AUSTIN | The Independent | 690 FEET | 58 FLOORS | Complete - Page 28

The ATX · #**541** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 5:12 AM**

Build it, and they will stop complaining.

KevinFromTexas · #**542** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 5:23 AM**

Yeah, to the left. It's going to block the view of Seven from this angle.

wwmiv · #**543** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 5:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

I'm almost positive it'll be to the left

Yes.

Tech House · #**544** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 5:50 AM**

The Statesman has a fairly interesting discussion about the Independent, with some encouraging comments about some of the details of the structure's design elements:

http://www.statesman.com/news/entert...ise-the/nkz7f/

wwmiv · #**545** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 6:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech House

The Statesman has a fairly interesting discussion about the Independent, with some encouraging comments about some of the details of the structure's design elements:

http://www.statesman.com/news/entert...ise-the/nkz7f/

I'm particularly excited about these details:

Quote:

Technologically sophisticated colorless glass with slightly different coatings will bring faint variation to curtain walls of windows.

That's a subtle feature that I think will give the building an interesting appearance.

Quote:

The aluminum screen on the building’s top will be subtly lit from inside at night.

I'm intrigued that this will be aluminum and am wondering how that'll affect the way the lighting will be perceived by the human eye.

Quote:

Further renderings are in the works as the developers.

Yay!

The one thing I do wish about this tower is that the blocks were offset on both dimensions, rather than just one. From the east/west profile this will just appear as a tall rectangle with a very small cut-out on the south side halfway down.

wwmiv · #**546** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 8:52 AM**

Here's a map I've made of the Austin CVCs. It's color-coded by city defined (black), state defined (red), and state defined alterations of the city defined CVCs (yellow).

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...s.kFyc1SOGTRGA

Note that the corridor which created the interesting angle of 7Rio is the exact same corridor which is creating the exact same angle on 5th&West, so Kevin is 100% correct that it'll block 7Rio from this view. If we're going to get a perfect framing of the capitol dome by skyscrapers from the Lamar Bridge, the only site that's capable of letting that happen is the SW corner of 6th and Nueces.

The site of the Independent is mostly unencumbered by CVCs, except for a small sliver on the very NW corner of the lot.

drummer · #**547** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 9:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The one thing I do wish about this tower is that the blocks were offset on both dimensions, rather than just one. From the east/west profile this will just appear as a tall rectangle with a very small cut-out on the south side halfway down.

That's a great point - it'll look rather boring from the east/west. I've only ever thought of it from the river when looking at the renderings.

LoneStarMike · #**548** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 2:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

If we're going to get a perfect framing of the capitol dome by skyscrapers from the Lamar Bridge, the only site that's capable of letting that happen is the SW corner of 6th and Nueces.

And that's part of Block 51 (where IBC Bank is) and IBC is looking at developing that portion of the site on W. 6th street at Nueces as a 28-story hotel. It's shown as C96 on the December emerging projects map.

AustinGoesVertical · #**549** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 4:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

And that's part of Block 51 (where IBC Bank is) and IBC is looking at developing that portion of the site on W. 6th street at Nueces as a 28-story hotel. It's shown as C96 on the December emerging projects map.

Didn't it list mid-2015 as a start date for that one? I wish there would be more information released in regards to that site.

KevinFromTexas · #**550** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

Didn't it list mid-2015 as a start date for that one? I wish there would be more information released in regards to that site.

I doubt they can all their ducks in a row by then. Even if they have their financing in place, they still have to go through the ropes with the city's development process.

wwmiv · #**551** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

And that's part of Block 51 (where IBC Bank is) and IBC is looking at developing that portion of the site on W. 6th street at Nueces as a 28-story hotel. It's shown as C96 on the December emerging projects map.

That's shown as #19/C96 and it's on the SE corner not the SW. That lot isn't encumbered by any CVC at all and unfortunately won't provide the nice perfectly bookended view I'm after (though it'll certainly be close to doing so).

The ATX · #**552** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 7:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

That's shown as #19/C96 and it's on the SE corner not the SW. That lot isn't encumbered by any CVC at all and unfortunately won't provide the nice perfectly bookended view I'm after (though it'll certainly be close to doing so).

It's the NW corner of the site which can be seen on the December Emerging Projects map.

wwmiv · #**553** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 7:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

It's the NW corner of the site which can be seen on the December Emerging Projects map.

No, it's the SE.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/DowntownAu...r_2014_dec.pdf

The SW corner is where Arro Austin is.
The NW corner is entirely within a CVC and has Star Bar and Valentina's.
The NE corner is where Little Woodrow's is.

LoneStarMike · #**554** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 7:25 PM**

You're both right (and I was wrong.) It's the NW Corner of Block 51 (bounded by Nueces, San Antonio, Fifth and Sixth Streets) and the NW corner of that entire block is the SE corner of Sixth & Nueces.

The ATX · #**555** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 7:29 PM**

Maybe there is some confusion as to what we are both referring to. I was referring to the location of the proposed 28-story hotel per the Emerging Projects Map which shows it (C96) on the NW corner of its block.

LoneStarMike · #**556** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 7:44 PM**

Hill Country, You're talking about block corner, and wwmiv is talking about street corner. So yes, when you look at that entire block the proposed hotel would be on the NW corner of the block - which is on the south side of Sixth Street and on the east side of Nueces. So street-wise, it's at the southeast corner of Sixth & Nueces.

wwmiv · #**557** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

You're talking about block corner, and he's talking about street corner. So yes, when you look at that entire block the proposed hotel would be on the NW corner of the block - which is on the south side of Sixth Street and on the east side of Nueces. So street-wise, it's at the southeast corner of Sixth & Nueces.

Syndic · #**558** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by austlar1

I really don't like the way this building looks. I know it is daring and different, but I don't think it is very inspiring. It is gimmick architecture that may or may not age well. Either way it will be there for all to see for decades to come. I'd prefer to see something more graceful looking.

You know, I kind of agree. "Daring" is fine as long as it works. To me, this won't look that impressive in 10 or so years. It will look dated, clunky, and awkward. I hope they tweak the design or, if not, that I end up being wrong when it's built.

Now do y'all see what I mean about "iconic" architecture? Usually, it's just another way of saying "sticks out like a sore thumb".

Then again, Austin's personality is a little funky and off-kilter. So maybe it does iconicize us in a way.

austlar1 · #**559** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 11:01 PM**

Well, the architect's recent comments were encouraging. Maybe the finishes discussed in the Statesman article will give this building some visual appeal based on something more than the shock value of the stack of blocks design.

KevinFromTexas · #**560** Posted **Apr 26, 2015, 2:11 AM**

Anytime you have architecture that is heavily tied to a period or one that follows the trend of its day is going to look dated eventually. A good example of that are buildings from the 1960s and 70s. Some of them weren't too bad, but most ended up looking the same and became tired and played out. It's why I'm cautious of modern architecture today since it's already doing some of that. Architecture back then didn't offer enough interesting features to keep you interested years later. It's why buildings from the 20s, 30s and 40s are still favored is because they were so beautiful. Of course their style was heavily ornate compared to now, and that has helped some. I think modern architecture isn't too different from styles from the 70s where it was thought streamlined minimalism was good. It's ok to some degree, but eventually it becomes boring. Then you have the rebellious standout designs that run the risk of being too flashy and attention demanding.

I generally like the building so far. I just hope they pay attention to the details. I'm big on details and design accents. Those little things that you have to pay attention to to enjoy are more important to me than the big flashy things that you can't ignore even if you wish you could.