AUSTIN | Projects & Construction III

[BnaBreaker]

There's only one car in all of Austin, and here's the proof!

[The ATX]

And I-35 is only ever crowded in one direction.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

A map of every highrise (above 35m in height) in Austin:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=93

There's a very clear triangle of density between the points I mentioned, with only scattered highrises outside of that triangle. In fact, you might even go so far as to say that there's a square. Austin's density, in the current built form, is not just along the river and not even just primarily along the river. And it is getting less so.

Put your money where your mouth is.

The main reason for the quasi-triangular shape of our downtown skyline is because of the capitol view corridors and the zoning types on the northern edge of downtown that create that shape. There's also a capitol overlay district that affects the height of buildings within a couple of blocks of downtown. On the west side of downtown in what I typically refer to as our upper west side, most of that area isn't zoned for high rises. Most of the development there is 100+ year old single family houses that house commercial businesses, mostly things like law firms and doctor's offices. The east side of downtown is heavily affected by multiple capitol view corridors that limit the height of buildings in that area. The result is that most of the taller buildings on the north side of downtown are closer to Congress Avenue. I'll agree that our skyline is largely linear, but that doesn't bother me at all. If anything, it makes it more visible from farther away since it does stretch out. Our skyline also stretches out more in the way that New York's does than say Phoenix, Las Vegas or even Atlanta's do.

By the way, east to west, Austin's downtown boundary lines are 6,400 feet across. North to south, they're 9,700 feet. This doesn't include West Campus or the UT Campus. Including those areas, the skyline is a little more than 13,400 feet north to south.

By comparison, Dallas' downtown area is around 6,400 feet east to west. North to south, it's around 5,200 feet across. If you include the Turtle Creek/Uptown area, then the skyline stretches out to 14,600 feet north to south.

Houston's downtown is 6,700 feet east to west, and 6,700 feet north to south.

San Antonio's downtown area is 6,900 feet east to west and a little over 5,500 feet north to south.

Fort Worth's downtown area is 5,400 feet east to west, and 4,550 feet north to south.

[The ATX]

Here's a photo for context. It was taken by poster AusTxDevelopment a couple weeks ago:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=196

[KevinFromTexas]

I'm just glad our waterfront skyline doesn't look like this anymore. This dates from between 1967 and 1973.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...&theater&ifg=1

[The ATX]

Little did anyone know way back then, that the ugly, lonely high-rise hotel on the right would go on to great things like make the 2019 List of Conde Nast's 75 best "new" hotels in the world.

https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/b...the-world-2019

[KevinFromTexas]

Austin's central skyline also has three distinct uses that are each different. To the north is the University of Texas Campus and the student residential neighborhood of West Campus adjacent to it. Then there's the Texas Capitol complex, which is inside downtown proper, but still very distinct in use from the rest of downtown. Finally, there is the lower part of downtown where all of the major office buildings, the convention center, and hotels are, plus all of the big residential towers. All four of those are part of the same overall skyline, but they're distinctly different in use and built form.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I'll agree that our skyline is largely linear

Thank you. I mean, it's beyond obvious to people who don't interpret the term literally.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

but that doesn't bother me at all.

To be clear (as if I wasn't before), Austin's (mostly) linear skyline doesn't bother me either, at all. I simply prefer the look of the non-linear dense cluster skylines you see in the cities previously mentioned (Houston, Dallas, L.A., Philly, etc.). But apparently stating one's personal preference / opinion isn't allowed on this forum, and / or causes people who are fans of the city that wasn't preferred to become super defensive and sensitive.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

... (drops mic)

You and I both know that photo is deceptive AF and only chosen because you think it proves your point.

As to what you said a few comments ago: Yes, I interpreted what you said based on the meanings of the words you used. How else am I supposed to interpret words?

I'd argue the aerial photo on this page supports my point that Austin is not just a city against a river. It has decent density going north for over a mile. Kevin's point that our skyline actually extends longer north to south than it does east to west along the river bolsters this point. Sure, our very tallest towers hug the river, but that does not mean that our skyline as a whole is (mostly) linear along the river. It isn't.

Here are some comparisons so that you can see how evenly spread Austin's urban development has been over the past 5 decades.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=931

[KevinFromTexas]

Why shouldn't our skyline hug the river? If you're going to develop residential towers why wouldn't you position them near the waterfront to take advantage of the views and cool breeze? It also just happened to be the part of downtown that made the most sense for towers since there were still a good number of underutilized lots that weren't occupied by older buildings. Up until the early 1940s, the Colorado River flooded pretty regularly. The lower end of downtown nearest to the river was always threatened by flooding. The 1935 flood was devastating as the river swelled to a mile wide. So, that part of downtown doesn't have a lot of old buildings that would have been a great architectural loss to new development. Most of our older buildings are several blocks north of there. It's the reason why there were never any high rises closer to the river until after the Highland dams were built.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Thank you. I mean, it's beyond obvious to people who don't interpret the term literally.




To be clear (as if I wasn't before), Austin's (mostly) linear skyline doesn't bother me either, at all. I simply prefer the look of the non-linear dense cluster skylines you see in the cities previously mentioned (Houston, Dallas, L.A., Philly, etc.). But apparently stating one's personal preference / opinion isn't allowed on this forum, and / or causes people who are fans of the city that wasn't preferred to become super defensive and sensitive.

