Austin | 311 W. 7th (Masonic Lodge) | ? Feet | ~40 Floors | Proposed

[gillynova]

Very unique and would help distinguish Austin's skyline even more. Hopefully this project/rendering moves forward

[austlar1]

I will believe it when I see it, but, gee, I hope this thing gets built. It looks terrific.

[AusTex]

Originally Posted by The ATX

This rendering is almost frightening. The engineering of new buildings is astounding. How do they do that? There are some 30+, much bigger floors up above! Save an existing historic building; add no ugly parking podium; soar to 40 floors with a sleek and interesting tower; I love it!

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by AusTex

This rendering is almost frightening. The engineering of new buildings is astounding. How do they do that? There are some 30+, much bigger floors up above! Save an existing historic building; add no ugly parking podium; soar to 40 floors with a sleek and interesting tower; I love it!

Right there with you AusTex. There just doesn't seem like a whole lot of structure supporting the bulk of the tower. It would be nice to see the engineering drawings before I step into this building. I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks.

Could someone explain the Masonic Lodge tag on this building for me please.

[ohhey]

I call BS on this design and rendering. The tower design is boring as hell and the only interesting part (the cantilever over the old building) is poorly executed. The transition from historic structure to new tower is an afterthought in this design. Some structural expressionism would go a long way to bridging the (literal) gap here. And the rendering itself is unrealistic and structurally unbuildable. Never going to happen, and I'm thankful for that.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ohhey

I call BS on this design and rendering. The tower design is boring as hell and the only interesting part (the cantilever over the old building) is poorly executed. The transition from historic structure to new tower is an afterthought in this design. Some structural expressionism would go a long way to bridging the (literal) gap here. And the rendering itself is unrealistic and structurally unbuildable. Never going to happen, and I'm thankful for that.

You don't post much, but whenever you do post something about an Austin project it's extremely negative. Are there any new (last 10 years or so) high-rise buildings downtown that you like?

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by ohhey

I call BS on this design and rendering. The tower design is boring as hell and the only interesting part (the cantilever over the old building) is poorly executed. The transition from historic structure to new tower is an afterthought in this design. Some structural expressionism would go a long way to bridging the (literal) gap here. And the rendering itself is unrealistic and structurally unbuildable. Never going to happen, and I'm thankful for that.

I'm guessing that these are very preliminary exploratory renderings that are more to show an idea then a final design. So I have some faith that there is some design to be hammered out and we'll get something a little nicer once a final design is presented. Otherwise yeah I agree with you it's pretty boring, although I disagree that it's structurally unfeasible (although there may be some structurally required elements that are missing from the rendering to achieve these cantilevers). See Citicorp Tower in NYC (which famously almost fell over).

[MichaelB]

I've been in the same place. This is a quick massing study to see if this has traction before any real investment in design. Any investor would know this will have a lot of hurdles to go thru to make happen.

[We vs us]

Towers has a nice write-up, noting that 1) it's got more than passing similarity to The Independent's cantilevers because Rhode Partners designed both; and 2) that maybe a certain luxury hotel brand is involved. Which would be awesome.

https://austin.towers.net/austins-se...masonic-lodge/

Re: the hotel part -- I love that parts of DT outside of the convention center's gravity are pulling away into their own orbit, doing their own thing. Lots of cool -- and very chic -- smaller hotels. I'm thinking ZaZa, Proper, Canopy, and whichever this ends up being. I bet there's still room for more.

Do we know if The Republic or 6x have hotel floors slated at this point?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Do we know if The Republic or 6x have hotel floors slated at this point?

The Republic has always been office, and 6xG has always been office + apartment rentals.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The Republic has always been office, and 6xG has always been office + apartment rentals.

I was remembering condos for 6X . . . didn't they have that at some point? Doesn't really matter, of course, but I think I was remembering each discrete stage of the building had a different use.

[myBrain]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Towers has a nice write-up, noting that 1) it's got more than passing similarity to The Independent's cantilevers because Rhode Partners designed both; and 2) that maybe a certain luxury hotel brand is involved. Which would be awesome.

https://austin.towers.net/austins-se...masonic-lodge/

It does bear a resemblance to the Virgin hotel under construction in NYC

[zrx299]

This might be a really dumb question, but would it not be feasible to either move or disassemble/reassemble the lodge building elsewhere and have the building start fresh with a normal cleared lot?

As others have mentioned, there's no real connection between these two structures. The modern building is like a tree growing around an impediment.

[The ATX]

The HLC is not on board yet. This was kicked down the road to the September meeting.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by zrx299

This might be a really dumb question, but would it not be feasible to either move or disassemble/reassemble the lodge building elsewhere and have the building start fresh with a normal cleared lot?

As others have mentioned, there's no real connection between these two structures. The modern building is like a tree growing around an impediment.

This is a pretty good description. The engineering is pretty gee-whiz, but when you get past that, it's not very cohesive. The poor Lodge is just dwarfed by what's going on above it.

[KevinFromTexas]

I like that its sort of a companion to the Independent. Otherwise, if this was on its own, I might not like the design. You have to admit that it is a bit dull. It's not exactly a flashy design. I feel like the facade could be a little more interesting. And it's so boxy. I guess part of that is the point of it, to be an indifferent extension of the original building. Don't try to emulate or compliment it. It seems to be asking you to please pay no attention to the fact that it's hovering over the older building and is a completely different animal from a different era.

[myBrain]

Personally I think facadectomies are generally a good solution to solving the problem of maintaining historic architecture while at the same time adding urban density and updating a structure's use for modern times.

I also think that simple, modernist designs are generally the best way to pull it off. Trying to emulate the style of the facade can too easily fall into pastiche -- it's better to go with contrast. Hearst Tower (admittedly, obviously superior to the proposal under discussion) is a great example, the contrast between the masonry of the old-structure-turned-podium and the glass tower above is visually interesting.

I agree that I want to see more out of this, but that's because I'm tiring of glass boxes in Austin. Otherwise I think the juxtaposition is fine, and am worried about what a 'more cohesive' design might look like.

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, glass just looks better hovering above another building or with overhangs than most other materials would. Having a stone faced building with cantilevered levels or overhangs would look really strange.

Still, I wish Austin could see a few brick/stone buildings. This one in Minneapolis is one of my favorites right now. I would love to see something like that here. It's the type of building I'd like to see in that part of downtown, too since that's where most of our older buildings are, and it would complement them well.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=232913

[clubtokyo]

I agree a stone building like you linked would be a nice addition for Austin.

[myBrain]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yeah, glass just looks better hovering above another building or with overhangs than most other materials would. Having a stone faced building with cantilevered levels or overhangs would look really strange.

Still, I wish Austin could see a few brick/stone buildings. This one in Minneapolis is one of my favorites right now. I would love to see something like that here. It's the type of building I'd like to see in that part of downtown, too since that's where most of our older buildings are, and it would complement them well.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=232913

I absolutely agree with you -- getting a Stern like that would be fantastic. I'd also copy+paste the new Zaza 20x and put them all over town (with some variation of course).

NYC is seeing a lot of high-quality projects right now experimenting with stone, metal, terracotta, and other materials, many of which are reviving art deco styles. Would love to see that trend make its way down to Austin.