AUSTIN | 300 Colorado | 446 FEET | 32 FLOORS | COMPLETE

[drummer]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

austintowers.net has some aerial massing renderings showing its place.

http://austin.towers.net/39-story-re...-3rd-colorado/

That's going to fill the gap to the east of the W pretty nicely, it seems.

[clubtokyo]

Originally Posted by drummer

That's going to fill the gap to the east of the W pretty nicely, it seems.

Yes the renders helped me see how it fills in gaps, and also will have great views!

[Jdawgboy]

I have mixed feelings about this proposal. I'm all for building highrises but I wish they would incorporate the existing building even if it's the facade into the project. What's the point in calling that part of DT the Warehouse District if they are going to tear down the warehouses? It's not like we have that many to begin with. It's a nice building that i'd hate to see go. If only they could build the residential tower on the surface lot caddycorner across the street.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I have mixed feelings about this proposal. I'm all for building highrises but I wish they would incorporate the existing building even if it's the facade into the project. What's the point in calling that part of DT the Warehouse District if they are going to tear down the warehouses? It's not like we have that many to begin with. It's a nice building that i'd hate to see go. If only they could build the residential tower on the surface lot caddycorner across the street.

Austin never really had a true "warehouse" district in the sense of the true term (as seen in other, larger cities). In fact, more "warehouses" were located on the land now occupied by the Second Street District than in the actual warehouse district.

Furthermore, the ground level of these new towers are taller than the existing structure. So, "incorporating" the "old" façade would be aesthetically challenging (and not to mention expensive). Too much so for most developers to even consider it in most cases.

[lzppjb]

It'd be neat if all the new towers in the district would use old style brick at street level to create a more warehouse feel.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://austin.towers.net/wp-content/...e-massing1.png

If we can get a tower on that half block west of The Austonian, that'll be a heck of a cluster of high rises there.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Austin never really had a true "warehouse" district in the sense of the true term (as seen in other, larger cities). In fact, more "warehouses" were located on the land now occupied by the Second Street District than in the actual warehouse district.

Furthermore, the ground level of these new towers are taller than the existing structure. So, "incorporating" the "old" façade would be aesthetically challenging (and not to mention expensive). Too much so for most developers to even consider it in most cases.

Those are good points and I agree that in the end, it would be more trouble to do. Izppjb's idea is something that would be a nice compromise.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Izppjb's idea is something that would be a nice compromise.

Agreed.

[KevinFromTexas]

I would like to see more preservation there, though. Of course, the parking lots need to go, and I'm good with the less old small buildings going, but the older ones that create the atmosphere of the warehouse district should be left intact. I think we still have enough land available in downtown for plenty more.

[KevinFromTexas]

The American-Statesman picked it up.

http://www.statesman.com/business/st...alldqHFZQv9kM/

And so did the Austin Business Journal.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...sullivans.html

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would like to see more preservation there, though. Of course, the parking lots need to go, and I'm good with the less old small buildings going, but the older ones that create the atmosphere of the warehouse district should be left intact. I think we still have enough land available in downtown for plenty more.

I agree. I just want some sort of street-level interaction down there. The Austonian, for instance, has a popular restaurant, a coffee shop, and stores right in the base. Same with the W, although it's a bit different since it's a hotel. Compare that with the Ashton, which is basically a leasing center and parking garage.

It'd be nice to still have something to do in this area even if you don't live in the building.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would like to see more preservation there, though. Of course, the parking lots need to go, and I'm good with the less old small buildings going, but the older ones that create the atmosphere of the warehouse district should be left intact. I think we still have enough land available in downtown for plenty more.

Agreed 100%.

[MichaelB]

First of all: My vote, save the warehouse district. It is the heart of the entire SW corner of downtowns revival. It's texture is important in making sure the city grows with depth. Even it it's just whats left on 4th and colorado, it's worth it.

Second , if a buidling with a significant facade is going to be torn down. By all means use it No excuses of scale accepted. AND Please make it a cool contrast!

Third: If you are going to build new. Build NEW. I'm not in favor of any compromised design style. Please don't use a fake brick facade if it is not in style with the rest of the building.

And last: If someone is going to all the trouble to blend the new with the old.... maybe someone should have thought about the value of the older buildings in the first place !

[KevinFromTexas]

With all the residential in the area now, what the warehouse district offers is one of the most desirable things about it. Besides, it gives a physical break in the vertical urbanity to give some breathing room for some of the residential towers. Office towers are one thing and don't need as much natural light and elbow room, nor do hotels so much, but the warehouse district offers a unique opportunity for the residential properties for that reason.

[The ATX]

The Statesman's updated article has more information:
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi...wn-aust/ns3nN/

This is a quote from the General Manager of Sullivan's:

We still have a lease for multiple years to come. We know he’s doing some research but we don’t plan on going anywhere.”

[actham]

Anybody fear that the west elevation will be a blank wall? There's no alley to protect that side.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by actham

Anybody fear that the west elevation will be a blank wall? There's no alley to protect that side.

Originally Posted by resansom

Looks like the west side is going to have a partial blank wall:



That's the west elevation, taken from the site plan PDF.

Yeah, not a whole lot you can do about that if someone has the potential to build something right up against it in the future.

[The ATX]

No new project specifics, but this is moving forward as a meeting with the city to discuss utilities is scheduled for 03/02.

[The ATX]

There was some permit activity today for the demo of the building where Sully's and Sullivan's Steakhouse are located.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=287631

[The ATX]

There was an update to the site plan application on 03/29, and it appears close to being approved. I think this one has good chance to be one of the next big projects to break ground after the White Lodging Marriott. That's largely because Riverside Resources has proven itself to be one of the most reliable local developers when it comes to getting stuff done IMO. Projects developed by White Lodging, Trammell-Crow, Endeavor and Riverside Resources seem to be viable from the onset.