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

[KevinFromTexas]

Did I mention that I like this building? Because I do.

Anyway, on Austin's skyline's pattern of progression and our seeming propensity for plateauedness, it seems to me that throughout its history, at least in modern times, (you know, since the 70s haha), that Austin's skyline has grown in tiers. First, it was a new level (literally) of downtown development when we stepped up to 300+ feet with 200 footers filling in some gaps, and the two made up the bulk of our skyline until the 80s. In the 80s it was like the 70s, but on steroids with many more 300 footers and 200 footers adding more bulk. The 90s were uneventful without a single 200 footer finished that decade. The last two decades, though, has seen our skyline again take another step up where we saw 400 footers really for the first time (since it wasn't until only a few years ago that we realized the One American Center is actually 401 feet). There was even a 500 footer in the mix (Frost), but the bulk of what we got was 400 feet, a step up from the 80s. Now it seems like we might be in for a new era where we see more 500 footers filling things in a bit as the 400 footers did before and more 600 footers crowning that darn plateau. It has me wondering what the next decade or two will bring and how many more 600 footers and possibly 700 footers and even 800 footers we'll see. Our skyline has grown exponentially over the years even on a consistent level of progression of height. I don't think that we'll be stuck with this 400 foot plateau forever (obviously). I think it's just that 400 feet is a such a step up from 300 feet that it's much more noticeable, even from my neighborhood.

[MichaelB]

DAMN.... SUPER generic.
I am not for design commissions guiding aesthetics .... but damn...
Can this one just fail until something better comes along.
Not worth loosing the atmosphere over.

NEXT .

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

DAMN.... SUPER generic.
I am not for design commissions guiding aesthetics .... but damn...
Can this one just fail until something better comes along.
Not worth loosing the atmosphere over.

NEXT .

Wow, this forum is indeed a house divided.

BTW ATX, I did watch most of the meeting, it was late and I couldn't sleep. This helped a lot...with me getting sleepy that is I was hoping a brawl would break out with someone throwing a shoe or something. Interesting that they are planning on replacing 4 to 6 in diameter trees with 5 inch trees. He said most were 4 inch trees which would be a step up and only a few 6 inch trees would be a step down. I like that they admit that after the construction, they were "obligated"... in writing??, to return the street area back to the original condition, including the benches that would have to be removed. The reps did seem well prepared aside from needing to refer to their references a few times and needing to further research a few questions. The one particular guy on the commission made it clear that the building in question for demolition was not a historic landmark at this time and made it clear they are not advocating its demolition by documenting that point, leaving it up to the Historic Landmark Comm. to decide its fate. Riveting...lol

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

DAMN.... SUPER generic.
I am not for design commissions guiding aesthetics .... but damn...
Can this one just fail until something better comes along.
Not worth loosing the atmosphere over.

NEXT .

Ugh agreed. They could at least improve the street interaction on what I assume is Colorado.

Although I do like the tower design overall...it would be nice to see them preserve the Sullivan's facade and maybe incorporate brick into the building design to compliment it.

[The ATX]

Community Impact watched the video too. They confirmed that this goes to the Historic Landmark Commission next. Apparently a demo permit alone will cause a project to go the Historic Landmark Commission.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...oser-approval/

[We vs us]

Yeah, I'm on Team Not Awesome for this one . . . at least for design aesthetics.

It would be nice if they could incorporate the historic facade into whatever they're doing, but to me that's not really a priority. It's pretty clear that what we think of as the Warehouse District isn't really very long for the world anyway, without more formalized protection.

What IS a priority for me is to start seeing buildings in prominent skyline spots start to look less like they were ordered from a Sears catalog circa 1995 and more like they were created for a booming and ambitious metropolis. As a former Chicagoan, I can tell you unequivocally that Austin needs more Daniel Burnham ("make no small plans") in its collective soul.

[lzppjb]

You all know I'm a guy that loves to keep the historic buildings. But this building is nothing special. It's ~80 years old and just plain brick. I won't lose any sleep if it's torn down.

If they reused the old brick, that'd be pretty cool and a nod to the past.

That being said, I like the height of this proposal. It's nothing special, though.

Meh (w/ height) replacing Meh.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Meh (w/ height) replacing Meh.

[Jdawgboy]

I wonder if it's possible to contact the historical commission for public input. If they are going to build it then fine but at least keep the facade.

[ATXPhil]

I'm just glad to see a project finally get upsized from the original proposal. The only other time I can recall that happening lately is Hotel Mirabeau going from 24 stories when proposed as "Waterloo Park Hotel" to 31-33 stories in the most recent proposal. I also think this new proposal actually has a good chance of getting built as proposed since Riverside Resources has a good track record of coming through with their projects.

While the design is nothing spectacular in and of itself, it isn't hideous, and should compliment the other 500'+ buildings in the area well. The flat top of this building will go well with the pointy "owl ears" of the Frost Tower and curved top of the Austonian above the 400' plateau in front of them around the Congress area tower cluster when looking from the South. I consider the new design to be a slight upgrade from the original proposal which would have looked an awful lot like a thicker version of the Spring Tower.

Here's a refresher of the original proposal: http://austin.towers.net/39-story-re...-3rd-colorado/

[KevinFromTexas]

This says it would be the 4th tallest, but it's actually the 5th tallest. The Independent, The Austonian, Fairmont Hotel and 360 Condos would each be taller.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...oser-approval/

315-unit luxury apartment skyscraper proposed for downtown Austin moves closer to approval

If approved, the building at 300 Colorado St. would be the fourth-tallest building in the city's skyline

A 44-story, 315-unit luxury apartment skyscraper moved one step closer to taking the place of the one-story Sullivan’s Steakhouse at 300 Colorado St., Austin, after the city’s Design Commission approved the plans on Monday night.

