AUSTIN | The Independent | 690 FEET | 58 FLOORS | Complete - Page 113

zrx299 · #**2241** Posted **Jul 11, 2019, 11:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytoony

There's nothing quite like a new building to bring out the critics. The criticisms can be fairly similar too. For ex see quotes below...guess which building are they describing?? Answer below.

"Everything seemed fine, until that mess on top appeared. It seems proportionately too small for the rest of the building...

I had hope when it was a skeleton, but then the material that fills in the frame appeared. It just looks dirty on sunny days, disappears on cloudy days, and somehow, manages to dwarf the whole structure. This building looks more than unfinished. It looks ill-conceived."

"I keep hoping the owners will see the proverbial light and add some color to the top.

So which building is it?? Drumroll....! Answer and source.

Frost was the first new building downtown in quite some time back in 2003. It had a prominent spot in the skyline. Now it's not even in certain views, being overshadowed by larger buildings. So you're right in that area, in that if the Independent gets some height peers or taller neighbors, then yeah no one will care because its spot in the skyline would have been diminished. Right now its the western tent pole.

Frost was built before my time, but they probably interviewed a bunch of stodgy old NIMBYs who hate all forms of change and progress for that article.

78701 · #**2242** Posted **Jul 12, 2019, 12:42 AM**

I was recently told by someone with a bit of inside access that the crown is "definitely not finished". I couldn't pry more at the time, maybe s/he just meant the lighting coming up. But I like to think there's more improvement still coming.

the Genral · #**2243** Posted **Jul 12, 2019, 1:23 AM**

I had been in Austin for 20 years when Frost was built. I remember a sign posted on site that said Frost would be a world class building in a world class city. I believe the members of the city counsil put restrictions on this and many of the buildings being built during the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, limiting the architechs and developers in terms of design and height. In published Architech Journals reviewing architecture across the US in the late 80s, Austin took a beating with our squatty uninspired products of our first building boom that mostly ran in a straight line up and down Congress Ave, and best seen from ground level, their words. Still, what we got was better than nothing and pretty exciting. People that remember know that I used to eviscerate just about everything new that came down the pike from my time here on this forum, 2009 to about a year ago. Perhaps because I was once an auditor whose job was to find something wrong. I can find something I don't like on just about everything built so far. I stopped being an asshole about my opinions (I hope) for a while now. But I blame the CoA for the design constaints of the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, and the designers and developers for taking the cheap way out on recent construction or in some cases, ridiculous design choices. The crown on the Austonian, not cheap, just weird, the garage facade on 3rd and shoal, the crown and garage facade of the Independant, to name just three. There are very few towers in Austin I am particularily proud of that I would score high, but there are no '10s'. The Indy would have scored a niner if not for the top and bottom and I have to rate it a 6 1/2 because of that. Just my opinion, Spring and 360 rate the highest at 8 each, but the Austonian gets a 7 1/2 due to its awkward crown. Frost, also a 7 1/2 due to its horribly stubby base. I'd be intrigued to see a thread where we could see how everyone scores each of the more significant towers. Who's in the majority or minority. I tend to be in the latter.

H2O · #**2244** Posted **Jul 12, 2019, 11:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

