HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #321  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2017, 2:33 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverranchdrone View Post
The only light rail line that we have...
When did this happen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #322  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 11:44 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 412
This was discussed at the design commission meeting this month after getting flagged last time.

Design commission still really doesn't like the project but City Planning and Zoning Staff looked at it and developer met the minimum requirements for density bonus. Staff admits it's not the kind of development they would like but it still meets requirements and they have to be fair to applicants. It leads to a discussion about if the density bonus code needs to be changed.


Creating Dense Development
Design Commission: 13 stories of parking and only 12 stories of habitable space is not increasing density as intended by the Urban Design Guidelines (UDG) of the Density Bonus Program. This section specifically encourages walkability and reduces reliance on cars. Less parking and more habitable space is preferred. The Working Group does not believe that this project complies with this section.

City Staff: The project will create a 25 story development on a site that is currently a parking lot. The applicant could have just built the parking garage without the offices. The project increases density and meets the guideline.

Guideline B2: Provide Multi-Tenant, Pedestrian-Oriented Development at Street Level
Design Commission: Project lacks pedestrian-oriented development as envisioned in UDG. Refer to previous comments-Project does not comply
City Staff: The ground floor includes a restaurant space, lobby, and coffee stand. Although the lobby is large, the applicant did incorporate suggestions from the Design Commission to improve the activation of this space.


Here is the discussion: http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01222018-1373
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #323  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2018, 1:52 AM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Far from the maddening crowd
Posts: 2,841
I'm liking the opinion of the Design Commission. Where were they when 801 Barton Springs was proposed? Look, I know their biggest concern is probably the parking to habitable space ratio, but I hate this design almost as much as I hate 801 BS. On the other hand, a 25 story parking garage would be interesting. A parking skyscraper. At least it wouldn't have that douchie looking office portion on top.
Don't know if I ever mentioned my disdain and contempt for both of these buildings in this forum before...and I'm sorry I wasn't able to incorporate the word "loathe" somewhere in that sentence, but then again, I certainly wouldn't want to come across too harsh or negative.
My dog with coprophagia would love to get his chops on both of these buildings.

Last edited by the Genral; Jan 26, 2018 at 2:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #324  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2018, 2:03 AM
We vs us We vs us is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 975
Moves past the Design Commission, but not without difficulty.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...owntown-tower/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #325  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2018, 4:00 AM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by We vs us View Post
Moves past the Design Commission, but not without difficulty.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...owntown-tower/
Pretty sure this is reporting what happened at the design meeting from over a month ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #326  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2018, 2:28 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,859
Is the "Design Commission" misnamed?
When I hear that name, I think they might be in the position of dictating Taste or Style...
which I will always oppose. ( Never a good idea to risk fossilized opinions in charge!)
When In fact the "design" they oversee is only the practical/functional side.
Or so it seems to me.
What would be a better name?

I agree also that they should not dictate use by an owner. AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO!
It's just not a good precedent to set. We infringe enough with requirements on how buildings interact with each other and with people.... for that I am glad.
But at the end of the day I would not want a committee of people who , will , honestly.... have time to be on a committee..... tell me how to design.
No thank you! IT's a true double edged sword!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #327  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2018, 3:45 PM
We vs us We vs us is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
Pretty sure this is reporting what happened at the design meeting from over a month ago.
Yep, looks like it. Good summary for those of us who didn't have a chance to watch the discussion above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #328  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2018, 8:32 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
I'm here for no one.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of the fence
Posts: 6,967
The site plan has been approved and released.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=255654
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #329  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2018, 4:37 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
more brains
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ATX View Post
The site plan has been approved and released.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=255654
They posted all the files. The elevations are in file 043.

The height is 355 feet 9 inches to the mechanical screen with 25 floors.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #330  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 6:25 PM
AusTxDevelopment AusTxDevelopment is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 571
Brandywine announced via email today that they have received their site development permit. Screen grab:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #331  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 7:05 PM
CTrox73 CTrox73 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 7
That is the worst building design I have ever seen. Looks like a diamond sitting on a pile of shat
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #332  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 7:59 PM
Sigaven Sigaven is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 577
Gross. Mother of all Parking Podiums. I hope this is the wake-up call to start reversing this disturbing trend we are seeing downtown (be that better transit, underground parking, etc).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #333  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 8:23 PM
Lextex97 Lextex97 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTrox73 View Post
That is the worst building design I have ever seen. Looks like a diamond sitting on a pile of shat
Looks like a tooth implant to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #334  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 8:58 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,569
It's not the top part of the building that's ugly. In fact I think if they halve the podium and place part of it underground plus create a more uniform transition, if not cover with the same facade as the upper portion, it could be a nice building. The biggest problem is obviously the parking podium.

We do not need that much parking added period! We have enough parking available if the city would work more closely with existing downtown garages to better utilize their spaces. When entire garages that used to be open for public parking stop providing paid parking, that means they no longer have enough demand to support keeping them open. These guys should know this if they have done any sort of research, not to mention the additional parking that has been added with newly built developments. This is absolutely the wrong direction they should be going. It does nothing but encourage traffic, not reduce it.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #335  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 9:00 PM
Riverranchdrone Riverranchdrone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Austin
Posts: 65
If they really are going to make the base brown. Make the glass green and bow it out alittle more and we can have a man made tree in down town lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #336  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 9:05 PM
We vs us We vs us is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lextex97 View Post
Looks like a tooth implant to me.
The Crystal Molar.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #337  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 9:25 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 412
Here is an informative study on the parking issue downtown: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=291336


I really don't care for the design but I get the concept of trying to embrace the podium instead of dressing it up and putting lipstick on it.

Again, this is another one of those quarter lot buildings. If you want to get these podiums under control then you need to try to encourage larger portions of blocks to be redeveloped which would require land purchases/mergers. This building doesn't have necessarily "more" parking than any other building. It's just the narrowness creates an extremely inefficient use of garage space due to natural curves of travel lanes. These lots are much better suited for residential but we need office space way more than high end residential.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #338  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2018, 12:43 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
more brains
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,724
I don't hate it. In fact, I think it is unique, but to appease others, I wish they hadn't emphasized so much the two uses, but instead meshed them together. That facet in the facade in the office floors is really going to be what saves this building. I just wish they had carried that down into the parking levels, even if it was only cosmetic in the way the Homewood Suites Hotel has those funky panels "lines" on its facade. That facet could have been carried down and then lit at night all the way to the mechanical screen from street level.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #339  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2018, 12:48 AM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 412
Also, I think it's hard to really visualize what non-glass elements are going to look like in real life so it's hard to tell if the podium is going to look good. I thought the facade on the South Congress Hotel renderings looked so much better than the final building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #340  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2018, 11:29 PM
ToTheSky ToTheSky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 27
Come visit downtown Austin flier bullet points, to be posted everywhere: We've got a great 400' hi-rise plateau. We're also home to the giant USB stick aka The Austonian and now we happily present the half parking garage monstrosity to be known as the Austin Gum Ball Machine aka this turd. Shame on you, Brandywine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.