AUSTIN | Waterline | 1,034 Feet | 73 Floors | T/O

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by TXLove

I just cant get with the crown. It ruins it for me. If the crown were finished centered with a spire, Im thinking 1/2 the length of Fairmont's spire then maybe. The off centered top makes it look like a graduation cap, just need a tassle to hang from the side lol I guess thats ironic it looks like that since Austin would be graduating to supertall status.

Yeah, I actually agree. I wonder how much of a pain it would be for them to straighten out the lines and add a little to this one....

Y'all know how I feel about the lazy disjointed lines trend

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Yeah, I actually agree. I wonder how much of a pain it would be for them to straighten out the lines and add a little to this one....

Y'all know how I feel about the lazy disjointed lines trend

i think the diagonal lines on skyscrapers will be very regrettable to everyone in hindsight. hilton on rainey incorporates it a bit and it is quite ghastly. the lack of symmetry is also very frustrating. that's architecture 101 stuff

[lonewolf]

It's almost unbelievable to be honest. It seems to intentionally disobey every rule of aesthetic building at scale. I keep on waiting for the "april fools" moment

[the Genral]

We seem to be leaning towards office / residential mixes. Aside from the Quincy which is done almost seamlessly, this may be the future. While I agree with all the less than stellar remarks about this one, especially the crown, I'm still amazed about how cynical we've become, including me, when discussing a supertall we're finally getting, and how unorthodox it is. The bright side I see here, is that it is unconventional, controversial, and certainly different, good or bad. I used to have a problem with 6X, but after seeing this, I'm much happier with it because its more cohesive floor to roof. Once this reaches new heights, I think we will be blown away by the shear scope of it, if not the aesthetics. Until then, we can only hope for some design changes, but with a 600 page design document already produced, I find that unlikely, so I'm going to try to embrace this for what it is.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by the Genral

We seem to be leaning towards office / residential mixes. Aside from the Quincy which is done almost seamlessly, this may be the future. While I agree with all the less than stellar remarks about this one, especially the crown, I'm still amazed about how cynical we've become, including me, when discussing a supertall we're finally getting, and how unorthodox it is. The bright side I see here, is that it is unconventional, controversial, and certainly different, good or bad. I used to have a problem with 6X, but after seeing this, I'm much happier with it because its more cohesive floor to roof. Once this reaches new heights, I think we will be blown away by the shear scope of it, if not the aesthetics. Until then, we can only hope for some design changes, but with a 600 page design document already produced, I find that unlikely, so I'm going to try to embrace this for what it is.

Tell us how you feel about Third + Shoal.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by freerover

Tell us how you feel about Third + Shoal.

I have fully embraced it and LOVE the way they covered the parking garage. A benchmark, to be sure!!!

[chinchaaa]

I can accept this tower EXCEPT the crown. It just looks awful. I would care less if it wasn't in a prime spot right on the waterfront and will be inescapable in every single picture.

[urbancore]

let the haters, hate...

gimme gimme gimme

I'll take it.

[drummer]

I've read a lot of comments about the crown. I personally don't mind it as a part of the rest of the design, which is asymmetrical and an overall broken-up design. I would not like it on a more symmetrical building. However, for those of you who like this building except for the crown, what alternative crown would you prefer? Just curious.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by drummer

I've read a lot of comments about the crown. I personally don't mind it as a part of the rest of the design, which is asymmetrical and an overall broken-up design. I would not like it on a more symmetrical building. However, for those of you who like this building except for the crown, what alternative crown would you prefer? Just curious.

Something like this...
http://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/db0001.jpg

https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/...n_imresolt.jpg

or this...

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/160/39...43d4f0bf_b.jpg
Now that's a crown!

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Something like this...

http://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/db0001.jpg

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

That hurts....

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by the Genral

That hurts....

Sorry I just think it looks very Dubai/Miami-esque tacky...my personal opinion, nothing against you

[kingkirbythe....]

I don’t think it’s about being a “hater“. It’s more about wanting a higher quality of something. The more I look at this building, the more I see three unremarkable buildings stacked on top of each other. I loved this building at first. I was swept up in the fact that Austin would get a supertall. Once that sunk in, I began to look at the quality of that supertall. Frankly, I feel this one is lacking in quality and is at best mediocre.

On a different note, I thought I remember Austin having an ordinance about how tall buildings could be close to the lake. Possibly some sort of height rising as you went away from the river? Maybe I’m just thinking of the university overlay height system in West Campus.

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by kingkirbythe....

I don’t think it’s about being a “hater“. It’s more about wanting a higher quality of something. The more I look at this building, the more I see three unremarkable buildings stacked on top of each other. I loved this building at first. I was swept up in the fact that Austin would get a supertall. Once that sunk in, I began to look at the quality of that supertall. Frankly, I feel this one is lacking in quality and is at best mediocre.

On a different note, I thought I remember Austin having an ordinance about how tall buildings could be close to the lake. Possibly some sort of height rising as you went away from the river? Maybe I’m just thinking of the university overlay height system in West Campus.

never clarify or rebut labels others put on you! this is an opinion community, fire away!

can't recall any setback laws in regards to our waterfront though

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

can't recall any setback laws in regards to our waterfront though

Northshore, Austin Proper and Block 185 are examples of buildings designed to comply with waterfront setback requirements.

[The ATX]

We've had this discussion in other threads - early in the Quincy thread comes to mind - but buildings near the lake need a "distinct top". And an angled roof is one way to meet that requirement. The probably never gonna be built Ikon Tower had an angled roof as well.

[kingkirbythe....]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

never clarify or rebut labels others put on you! this is an opinion community, fire away!

[KevinFromTexas]

The top isn't my favorite, but admittedly, I'm not sure how I would change it if I could. Most modern towers these days are symmetrical, so seeing this one being very asymmetrical does make it a bit strange. I was trying to think of what other towers might be like it and only came up with 30 Hudson Yards in New York, F5 Tower in Seattle, and 181 Fremont in San Francisco.

I could see the design of the tops of 30 Hudson Yards and 181 Fremont being applied to 98 Red River, or even F5 Tower, though, neither of those are exact matches either when trying to think about how to do the top of an asymmetrical tower. I think one thing I would change with 98 Red River's crown is to have the columns in the southwest corner of the crown flipped upside down so that they're /\ shaped instead of \/. That would set up a design at the peak of the roof where you could carry that design up with a spire on the southwest corner of the roof. I'm not crazy about spires, but I don't think it would look bad here. Just look at 181 Fremont to see. 30 Hudson Yards might be a tougher fit for the roof here since you'd have to somehow mesh the crown with the rest of the facade, and 30 Hudson Yards does that well, but having no columns and just a curtain wall like the the rest of the tower's facade might not look right with the brick like facade because you'd have to figure out how to make that strange since the brick pattern would be cut off by the angled roof.

30 Hudson Yards
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=95171

181 Fremont
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=67666

F5 Tower
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=69837

[MichaelB]

I'm just gonna vote for "like it".
Cool vibe.