Quote:
Originally Posted by myBrain
Yeah I've wondered about this before. I mean this is the architecture house that did the Shanghai Tower as well as some awesome smaller projects like the Columbia University Medical Center. I appreciate their Austin work -- they're handsome modern buildings that definitely add to the skyline and look like buildings I'd love to go to work in every day -- but they stop short of trying to be iconic or push any boundaries. That's fine for 500 w 2nd and Third and Shoal and the domain towers and even the Fairmount (IMO it actually turned out fine), but it's not ok for skyline-stealing 600 Guad, which is great for its height but feels like a missed opportunity to steal the show from the Austonian or the Independent or even the much-shorter Frost, which are all more interesting buildings. And it's also not ok for an entirely-new cluster, which from the renderings so far looks like it's going to blend together into a clump of undifferentiated blocks.
IMO the only exception is Block 87 - that's a building that's trying to stand out. And the new Velocity tower, that one's more interesting too.
Do we think Gensler's work here is the result of
1) limited budgets in the Austin market allowing for fewer design flourishes
2) their Austin office's own design tastes (they do seem to have a distinct design language vs. other Gensler work)
3) the Austin market's taste
4) some combination of all of the above? |
It's probably a combo of 1 and 2.
Everyone else seems so sure to simply blame the developers/budget, but it's also the taste/design language of the Austin Gensler office. They are all VERY similar.
Trammell Crow is handling the whole Seaholm development, right? If so, there are probably similar budgets all around, and the Austin Proper and Northshore are infinitely more interesting to me than Third & Shoal and Google.
I bet Rhode Partners is working with similar or smaller budgets, and I find their work more interesing. (The Independent, Seven Apartments, RISE, etc.)