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

[clubtokyo]

I dont get it, I thought a building was going in place of ihop? why are they painting?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

I dont get it, I thought a building was going in place of ihop? why are they painting?

A developer bought the site, but that doesn't mean the IHOP is going away anytime soon. That place needs some painting/remodeling if it's going to be open for a while.

[The ATX]

corvairkeith took a picture of what would have been the Austin Riverwalk had the city gone in that direction with the Waller Creek project. It would have needed a lot of work.

[corvairkeith]

I assume those drainage pipes and the creek filled with road base is just temporary so the can get heavy equipment down there while the sky bridge is being constructed. I seem to recall the budget for the bridge included work on the creek as well.

[wwmiv]

What do you mean had the city "gone in the direction of" a riverwalk? The Waller Creek Plan IS pretty much a riverwalk.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

What do you mean had the city "gone in the direction of" a riverwalk? The Waller Creek Plan IS pretty much a riverwalk.

No, it won't be a "Riverwalk". It'll be a place where one can walk along or near an urban creek.

[Geckos_Rule]

Eater Austin has a new article talking about the 5 different restaurants planned:

https://austin.eater.com/2017/5/10/1...t-austin-chefs

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

Maybe they're turning it into a Pollo Tropical.

PancakePUD?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by The ATX

No, it won't be a "Riverwalk". It'll be a place where one can walk along or near an urban creek.

You're underselling the actuality of this.

The Narrows section is definitely a riverwalk in the mold of San Antonio's and whatever ends up where Waller Park Place is (across the street) will almost certainly include river facing retail and cafes. Same for the hospital redevelopment.

Over time there will be sporadic activity nodes throughout the creek corridor that face the creek:

Essentially, the transformation of the area is guided by TWO documents, not one. The first is the master plan for zoning and use (the Waller Creek District Master Plan, or what the city calls by its acronym, WCDMP) that affects how all the parcels adjacent to the creek are used and which way their activity faces and the second is what the city is going to do with the actual parkland itself (the Waller Creek Conservancy projects, the Creek Corridor Framework Plan). The latter does not preclude or override the former. They work in tandem and are both guiding documents. The Waller Creek District Master Plan expressly calls for more creek facing activity throughout the entire length, but with the highest intensity in the three nodes I mentioned above. If you only look at the latter, you'd be under the mistaken impression that this is just a "park". It's more than that.

Also keep in mind that not all riverwalks have retail throughout, anyway, and some are purposefully built without... so your description of not being a Riverwalk (or Creekwalk, or however the city wants to bill it either casually or formally) is still off. San Antonio's Riverwalk is much bigger than just the central core section with retail, and its outer sections were deliberately designed to preclude retail on the river level itself. Charlotte's doesn't have much retail on it at all. Indianapolis's Canalwalk doesn't have much, or any at all, iirc. Bricktown is deliberately a shopping district, but is entirely fabricated much like OKC itself. Chicago and Milwaukee do have retail whereas Detroit's riverwalk does not.

[clubtokyo]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You're underselling the actuality of this.
"Bricktown is deliberately a shopping district, but is entirely fabricated much like OKC itself.

lol you got that right! Everything in that city is an attempted copy of another city. No identity.

[Mopacs]

Here are some shots I took along I-35 this weekend. The building is massive.















And one more, northbound approaching Onion Creek. The Fairmont can be seen on the far right. Notice how you can barely see the spire, if at all.

[the Genral]

Nice!! I like the last three because the pipe sticking out on the roof isn't visible. It really is a no value add at this point. Just wish this building was 10 floors taller and not as wide east to west. But....I like it.

[Mopacs]

Two more, from West and Northwest Austin last weekend. The spire is visible with the late afternoon reflection.

[drummer]

Yeah, I don't truly understand the point of that spire (see what I did there, though?).

[wwmiv]

You know... Austin has this habit of getting "but for" buildings:

The Frost Bank Tower is a beautiful building, but for its height.
The Fairmont is a beautiful building, but for its spire.
The Aloft is a beautiful building, but for its blank wall.

[KevinFromTexas]

Totally agreed on Frost. The design was just too good not to be a good 200+ feet taller. It's really a shame it wasn't, even with the skyline being much smaller as it was at the time. I hate that one day it could be sitting in a valley of taller buildings and be completely hidden from view from places surrounding downtown.

I would not call the Aloft beautiful. I think it's pretty awful, blank wall or no blank wall. The color and facade design seems cheap and is definitely bland. It's one of my least favorite buildings in Austin which is a bummer because I had really high hopes for it.

I totally do not mind the spire on the Fairmont. Overall I really like the way the building turned out. I sort of think the spire helps to offset the slabbiness of the building. It still stings that they didn't go with the original design, however. From at least one spot in our neighborhood, it would have been visible had they gone with the original design. When both of the cranes were up it was possible to see them during the wintertime, but now that the trees have budded out you can't see them anymore. Had they gone with the original design the building's roof would have been lower than the cranes and the current spire design, but the spire on the original design definitely would have been visible from that spot year round and the building itself would have shown up in several other places around town. I sort of like it, too, because it's something different that we haven't quite seen before. 360 Condos has a spire, too, but it's much more of an integral part of the building so you almost forget it's there, plus it's so small that the skinniest part doesn't even show up from far away unless the sun is hitting it just right.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Totally agreed on Frost. The design was just too good not to be a good 200+ feet taller. It's really a shame it wasn't, even with the skyline being much smaller as it was at the time. I hate that one day it could be sitting in a valley of taller buildings and be completely hidden from view from places surrounding downtown.

I would not call the Aloft beautiful. I think it's pretty awful, blank wall or no blank wall. The color and facade design seems cheap and is definitely bland. It's one of my least favorite buildings in Austin which is a bummer because I had really high hopes for it.

I totally do not mind the spire on the Fairmont. Overall I really like the way the building turned out. I sort of think the spire helps to offset the slabbiness of the building. It still stings that they didn't go with the original design, however. From at least one spot in our neighborhood, it would have been visible had they gone with the original design. When both of the cranes were up it was possible to see them during the wintertime, but now that the trees have budded out you can't see them anymore. Had they gone with the original design the building's roof would have been lower than the cranes and the current spire design, but the spire on the original design definitely would have been visible from that spot year round and the building itself would have shown up in several other places around town. I sort of like it, too, because it's something different that we haven't quite seen before. 360 Condos has a spire, too, but it's much more of an integral part of the building so you almost forget it's there, plus it's so small that the skinniest part doesn't even show up from far away unless the sun is hitting it just right.

I think the way that the spire is incorporated on 360 is much better, though you do make a point that it breaks up the rectangular design a bit.

[austlar1]

Just spent five minutes stuck in traffic looking at the glorified pipe sticking up from the roof of the Fairmont. What a joke! There is nothing spire-like about it. It looks like an ugly exhaust stack of some kind.

[lzppjb]

I'm withholding judgment until it's 100% done. I'm not sure it's going to remain a white pole. They could paint it. They could line it with LEDs. Who knows? I want to see it at its full height, too.

[the Genral]

I submit this alteration for consideration. It could slide over the pipe like the Goddess of Liberty did when she was installed. But this spire sucks too.