I had been in Austin for 20 years when Frost was built. I remember a sign posted on site that said Frost would be a world class building in a world class city. I believe the members of the city counsil put restrictions on this and many of the buildings being built during the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, limiting the architechs and developers in terms of design and height. In published Architech Journals reviewing architecture across the US in the late 80s, Austin took a beating with our squatty uninspired products of our first building boom that mostly ran in a straight line up and down Congress Ave, and best seen from ground level, their words. Still, what we got was better than nothing and pretty exciting. People that remember know that I used to eviscerate just about everything new that came down the pike from my time here on this forum, 2009 to about a year ago. Perhaps because I was once an auditor whose job was to find something wrong. I can find something I don't like on just about everything built so far. I stopped being an asshole about my opinions (I hope) for a while now. But I blame the CoA for the design constaints of the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, and the designers and developers for taking the cheap way out on recent construction or in some cases, ridiculous design choices. The crown on the Austonian, not cheap, just weird, the garage facade on 3rd and shoal, the crown and garage facade of the Independant, to name just three. There are very few towers in Austin I am particularily proud of that I would score high, but there are no '10s'. The Indy would have scored a niner if not for the top and bottom and I have to rate it a 6 1/2 because of that. Just my opinion, Spring and 360 rate the highest at 8 each, but the Austonian gets a 7 1/2 due to its awkward crown. Frost, also a 7 1/2 due to its horribly stubby base. I'd be intrigued to see a thread where we could see how everyone scores each of the more significant towers. Who's in the majority or minority. I tend to be in the latter.

The City never limited height. CBD zoning has always been unlimited height, 8.0:1 F.A.R. The CURE overlay allowed additional F.A.R. The market demand just wasn't there to exceed the F.A.R. limits until the early 2000s because Downtown land was so cheap. The taller the building, the more it costs per square foot to build. As Terry Mitchell says, 'when you add a floor to a building, you don't add it to the top, you add it to the bottom' (at least in terms of cost). Each additional floor adds cost to every floor below in the form of additional structure, mechanical etc.

AusTxDevelopment · #**2245** Posted **Jul 12, 2019, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O

As Terry Mitchell says, 'when you add a floor to a building, you don't add it to the top, you add it to the bottom' (at least in terms of cost). Each additional floor adds cost to every floor below in the form of additional structure, mechanical etc.

^^100% this. I often see forumers saying things like 'if only it was 10 floors taller' - and I get it - but the reality for a developer is each additional floor is disproportionally more expensive. As long as there is cheap money available for construction loans, which is true for office but particularly for true residential right now, tall buildings will get built. But there's a break point where the cost of the additional height outweighs the return. Development is a business, after all.

Generally, unless you have a deep-pocketed (often foreign) investor you have to value-engineer the construction. That's why the first lofty renderings released for a project are usually revised downward before construction begins. The first rendering is to attract investors. The final rendering is what you can build with the money you ended up with. That being said, it's nice when something like the Republic attracts enough money to get taller rather than shorter.

GoldenBoot · #**2246** Posted **Jul 13, 2019, 12:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O

The City never limited height. CBD zoning has always been unlimited height, 8.0:1 F.A.R. The CURE overlay allowed additional F.A.R.

Actually, and I know I'm splitting hairs here, the city code does, kind-of, "limit" height in the area zoned CBD. However, it's not clearly visible or obvious to most.

City and state mandated CVC's limit height in this zoning as well as does FAR limitations. CVC limit how tall a building can be to a specific height depending on view and distance from the Capitol. FAR's "limit" height based on the maximum allowable square footage of a specific building. With these, the city really had no reason to implement additional, physical height limits within the CBD.

With respect too FAR...buildings have to be profitable and thus, floor-plates must be no smaller than a certain size. When you multiply that floor-plate by the FAR limit, it will restrict a building to a certain number of floors (in affect, "limiting" the building's overall height). Basically, economics will drive the final height - yes, there is not physical limit, but, economics plus FAR will limit how tall a building ends up being.

As an example, if the FAR is 8:1 and the size of the lot is 1 acre, the maximum square footage allowed (without density bonuses or an approved increase in FAR) would be roughly 350,000SF. So, one could build a 10-story, ~35,000 SF floor-plated office tower or a 40-story ~8,750 SF floor-plated residential tower.

ILUVSAT · #**2247** Posted **Jul 14, 2019, 12:08 AM**

There is absolutely no why someone could compare the atrocity of the Independent's crown to that of the Frost Bank Tower.

Totally two different things. Frost's was actually completed with a nice skin. However, The Independent's is......Independent. It's crown has absolutely no tie into the rest of the tower.

