AUSTIN | Fairmont Hotel | 595 FEET SPIRE/456 FT ROOF | 37 FLRS | Complete - Page 85

The ATX · #**1681** Posted **May 8, 2017, 1:08 AM**

Nice drive bys. Having time to take photos is the only good thing about our jammed highways.

The ATX · #**1682** Posted **May 8, 2017, 1:11 AM**

Here's one I found on Twitter. It looks like it was taken by the crane operator at the Homewood Suites project.

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...c1&oe=5979846C

Thymant · #**1683** Posted **May 8, 2017, 12:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Nice drive bys. Having time to take photos is the only good thing about our jammed highways.

I definitely agree!

We vs us · #**1684** Posted **May 8, 2017, 1:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Here's one I found on Twitter. It looks like it was taken by the crane operator at the Homewood Suites project.

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...c1&oe=5979846C

Neat pic, though now I can definitively say I dislike the Fairmont. Just a wall of glass. No finesse, nothing interesting about it. Blah.

the Genral · #**1685** Posted **May 8, 2017, 1:48 PM**

What it lacks in flair, it also lacks in height. But it looks good from I35 and I like the reflective glass.

Jdawgboy · #**1686** Posted **May 8, 2017, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

Neat pic, though now I can definitively say I dislike the Fairmont. Just a wall of glass. No finesse, nothing interesting about it. Blah.

Except for that wall of concrete facing Cesar Chavez. It's horrible! I don't see why they couldn't have windows on that side. What is the reason for leaving that side blank?

We vs us · #**1687** Posted **May 8, 2017, 6:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Except for that wall of concrete facing Cesar Chavez. It's horrible! I don't see why they couldn't have windows on that side. What is the reason for leaving that side blank?

When you look at the interior meeting space floorplans, you can see that all of that is back of the house -- storage, prep, offices, etc. All of the major function space and prefunction areas face northwestish.

futures · #**1688** Posted **May 8, 2017, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

When you look at the interior meeting space floorplans, you can see that all of that is back of the house -- storage, prep, offices, etc. All of the major function space and prefunction areas face northwestish.

Well, that's a terrible design. And even with that layout, there's no reason that the facade couldn't still be glass (or something remotely fucking interesting).

Thymant · #**1689** Posted **May 9, 2017, 1:59 AM**

Maybe you all see something about this that I don't, but I thought it this was surprisingly attractive and elegant only downside being that it is a little bulky.

the Genral · #**1690** Posted **May 9, 2017, 3:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thymant

Maybe you all see something about this that I don't, but I thought it this was surprisingly attractive and elegant only downside being that it is a little bulky.

You just defined the majority of Austin's entire downtown with your downside comment. That's what frustrating about any new construction that follows that trend, especially ones like the Fairmont that started really nice and ended like this.

Urbannizer · #**1691** Posted **May 9, 2017, 6:10 AM**

https://www.flickr.com/photos/munna82/34459108576/

AusTxDevelopment · #**1692** Posted **May 9, 2017, 4:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by futures

Well, that's a terrible design. And even with that layout, there's no reason that the facade couldn't still be glass (or something remotely fucking interesting).

I agree. It could even be something as simple as architectural concrete instead of the slab look they have going. Stamped or patterned concrete, or even some simple, bold horizontal or vertical lines or grooves that can be seen from far way would add a little interest.

It doesn't cost that much to swap out those flat concrete panels for textured concrete panels. It would be significantly cheaper than cladding it in glass or adding some sort of steel or other lattice-type panels. And the maintenance would be identical to the flat concrete, unlike glass or steel that would have to be cleaned from time to time. Even ugly single-story industrial buildings have grooves and recessed panels in their concrete facades. Its so simple and inexpensive to do.

MichaelB · #**1693** Posted **May 9, 2017, 5:18 PM**

and while folks are ragging on this finishout.... about that spire.... it really does not feel designed into the building at all. Just a big flag pole stuck on top. Was looking at it today.... I guess we'll have to see the finish, but at this point it's just a big pipe.

KevinFromTexas · #**1694** Posted **May 9, 2017, 7:10 PM**

I was thinking that for the blank precast concrete wall facing Cesar Chavez that they could have at least used glass panels on top of the concrete set away from it on a steel frame and encasing it. They could even use the steel frame to attach lights to it and have catwalks to access them. Something simple like LEDs might be good, but I think a set of flood lights directed down could be more interesting, sort of like the crown of the Frost Bank Tower. I think they will probably have some kind of lighting like that in the crown below the spire, so it would have been nice to have it mimicked on the blank wall as well. Of course, I guess what I'm describing is too involved and expensive.

Overall, I like the design of the building. I do hate that they abandoned the original design, though, because it would have been such a nice building both in design and height, and the spire would have seemed more legit. The roof of the original design would roughly be where the top of the spire on this one is - 572 to the roof and 691 to the spire versus 456 to the roof and 595 feet to the spire.

brando · #**1695** Posted **May 9, 2017, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I was thinking that for the blank precast concrete wall facing Cesar Chavez that they could have at least used glass panels on top of the concrete set away from it on a steel frame and encasing it. They could even use the steel frame to attach lights to it and have catwalks to access them. Something simple like LEDs might be good, but I think a set of flood lights directed down could be more interesting, sort of like the crown of the Frost Bank Tower. I think they will probably have some kind of lighting like that in the crown below the spire, so it would have been nice to have it mimicked on the blank wall as well. Of course, I guess what I'm describing is too involved and expensive.

Overall, I like the design of the building. I do hate that they abandoned the original design, though, because it would have been such a nice building both in design and height, and the spire would have seemed more legit. The roof of the original design would roughly be where the top of the spire on this one is - 572 to the roof and 691 to the spire versus 456 to the roof and 595 feet to the spire.

I think it's mediocre especially for one of the 1st buildings you see up close when entering downtown. You always want to improve the skyline and it feels like we took a step back from the Marriott. At least it doesn't have an entire blank wall like some of the recent hotels in downtown. Hopefully the new convention center hotel will look nice connected to the expanded convention center if they can make that happen.