while the Wilson Tower really only has two different sides. This really is a case of height not being everything. Ironically, though, 6G's design with all the setbacks and corners wouldn't really work as a shorter building. Wilson Tower works at any height, 4 floors, 40 stories or 80.

Height informs design, no?

To expand on some of what you say:

Some designs simply look better at different heights than the height at which they were built in reality. For example: Frost has always looked stubby and squat and needed an extra 200’ when it was built. Even when taken in isolation and not in context of its neighbors the design would have been far superior and more elegant had it been taller. I am sure there are also designs that would have looked better shorter. Why? One reason you allude to is that adjusting height allows refinement in the ratio of whatever various different vertical components exist (in context of the required floorplates of the building). 6xG, to me, is exemplary here as a building whose top component should have been taller.

The Wilson has the benefit of a design that looks good at a variety of heights because it lacks vertical differentiation in elements whereas both Frost and 6xG taper as they get taller.

Interesting≠Beautiful

Wilson was beautiful at the original height, and is still beautiful but will necessarily have less of a visual impact. 6xG is definitely interesting, and adds a lot of dimension and context. Same is likely to be said about Waller when it is done. It would have been nice to equally prioritize both personality and beauty in our skyline in terms of our tallest structures, no? Waller & Wilson would have been a great gay couple on our skyline—one beauty and one brain.

Urbannizer · #**3453** Posted **Jul 31, 2023, 7:00 PM**

KevinFromTexas · #**3454** Posted **Aug 1, 2023, 1:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Height informs design, no?

To expand on some of what you say:

Some designs simply look better at different heights than the height at which they were built in reality. For example: Frost has always looked stubby and squat and needed an extra 200’ when it was built. Even when taken in isolation and not in context of its neighbors the design would have been far superior and more elegant had it been taller. I am sure there are also designs that would have looked better shorter. Why? One reason you allude to is that adjusting height allows refinement in the ratio of whatever various different vertical components exist (in context of the required floorplates of the building). 6xG, to me, is exemplary here as a building whose top component should have been taller.

The Wilson has the benefit of a design that looks good at a variety of heights because it lacks vertical differentiation in elements whereas both Frost and 6xG taper as they get taller.

Interesting≠Beautiful

Wilson was beautiful at the original height, and is still beautiful but will necessarily have less of a visual impact. 6xG is definitely interesting, and adds a lot of dimension and context. Same is likely to be said about Waller when it is done. It would have been nice to equally prioritize both personality and beauty in our skyline in terms of our tallest structures, no? Waller & Wilson would have been a great gay couple on our skyline—one beauty and one brain.

I was talking more about it being physically difficult or even impossible to cram as many setbacks and angles and shafts that 6G has into a shorter building. 6G and Wilson Tower are very different buildings. I will say, though, that the relative extreme height of the Wilson Tower felt less interesting with what is a pretty simple design.

FrankLloydLeft · #**3455** Posted **Aug 2, 2023, 8:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by austin242

I for one love your last comment. Love is love and these towers should be able to love whatever tower they want. I just wish frost and the sail would have a baby together already. Those curves and the sharpness together would be beautiful. It wouldn't be tall but maybe there are some recessive genes in there somewhere.

I only want a gay couple skyline. Adding this to the agenda now