AUSTIN | Projects & Construction III

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl....html?page=all

Jan 11, 2013, 9:28am CST
Bank of America building under contract in downtown Austin

Jan Buchholz
Staff Writer-
Austin Business Journal

For years, local commercial real estate investor Tom Stacy has envisioned a massive redevelopment of the Bank of America building at 515 Congress Ave. along with several adjacent properties, but nothing has come together — at least not until now.

That may all be changing, as Stacy has confirmed that the property is under contract.
Citing confidentiality agreements, Stacy wouldn’t say who the buyer is or when the sale is scheduled to close.

[Syndic]

That's great news!

So, what's the general belief as to what his motive is? Does he want to tear down the BoA building and build something else? Or renovate it and just build something next to it, like this?



Personally, I'd prefer it be torn down. I really don't like that plain, boxy, Modernist-era architecture. Congress deserves better.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl....html?page=all

Holy cow, I HOPE something friggin tall goes in there. I love the Austonian, but I always thought the old T. Stacy tower should have been Austin's tallest signature tower.

[KevinFromTexas]

I would really rather that the Bank of America Center stay and not even be renovated. The Bank of America Center is Austin's best example of international style architecture. I like the idea of keeping the Bank of America Center for the same reason that I do not like twin towers. It's because I like variety and diversity when it comes to architecture. Austin didn't really start to develop its skyline until the 80s, so we have very little in the way of much architecture from before that era. We have a lot of post modernism (One American Center, One Congress Plaza, 100 Congress), but not much else. We also have fewer buildings than other cities, and fewer from farther back since Austin was so small. Our skyline now is comparable to some big cities, but 50 years ago our skyline was tiny compared to their's. I wouldn't want to lose the Bank of America Center for the same reason I wouldn't want to lose the Norwood Tower or the Littlefield Building. They're each very good examples of the architectural style of their day. And while we do have the Chase Bank Tower and Dobie Center which were also from the same era as the Bank of America Center, they've been renovated and so they no longer appear as they originally did. Their architectural style was altered. It would be like renovating the Norwood Tower and putting a shiny glass facade on it.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would really rather that the Bank of America Center stay and not even be renovated. The Bank of America Center is Austin's best example of international style architecture. I like the idea of keeping the Bank of America Center for the same reason that I do not like twin towers. It's because I like variety and diversity when it comes to architecture. Austin didn't really start to develop its skyline until the 80s, so we have very little in the way of much architecture from before that era. We have a lot of post modernism (One American Center, One Congress Plaza, 100 Congress), but not much else. We also have fewer buildings than other cities, and fewer from farther back since Austin was so small. Our skyline now is comparable to some big cities, but 50 years ago our skyline was tiny compared to their's. I wouldn't want to lose the Bank of America Center for the same reason I wouldn't want to lose the Norwood Tower or the Littlefield Building. They're each very good examples of the architectural style of their day. And while we do have the Chase Bank Tower and Dobie Center which were also from the same era as the Bank of America Center, they've been renovated and so they no longer appear as they originally did. Their architectural style was altered. It would be like renovating the Norwood Tower and putting a shiny glass facade on it.

I totally agree. I don't think they should touch the BoA center. I was thinking of the low-rise next to it that is empty. A slender super tall tower would be ideal for that spot. I wonder what the intentions for that spot are.

[StoOgE]

Hey Guys,

I've left Austin behind (for now) and have taken up residence in Manhattan.. so I need you all to keep in the loop as to goings on in my hometown.

[Syndic]

I'm not a fan of international style architecture or Modern architecture as a whole (I prefer Beaux-Arts and Neotraditionalism, personally). It's usually just featureless boxes. I understand that there's some attachment to it because it's reflective of the era it was built in. And I like that it's mixed-use. It actually creates a nice feel at street level. But the fact remains that it's on The Main Street of Texas, Congress Ave, and we could probably do better with a new building. I'd probably be okay with keeping it if they tore down that little abandoned, single-use mid-rise section next to it. That just destroys the whole continuity of the pedestrian environment.

That's my main beef with the international style and Modern architecture as a whole; the lack of mixed-use and the disregard for urban environment. It's permanently linked with an era of car-centric suburbanism and ghost town inner cities; a time when we thought it was okay to create surface level parking lots and single-use urbanism, if there is such a thing.

Actually, though no one may want to admit it, and it may even be blasphemous to say it, Congress's real bugaboo is One Congress Plaza and 100 Congress. I agree that they're beautiful, and they carried the load for Austin's skyline for a long time, but they destroy walkability more than any other two buildings. One Congress Plaza, in particular. It's more of a business park than anything else. I think this will become more noticeable once JW Marriott is built and people start wanting to walk that block.

[KevinFromTexas]

Are you talking about the old building south of the Bank of America Center? I don't think that building is abandoned. It is the Bank of America banking hall. There's some offices in there, too. That building pre-dates the Bank of America Center also. It was built in 1959, where as the Bank of America Center is from 1975.