It's a shame. Even though this was a developer's decision...Rhode

artners receives most of the backlash as the design architect. I would have fought it tooth-and-nail. Especially since the developer and marketers are still photoshopping a "finished" crown in their brochures and other marketing materials.

Utter Disgrace!!!

Armybrat · #**2248** Posted **Jul 14, 2019, 1:32 AM**

They could have easily & cheaply built a digital Rubik’s Cube design into the crown and have it generate a shifting pattern in lights at night. That would probably have made it a one of a kind icon for the entire country.

the Genral · #**2249** Posted **Jul 14, 2019, 1:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

There is absolutely no why someone could compare the atrocity of the Independent's crown to that of the Frost Bank Tower.

Totally two different things. Frost's was actually completed with a nice skin. However, The Independent's is......Independent. It's crown has absolutely no tie into the rest of the tower.

It's a shame. Even though this was a developer's decision...Rhode

artners receives most of the backlash as the design architect. I would have fought it tooth-and-nail. Especially since the developer and marketers are still photoshopping a "finished" crown in their brochures and other marketing materials.

Utter Disgrace!!!

I agree. Frost has a beautifully engineered artistic design that spared no expense and makes it both iconic and a landmark. I watched the crown go up and it sure looked like a very complicated process. I think its quite remarkable. The crown on the Independent is none of those things. It's unimaginative, and has no artistic value. And you are right, it has no tie in to the rest of the tower with the exception to the base. When I saw what they were doing, my thought was, OK, if they paint and highlight the mechanical box and all the bracing and light that up, then the transparent fencing might not be so bad. I'm still hoping they at least do that. But guys, I'm sorry, but I can't wrap my mind around how they thought this crown was the right fit for this tower. The top of a skyscraper is arguably the most looked at part of a building. They can't be so blind as to not see how this and the base covering cheapens the whole building. With that I'm going to end my rant on the Independent and continue waiting for someone to build my perfect tower downtown.

AusTex · #**2250** Posted **Jul 14, 2019, 2:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 78701

I was recently told by someone with a bit of inside access that the crown is "definitely not finished". I couldn't pry more at the time, maybe s/he just meant the lighting coming up. But I like to think there's more improvement still coming.

The ONE thing I have learned from over a half century of loving skyscrapers and watching them be built all over the country is...Sometimes the very last final touch to the building pulls it together and creates something very special, where otherwise would have stood something boring, banal and average.

I hope they do light the crown on the Independent for night viewing. This, however that does not address the daylight crown issues of the tower. I hope they will address those as well. This Austin Skyscraper will be prominent in our skyline for decades. I hope to

when I see it in the future instead of

.

We vs us · #**2251** Posted **Jul 15, 2019, 6:40 PM**

KUT does an explainer featuring, among others, Max Tower.

https://www.kut.org/post/why-does-to...ook-unfinished

No -- there's no additional netting to be added to the crown. What we see is what we've got.
Yes -- there will be multicolor lighting, functional some time later this year.

Riverranchdrone · #**2252** Posted **Jul 15, 2019, 7:21 PM**

I liked the comments on that KUT article. One said with the Top looking like a fence that he was expecting to see migrant children behind them.

Armybrat · #**2253** Posted **Jul 15, 2019, 8:03 PM**

Looks like a rooftop jailhouse exercise deck cage for prisoners.

Might as well keep chickens in it.

zrx299 · #**2254** Posted **Jul 15, 2019, 9:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

KUT does an explainer featuring, among others, Max Tower.

https://www.kut.org/post/why-does-to...ook-unfinished

No -- there's no additional netting to be added to the crown. What we see is what we've got.
Yes -- there will be multicolor lighting, functional some time later this year.

Value engineering wins again.

