AUSTIN | The Independent | 690 FEET | 58 FLOORS | Complete

[ivanwolf]

There is so much wrong with this render.

360 looks to big or the Independent to small.

They show an unannounced 3 story building at Cesar Chavez and Shoal Creek with windows facing the creek?

Austin Proper is nowhere near its prior renders. Unless you look closely at the left edge of the forward building and it could be behind the 3/20 story building with maybe the three vertical window sections?

Seholm seems to block the Monarch completely from this view? No not right.

Bowie is stubby in this render.

I count:
7
17
1 Amenity Level
10
14
1 Amenity Level on Podium
6 Garage Levels, assuming half top, half bottom slopes
2 tall ground levels
= 58 levels to stand on the offset Lego Building

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

http://www.independentaustin.com


Look at the floor-to-ceiling height differential between 360 and Independent. Seems to be quite a disparity. Even a 6" to 12" difference in ceiling height can make a huge impact on the feel of the space.

[IluvATX]

I don't think these renders are meant to be entirely accurate.

[KevinFromTexas]

I got a message back from someone at The Independent's Facebook page, and they said:

"the height of the building extends from ground level to its highest point, and includes all visual elements on the building."

[GoldenBoot]

So, this building would have been roughly 745'-755' with the 4 levels of office (which were removed from the development plan). If only the Independent's floor-to-ceiling height was at least equal to that of the Austonian or the W.

Well, we now know that the Independent will be lower than the Austonian when measuring height above sea level.

In any case, the silver lining in this whole deal is if it actually gets built. And I really hope it does. It will look good in the skyline.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I got a message back from someone at The Independent's Facebook page, and they said:

"the height of the building extends from ground level to its highest point, and includes all visual elements on the building."

Well that certainly clears that up I 'm sure they are enjoying the attention they are getting from us. And how long will it take to build? From ground breaking, to the last screw...there, I beat them to the punch...

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I got a message back from someone at The Independent's Facebook page, and they said:

"the height of the building extends from ground level to its highest point, and includes all visual elements on the building."

Assholes.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Assholes.

[KevinFromTexas]

^We really have become spoiled.

Anyway, I won't be satisfied until I see the building elevations. Then we'll all know for sure how tall it'll be.

[Jdawgboy]

I will say they should cut back on the whole tallest all residential west of the Mississippi crap. In terms of floor count yea they will have the most but 2 feet is just not noticable especially if it's 10' lower in elevation then it won't look taller at all.

They may get irritated but one of us should point that out on their page lol.

All in all it's still the tallest building since the Austonian was completed finally something over 400-500 and then some. Now my attention will turn to Waller Park Place to see what they will ultimately come up with.

[Austinite101]

If Waller produces something that's taller than Independent, they'll probably feel pretty dumb about trumpeting "Tallest Building in Austin". If only that would tempt them to one-up Waller

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Austinite101

If Waller produces something that's taller than Independent, they'll probably feel pretty dumb about trumpeting "Tallest Building in Austin". If only that would tempt them to one-up Waller

Or perhaps they have insider information on all the major construction projects in Austin, so they may already know what's up with Waller.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by Austinite101

If Waller produces something that's taller than Independent, they'll probably feel pretty dumb about trumpeting "Tallest Building in Austin". If only that would tempt them to one-up Waller

Waller Park Place Tower #2 could very well break ground before the Independent tops out, meaning they really can't advertise it as the "Tallest residential tower west of the Mississippi"

Plus, only 2 ft taller than the Austonian. I just don't understand the thought process behind going this far, and not guaranteeing a building that will actually be the tallest when taking into account sea-level elevation. The W and Austonian have 12 ft ceilings right? I think 70 Rainey will as well. We're looking at about 756' if Aspen Heights and Perry Lorenz realize that they have to put their money where their mouth is and give this one 12' ceilings.

Giving this building the "luxury standard" ceiling height levels the competition it's going to have with 70 Rainey, and the Austonian. Plus, Austin Proper could even have 12 ft ceilings, and then where does that leave the Independent. This is already a project with significant costs, why would they choose to go home instead of going big?

I have no problem with the current height of the building. Either way, I'm ecstatic to see it get built. I just think in some ways it is false advertising to tout this as Austin's tallest and an icon. Crack 700' before you make it an icon.

[Tech House]

A building like this in Austin would thrill me more than anything. And yes, I am serious. I absolutely love this!

Originally Posted by tonystark

I think it looks more like a swanky version of Mukesh Ambani's house in india:

[ILUVSAT]

Anyone else notice that Urbanspace's marketing for the Independent is not so "independent" in and of itself? Take a look at the marketing for 56 Leonard in New York...see some similarities?

Plagiarism? Maybe not exactly, but, pretty darn close.

Kind of pathetic, Kevin Burns, and your Urbanspace team.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Anyone else notice that Urbanspace's marketing for the Independent is not so "independent" in and of itself? Take a look at the marketing for 56 Leonard in New York...see some similarities?

Plagiarism? Maybe not exactly, but, pretty darn close.

Kind of pathetic, Kevin Burns, and your Urbanspace team.

Not even close... Sorry, but totally am not seeing it.

[KevinFromTexas]

Well I do remember Ahealy referencing that building when he was hinting at what we might expect. I also remember reading that they had gone to New York for inspiration. I wonder if they spoke with the designs/developers of 56 Leonard.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Well I do remember Ahealy referencing that building when he was hinting at what we might expect. I also remember reading that they had gone to New York for inspiration. I wonder if they spoke with the designs/developers of 56 Leonard.

I do, too, and I see how it might have been influenced by the marketing campaign, but in no way does this even come close to plagiarism.

[KevinFromTexas]

Oh man, there are some buildings in Asia that were clearly inspired by American buildings. There's even one supertall in China that closely resembles the Frost Bank Tower.

This is a pretty cool thread that highlights some of the "twins".

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ighlight=alike

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Oh man, there are some buildings in Asia that were clearly inspired by American buildings. There's even one supertall in China that closely resembles the Frost Bank Tower.

This is a pretty cool thread that highlights some of the "twins".

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ighlight=alike

I can't find the Frost resembling tower. Can you link specifically to that post?

[KevinFromTexas]

Oh yeah, that thread is old. I can't remember the name of the city it's in, but it really does resemble it.