And agreed on One Congress Plaza and 100 Congress. They're two of my skyline favorites, but they don't offer anything to the street. I guess their location is a best case scenario, though. It could be worse, if they had been farther north on Congress they would have created a real big hole in the street level interaction in a more centralized location.

[Syndic]

Yeah, I'm talking about the BoA banking hall. That looks pretty much destined to be torn down. T. Stacy's original rendering had it being torn down. I'm assuming the purchase of the BoA building includes that, too, since they're actually connected.

[Myomi]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would really rather that the Bank of America Center stay and not even be renovated. The Bank of America Center is Austin's best example of international style architecture. I like the idea of keeping the Bank of America Center for the same reason that I do not like twin towers. It's because I like variety and diversity when it comes to architecture. Austin didn't really start to develop its skyline until the 80s, so we have very little in the way of much architecture from before that era. We have a lot of post modernism (One American Center, One Congress Plaza, 100 Congress), but not much else. We also have fewer buildings than other cities, and fewer from farther back since Austin was so small. Our skyline now is comparable to some big cities, but 50 years ago our skyline was tiny compared to their's. I wouldn't want to lose the Bank of America Center for the same reason I wouldn't want to lose the Norwood Tower or the Littlefield Building. They're each very good examples of the architectural style of their day. And while we do have the Chase Bank Tower and Dobie Center which were also from the same era as the Bank of America Center, they've been renovated and so they no longer appear as they originally did. Their architectural style was altered. It would be like renovating the Norwood Tower and putting a shiny glass facade on it.

Ummm...Hasn't BOA already been renovated once? Wasn't it an ugly gold before? Or am I thinking of another building.

Also I completely agree with Syndic...these buildings are terrible for the "new urbanism" principles we advocate for on this forum. The have sentimental value, and will always be there...but I am glad we have wholly moved away from that type of downtown development.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by Myomi

Ummm...Hasn't BOA already been renovated once? Wasn't it an ugly gold before? Or am I thinking of another building.

You're thinking of Chase Bank Tower. It was gold when I moved here and was known as the American Bank Tower, then later it was MBank.



I found the above years ago somewhere on the internet.

[KevinFromTexas]

Really it would be possible to alter their ground floors so that street level retail could be added. There's no reason a whole building would have to be demolished when really it's just a matter of a single wall coming out to put in more windows and street facing shops. The Bank of America Center and Chase Bank Tower both make perfect candidates for it, too, since they have better street connection than buildings that are 10 to 15 years newer. The only buildings that would pose a real problem to adding street level retail to would be ones like One Congress Plaza, 100 Congress and 700 Lavaca which do not meet the street. And even so those buildings could still have different kinds of retail such as restaurants since they obviously couldn't have "shop windows" to draw people in.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would really rather that the Bank of America Center stay and not even be renovated. The Bank of America Center is Austin's best example of international style architecture. I like the idea of keeping the Bank of America Center for the same reason that I do not like twin towers. It's because I like variety and diversity when it comes to architecture. Austin didn't really start to develop its skyline until the 80s, so we have very little in the way of much architecture from before that era. We have a lot of post modernism (One American Center, One Congress Plaza, 100 Congress), but not much else. We also have fewer buildings than other cities, and fewer from farther back since Austin was so small. Our skyline now is comparable to some big cities, but 50 years ago our skyline was tiny compared to their's. I wouldn't want to lose the Bank of America Center for the same reason I wouldn't want to lose the Norwood Tower or the Littlefield Building. They're each very good examples of the architectural style of their day. And while we do have the Chase Bank Tower and Dobie Center which were also from the same era as the Bank of America Center, they've been renovated and so they no longer appear as they originally did. Their architectural style was altered. It would be like renovating the Norwood Tower and putting a shiny glass facade on it.

With regard to Bank of America Tower, there were never any plans to tear it down, not by Stacy and not contemplated in the offering memorandum (sales brochure). BOA tower has tenants with leases that run through 2021, and those tenants don't have anywhere to go in the CBD. The buyer who had the property under contract has backed out, a ploy used to retrade the sales price. They will sign back up if they can get the price down. Both sides are still talking and may agree as early as this week. However, the buyer who had it under contract had no plans to develop and was buying BOA and the other properties as an office investment. They were going to finish the interior upgrades that Stacy started a few years ago. Stacy has spent $16 million upgrading the interiors since he's had the building, $4M of that was just to make the building ADA compliant. The Littlefield Garage is leased through 2029 to the Scarbrough and Littlefield buildings.

Below are screen caps from the Offering Memo that show what parts of the site were considered redevelopment opportunties ("Entitlement Summary") and what were not. Stacy's big "gumby" tower was planned for what's called the Annex, the low-rise building adjacent to BOA and the Valet Garage behind it. The upper floors of the Annex have office space in them, but they were cleared out about 6 years ago because the spaces contained asbestos (the non-friable kind - aka the stuff that doesn't get in the air - but still not good). Stacy was going to tear down the Annex and build the highrise there with a new BOA lobby on the ground floor.




A more readable version...