What a travesty. I'm sure the lights will be on for about an hour at night in the winter, then shut off to appease the 'Night Skies' folks

GoldenBoot · #**2255** Posted **Jul 15, 2019, 11:04 PM**

Exactly. Brett Rhode was basically saying: "we did what we could given our small budget."

What is missing is in the article were tough questions asked of the developers (Constructive Ventures & Aspen Properties). Cheap bastards...

Questioning only the architect is a underhanded, whiffle ball pitch of journalism. The architect has some level of fault here (he could have been more creative - Jesus...the mesh doesn't even reach the top of the supports), but, the developers must be held accountable for this atrocity.

futures · #**2256** Posted **Jul 16, 2019, 1:25 AM**

I'm not letting Rhode Partners off the hook here. Plenty of buildings have hidden slosh tanks. This is a direct line from the article:

"Rhode says he wanted to make the top somewhat transparent, so you could see what's there."

ughhhhh that's the crux of the issue and HE WANTED IT.

the Genral · #**2257** Posted **Jul 16, 2019, 1:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Exactly. Brett Rhode was basically saying: "we did what we could given our small budget."

What is missing is in the article were tough questions asked of the developers (Constructive Ventures & Aspen Properties). Cheap bastards...

Questioning only the architect is a underhanded, whiffle ball pitch of journalism. The architect has some level of fault here (he could have been more creative - Jesus...the mesh doesn't even reach the top of the supports), but, the developers must be held accountable for this atrocity.

I'm glad you feel this way. Somehow coming from you I feel this adds some validity to my negative reaction to this crown since I respect the majority of your posts, if not all of them.

On the video Rhode said the most effective place to set the water tank is on the roof, and the mesh was chosen to allow air to pass through to cut down on sway. I'm not an engineer but I'm thinking I've seen taller, nicer buildings using the same anti sway method on the roof without the cheap stainless steel, "let the air blow through mesh" that he chose to use. I'll lighten up if someone can show me an example of this method (mesh crown) being used on another building anywhere, and not by this group.

AusTex · #**2258** Posted **Jul 16, 2019, 7:57 PM**

The truth is the public will never hear the real reason why the crown of the Independent looks the way it does.

The powers that be, built a spec building for profit and made money!

We are very lucky here in Austin that we have not been left with other such "Detention Center" topped buildings since nearly all our building are spec built and not built for a specific client. We do not have buildings that are built for any higher purpose than to make the developer and investors a big profit. Face the reality... Corporate Capitalism is to return a profit folks. So what if they give the buyers and the general public the big middle finger. Its profits; pure and simple.

ILUVSAT · #**2259** Posted **Jul 16, 2019, 9:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTex

The truth is the public will never hear the real reason why the crown of the Independent looks the way it does.

The powers that be, built a spec building for profit and made money!

We are very lucky here in Austin that we have not been left with other such "Detention Center" topped buildings since nearly all our building are spec built and not built for a specific client. We do not have buildings that are built for any higher purpose than to make the developer and investors a big profit. Face the reality... Corporate Capitalism is to return a profit folks. So what if they give the buyers and the general public the big middle finger. Its profits; pure and simple.

No S**t, kiddo! Who do you think we are? A bunch of boobs?

I'm pretty damn sure most if not all of the individuals on this board are aware that this is a money-making venture (like any other business). Otherwise, why in the hell do it?

Additionally, almost every single building constructed across the globe is spec. The alternative is what is rare.

zrx299 · #**2260** Posted **Jul 16, 2019, 10:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTex

The truth is the public will never hear the real reason why the crown of the Independent looks the way it does.

The powers that be, built a spec building for profit and made money!

We are very lucky here in Austin that we have not been left with other such "Detention Center" topped buildings since nearly all our building are spec built and not built for a specific client. We do not have buildings that are built for any higher purpose than to make the developer and investors a big profit. Face the reality... Corporate Capitalism is to return a profit folks. So what if they give the buyers and the general public the big middle finger. Its profits; pure and simple.

Value engineering at its finest.