It's acceptable, IMO. No bells and whistles, but it does what it's supposed to do.
If all goes as planned, it breaks the seal on a new height plateau. It'll be the new thing for anyone who aspires to anything to beat, and that's worthwhile, especially given the middling designs and heights we've seen up till now.
I dunno....you look at tall towers from the 70's-80's in other major cities and most of them are also pretty blah and typical for their time. This tower very much screams basic and typical especially for what's been built here in Austin over the last decade.
I'm hoping though that in 10 years time this tower will fade in the background as filler while being overshadowed by the super-majestic signature towers that will surely be built at 308 Guadalupe and the Post Office site
I'm partial to the Devon Tower in Ok city as far as design, I like that it is unified from ground up. No breaks or set backs, sleek and tall. It looks totally out of place there imo, but would look awesome here. Even at under 900ft. This is kind of what I'm waiting for for Austin and I think a building like this would cement our skyline as a serious contender for being truly world class, again imo. It could be said that that sort of design is pretty much standard / genetic for most if not all major cities, but its what Austin lacks and needs to get our skyline to the next level. That being said, I guess I'm just caught up with the size and scope of 600 Guadalupe as was earlier suggested might be the reason we like it. For me it depends on the angle. I have my reservations about the design, but I am anxious to see this thing get built. Like Kevin, I think I'll like it once it is.
Some of the photos way back in August are very nice and it seems sleeker. I think the North face looks great. It would nice to doll up the crown as well. That picture Chiveman did with the arched top and spire would be jaw dropping!
I think it's that particular rendering that makes this building worse than it should and up. The color renderings do a much better job. I won't be as critical about the overall design other than they should try to improve the street interaction. Also the blank wall facing north should be changed. Having such lovely Victorian era along with the historical house on the lot with a giant blank wall looming over is unbecoming.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Blank walls should have some sculpted designs incorporated into them.
Or project colorful moving light shows on them at night similar to the Aurora Borealis.
Isn't that what lighting engineers/artists are for?
George Blume posted a couple renders, one for certain is 600 and I believe the other is too. I always hope the green space on the roof makes it to the final build but costs always seems to make those get toned down. The ground level retail could be interesting and have decent interaction, just depends on the tenant. It's also just begging for a complimentary friend on that post office site.
The original design for the parking deck siding was far better/more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than this cheap, dumbed-down version. Very disappointing.
__________________ AUSTIN (City): 993,588+3.30% - '20-'24 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,550,637+11.70% - '20-'24 SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,526,656+6.41% - '20-'24 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,763,006+8.01% - '20-'24 AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,313,643+9.75% - '20-'24 | *SRC: US Census*
So this latest grayscale rendering was driving me nuts -- the proportions of the building seemed different (fatter) than what we've seen before. I realized it could just be the angle, and that this angled side of the building is going to do funny things in a 2D render, so I went back through the thread to compare. I think that we have seen some changes in the the proportions of the building and the CVC angle side, particularly from some of the 3D printed models (see the black model). I wonder if that was for a taller version of the tower, and that at the 840' height the residential section had to be fattened to offer more square footage? I also noticed more design changes than I expected.
Anyway, it's such a pain to scroll back through these threads. I really wish this site allowed you to collect the renderings of a building all in one place. So I went ahead and grabbed a bunch to collect here:
I really like these 3D printed models. I feel like it's easier to understand the dimensions of the building than it is in the renderings. If these are accurate and it ends up looking like this, I'll be thrilled:
I tend to agree with the feeling on this tower's design. This could have been such an iconic tower. BUT, at least it's going to set a new standard for height in Austin!
Glad you pulled all those pics together . . . because you CAN see the design evolution. AND the shrinkage. It's getting thicker because it's getting shorter, IMO. And less and less interesting.
Let's not go overboard here. "Shrinkage?" The building has only "lost" about 30' in height from the initial design renderings. That's a minute decrease when considering a building of roughly 850' in height.
__________________ AUSTIN (City): 993,588+3.30% - '20-'24 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,550,637+11.70% - '20-'24 SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,526,656+6.41% - '20-'24 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,763,006+8.01% - '20-'24 AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,313,643+9.75% - '20-'24 | *SRC: US Census*
Prev
Linear Mode
