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

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by 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).

They've already committed to that.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

They've already committed to that.

Oh, I misunderstood that. I've not been reading the thread very thoroughly while traveling. Thanks for the clarification.

[eskimo33]

I have never been a big fan of incorporating facade's into a buildings designs it seems like most of them end up being not all that well incorporated (at least here in Austin).
Look at 300 N Lamar
I think they should have at least extended the colour pallet down the entire side of the building, It currently looks like someone superglued this weird facade on the side. I would have preferred to see a continuation of the design for the entire side. However, I could see how some might feel that by continuing the design, it might be not truly representing the historic character.
I am sure that there are other examples around town, but this is the only one that I can think of..

[H2O]

Originally Posted by eskimo33

I have never been a big fan of incorporating facade's into a buildings designs it seems like most of them end up being not all that well incorporated (at least here in Austin).
Look at 300 N Lamar
I think they should have at least extended the colour pallet down the entire side of the building, It currently looks like someone superglued this weird facade on the side. I would have preferred to see a continuation of the design for the entire side. However, I could see how some might feel that by continuing the design, it might be not truly representing the historic character.
I am sure that there are other examples around town, but this is the only one that I can think of..

I generally agree, but the Dumas Blacksmith Shop façade incorporated into the podium of the Austonian is a very successful example of rebuilding an historic façade with a modern building.

https://goo.gl/maps/mmTX7Ahm1P92

I think they key was wrapping the façade around the corner a few feet, and the neutral band above the cornice line.

[ATXPhil]

Nice! I'm excited for another 500'+ tower. It's a big win for the city's affordable housing fund too. $2.8MM will go a long way. Glad the Historical Commission came to their senses.

[MichaelB]

Really do not want this building to happen.
encroachment on the warehouse district is not a good thing for the long
term texture and interest of downtown.

I was walking into that district this week and felt that sense of vibrancy you just don't get from canyons of new generic buildings.... which this one will be.
It is filler with no public space and very generic street level design.

I encourage more of you to actually be.... exist....walk.....live.... downtown before so enthusiastically wanting it to become "anywhere" USA.
The days of "oh yeah something big" really need to be gone. We need better design and
street interaction.... not just tall and generic.

This is not a building worth waiting for. If I am going to give up part of the district...
THEN This building IS NOT worth giving up this location for. If you want me to buy in. Build something original, significant.... something that contributes artistically or culturally. Just some good design would be great. Try picking it out of a skyline if you want a standard.
This is truly JUST FILLER>......
Aim higher.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Really do not want this building to happen.
encroachment on the warehouse district is not a good thing for the long
term texture and interest of downtown.

I was walking into that district this week and felt that sense of vibrancy you just don't get from canyons of new generic buildings.... which this one will be.
It is filler with no public space and very generic street level design.

I encourage more of you to actually be.... exist....walk.....live.... downtown before so enthusiastically wanting it to become "anywhere" USA.
The days of "oh yeah something big" really need to be gone. We need better design and
street interaction.... not just tall and generic.

This is not a building worth waiting for. If I am going to give up part of the district...
THEN This building IS NOT worth giving up this location for. If you want me to buy in. Build something original, significant.... something that contributes artistically or culturally. Just some good design would be great. Try picking it out of a skyline if you want a standard.
This is truly JUST FILLER>......
Aim higher.

Totally agree.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Totally agree.

agreed as well...while I don't mind mind the building itself (nice height, decent design even though it's fairly generic), I don't think it's worth demolishing another part of the warehouse district. I frequent the clubs on 4th a lot and I worry about the effects this building will have...will the rest of the WH district be under threat too now?

I'm all for building this building...but somewhere else! (wish it was easy as saying that!)

[masonh2479]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

agreed as well...while I don't mind mind the building itself (nice height, decent design even though it's fairly generic), I don't think it's worth demolishing another part of the warehouse district. I frequent the clubs on 4th a lot and I worry about the effects this building will have...will the rest of the WH district be under threat too now?

I'm all for building this building...but somewhere else! (wish it was easy as saying that!)

Isn’t there some historic commission meeting today to decide the fate of 3rd and Colorado?

[The ATX]

This passed on consent 9-0-1. It will now work its way back to the Design Commission, but the only issue they had was getting clarity about Sullivan's from the Historic Landmark Commission. So there doesn't appear to be any issues with the City in getting this approved.

