Austin | 6G | 874 Feet | 65 Floors | Complete

[H2O]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Hell, yeah. It also looks like there's a hole on the south facade below the crown that is probably for mechanical access, but I would have to assume they would light that space somehow. The strange thing is, that hole doesn't appear to go all the way through to the north side of the building. It looks like it "dead ends" at the mechanical screen on the north side of the building. That space appears to be on the main roof below the mechanical screen/main roof parapet.

The 'hole' appears to be occupiable. It kinds of looks like another roof deck, and the building stack references a 'lounge roof' above that level.

I'm wondering if the brochure renderings are older? The podium and main roof garden seem less resolved. Or, it could be they are already simplifying for VE purposes.

I'm a little concerned about the street presence at the corner of San Antonio and 7th. I know all of the 'back of house' stuff is necessary, and that is the least bad location for it, but the blank walls could be deadly. It might be an opportunity for some public art - perhaps interpreting the history of the Bremond Block historic district across 7th Street?

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by H2O

The 'hole' appears to be occupiable. It kinds of looks like another roof deck, and the building stack references a 'lounge roof' above that level.

I'm wondering if the brochure renderings are older? The podium and main roof garden seem less resolved. Or, it could be they are already simplifying for VE purposes.

http://www.lpcaustin.com/properties/600-guadalupe/

That could be the case. That elevation that they have on their website seems to indicate that the last residential floor is the 66th floor. It shows the 67th floor as being the actual roof. That hole up there looks to be on the main roof level. In the renderings, there is a glass railing going across that hole. So there most likely is some kind of public balcony up there and it's not just all mechanical space.

[JACKinBeantown]

The renderings are nice. Call me spoiled after living in NYC for so long, but this is a very average building. It's tall and that's great, but the design is very forgettable. Too bad they can't magically trade designs with Frost Tower, or One American Center, One Eleven or even 100 Congress. Still, I'm excited for the potential of a new tallest in Austin.

I'm sure several of you will disagree. Please keep it civil.

[resansom]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

The renderings are nice. Call me spoiled after living in NYC for so long, but this is a very average building. It's tall and that's great, but the design is very forgettable. Too bad they can't magically trade designs with Frost Tower, or One American Center, One Eleven or even 100 Congress. Still, I'm excited for the potential of a new tallest in Austin.

I'm sure several of you will disagree. Please keep it civil.

Actually, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the same way. I'm happy to see a new tallest, and I don't hate the design, but I do feel that Austin's buildings are never particularly interesting, exhilarating, or exciting. It isn't hard to find lots of exciting, beautiful - even daring - skyscrapers being built almost everywhere else except Austin. I expect that the developers are to blame - placing constraints on the architects in order to keep costs down (or could it be something else?).

What do the rest of you forum regulars think?

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by resansom

Actually, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the same way. I'm happy to see a new tallest, and I don't hate the design, but I do feel that Austin's buildings are never particularly interesting, exhilarating, or exciting. It isn't hard to find lots of exciting, beautiful - even daring - skyscrapers being built almost everywhere else except Austin. I expect that the developers are to blame - placing constraints on the architects in order to keep costs down (or could it be something else?).

What do the rest of you forum regulars think?

I think I'd would have rather seen the bottom section (not podium) carried thru all the way to the top with an interesting topper instead of two distinct towers stacked on top of each other. But, I'd be happy and amazed to see this happen as planned just because of the height.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

The renderings are nice. Call me spoiled after living in NYC for so long, but this is a very average building. It's tall and that's great, but the design is very forgettable. Too bad they can't magically trade designs with Frost Tower, or One American Center, One Eleven or even 100 Congress. Still, I'm excited for the potential of a new tallest in Austin.

I'm sure several of you will disagree. Please keep it civil.

I agree with you. I think it's a handsome, buttoned up and safe design, but it's nothing more exciting than the W. That said, I feel like lots of cities' tallest buildings are kind of the same way. Most of the buildings in the new world trade center in NY for example are just as forgettable looking as this one - in fact, I'd say this one is far more exciting than 4 or 7 WTC,

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by resansom

Actually, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the same way. I'm happy to see a new tallest, and I don't hate the design, but I do feel that Austin's buildings are never particularly interesting, exhilarating, or exciting. It isn't hard to find lots of exciting, beautiful - even daring - skyscrapers being built almost everywhere else except Austin. I expect that the developers are to blame - placing constraints on the architects in order to keep costs down (or could it be something else?).

What do the rest of you forum regulars think?

