AUSTIN | 300 Colorado | 446 FEET | 32 FLOORS | COMPLETE - Page 4

The ATX · #61 Posted **Jul 23, 2017, 11:11 PM**

Austin 360 had a short article about the 600 Guadalupe drone pano a few days ago. From the article:

Quote:

The company makes the images to help architects designing buildings. With a spherical panorama, they can see what a building looks like from different altitudes. Architectural animators can also build virtual reality views of huge skyscrapers using the same type of technology.

But the article was only about the drone panos - no building speculation:

http://fitness.blog.austin360.com/20...wntown-austin/

Jdawgboy · #62 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 12:25 AM**

I'm pretty sure what's holding us back in terms of height is the stupid F.A.R requirements. The city really needs to update and streamline DT zoning. Supposedly there are no height restrictions over parts of DT but that isn't really the case.

I'm glad that the commission wants to keep the existing structure.

clubtokyo · #63 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 1:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I'm pretty sure what's holding us back in terms of height is the stupid F.A.R requirements. The city really needs to update and streamline DT zoning. Supposedly there are no height restrictions over parts of DT but that isn't really the case.

I'm glad that the commission wants to keep the existing structure.

I'm so fused, is this tower being built on top of an old structures??

The ATX · #64 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 1:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

I'm so fused, is this tower being built on top of an old structures??

No, the developers plan to demo the site. But there is some question as to how historical the Sullivan's building on the site is. I don't think the Design Commission will make a decision this week. It appears that they will pass this on to the Historical Landmark Commission before they make a decision.

drummer · #65 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 7:18 AM**

I'm not as familiar with this one. Is it worth saving, in y'all's opinion?

corvairkeith · #66 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 3:24 PM**

It's one of the nicest of the handful of surviving historic warehouses in our "Historic Warehouse District" so yeah, it would be a shame to see it go.

MichaelB · #67 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 3:37 PM**

Any effort to maintain the mix of old and new is a step towards a better "texture" in a city.
We are lucky to have been a late blooming city and have the opportunity to see our past present in our future.
IMHO.

ahealy · #68 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 3:51 PM**

I will say, this is not a good enough design to allow the demo of that building. Austin has no excuse to not build within older structures. There are mid-size cities with less going on that have achieved this.

Sigaven · #69 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 5:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

I'm not as familiar with this one. Is it worth saving, in y'all's opinion?

I think so absolutely. It's got quite a lovely and quaint street frontage compared to other buildings in the area...would be great to see the design of the tower incorporate the older structure and maybe even borrow some design elements from it.

urbancore · #70 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy

I will say, this is not a good enough design to allow the demo of that building. Austin has no excuse to not build within older structures. There are mid-size cities with less going on that have achieved this.

Agreed.

Jdawgboy · #71 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 8:34 PM**

I'm glad that everyone seems to be in agreement that the existing building should be preserved. Its one of my favorite in the Warehouse district along with the former Spaghetti Warehouse building. Ever since the first mention of a tower going up there, I wasn't receptive to the idea.

KevinFromTexas · #72 Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 10:29 PM**

I don't see why they don't just pick another location. There are some ugos in that area and a few more surface lots. I want this tower bad, but yeah, I also would rather not lose the few nice old buildings we have in that area.

drummer · #73 Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 2:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I don't see why they don't just pick another location. There are some ugos in that area and a few more surface lots. I want this tower bad, but yeah, I also would rather not lose the few nice old buildings we have in that area.

That's a good point - there are a lot of surface parking lots around the same size even within blocks of this location.

pscajunguy · #74 Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 3:42 AM**

It seems like with few exceptions most of the buildings that have been built in Austin since Frost would be more appropriate in Lubbock and just as unattractive. It's sad that all this trash is getting built here. It's not helping the city, at all.

wwmiv · #75 Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

It seems like with few exceptions most of the buildings that have been built in Austin since Frost would be more appropriate in Lubbock and just as unattractive. It's sad that all this trash is getting built here. It's not helping the city, at all.

