Austin | Vesper (84 East) | 452 Feet | 41 Floors | T/O

[Geographer]

I like the warm earth tones and garage cladding. This is an excellent filler tower.

Are the restrooms all unisex now? I only see one in the lobby. There is another small one for the staff on the other side of the building that appears to have a urinal.

Will it go higher in order to obtain the density bonus?

[The ATX]

The zoning change passed on consent at the PC. That means the CC will get a recommendation to approve the FAR increase from 15:1 to 21:1 to build the tower as proposed.

[Paco Jones]

Project:
84 East Condo Tower

Address:
84 East Avenue
Austin, TX 78701

Owner:
Pearlstone

Architect:
STG Design, Inc

Information:
41 Story Condo Tower, 283 Units
10 Levels of parking above ground, units in tower on top of parking
506,831SF

[the Genral]

Its a nice building, good color and good height especially for that location. Now excuse me while I look for my cookie cutter, we want all our Christmas cookies to come out basically the same.

[The ATX]

An ePlan Expedited Review was filed today even though the site plan is still going through the approval process. I interpret that to mean the developer is trying to speed up the approval process.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...rtyrsn=1142679

[We vs us]

Kinda crazy that the podium on this one is as tall as the entirety of th eMillenium Rainey (or whatever it's called now)

[H2O]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Kinda crazy that the podium on this one is as tall as the entirety of th eMillenium Rainey (or whatever it's called now)

That's exactly the problem I have with the majority of towers Downtown sitting on massive parking podiums. I know Millenium Rainey is not popular with most on this forum, but at least it provides 'eyes on the street' and creates a more human scale pedestrian environment. I'd love to see a hybrid between a the tower on podium typology and the mid-rise wrap 'Texas Donut' typology. Parking podiums could be wrapped with single-loaded residential on top of ground floor retail or townhouses. Vancouver has a lot of good examples of this hybrid type. Unfortunately, the standard Downtown block dimension does not lend itself well to this, and we have increasingly fewer buildable sites that are more than 1/4 block. The proposed supertall is taking advantage of its larger site to wrap the parking with the hotel use on the creek side at least, which is a lot better than the treatment of the podium on 6x.

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't know. I feel like they're the same just put together differently. Really, what's the difference between having residential stacked on top of parking versus residential wrapped around parking? Land use is far more important than being close to the street level, and preference wise for quality of life, the views, fresh air and quiet you get from being high up is probably better than hovering 30 feet above the street stuck in the trees and powerlines.

Parking seems to be the thing that people complain about with our towers - that they're stacked on top of it, but I'd rather have that than the "Texas donuts" of parking inside the development with a relatively small number of units wrapping around it.

I think there are places where that stuff makes sense, but having such a huge building like Millennial Rainey or whatever they're calling it now isn't really appropriate for downtown unless you're trying to interact with a creek or avoid a capitol view corridor.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I don't know. I feel like they're the same just put together differently. Really, what's the difference between having residential stacked on top of parking versus residential wrapped around parking? Land use is far more important than being close to the street level, and preference wise for quality of life, the views, fresh air and quiet you get from being high up is probably better than hovering 30 feet above the street stuck in the trees and powerlines.

Parking seems to be the thing that people complain about with our towers - that they're stacked on top of it, but I'd rather have that than the "Texas donuts" of parking inside the development with a relatively small number of units wrapping around it.

I think there are places where that stuff makes sense, but having such a huge building like Millennial Rainey or whatever they're calling it now isn't really appropriate for downtown unless you're trying to interact with a creek or avoid a capitol view corridor.

It's to make the street experience better

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

It's to make the street experience better

Ah, but even with a large footprint, there will still be a garage entrance. Heck, even if the parking is underground there will still be an offputting garage entrance.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Ah, but even with a large footprint, there will still be a garage entrance. Heck, even if the parking is underground there will still be an offputting garage entrance.

I understand, but still, it feels better walking on the street under human-scaled facades rather than giant parking garages half-attempted at being hidden by randomly spaced panels.

[KevinFromTexas]

Towers stacked on top of garages don't have to mean off-putting street interaction. There can be street level retail. Even the 45 year old Bank of Amerca Center did it. Maybe we can have that as a requirement? Street level retail - even if it has parking on the lower floors. I know urbanists hate it, but there will always be a need for cars and a space for them even in cities until we absolutely don't need them. That isn't the case at the moment, so this is an issue of how those features are constructed.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Towers stacked on top of garages don't have to mean off-putting street interaction. There can be street level retail. Even the 45 year old Bank of Amerca Center did it. Maybe we can have that as a requirement? Street level retail - even if it has parking on the lower floors. I know urbanists hate it, but there will always be a need for cars and a space for them even in cities until we absolutely don't need them. That isn't the case at the moment, so this is an issue of how those features are constructed.

I think what H2O and I are trying to hit at is that it's what's between the street level and the occupied levels that's the issue.

[KevinFromTexas]

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...s-planned.html

[The ATX]

Ha. That is a new rendering. I didn't catch the tweaks when I read the article.

[Echostatic]

100% a coincidence, and barely even relevant, but the maroon on this tower looks like the exact shade used on the 183 South Project's barriers and bridges.

[H2O]

I think it is intended to be self-weathering steel or some facsimile of the same.

[Urbannizer]

[Geographer]

Why is there no ground floor retail!?

How can one of the densest neighborhoods in Texas not have retail on every corner?

It seems like restaurants, corner stores, and shops would love to live within a mile of thousands of wealthy residents.

[Echostatic]

This site faces an unpaved back alley and an interstate frontage road. There's really no point in retail.