AUSTIN | 500 West 2nd Street | 400 FEET - 28 FLOORS | COMPLETE - Page 3

KevinFromTexas · #41 Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by texboy

Hate to say, but this would be the typical suburban office tower in Houston.

Seconded - or rather "thirded". I agree. It's a whole lotta meh for me. This and even Colorado Tower are so...business like. I know they're office towers and so they are about business, but they're pretty boring actually. I know not every building can be like the Frost Bank Tower, but so far I'm liking the residential buildings we've been getting way more than the office proposals. I think this building will have nice elements, but from afar it'll just be another one in the pack.

This is a good example of why I'd like to see more mixed use towers. Office towers typically like to have large floorplates since companies don't want their workers spread across multiple floors. This decreases the chance and ability to have interesting setbacks or not having them be some hulking mass of meh. I'd rather see office floors on the lower part of a tower with residential or hotel stacked on top in setback floors to break up the monotony.

I don't know. This building will be hidden pretty well, so it's not so bad I guess. It probably won't even show up in a lot of skyline views.

GoldenBoot · #42 Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 10:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by texboy

Hate to say, but this would be the typical suburban office tower in Houston.

If you said it...you really did not "hate" to do so.

However, I agree with you. Austin has a mere 2 million people. When compared to a city of 6.5 million...this tower is the norm in suburbia. It will be at least 40 years before this type of structure will be "the norm" in suburban Austin.

HoustonHorns · #43 Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 5:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by texboy

Hate to say, but this would be the typical suburban office tower in Houston.

Come on, it's not that bad. Yea, it's not the best dessign, but this looks much better than anything going up in the Energy Corridor to me. At least there isn't a hulking, concrete parking garage in front of it. It looks pretty good from ground-level and the parking seems to be well-hidden (it might even be underground). I think it'll turn out kind of like the Bowie where it looks nice from some angles and bulky from others. But overall, I think it'll be very good infill for the area.

austlar1 · #44 Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 6:39 AM**

It is the largest new office building built downtown since Frost. It is not bad looking for a small to medium sized office building. Downtown Austin does not have all that much Class A office space compared to other cities of similar size. I am thrilled (and somewhat surprised) that it is going up without any major tenants being announced. It is a real vote of confidence in the immediate prospects for downtown Austin. Hopefully some of the people working in this building will decide to live downtown. I think having more workers (and jobs) downtown makes for a healthier long term residential market downtown. Nobody is talking about it, but if all the proposed residential projects downtown actually get built, there is going to be a LOT of product hitting the market around the same time. I think critics should chill a bit about this building. It will make a nice addition to downtown.

The ATX · #45 Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 5:45 PM**

Here's a street level view from 2nd St. Those are retail spaces on each side of the lobby. These are from the Design Commission link in LoneStarMike's post.

From the North.

Tech House · #46 Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonHorns

Come on, it's not that bad. Yea, it's not the best dessign, but this looks much better than anything going up in the Energy Corridor to me. At least there isn't a hulking, concrete parking garage in front of it. It looks pretty good from ground-level and the parking seems to be well-hidden (it might even be underground). I think it'll turn out kind of like the Bowie where it looks nice from some angles and bulky from others. But overall, I think it'll be very good infill for the area.

I agree. I hated the design at first and then decided I liked it, Kevin liked it and now doesn't, others have been more consistent in liking or disliking it. It's continuing to grow on me. I still can't buy into the Northshore with its 3-tier graduated box design. I find that thing to be hideous, yet it's popular with many on the forum who seem to be more knowledgeable about architecture.

The worst feature about 500 W 2nd is its bulk/length, especially in that it faces Auditorium Shores. But if bulk is necessary for office buildings then so be it; we need more than just residential, hotels, and entertainment downtown.

Syndic · #47 Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 7:44 PM**

Without the indentions it looks almost identical to the J.W. Marriott from the north.

lzppjb · #48 Posted **Jan 25, 2015, 12:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech House

I agree. I hated the design at first and then decided I liked it, Kevin liked it and now doesn't, others have been more consistent in liking or disliking it. It's continuing to grow on me. I still can't buy into the Northshore with its 3-tier graduated box design. I find that thing to be hideous, yet it's popular with many on the forum who seem to be more knowledgeable about architecture.