The proposal now heads to the Historic Landmark Commission as the developer, Austin 3C Venture LP, has requested a demolition permit for the more-than-80-year-old, one-story, brick facade building that sits on the southern end of downtown’s Warehouse District.

Although the plans passed 8-1, commissioners voiced concern over the historic significance of the site. Though they said the Warehouse District is not an official historic district, commissioners said it is one recognized by longtime residents. Rather than demolish the structure—out of which Sullivan’s Steakhouse still operates—commissioners expressed a desire to maintain its character on at least the ground floor, which is planned to operate as a commercial space.

[The ATX]

Here's the Statesman's version. It's been out since about 5:00PM yesterday, and there are no hateful comments about all sorts of things (at the time of my posting.)

http://www.mystatesman.com/business/...2Q0b1bseiKKgM/

[clubtokyo]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Here's the Statesman's version. It's been out since about 5:00PM yesterday, and there are no hateful comments about all sorts of things (at the time of my posting.)

http://www.mystatesman.com/business/...2Q0b1bseiKKgM/

There is a shit ton of hateful comments on the Statesmen Facebook post about this tower.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

There is a shit ton of hateful comments on the Statesmen Facebook post about this tower.

The haters have since been distracted by 6th & Guadalupe. LOL.

[The ATX]

The sentiment expressed during the Design Commission meeting (as well as on here) seems to be more about saving the Warehouse District in general and not so much about saving this particular building. If anyone other than me watched that exciting meeting video, the developers did consider the character of the Warehouse District with the design at street level. They purposely chose to use stones/bricks of a small size and of a color to fit with the area. This is from the meeting presentation:

[MichaelB]

happy to take the possibly minority view here.
Glad the city it taking action to look at historical status of what warehouses are left.
Glad they are getting off their ass about this.
It it the nature and fabric of the warehouses that caused this area of town to blossom when it did. To loose this all is to loose a great depth and texture in the urban landscape.

I disagree that this is a parallel to the CVC. The CCV was a created entity that was overlaid over the city. It did suck for the values of some property. AND also caused other property to increase in value.
Having buildings designated historical can happen at any moment in a process and anyone involved in this project knows that.

The developers knew this could be designated historical. If you recall , they lied about it in their applications.....( scroll up to find). Why else would they do that if they weren't trying to slip this in under the radar. Obviously they have no interest in the fabric of the city.
Besides.... thats one bland filler design.

I think we have so many projects happening its great to be more selective and work to not be another generic city.

Have at it ya'll... just think where you want to live and why before you tell me there is no value in less generic more unique design and cites.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

happy to take the possibly minority view here.
Glad the city it taking action to look at historical status of what warehouses are left.
Glad they are getting off their ass about this.
It it the nature and fabric of the warehouses that caused this area of town to blossom when it did. To loose this all is to loose a great depth and texture in the urban landscape.

I disagree that this is a parallel to the CVC. The CCV was a created entity that was overlaid over the city. It did suck for the values of some property. AND also caused other property to increase in value.
Having buildings designated historical can happen at any moment in a process and anyone involved in this project knows that.

The developers knew this could be designated historical. If you recall , they lied about it in their applications.....( scroll up to find). Why else would they do that if they weren't trying to slip this in under the radar. Obviously they have no interest in the fabric of the city.
Besides.... thats one bland filler design.

I think we have so many projects happening its great to be more selective and work to not be another generic city.

Have at it ya'll... just think where you want to live and why before you tell me there is no value in less generic more unique design and cites.

Well, I happen to agree with you. I would hate to see the building housing Sullivan's go. Without me getting on a soapbox about how cool Austin used to be back in the day, I agree we can't get rid of ALL the establishments that were the catalyst of bringing the progress and growth we are seeing today. Just as important to me, not building tall on that lot will at least open up that area to a bit more sky and an openness feel. Not every part of town needs to be incredibly dense, not at the mercy of the few recognizable establishments and buildings we have left. I do think that block should be left alone.

[urbancore]

the coolest thing about this building is that is was a brothel.

I don't see anything "historic" about this building other than it's old memories for me and my friends partying in the warehouse district in the early 90's.

I won't miss it one bit, if I'm being honest.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

the coolest thing about this building is that is was a brothel.

I don't see anything "historic" about this building other than it's old memories for me and my friends partying in the warehouse district in the early 90's.

I won't miss it one bit, if I'm being honest.

Having family in Austin and spending a lot of time in that area when I was in school, I would definitely not consider that specific building historic either (especially after reading the documents presented to the commission).

It's not even 100 years old. It is not architecturally significant. It's been heavily altered already. And, nothing interesting has happened within its walls (save the brothel which once occupied a part of it).

Maybe Riverside Resources can work with the commission and agree to save as much of the façade and incorporate it into the new structure. This idea has already been proposed on this thread - and I like it.

I smell an expensive lawsuit coming if the city tries to kill this project via a piecemeal historic zoning. If the city wanted to "save" this district, they should have done so YEARS ago.

[drummer]

Rather than preserve this building, maybe just having some historic feel (brick warehouse appearance) on the lower floors could suffice. That way it would at least match the area to a degree without having to mess with utilizing the existing facade, especially if it would require significant changes from their plans (not sure if it would).