[KevinFromTexas]

I still like this one a lot, even more than the Block 71 office tower. I've always been big on facade detail, and this one has tons more detail than the Block 71 office tower does. One of my biggest complaints with modern architecture these days is that the facade designs and detail have become very boring. They're just curtain walls from top to bottom. I suppose that's the right look for the Block 71 office tower because of the angles, but the facade on this one is more what I like to see, even if the form isn't as attention grabbing. The Block 71 office tower looks like many other buildings. Houston and Dallas each have buildings that could be stand-ins for it.

Besides, it's not true that this building won't have public space. It'll have restaurant space.

My only gripe with this building is that we'll lose a nice old building in downtown, even if it isn't historic.

[Jdawgboy]

I'm concerned about it affecting the club's on 4th. I also will not like it if they don't incorporate the existing building. I'd rather fight this one than to let it happen, and I think it's time that we start sending emails to voice our concerns.

[the Genral]

I like this building, not with gleeful anticipation, but I like it. I think its different, its more slender than rectangular, and its got a nice floor count. Don't care much for the color. But...I like the Sully's building where it is more. I think that building looks smart, as in a smart dressed person. I think the Hobby cluster works there, albeit it could use a bit of a clean up. I appreciate MichaelB's passion for keeping the canyon effect out of these few blocks and I agree. What's left of the Warehouse district is worth preserving. I enjoy cruising around that part of town. It offers unobstructed views of the surrounding high rises, something lost when they are clustered too close together. I hung out downtown frequently in the 80s to 90s and remember a really, REALLY, cool Austin when our skyline was, well, pathetic. Yet Austin was still cool. I have never objected or voiced any sort of disapproval to any of the changes that have brought Austin to where it is today. In fact, I'm thrilled about it. But I stand with MichaelB on this one. Leave this part of town alone. Put this lovely building somewhere else, like where they want to plant that hidious parking garage with an office on top. And one more thing, the more you nip away at something, the easier it gets to just keep nipping away until there's nothing left...think Rainey.

[Armybrat]

About 1980 while looking out of the Headliner's Club in the American Bank tower (which was clad in shiny gold tint glass then) I overheard a couple of visiting businessmen commenting about the view, "this downtown area sure is ugly".

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Armybrat

About 1980 while looking out of the Headliner's Club in the American Bank tower (which was clad in shiny gold tint glass then) I overheard a couple of visiting businessmen commenting about the view, "this downtown area sure is ugly".

And they were absolutely correct. And they were saying it while looking out of a god awful ugly gold building.

[verybadgnome]

It's a little weird hearing about the canyon effect in this of all forums, especially on a non-CVC encumbered site in a downtown where they are in short supply.

For their to be an individual historical designation I believe it has to meet 2 of the 5 criteria and the fact that this was passed on consent suggests that staff could not find enough evidence. Obviously the owner is for demolition so I am having a hard time suggesting going against their wishes. And then there is the history itself having been part of boys town with its brothels before it was ever designated part of the warehouse district. I do agree it has some value, but I would also argue there is more in the Sullvan's name that the building itself. Whatever goes in the owners (if they are not the owners of Sullivan's themselves) should give the steakhouse the right of first refusal for ground floor retail and get on with developing this site.

I guess another issue I have is with the term 'filler.' How would that be defined and more importantly how would you write language governing development in this city with that definition? I really hate these subjective aesthetic arguments so that is why I think municipalities should not get involved in such murky subjects defined by personal tastes.

[The ATX]

Sullivan's will be the restaurant in the new building. I don't recall which article it was, but that seems to have been the plan all along.

[The ATX]

Here are some slightly tweaked and new renderings. Check out the pool in the first one. There's the Sullivan's confirmation as well.





http://gda-architects.com/gda-3rd---colorado.html

[The ATX]

There are some differences in the renderings. I would say this is probably the current version because of Sullivan's and the updated street level brick facade to help it look more "warehousy". The overhanging pool is new in this rendering as well.


http://gda-architects.com/gda-3rd---colorado.html

[clubtokyo]

Originally Posted by The ATX

There are some differences in the renderings. I would say this is probably the current version because of Sullivan's and the updated street level brick facade to help it look more "warehousy". The overhanging pool is new in this rendering as well.


http://gda-architects.com/gda-3rd---colorado.html

The pool is neat!