The worst feature about 500 W 2nd is its bulk/length, especially in that it faces Auditorium Shores. But if bulk is necessary for office buildings then so be it; we need more than just residential, hotels, and entertainment downtown.

I don't mind this one. It's a bit squatty, though.

As for Northshore, I think many posters didn't like it when it was first announced. The color has changed a bit since then, but the tiered portion has remained the same. I've liked it since the start. I really like the tiered look, and am looking forward to seeing how they feature that waterfall-esque facade on the south side.

Jdawgboy · #49 Posted **Jan 25, 2015, 6:52 AM**

My biggest gripe about it is (you guessed it).. it's height. I understand that companies like to have as many of their employees on one floor if possible but because of it's placement with regards to North Shore, it should be the taller of the two. If the lighting is going to be the same ol bland white lighting that seems the norm with these office towers, I wonder how many residents facing the north would like the flood of light at eye level or even looking down from the higher floors?

wwmiv · #50 Posted **Jan 25, 2015, 7:07 AM**

I don't think this tower will have a lighting component at all. The design does not seem to hint at one at all.

KevinFromTexas · #51 Posted **Jan 25, 2015, 10:07 PM**

My guess is they'll light that indented box on the left side of the building along with the one on the other side (north side). That would give it an interesting lighting design without being too visible to residents of the two residential buildings. They'll also probably have some ceiling lights in those notches to light those spaces.

That indented box on the corner of the building wraps around two sides. They could outline the edges of it with lights similar to what they did with the Bowie. Dallas has One Arts Plaza which has a box on its upper floors that they line with lights at night. It's a very distinctive feature of their skyline at night.

http://dallasconciergeconnection.com...ne-arts-plaza/

SkyPie · #52 Posted **Jan 25, 2015, 10:39 PM**

The dusk rendering on page one of this thread seems to indicate the top will be lit.

wwmiv · #53 Posted **Jan 25, 2015, 11:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyPie

The dusk rendering on page one of this thread seems to indicate the top will be lit.

Hmm. Maybe that screen will be lit from behind? That'll be interesting.

_Matt · #54 Posted **Jan 26, 2015, 5:36 AM**

Great to see more Class A office space downtown. Continues to make the case for transit and downtown residential density.

texboy · #55 Posted **Jan 26, 2015, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

If you said it...you really did not "hate" to do so.

However, I agree with you. Austin has a mere 2 million people. When compared to a city of 6.5 million...this tower is the norm in suburbia. It will be at least 40 years before this type of structure will be "the norm" in suburban Austin.

Lol. He's got commentary. I do actually 'hate to say' as I would prefer to say "I love this". I won't be holding my opinion back to only the designs of the 'love' or 'like' category.

Any who. I am definitely glad to see the Austin market actually building significant office space downtown. Whats the point of all this residential if the folks living there have to hike it out to Round Rock to work! I wouldn't call this a totally bad design, either. Just not very imaginative.

AusTxDevelopment · #56 Posted **Feb 13, 2015, 4:00 PM**

CBRE posted a flipbook online with lots of renderings and elevations for this project: http://online.flipbuilder.com/yspl/gvbz/#p=1

I didn't take the time to pull any of the renderings from the flipbook to post here, but below is the advertisement they emailed to brokers. Its funny how the skewed rendering in the ad looks like a completely different building than the boxy rendering that has been recently circulating. I'm not surprised they used skewed rendering in the ad - it makes the building look more interesting.

SkyPie · #57 Posted **Feb 15, 2015, 11:08 PM**

2.15.2015

KevinFromTexas · #58 Posted **Feb 16, 2015, 1:27 AM**

It may not be so bulky after all. That's a pretty skinny footprint.

IluvATX · #59 Posted **Feb 16, 2015, 1:41 AM**

Will the south side of this just be a mirror of the north? I haven't seen any renderings with the south elevation.

Jdawgboy · #60 Posted **Feb 16, 2015, 5:37 AM**

It's a thin footprint but it's long and takes the full length of the block. It won't look bulky from the east or west but will be bulky and wall like from the north or south.