AUSTIN | The Thompson (5th & Brazos) | 355 FEET | 31 FLOORS | Complete - Page 7

KevinFromTexas · #**121** Posted **Dec 14, 2014, 5:30 AM**

Yeah, 500 West 2nd Street is still too wide for my tastes, but the design details will be interesting at least. Not a fan of the roof, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

I agree with you, plus, I really don't like that small section sticking out from the side. It looks more like an add on as opposed to anything with architectural merit. Its just a rectangular blob to me, totally out of place. How many more of these generics are going to fill the skyline

Yeah, that part sticking out seems random. One example of a project that did one of those wings the right way was the original plan for the 21C Hotel. That's what I wish they had done here.

I also see few options here for any kind of interesting decorative lighting other than outlining the building's edges.

Here's the original 21C Hotel design. It had a wing also, but it worked better I think. Not to mention it slimmed up the tower. This thing was planned to be 580 feet with 44 floors.

LoneStarMike · #**122** Posted **Dec 14, 2014, 5:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

I really don't like that small section sticking out from the side. It looks more like an add on as opposed to anything with architectural merit.

I wonder if that part that sticks out from the side also sticks out from the backside of the building.

lzppjb · #**123** Posted **Dec 14, 2014, 7:40 AM**

I dunno. I kind of like it. Would like to see other angles, though.

KevinFromTexas · #**124** Posted **Dec 14, 2014, 9:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

I wonder if that part that sticks out from the side also sticks out from the backside of the building.

The building elevations show that it won't be visible from the north side. The tower backs up to the alley and has a flat facade on that side.

One interesting feature of the north facade is there's a notch above the podium where the tower overhangs the podium all the way up to the 18th floor on the northeast corner. There's another overhang on the northwest corner at the 17th floor.

Scroll down to page 31.
ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...otel_PLANS.pdf

The ATX · #**125** Posted **Dec 14, 2014, 10:01 AM**

I like it just as I like most of the new buildings - except for that mythical ~450' height limitation that most of us despise. Hopefully that city initiative to encourage point towers will help break that barrier. But then there's that 10-1 unknown.

GoldenBoot · #**126** Posted **Dec 15, 2014, 6:29 PM**

This is by far the poorest design of any Magellan Development Group tower yet. They should be ashamed! It is deplorable.

The ATX · #**127** Posted **Dec 15, 2014, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

This is by far the poorest design of any Magellan Development Group tower yet. They should be ashamed! It is deplorable.

The ones in Nashville and Minneapolis are worse IMO. But of course, it's all subjective.
Magellan obviously saves their best work for Chicago. With that said, there is definitely an "Austin" type/look for residential towers - 450' rectangles with lots of balconies.

Jdawgboy · #**128** Posted **Dec 15, 2014, 8:10 PM**

It's like a record that's still spinning hours after the last song has played. Why isn't the city doing more to encourage unique designs???

The ATX · #**129** Posted **Dec 15, 2014, 8:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

It's like a record that's still spinning hours after the last song has played. Why isn't the city doing more to encourage unique designs???

Let's just hope that the plan to encourage point towers is implemented. The city is way too interested in squeezing the creativity out of developers with zoning and regulation. It the FAR rules were thrown out we would be seeing a lot more interesting architecture.

Tech House · #**130** Posted **Dec 16, 2014, 7:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Let's just hope that the plan to encourage point towers is implemented. The city is way too interested in squeezing the creativity out of developers with zoning and regulation. It the FAR rules were thrown out we would be seeing a lot more interesting architecture.

To whom is it appropriate to voice our concerns? Does most of this originate with council or is it in the non-elected bureaucracy such as planning commission? I hate the thought of this creative vibrant city filling its core with mediocrity as a result of the unintended consequences of implementing a few too many "good ideas."

Speculator · #**131** Posted **Dec 16, 2014, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech House

To whom is it appropriate to voice our concerns? Does most of this originate with council or is it in the non-elected bureaucracy such as planning commission? I hate the thought of this creative vibrant city filling its core with mediocrity as a result of the unintended consequences of implementing a few too many "good ideas."

I'd suggest lobbying the developers and architects rather than City Hall. They are, as GW says, the deciders.

GoldenBoot · #**132** Posted **Dec 17, 2014, 12:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

The ones in Nashville and Minneapolis are worse IMO. But of course, it's all subjective.
Magellan obviously saves their best work for Chicago. With that said, there is definitely an "Austin" type/look for residential towers - 450' rectangles with lots of balconies.

I actually would be okay with a design like LPM in Minneapolis or SoBro in Nashville over the one proposed here.

The ATX · #**133** Posted **Dec 26, 2014, 3:31 AM**

5th & Brazos in 1963:

http://austintexasdailyphoto.blogspo...1_archive.html

LoneStarMike · #**134** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 4:19 AM**

Here's four more renderings of the revised plan for this project that I don't think have been posted here yet.

I found these on the Design Commission's website. You can scroll down to the October 27, 2014 meeting and click on "backup."

wwmiv · #**135** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 4:26 AM**

It's nice.

Syndic · #**136** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 4:45 AM**

Am I supposed to hate this? Because I really don't. At all.

I can't even begin to explain how much of a big deal this would be for the area. It would be a huge boon; a game-changer. Development moving north and east in the CBD? Yes, please! I mean, it's sandwiched between two blocks currently under construction so it's not a huge stretch for development there. But this is bigger than those.

But I can't help but wonder if this and Aloft are in a race to build much like J.W. Marriott and The Fairmont because they're quite similar in area and scale (meaning, they're in the same market). But J.W. Marriott and The Fairmont both ended up coming to fruition (we hope) so maybe these both can, too!

We shouldn't be afraid of more hotels being developed than residential, right? Just want to make sure.

wwmiv · #**137** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 4:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndic

Am I supposed to hate this? Because I really don't. At all.

I can't even begin to explain how much of a big deal this would be for the area. It would be a huge boon; a game-changer. Development moving north and east in the CBD? Yes, please!

Similar impact as the W. It's very similarly designed as well.

The ATX · #**138** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 5:27 AM**

Nice find LoneStarMike. This one and the Westin will help that area.

KevinFromTexas · #**139** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 5:37 AM**

Not bad. And is that a mural on the east facade?!

Tech House · #**140** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndic

We shouldn't be afraid of more hotels being developed than residential, right? Just want to make sure.

I'm afraid of it. Visitors don't have a vested interest in the city. The income to the city is nice, but there's going to be such a concentration of hotels downtown that it seems to me it will help push the city farther into the "party destination" category, joining NoLa and Vegas. Also, every highrise devoted to hotels is one less highrise available for downtown residential. From what I'm seeing, it also doesn't make economic sense, because there's more than enough hotel in the pipeline to satisfy demand, whereas there's a shortage of owner-occupied units. Or am I totally mistaken?