There was a CVC determination for 600 Guadalupe late last year.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...rtyrsn=1126127

mhhmmmmmm. No more 400 footers for Austin PLZ

I would think it would be super cool if they built a twin to Northshore at this site. I've always thought that that building needed a twin counterpart built next to it, like twin monuments flanking a grand avenue.

Yeah, I posted that link somewhere last year. But it's Sutton, so it was quickly dismissed as something not viable. That's the site of the four story Extended Stay hotel. It would be nice to see that place go away. Three of the four corners at that intersection have development potential. The Post Office and Extended Stay sites are the most likely options for a large project. But there is also a Compass drive through bank on another corner.

Did I not say this would be the biggest balloon popper even moreso than Fairmont. I think it would be a huge mistake for Block 185 to end up like the surrounding blocks in terms of height. Its prominence and location scream for an 800+ highrise. The city is losing valuble real estate for mediocre 300-400 footers and they don't seem to care.

The Extended Stay site is controlled by Lincoln Property Company, and they are planning to eventually redevelop it into office space. However, they are not known for being very adventurous. They built 5th & Colorado, the 19-story glass box that had pieces falling off of it earlier this year. That doesn't mean they won't build a 400+ foot tower there, just that its less likely than say, Endeavor or Cielo or one of the other developers that are active in Austin.

Not to rub it in, but...:(

http://i.imgur.com/H6H2HxK.png
https://www.instagram.com/blume_george/

Edit: The link confirms that it was 900' tall.

Oh man. Could they at the very least keep that awesome podium. Such a unique pool design and not your generic looking facade. It hides the parking so well while being differentiated from the rest of the tower. Maybe keep the glass design for the tower portion, rise to 450 ft, light the Top the same way and call it a day. That would still be a win at this lot but of course, we'll always yearn for this one.

That thing would have been like Lever House on steroids. That would have been a beauty. I think a building like that, though, is better suited for a site farther north in downtown. At the very least the old courthouse block.

Man, I really hope something 600+ goes in here. Greenwater desperately needs height diversity.

I agree, diversity in height is needed in that part of downtown. The density is great, but let's have something taller (heck, I'd take a little shorter if it were a quality design just to change things up, but taller would be much preferred, obviously...)

Fellows, I am new here! For lot 185 in Austin, has a residential tower been confirmed? I have seen a lot of renders and pictures about huge buildings. I am not sure if these will actually be built. Regardless, the lot will be residential?

Trammel Crow is behind the project. Best guess based on their development history is office and apartment, with ground floor restaurant/retail.

I don't recall seeing this rendering before. But then again, there have been too many different versions of this project over the past 10 years to keep track of. It's obviously not the current one because Northshore was tweaked after this rendering. But I suspect this is closer to the final product than something like that awesome 900 footer. A Google search links it back to Trammell Crow's website, but I couldn't find it there.

https://i.imgur.com/lEem1Dp.png
http://www.trammellcrow.com/EN/about...ecruiting.aspx

Give me the 900 footer any day over that even if it's a generalized idea of what may end up there. We really need a dominant tower in that location to compliment the Independent.

I'm actually OK with a 300 or 500 foot tower (not 400!) in that location, I think a 900 footer would look odd right on the edge of the river, better to be located more inside downtown so there's a nice step-up effect from the river/edge of downtown. Just my opinion :)

I see your point because I was back and forth for a time, though I think it would work for this specific lot to have a very tall tower. I'm thinking Chicago or NYC with some particularly tall towers that are right on the waterfront. It would break up the monotonous stair step or step back that can be overdone. Too uniform and the skyline starts to look very predictable. Need some excitement to stir up the status quo.

I do think it's the specific lot and location that is a big reason for my change in view. It wouldn't work well if it was another lot mainly because of how the surrounding waterfront skyline has developed. Another reason was the rendering of the 900 footer, to visualize how a tower that tall would look there. Especially if it played off of Northshore in tower placement would look really nice and the view from the observation hill would indeed be impressive.

Now it doesn't have to be 900 feet, but anywhere in the 750-850 foot range would work nicely as well.

Something to keep in mind with this site, and it's hard to tell whether it is or not in this rendering, but there are multiple set backs affecting the lot. One from the lake and one from the creek. Any building going in will be able to go up 60' on the corners, but then must angle back away from both lake and creek. You see this effect in both Proper and Northshore's stair step design (3rd and Shoal was grandfathered). Essentially it means any true height will only be possible on the NE corner of block 185. To me this means we probably won't see super tall. A smaller foot plate quite simply may not make economic sense vs the increased building costs, if that makes sense? Precluding a variance from the City of course..

Interesting stuff here:

http://austin.towers.net/conversatio...-george-blume/

JR: There was recently a situation where some people online dug up renderings of a tower at Block 185, and it was crazy tall — everyone was so pumped, but once we got ahold of it and started contacting the firms involved we realized it was just speculative. I hated having to tell everyone that.

GB: That’s a really difficult site. I can’t talk about what they want to put there, but what they want to put there is complex.

JR: The banners on the fence right now say “luxury mixed-use.” I don’t think that means anything.

GB: No, it really doesn’t. An office tower with a restaurant at the bottom is a mixed-use building. Technically, 500 West Second Street is a mixed-use building. Anyway, the 185 site is tricky because you can’t access it through Cesar Chavez Street; and since it’s on Shoal Creek you can’t access it on the west side. No curb cuts are allowed on Second Street, so you can’t do anything there. The only way to access it in terms of the parking entrance is from Nueces Street.

JR: That’s where Austin Proper puts their garage entrance as well, I believe.

GB: Yeah, they have a parking garage entry off Nueces Street, along with their loading dock. They also got a variance to do a drop off with a curb cut on Second Street.

Austin Proper shares an alley with Third and Shoal. So they get an alley to use as their loading dock; but Block 185 doesn’t have an alley. Let’s just say there’s one parking garage entry for Block 185 — it would have to be Nueces Street along with a loading dock entry. So it’s a really complicated site. And loading docks have to have very close proximity to elevators in terms of service elevators. That means your ground level back-of-house structures are all concentrated close to the corner of Second and Nueces Streets. But that corner is one of the best corners in Austin!

JR: So you can’t put your loading dock there, your dumpsters – yeah, it’d be a mess. So is there an elegant solution to this problem?

GB: Sure.

JR: What is it?

GB: I can’t tell you that. I know, but I can’t tell you.

JR: [Laughs] Fair enough.

That was a good read. It includes a render I haven't seen of 3rd and Shoal from street level looking up showing how green the glass is, and also some good explanations of glass make up and color, along with restrictions on how reflective it can be. I think we were indirectly mentioned during the interview a few times.