AUSTIN | The Independent | 690 FEET | 58 FLOORS | Complete

[deerhoof]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Awesome:

This building looks massive compared to the Seaholm condos.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I hope I learn to like this like all of you, but I just don't get the offsets. It looks like a poorly done photo shop job. Its certainly different and I want to like it but....I'm also not a fan of the balcony offsets on the W either. They both look discombobulated to me, especially the Independant. Ya'll can disagree with me, but please remember, its just my opinion. Maybe when its completed, the whole scope and height of this thing will help me to like it.

I'm sure you won't be the first "hater". Architecture is art and therefore subjective. It amazes me how heated arguments can get over such things.

[Jdawgboy]

Ha! I lost lol. Just got on here a min ago and saw that they released the rendering. Looks pretty close to how the massing looked. It will definitely be unique that's for sure.

[hereinaustin]

So, we are looking at 50 floors above the podium (not including the architectural roof)? Sweet, I think we will crack 700'.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

I'm sure you won't be the first "hater". Architecture is art and therefore subjective. It amazes me how heated arguments can get over such things.

Not a hater, just not a big fan. Of course if I lived there, I could always tell my friends I live in the tall building that looks like it was involved in an earthquake. I wonder if we ever had an earthquake if it would actually correct it?

[LoneStarMike]

Same rendering, but a wider view from their website:



http://www.independentaustin.com

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

Same rendering, but a wider view from their website:



http://www.independentaustin.com

They definitely screwed up the rendering for their Austin Proper neighbor and competitor.

[LoneStarMike]

True.

I grabbed a screenshot from their video showing the building on the skyline.




http://www.independentaustin.com/the-building/

[AustinGoesVertical]

Wow. I'm so excited for this building. Living in the Bowie, I can't wait to watch this one get built. I personally think the offsets make is unique, and think they'll do something creative with how they light the mechanical cube. Do you think the cube isn't included in the 685', because then this one definitely tops 700'

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

True.

I grabbed a screenshot from their video showing the building on the skyline.




http://www.independentaustin.com/the-building/

NICE. I didn't catch the video update on the site.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

True.

I grabbed a screenshot from their video showing the building on the skyline.




http://www.independentaustin.com/the-building/

this view slays me. I see now that mechanical box we were looking at will just be covered in a lit crown mesh

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ahealy

this view slays me. I see now that mechanical box we were looking at will just be covered in a lit crown mesh

Yeah, but nobody will be able to look down upon it...yet.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

Wow. I'm so excited for this building. Living in the Bowie, I can't wait to watch this one get built. I personally think the offsets make is unique, and think they'll do something creative with how they light the mechanical cube. Do you think the cube isn't included in the 685', because then this one definitely tops 700'

It would seem odd to me if they didn't include the height of the mechanical penthouse in the height. It is part of the building after all.

I do know that whenever a building is requesting a height variance that the allowed height only pertains to the main roof height. This means mechanical penthouses and their screens are exempt up to 15% over the limited height.

The only time that doesn't apply is within a capital view corridor if the mechanical penthouse would block the view of the Capitol.

As far as I know this property doesn't have a height restriction on it of any kind anyway.

[The ATX]

This gives Sutton an opportunity to throw a spire or taller mechanical screen atop their 56-story condo and hotel tower and proclaim their project as Austin's tallest.

[KevinFromTexas]

It's too bad they chopped the height of the Fairmont. It's crazy to think we could have ended up with 4 buildings possibly being between ~680 feet and 700 feet tall.

[LoneStarMike]

Well, there's always Block 52 - if they ever do anything with it.

[wwmiv]

Given the screencap from the video, I think the mechanical screen is part of the 685'. The whole thing looks shorter than the Austonian. What a massive let down.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

It would seem odd to me if they didn't include the height of the mechanical penthouse in the height. It is part of the building after all.

I agree that it should have been included in that calculation, but with 10 ft ceilings, 58 floors, and 18 inches between each floor, we're looking at 670'. So the mechanical part would only be 15' then, which doesn't look right proportionally. It seems as though they haven't fully decided what to do with the crown, so maybe that's why it hasn't been included. I really think 685' is just the roof height.

[KevinFromTexas]

One question, what are they using the podium levels for? If it's for parking then all bets are off for more height. Parking levels have very low floor-to-floor heights.

Has anyone bothered to ask the marketing peeps what the ceiling heights will be?

[drummer]

I like this building. I see the General's point that is looks like it may have been involved in an earthquake...I was thinking Jenga blocks, personally, but it works for this one, haha. I think having a couple buildings that stand out architecturally in a skyline are okay, but not all of them or even a lot of them. Since we don't have any truly unique architecture in our taller buildings, I'm all for it with this one.