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

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Those are public art? I always thought they were reflectors for the cars going under the railroad bridge to call attention to the steep grade for safety...

They LOOK like road signs, not art.

Agreed: C'mon Gurl!

Yep. They are art. They city paid something like $40,000 for the installation years ago.

[wwmiv]

What a waste of money.

[drummer]

But look on the bright side...how much is $40,000 in today's dollars? Wait, that's not a good thing...

[H2O]

http://stories.kut.org/atxplained/moments/index.html

[starboy92]

oh so the Reflectors are only part of this art instillation I would love to see the blue lighting

[lzppjb]

I don't think there ever was any blue lighting.

[drummer]

I think $45.00 would have been a better price...not $45,000.00 from tax dollars.

[Flatiron]

On the left (7/6/17)

[Geckos_Rule]

Man that concrete on Seaholm looks great. It's too bad the rest of it is just bland white with blue glass...

[KevinFromTexas]

My sarcasm meter is stuck. I tried shaking it, but now it's just making a weird noise.

[wwmiv]

Seaholm, to me, is actually the only building I've ever seen that has successfully utilized exposed concrete.

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, but I would take it more seriously as an intentional design feature if it weren't for the fact that it's on the end of the building that will likely be hidden from view by other towers later on. I actually do like the contrast there between the bare concrete and the white, but I wish they had implemented that elsewhere on the building. I wish there were vertical portions on the east and west sides where it was also bare concrete to complement the north side. It's a very subdued building, but I actually think the darker gray on the vertical shafts on the east and west side should have been the exposed concrete color instead.

[the Genral]

Seaholm is one of my favorite buildings even with the bare cement section, but I am on the fence about it. I like the angle notch at the top. I don't mind the white, as mentioned before, it give it a Miami-ish appeal to it.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Seaholm, to me, is actually the only building I've ever seen that has successfully utilized exposed concrete.

Well if you mean buildings in Austin, then yes I'm probably inclined to agree, since I can't think of any other remotely large building that even has exposed concrete like this in Austin.

As to other cities, I disagree. I mean, tons of buildings use exposed concrete. The base of the Manhattan Municipal Building is all sculpted concrete, and I think it's high in the running for best looking skyscraper in the US.

And I'm sure this is a nightmarishly unpopular opinion, but I'm also a fan of the Verizon building in NYC. Even before it's glass renovation, I thought the concrete on it looked awesome. If we had a 550' building that looked exactly like that in Austin, I'd love it. But of course, I haven't found many people that agree with me on that...

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

And I'm sure this is a nightmarishly unpopular opinion, but I'm also a fan of the Verizon building in NYC. Even before it's glass renovation, I thought the concrete on it looked awesome. If we had a 550' building that looked exactly like that in Austin, I'd love it. But of course, I haven't found many people that agree with me on that...

I saw a list a while back that showed this building in the top 20 of ugliest buildings either in the US or world. I would have voted it in the top ten as it resembles a really tall grain silo with vertical strips. The expense and technical undertaking to renovate the exterior shows the new owners were tired of wearing paper bags over their heads when visiting it. I would welcome it to our skyline after the renovation though. Hotel Van Zandt is another example of the use of bare concrete, and other than the entrance and incredible interior, I hate this building.
Oh and...hey, the Independent is coming along nicely eh?

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

My sarcasm meter is stuck. I tried shaking it, but now it's just making a weird noise.

Skyscraperpage really needs a like button.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by jackinbeantown

skyscraperpage really needs a like button.

<like>

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I saw a list a while back that showed this building in the top 20 of ugliest buildings either in the US or world. I would have voted it in the top ten as it resembles a really tall grain silo with vertical strips. The expense and technical undertaking to renovate the exterior shows the new owners were tired of wearing paper bags over their heads when visiting it. I would welcome it to our skyline after the renovation though. Hotel Van Zandt is another example of the use of bare concrete, and other than the entrance and incredible interior, I hate this building.
Oh and...hey, the Independent is coming along nicely eh?

Well, I've said this in other threads so it doesn't bear repeating all the time, but the reason I think NYC and Chicago have the best skylines in the world is because of architechtural diversity. No other city in the world has had 150 years of sustained skyscraper development like NYC has (and to a lesser extent, Chicago). So, you see stuff like the Chysler Building, the Manhattan Municipal Building, as well as super modern stuff like 8 Spruce Street. And yes, you get brutalist monstrosities like the Verizon building, but I think that only adds to the skyline.

So the reason I'd love it here is that even if it looked ugly, it'd look different. Unlike something equally tall that's just off-white with blue glass (Spring, 360, Seaholm, Windor, Bowie, etc), or a blue glass rectangle (5th and Colorado, 303 Colorado, 500 W. 2nd, 3rd and Shoal, JW, Fairmont, etc). It'd give Austin some much needed architectural diversity that I think would make the skyline as a whole look much better.


And man, I forgot about the Van Zandt. I drive past it every single day and somehow forgot about their exposed concrete. I do think it looks good there, especially with the "noir" style HOTEL light theyve got.

[Austin_ez_wider]

On the topic of exposed concrete. Ideally it's cost efficient and appealing to some but usually in the contract the developer requests a type A finish which is hard to achieve. Even when they look good the developer thinks they don't look good enough so they get painted or textured. I personally like the seaholm north exposed concrete but from my contacts on the job it was almost painted as requested by developer do to the minor inconsistency in the colors of the grey concrete. 5th and West has exposed walls on north and west face. Just my 2 cents

[Flatiron]

Exposed concrete looks good after it's weathered, and preferably stained by water deposits and rust.

Anyway, here's another pic from today