I think part of the fact is that this has such obvious balconies. I'm not sure about the opinions of the people above me, but I don't really think balconies look good on any building. And compared to NYC, where very few buildings have balconies, I'm not sure I can name a high-rise residential building in Austin without balconies for almost every unit. So besides a few notable exceptions, residential buildings don't usually look great save for a few in chicago and NYC where balconies are more rare (see: 8 spruce street, one madison park, john hancock building, etc.)

[Jdawgboy]

I think the city is partly to blame for the lack of unique building designs but it also has to do with cost. Just look at the larger buildings that have been built before 2010. Overall they are more interesting. Even our 80s office highrises have some lovely design elements compared to today's bland boxes. Yes imagine the One American Center or 100 Congress, 101 Congress 300 to 400 feet taller, not to mention the lovely Frost. Design aesthetics have gone down hill locally that's for sure.

[clubtokyo]

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

I think part of the fact is that this has such obvious balconies. I'm not sure about the opinions of the people above me, but I don't really think balconies look good on any building. And compared to NYC, where very few buildings have balconies, I'm not sure I can name a high-rise residential building in Austin without balconies for almost every unit. So besides a few notable exceptions, residential buildings don't usually look great save for a few in chicago and NYC where balconies are more rare (see: 8 spruce street, one madison park, john hancock building, etc.)

Maybe because Austin has nice weather most of the year, and folks want the option of sitting outside? Can't say the same about NYC, and the smell of NYC.... lol

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

Maybe because Austin has nice weather most of the year, and folks want the option of sitting outside? Can't say the same about NYC, and the smell of NYC.... lol

I'm inclined to agree. But nevertheless, It's tough to find a really good looking residential building with lots of balconies. Maybe 56 Leonard, though that's really just a rich-man's independent.

[freerover]

I think it looks nice. I generally like all of our new high-rises. The only one I really don't care for is the Fairmont. It looks so ridiculous with that huge spire especially when you know that it was originally suppose to be taller. It just looks like it's compensating now. Obviously don't like the blank sides of buildings that face inside the block like the Westin.

I think it depends on the market you are entering into. The high-rise condo market is pretty fat right now which is why I imagine more money went into making the Independent look cool and different. It needs something to help it stand out because there are vacancies in all of the other high rise condo complexes and hotels.

In terms of offices, there is nowhere near the availability that you have in residential right now. You just need to open an office building and you can get a tenant. What else drives the desire for cooler buildings? Is it corporations designing their new HQ buildings? That's something Austin doesn't have.

Also, there is a lot of opportunity in investing money right now everywhere in the city. You could invest in 1 high-rise or hundreds of houses or some amount of apartment complexes. Raising costs of a high-rise because of design past what you need in order to get it filled makes it less competitive to other projects in the city, region and state. I don't think you can blame it on the developers. I think they want really cool buildings for their portfolio but they have to get them built somehow. I mean, the original Fairmont renderings were awesome. The reality is someone else has to pay for it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

The renderings are nice. Call me spoiled after living in NYC for so long, but this is a very average building. It's tall and that's great, but the design is very forgettable. Too bad they can't magically trade designs with Frost Tower, or One American Center, One Eleven or even 100 Congress. Still, I'm excited for the potential of a new tallest in Austin.

I'm sure several of you will disagree. Please keep it civil.

You're not wrong.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

The renderings are nice. Call me spoiled after living in NYC for so long, but this is a very average building. It's tall and that's great, but the design is very forgettable. Too bad they can't magically trade designs with Frost Tower, or One American Center, One Eleven or even 100 Congress. Still, I'm excited for the potential of a new tallest in Austin.

I'm sure several of you will disagree. Please keep it civil.

New York is basically the only city in the US that isn't getting tons of bland towers, and that's because the market demands more there because of the kind of money flying around.

Even the new tallest in LA and San Fran are really value engineered. Trump Tower in Chicago is a bore.

If anything, we are spoiled with the Independent doing something beyond "tall box".

That said, this is a stately tower (and oh, no someone maligned 4WTC which is my favorite in the whole complex) and looks really nice. It's not a statement piece building, but it plays well with the skyline.

[We vs us]

I wonder if the lack of corp HQs play into this. Austin's always been a city of satellite offices and suburban office parks -- which means in part that even DT office space is, at core, interchangeable. So, after a certain level of amenity, Austin office space doesn't have to be truly signature.

If we ever reeled in a Fortune 500 and convinced them to make Austin their permanent home, I think we'd see the dynamic change quite a bit.

[JACKinBeantown]

I don't mind the balconies. I actually prefer them to a bland glass wall. They give it the all-important sense of human scale, which a single-colored glass wall simply doesn't do. I also like the stepbacks with the pools/hot tubs, and of course the CVC angled side. Everything else about this building is pretty boring.