... you're pretty much alone in thinking that.

ahealy · #76 Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 4:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

It seems like with few exceptions most of the buildings that have been built in Austin since Frost would be more appropriate in Lubbock and just as unattractive. It's sad that all this trash is getting built here. It's not helping the city, at all.

Hmmm, gotta disagree with ya there (outside of Hotel ZAZA).

We do however need to keep our standards growing over time. It's really amazing that most of us aren't impressed with this design in its current form...10-15 years ago this would've been the welcomed darling to our skyline.

KevinFromTexas · #77 Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 6:40 AM**

I think some people here have too high a level of expectation for residential buildings. Most residential buildings are boring in design. Just ask Florida, California, and Hawaii, among others. It's why I wasn't so excited about residential development in downtown. There are some decent standouts, but most are just another tree in the forest. They aren't marketed in the same way that office buildings are. Residential buildings are marketed more inward since people are mostly interested in the furnishings, layouts, amenities, and the location, not necessarily the exterior design. Office buildings, though, they do that too, somewhat with their interior spaces, but the location is less important unless they're centering themselves around a hub of a specific industry. Their marketing gimmick is more about the exterior to make it stand out.

No, the design isn't amazing on this one, but it's far from being the worst. I would gladly trade this design for several others we already have, even without the height.

wwmiv · #78 Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 8:34 AM**

It's an attractive building, even if it isn't stand-out. It certainly isn't ugly, let alone trash.

pscajunguy · #79 Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 9:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy

Hmmm, gotta disagree with ya there (outside of Hotel ZAZA).

We do however need to keep our standards growing over time. It's really amazing that most of us aren't impressed with this design in its current form...10-15 years ago this would've been the welcomed darling to our skyline.

I remember being impressed by Frost, One American, One Congress Plaza,101 Congress and 301 Congress. During the daytime they had a great contrast and at night, the lighting was so great. My favorite view was Frost from the old Chain Drive at night in the back patio. at least I' m glad that the W is dark and the North Shore, the Austonian stand out and Proper and the Independent will, but Austin's skyline is looking more and more like LA (boxy) and less and less like Dallas, or even Houston in diversity.

the Genral · #80 Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I think some people here have too high a level of expectation for residential buildings. Most residential buildings are boring in design. Just ask Florida, California, and Hawaii, among others. It's why I wasn't so excited about residential development in downtown. There are some decent standouts, but most are just another tree in the forest. They aren't marketed in the same way that office buildings are. Residential buildings are marketed more inward since people are mostly interested in the furnishings, layouts, amenities, and the location, not necessarily the exterior design. Office buildings, though, they do that too, somewhat with their interior spaces, but the location is less important unless they're centering themselves around a hub of a specific industry. Their marketing gimmick is more about the exterior to make it stand out.

No, the design isn't amazing on this one, but it's far from being the worst. I would gladly trade this design for several others we already have, even without the height.

I agree. With residential highrises dominating the skyline, we end up with a functional skyline, it serves its purpose, providing living space downtown, with the emphasis on the inside not the outside. That's what would matter to me the most, and the view. But we do have a few standouts, Austonian, 360, and soon to be 5th and West and certainly the Independent. Hotel wise, its mostly, meh aside from the JW, perhaps the Fairmont, and hopefully a twangy Virgin. Office wise, we come up short and doesn't appear that the ones being built feel the need to stand out. Again, functional seems to be the priority. Even the Frost falls short imo, pun intended, and One American Center has only one good side, and that's its east side. Its south side looks frumpy. This one looks nice if not spectacular, I do like the fact that its not sitting on a fat pedestal. Add this to our long list of functional, practical, high rises.
As far as LA, it has a dominant plateau of tall building, I'll take our variety of height. It makes for a prettier skyline, especially from a distance.