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

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by ahealy

I will say, this is not a good enough design to allow the demo of that building. Austin has no excuse to not build within older structures. There are mid-size cities with less going on that have achieved this.

Agreed.

[Jdawgboy]

I'm glad that everyone seems to be in agreement that the existing building should be preserved. Its one of my favorite in the Warehouse district along with the former Spaghetti Warehouse building. Ever since the first mention of a tower going up there, I wasn't receptive to the idea.

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't see why they don't just pick another location. There are some ugos in that area and a few more surface lots. I want this tower bad, but yeah, I also would rather not lose the few nice old buildings we have in that area.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I don't see why they don't just pick another location. There are some ugos in that area and a few more surface lots. I want this tower bad, but yeah, I also would rather not lose the few nice old buildings we have in that area.

That's a good point - there are a lot of surface parking lots around the same size even within blocks of this location.

[pscajunguy]

It seems like with few exceptions most of the buildings that have been built in Austin since Frost would be more appropriate in Lubbock and just as unattractive. It's sad that all this trash is getting built here. It's not helping the city, at all.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

It seems like with few exceptions most of the buildings that have been built in Austin since Frost would be more appropriate in Lubbock and just as unattractive. It's sad that all this trash is getting built here. It's not helping the city, at all.

... you're pretty much alone in thinking that.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

It seems like with few exceptions most of the buildings that have been built in Austin since Frost would be more appropriate in Lubbock and just as unattractive. It's sad that all this trash is getting built here. It's not helping the city, at all.

Hmmm, gotta disagree with ya there (outside of Hotel ZAZA).

We do however need to keep our standards growing over time. It's really amazing that most of us aren't impressed with this design in its current form...10-15 years ago this would've been the welcomed darling to our skyline.

[pscajunguy]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Hmmm, gotta disagree with ya there (outside of Hotel ZAZA).

We do however need to keep our standards growing over time. It's really amazing that most of us aren't impressed with this design in its current form...10-15 years ago this would've been the welcomed darling to our skyline.

I remember being impressed by Frost, One American, One Congress Plaza,101 Congress and 301 Congress. During the daytime they had a great contrast and at night, the lighting was so great. My favorite view was Frost from the old Chain Drive at night in the back patio. at least I' m glad that the W is dark and the North Shore, the Austonian stand out and Proper and the Independent will, but Austin's skyline is looking more and more like LA (boxy) and less and less like Dallas, or even Houston in diversity.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

I remember being impressed by Frost, One American, One Congress Plaza,101 Congress and 301 Congress. During the daytime they had a great contrast and at night, the lighting was so great. My favorite view was Frost from the old Chain Drive at night in the back patio. at least I' m glad that the W is dark and the North Shore, the Austonian stand out and Proper and the Independent will, but Austin's skyline is looking more and more like LA (boxy) and less and less like Dallas, or even Houston in diversity.

La Chain Dreeve you say?

I'd consider an LA comparison a compliment. Our skyline is already pretty iconic...but yes, the Austonian really gives it that Library Tower tallest LA feel.

[KevinFromTexas]

I think some people here have too high a level of expectation for residential buildings. Most residential buildings are boring in design. Just ask Florida, California, and Hawaii, among others. It's why I wasn't so excited about residential development in downtown. There are some decent standouts, but most are just another tree in the forest. They aren't marketed in the same way that office buildings are. Residential buildings are marketed more inward since people are mostly interested in the furnishings, layouts, amenities, and the location, not necessarily the exterior design. Office buildings, though, they do that too, somewhat with their interior spaces, but the location is less important unless they're centering themselves around a hub of a specific industry. Their marketing gimmick is more about the exterior to make it stand out.

No, the design isn't amazing on this one, but it's far from being the worst. I would gladly trade this design for several others we already have, even without the height.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I think some people here have too high a level of expectation for residential buildings. Most residential buildings are boring in design. Just ask Florida, California, and Hawaii, among others. It's why I wasn't so excited about residential development in downtown. There are some decent standouts, but most are just another tree in the forest. They aren't marketed in the same way that office buildings are. Residential buildings are marketed more inward since people are mostly interested in the furnishings, layouts, amenities, and the location, not necessarily the exterior design. Office buildings, though, they do that too, somewhat with their interior spaces, but the location is less important unless they're centering themselves around a hub of a specific industry. Their marketing gimmick is more about the exterior to make it stand out.

No, the design isn't amazing on this one, but it's far from being the worst. I would gladly trade this design for several others we already have, even without the height.