[JoninATX]

Awesome, hope whoever buys the property gets his or hers plans off the ground. In other news I went by Streetlights on Barton Springs formally known as Aquaterra and saw what appeared to be several equipment moving along behind the fence. This is not to mistake the 7 story Hyatt parking garage, this was right in front of the white building.

[Mopacs]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I'm not a fan of international style architecture or Modern architecture as a whole (I prefer Beaux-Arts and Neotraditionalism, personally). It's usually just featureless boxes. I understand that there's some attachment to it because it's reflective of the era it was built in. And I like that it's mixed-use. It actually creates a nice feel at street level. But the fact remains that it's on The Main Street of Texas, Congress Ave, and we could probably do better with a new building. I'd probably be okay with keeping it if they tore down that little abandoned, single-use mid-rise section next to it. That just destroys the whole continuity of the pedestrian environment.

That's my main beef with the international style and Modern architecture as a whole; the lack of mixed-use and the disregard for urban environment. It's permanently linked with an era of car-centric suburbanism and ghost town inner cities; a time when we thought it was okay to create surface level parking lots and single-use urbanism, if there is such a thing.

Actually, though no one may want to admit it, and it may even be blasphemous to say it, Congress's real bugaboo is One Congress Plaza and 100 Congress. I agree that they're beautiful, and they carried the load for Austin's skyline for a long time, but they destroy walkability more than any other two buildings. One Congress Plaza, in particular. It's more of a business park than anything else. I think this will become more noticeable once JW Marriott is built and people start wanting to walk that block.

Here's a an old magazine ad I scanned in a few years ago. The original rendering of One Congress Plaza incorporated an additional 'wing' stepping down to street level along portions of Congress and 2nd Street. This could have allowed for street-level uses.



EDIT: This rendering dates back to the mid-80s. The addition to the building was likely part of a 2nd phase, never built due to the Texas real estate crash of the late 80s.

[Mopacs]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

Below are screen caps from the Offering Memo that show what parts of the site were considered redevelopment opportunties ("Entitlement Summary") and what were not. Stacy's big "gumby" tower was planned for what's called the Annex, the low-rise building adjacent to BOA and the Valet Garage behind it. The upper floors of the Annex have office space in them, but they were cleared out about 6 years ago because the spaces contained asbestos (the non-friable kind - aka the stuff that doesn't get in the air - but still not good). Stacy was going to tear down the Annex and build the highrise there with a new BOA lobby on the ground floor.

Wasn't there an updated rendering, showing a more streamlined (and possibly taller) tower rising atop the valet garage, behind the Annex? I believe it was posted originally in an earlier development thread.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I'm not a fan of international style architecture or Modern architecture as a whole (I prefer Beaux-Arts and Neotraditionalism, personally). It's usually just featureless boxes. I understand that there's some attachment to it because it's reflective of the era it was built in. And I like that it's mixed-use. It actually creates a nice feel at street level. But the fact remains that it's on The Main Street of Texas, Congress Ave, and we could probably do better with a new building. I'd probably be okay with keeping it if they tore down that little abandoned, single-use mid-rise section next to it. That just destroys the whole continuity of the pedestrian environment.

That's my main beef with the international style and Modern architecture as a whole; the lack of mixed-use and the disregard for urban environment. It's permanently linked with an era of car-centric suburbanism and ghost town inner cities; a time when we thought it was okay to create surface level parking lots and single-use urbanism, if there is such a thing.

Actually, though no one may want to admit it, and it may even be blasphemous to say it, Congress's real bugaboo is One Congress Plaza and 100 Congress. I agree that they're beautiful, and they carried the load for Austin's skyline for a long time, but they destroy walkability more than any other two buildings. One Congress Plaza, in particular. It's more of a business park than anything else. I think this will become more noticeable once JW Marriott is built and people start wanting to walk that block.

I could not agree with you more about the architectural style of those buildings and the resulting lack of urbanism.

That being said, it doesn't make sense to tear them down - I'd much rather see the areas around them infill with great, dramatic, soaring architecture and street friendly ground floors.

The important part is to not repeat the mistakes of the passed. And for godsakes - no more Hobby buildings - I don't know what architectural style it is (hodge-podge awfulism?) - but it is even worse than International style.

[KevinFromTexas]

International Style architecture, while maybe not aesthetically pleasing, isn't a bad style of architecture for street level retail. And actually, it's quite the opposite. Since the International Style typically produces boxy buildings, they can conform well to downtown blocks which are also square/rectangular. For me, the worst offenders in Austin are One Congress Plaza, 100 Congress, Hobby Building, 700 Lavaca, Lavaca Plaza and 816 Congress. But even so, those buildings could be retrofitted to add street level retail. It would be more difficult with One Congress Plaza, although, I could see street level retail being added to the east side of that block where the bank drive through is. Bank of America Center originally did not have street level retail, but now it does. They could add retail to those other buildings also, even if they had to do some structural changes to their street level facades.

I don't think this has been posted here before. I saw it posted at SkyscraperCity a while back.


And here's the other one that I think most of us have seen.

[Komeht]

I vote for choice 5 - 56 stories - 795'! All in favor say "aye"!

[BevoLJ]

• Video Link