Austin | Paseo | 567 Feet | 48 Floors | Complete - Page 7

The ATX · #**121** Posted **Sep 4, 2022, 2:45 PM**

The location of the tower on the far right looks more like a Block 190 placeholder than the Fairmont across Cesar Chavez. It also has "Satee Street" branding on the top.

migol24 · #**122** Posted **Sep 4, 2022, 4:08 PM**

I just hope it doesn't turn out like the Bowie. Those renderings were tight as hell until they actually built it and *womp womp*.

The ATX · #**123** Posted **Sep 12, 2022, 9:53 PM**

The approved elevations have been released. I updated the thread title for the height and floor count. I had it as 575' and 49 floors.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/attachment/a...zWQZrCkUoxI5pjYJSFYzOg6m0Ra4DwFqSQ%3D%3D

agsatx88 · #**124** Posted **Sep 12, 2022, 10:23 PM**

Floor 1 is shown at 458' and the top of the mechanical screen is at 1025'. Does this make it 567' not 467'?

The ATX · #**125** Posted **Sep 12, 2022, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by agsatx88

Floor 1 is shown at 458' and the top of the mechanical screen is at 1025'. Does this make it 567' not 467'?

Double typos. I fixed it. At least I had right on Twitter.

The ATX · #**126** Posted **Sep 12, 2022, 10:27 PM**

It looks like that fancy roof thing got value engineered.

Jdawgboy · #**127** Posted **Sep 12, 2022, 10:35 PM**

This sux... I say the city should penalize when developers originally put good design in initial renderings then remove them later.

Just my two cents.

KevinFromTexas · #**128** Posted **Sep 12, 2022, 10:49 PM**

What's worse is they're calling this "Rainey Tower" and removed the one feature that made me think of rain clouds. Can't say I'm surprised, though.

agsatx88 · #**129** Posted **Sep 12, 2022, 11:40 PM**

At least the street level interaction should still be pretty strong. 5 bars/restaurants in the building itself + 2 bungalow bars/restaurants next door.

bobbywest87 · #**130** Posted **Sep 13, 2022, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

It looks like that fancy roof thing got value engineered.

It’s almost to be expected at this point.

Urbannizer · #**131** Posted **Sep 13, 2022, 2:56 AM**

Besides 98 Red River, the Rainey Street district is turning out to be a generic cluster of high-rises.

enragedcamel · #**132** Posted **Sep 13, 2022, 3:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

This sux... I say the city should penalize when developers originally put good design in initial renderings then remove them later.

Just my two cents.

Value engineering should be punishable by death

H2O · #**133** Posted **Sep 13, 2022, 11:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

It looks like that fancy roof thing got value engineered.

Not surprised. It looked too impossibly thin to be true.

Sigaven · #**134** Posted **Sep 13, 2022, 2:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

It looks like that fancy roof thing got value engineered.

How can you tell? It looks to me like it's still there, although you can't really tell the design from an elevation view. Maybe got a bit smaller from what the rendering showed, although the rendering could also have been deceptive due to the perspective.

GoldenBoot · #**135** Posted **Sep 13, 2022, 4:39 PM**

Being really nit-picky here...but, according to the site plan, there is a door/entrance into the building, from the middle of the south façade, which has a level of 457.42' (the lowest entrance to the tower I could find).

So, this tower - based on the provided elevations and information contained within the site plan - is 567.74' tall (or rounded to 568').

clubtokyo · #**136** Posted **Sep 13, 2022, 6:27 PM**

Is that what the poles with the round ball at top our for? Like it could still have the cool roof thing but you can’t see it in these drawings? Sure hope so.

H2O · #**137** Posted **Sep 13, 2022, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

Is that what the poles with the round ball at top our for? Like it could still have the cool roof thing but you can’t see it in these drawings? Sure hope so.

No, those are column grid keys on the drawing, not actual building elements.

wwmiv · #**138** Posted **Sep 13, 2022, 10:56 PM**

Frankly, a simple change to muni code could solve one of our biggest problems with buildings like this:

• Any building over X’ must fully conceal all mechanical equipment from, at least, all viewsheds at an equal height as measured above sea level as that of the highest point of all mechanical structures.

• Viewshed here is defined as any point at which, being either terrestrial or airborne, the tower can be seen.

This would force developers to envelop their mechanical equipment with crowns and other architectural elements. We’d still get value engineering to some extent, of course, but it would force skyline defining structures to keep those nice elements which help to define our city’s image to outsiders. Like it or no, skyline pictures are easily recognizable features of most American cities and we should be protecting that image.

ohhey · #**139** Posted **Sep 14, 2022, 1:29 PM**

You're making a big assumption that the concealment will be more attractive than the equipment itself. At minimum, they're definitely need to be some design guidelines regarding material use.

agsatx88 · #**140** Posted **Sep 25, 2022, 3:46 PM**

Looks like the pay-to-park scheme didn't last long. Also, banners advertising "Coming Soon - LV Collective" are up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agsatx88

Not sure this bodes well for a quick start but 80 Rainey is now pay by phone parking. Grant you, this represents minimal investment but still I'd rather see fencing surround the site than a new use.