I agree. With residential highrises dominating the skyline, we end up with a functional skyline, it serves its purpose, providing living space downtown, with the emphasis on the inside not the outside. That's what would matter to me the most, and the view. But we do have a few standouts, Austonian, 360, and soon to be 5th and West and certainly the Independent. Hotel wise, its mostly, meh aside from the JW, perhaps the Fairmont, and hopefully a twangy Virgin. Office wise, we come up short and doesn't appear that the ones being built feel the need to stand out. Again, functional seems to be the priority. Even the Frost falls short imo, pun intended, and One American Center has only one good side, and that's its east side. Its south side looks frumpy. This one looks nice if not spectacular, I do like the fact that its not sitting on a fat pedestal. Add this to our long list of functional, practical, high rises.
As far as LA, it has a dominant plateau of tall building, I'll take our variety of height. It makes for a prettier skyline, especially from a distance.

[wwmiv]

It's an attractive building, even if it isn't stand-out. It certainly isn't ugly, let alone trash.

[Maximusx1]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It's an attractive building, even if it isn't stand-out. It certainly isn't ugly, let alone trash.

Agreed. I like this building and think it's absolutely fine. There aren't that many 'empty lots' left in that neighborhood that it could take. And it is using the useless empty lot between Sullivan's and Bob's.

We get two 500+ foot building rumors in a week (the UT block office tower and this) breaking that 400 ft. 'plateau' that everyone talks about and all yall do is complain.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Maximusx1

Agreed. I like this building and think it's absolutely fine. There aren't that many 'empty lots' left in that neighborhood that it could take. And it is using the useless empty lot between Sullivan's and Bob's.

We get two 500+ foot building rumors in a week (the UT block office tower and this) breaking that 400 ft. 'plateau' that everyone talks about and all yall do is complain.

Amen to that. Nobody ever paid any attention to the building housing Sullivan's until recently. I think there was another restaurant there for a few years (Capitol Grill or something) before Sullivan's remodeled and took over the space. Before that I have no idea, but nobody considered the structure to be iconic. It was just another underutilized building in a neighborhood with a few gay bars, small businesses, and empty storefronts. Hell, nobody ever called the neighborhood the "Warehouse District" until about 15 or 20 years ago. The name became a marketing tool for real estate types hoping to demonstrate that even Little Old Austin had its very own Warehouse District.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Maximusx1

Agreed. I like this building and think it's absolutely fine. There aren't that many 'empty lots' left in that neighborhood that it could take. And it is using the useless empty lot between Sullivan's and Bob's.

We get two 500+ foot building rumors in a week (the UT block office tower and this) breaking that 400 ft. 'plateau' that everyone talks about and all yall do is complain.

There is a lot right across the way on the southeast corner that could be built on.

Also as MichaelB meantioned, many of us have paid attention to this building as well as others in that area of DT. I think we need to remember that we can be highrise enthusiasts as well as supporters of preserving buildings that not only have history but give DT a more textured and varied mix of old and new. The existing building is in beautiful condition and there's no good reason for it to be completely demolished. Downtown may be running low on building sites but we are not there yet. We have quite a few surface lots including some right on Congress that need to go. Developers should prioritize building on those lots first.

[The ATX]

I don't have the time to watch the video right now, but if anyone wants to know what the Design Commission did/did not decide about the density bonus, the video (Item 3A) for yesterday's meeting is online:

http://austintx.swagit.com/play/07242017-860

[MichaelB]

I recall the "warehouse district" being referred to as such in the late 80s, early 90s.
It was the frontier... the cool area.... and sketchy. I was at Capitol City Playhouse a lot then....Where "Fado" is now. We were constantly looking to see what could happen in those great warehouses. We would party in and on the warehouse that was where the first AMLI went in. There were other spaces that we're artist studios. ( specifically where the big white state garage is now).
Soooo.... yeah... there were lots of people paying attending to that area early on and you are right, you can thank the gay bars for finding it first... as always.

[corvairkeith]

The "Warehouse District" has a very interesting history going back over a hundred years when it was called "Guy Town".

https://www.austinchronicle.com/feat...1-01-26/80321/

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

The "Warehouse District" has a very interesting history going back over a hundred years when it was called "Guy Town".

https://www.austinchronicle.com/feat...1-01-26/80321/

Interesting article. Sounds like the neighborhood mostly warehoused prostitutes until around 1913.

[The ATX]

For those who didn't want to spend 47 minutes watching the Design Commission's discussion about this project, the density bonus needed for this project to move forward was granted in an 8 to 1 vote.
It wasn't made clear if the Historic Landmark Commission will still have a say in the approval process. But the Design Commission didn't make a motion for it.
The GDA presentation didn't provide much new building info. But they did show a couple renderings of the streetscape:



http://austintx.swagit.com/play/07242017-860