And I'm sorry, but the Independent is not unique. There are a bunch of existing stacked-boxes buildings around the world. In fact, the Independent is nearly indistinguishable from the one in Jersey City (of which there will be three when all are built):
https://skyrisecities.com/news/2017/...unches-leasing

[deerhoof]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

I don't mind the balconies. I actually prefer them to a bland glass wall. They give it the all-important sense of human scale, which a single-colored glass wall simply doesn't do. I also like the stepbacks with the pools/hot tubs, and of course the CVC angled side. Everything else about this building is pretty boring.

And I'm sorry, but the Independent is not unique. There are a bunch of existing stacked-boxes buildings around the world. In fact, the Independent is nearly indistinguishable from the one in Jersey City (of which there will be three when all are built):
https://skyrisecities.com/news/2017/...unches-leasing

Nearly indistinguishable? That's absurd. Also, the Independent looks much better than that building.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

I don't mind the balconies. I actually prefer them to a bland glass wall. They give it the all-important sense of human scale, which a single-colored glass wall simply doesn't do. I also like the stepbacks with the pools/hot tubs, and of course the CVC angled side. Everything else about this building is pretty boring.

And I'm sorry, but the Independent is not unique. There are a bunch of existing stacked-boxes buildings around the world. In fact, the Independent is nearly indistinguishable from the one in Jersey City (of which there will be three when all are built):
https://skyrisecities.com/news/2017/...unches-leasing

Come on now. We're really going to compare the Independent to the Urby? The Independent is a much more interesting building with box sections that are tall enough to give the impression of a slender tower reaching skyward, while the Urby had all the thought of proportion put into it that went into it's super dumb name and somehow despite being 700 feet loots squatty and is hocking out low-rent apartments to 20-something junior analysts.

Urby has too boxy of proportions and is trying very hard to look like a low-rent "chaos" that 56 Leonard pulls off so well.

And while stacked boxes may not be a completely unique building design, it's something beyond the normal value engineering that you get in most high-rises outside of NYC in 2018.

[The ATX]

I compared the original elevation on the first page of this thread to the new one in the marketing brochure. The five additional levels look to be:

+1 Parking
+2 Office
+2 Residential

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Come on now. We're really going to compare the Independent to the Urby? The Independent is a much more interesting building with box sections that are tall enough to give the impression of a slender tower reaching skyward, while the Urby had all the thought of proportion put into it that went into it's super dumb name and somehow despite being 700 feet loots squatty and is hocking out low-rent apartments to 20-something junior analysts.

Urby has too boxy of proportions and is trying very hard to look like a low-rent "chaos" that 56 Leonard pulls off so well.

And while stacked boxes may not be a completely unique building design, it's something beyond the normal value engineering that you get in most high-rises outside of NYC in 2018.

It certainly is beyond the normal, I give you that. And it will be notable on Austin's skyline. But we all come to skyscraper forums (fora) to keep up with and admire the projects that we're interested in. As a result we all have access to every architectural project around the world of any significance. So we have a lot of buildings to compare at our fingertips (literally). So we're generally all aware of the many stacked boxes out there, and yes this one is similar to the one in Jersey City. It's not exactly the same, but it's pretty close. On the scale of all designs out there in the world, these two buildings are easily within 1% of each other if not much closer.

Anyway, I'm babbling and I don't want to get anybody upset. I'm just stating what I think is fairly apparent.

I'm ready and willing to get back to 600 Guadalupe.

[JACKinBeantown]

Here are the REALLY LARGE images associated with Kevin's post above. They're really really big so I'm not going to post the images themselves because they'd make you scroll down way too much. Instead, here are the links and you can click on them yourselves.

http://www.lpcaustin.com/wp-content/...-18_Page_1.jpg

http://www.lpcaustin.com/wp-content/...-18_Page_2.jpg

http://www.lpcaustin.com/wp-content/...-18_Page_3.jpg

http://www.lpcaustin.com/wp-content/...-18_Page_5.jpg

http://www.lpcaustin.com/wp-content/...-18_Page_6.jpg

http://www.lpcaustin.com/wp-content/...-18_Page_7.jpg

http://www.lpcaustin.com/wp-content/...-18_Page_8.jpg


I think #7 is the best angle followed by #2. Those views allow you to see the CVC wall, which combined with the best part of the crown (which looks complete on this side) make it look pretty good. All the other angles are not up to those standards in my opinion. The base could be better and more interesting on every side.

Austin has some great buildings. This building will be tall.