The great thing about Austin is the pace of change. If u don’t like the skyline now, check back every 2 years.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You and I both know that photo is deceptive AF and only chosen because you think it proves your point.

As to what you said a few comments ago: Yes, I interpreted what you said based on the meanings of the words you used. How else am I supposed to interpret words?

I'd argue the aerial photo on this page supports my point that Austin is not just a city against a river. It has decent density going north for over a mile. Kevin's point that our skyline actually extends longer north to south than it does east to west along the river bolsters this point. Sure, our very tallest towers hug the river, but that does not mean that our skyline as a whole is (mostly) linear along the river. It isn't.

Here are some comparisons so that you can see how evenly spread Austin's urban development has been over the past 5 decades.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=931

In actuality Austin has 2 spines. East-west Along the river about 5 blocks in depth. And then the major urban spine is north-south through the capital and university. The intersection between the 2 make for impressive views from a variety of angles.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

A map of every highrise (above 35m in height) in Austin:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=93

There's a very clear triangle of density between the points I mentioned, with only scattered highrises outside of that triangle. In fact, you might even go so far as to say that there's a square. Austin's density, in the current built form, is not just along the river and not even just primarily along the river. And it is getting less so.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Thanks for the FACTS WW. Unfortunate how the world is shaped by opinion rather than data. I love education!

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Here's a photo for context. It was taken by poster AusTxDevelopment a couple weeks ago:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=196

Yep. The north-south urban footprint dominates. IMO Atlanta has the most linear skyline I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t deviate much from Peach Tree. IMO That’s what blew credibility for the uninformed opinion.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Why shouldn't our skyline hug the river? If you're going to develop residential towers why wouldn't you position them near the waterfront to take advantage of the views and cool breeze? It also just happened to be the part of downtown that made the most sense for towers since there were still a good number of underutilized lots that weren't occupied by older buildings. Up until the early 1940s, the Colorado River flooded pretty regularly. The lower end of downtown nearest to the river was always threatened by flooding. The 1935 flood was devastating as the river swelled to a mile wide. So, that part of downtown doesn't have a lot of old buildings that would have been a great architectural loss to new development. Most of our older buildings are several blocks north of there. It's the reason why there were never any high rises closer to the river until after the Highland dams were built.

Personally, I think it should slowly get taller the further from the river you get, that way you maximize the number of buildings with a river view.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Personally, I think it should slowly get taller the further from the river you get, that way you maximize the number of buildings with a river view.

Logically, though, developers were going to build along the waterfront to take advantage of the views in what had been until then an unproven market. It's kind of hard to imagine now, but it wasn't that long ago that Austin didn't have anything in the way of residential high rises. For more than 40 years, Austin only had one residential building over 200 feet. The Westgate Tower which was built in 1967. It wasn't until 2008 that two taller buildings were built that finally beat it. There was technically a taller residential building, the Dobie Center built in 1972, but it's always been a student dorm west of UT. Today, the Westgate Tower is Austin's 26th tallest residential building. It went from being our tallest residential building from 1967 to 2008 to being passed 25 times between 2008 and today. A few of these that I'm counting as passing it are doing site prep and are under construction, so barring some reason they aren't completed, that's what the ranking is.

Anyway, I agree with you about wanting taller buildings as you move north away from the river so that each row of blocks has a chance at seeing the river. That would be ideal, but not likely. I also like that idea because the view from the river will reveal more buildings in a layered manner rather than simply a wall of glass. Also, the elevation is higher as you move away from the river. The sea level elevation change between the river and the UT area is upwards of 140 feet. So the farther something is built north of the river the taller it'll appear on the skyline. In fact, when you view the skyline from the north sometimes even with that wall of 400 foot buildings they sometimes don't really appear all that tall compared to buildings in the foreground even if they're considerably shorter.

[llamaorama]

Yep. The north-south urban footprint dominates. IMO Atlanta has the most linear skyline I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t deviate much from Peach Tree. IMO That’s what blew credibility for the uninformed opinion.

Downtown Atlanta itself is is more of a circular cluster. It's only because of how many tall buildings the city has going north along peachtree north towards Buckhead that gives it a linear impression.

Atlanta is just so much larger of a city than Austin(at this point) that it is hard to compare.

[jtown,man]

The bulk of the skyline is NS, the new beauties are west to east.

Settled.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

The bulk of the skyline is NS, the new beauties are west to east.

Settled.

Yup.

[gillynova]

Hey guys, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this so please PM me and we can take it offline if needed.

I am seriously thinking of moving to Austin by myself by the end of the year now and I want to be in an area where I can have a nice view of Austin's skyline. I was hoping you guys can point me to the right direction since you are more aware of the new development in the surrounding area. I'm looking to mainly be 25-30 minutes away from downtown and being close to the Colorado River or a nice park would be a huge plus for me but not required.

So far, most of the 1 bedroom places that have are "modern" are ~1300-1500/month. Does that sound about right to you guys?

Thanks in advance and I'm sorry this is off topic. Once I move here, you guys will have another photo person of your development!

5/9 Edit:

After doing some research, The Domain is looking like a good option for me. I'll keep you guys posted in this post if you're interested.