HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2017, 6:00 PM
ahealy's Avatar
ahealy ahealy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin | Puglia, Italia
Posts: 1,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by pscajunguy View Post
I remember being impressed by Frost, One American, One Congress Plaza,101 Congress and 301 Congress. During the daytime they had a great contrast and at night, the lighting was so great. My favorite view was Frost from the old Chain Drive at night in the back patio. at least I' m glad that the W is dark and the North Shore, the Austonian stand out and Proper and the Independent will, but Austin's skyline is looking more and more like LA (boxy) and less and less like Dallas, or even Houston in diversity.
La Chain Dreeve you say?

I'd consider an LA comparison a compliment. Our skyline is already pretty iconic...but yes, the Austonian really gives it that Library Tower tallest LA feel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2017, 7:53 PM
Maximusx1 Maximusx1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
It's an attractive building, even if it isn't stand-out. It certainly isn't ugly, let alone trash.
Agreed. I like this building and think it's absolutely fine. There aren't that many 'empty lots' left in that neighborhood that it could take. And it is using the useless empty lot between Sullivan's and Bob's.

We get two 500+ foot building rumors in a week (the UT block office tower and this) breaking that 400 ft. 'plateau' that everyone talks about and all yall do is complain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2017, 9:13 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximusx1 View Post
Agreed. I like this building and think it's absolutely fine. There aren't that many 'empty lots' left in that neighborhood that it could take. And it is using the useless empty lot between Sullivan's and Bob's.

We get two 500+ foot building rumors in a week (the UT block office tower and this) breaking that 400 ft. 'plateau' that everyone talks about and all yall do is complain.
Amen to that. Nobody ever paid any attention to the building housing Sullivan's until recently. I think there was another restaurant there for a few years (Capitol Grill or something) before Sullivan's remodeled and took over the space. Before that I have no idea, but nobody considered the structure to be iconic. It was just another underutilized building in a neighborhood with a few gay bars, small businesses, and empty storefronts. Hell, nobody ever called the neighborhood the "Warehouse District" until about 15 or 20 years ago. The name became a marketing tool for real estate types hoping to demonstrate that even Little Old Austin had its very own Warehouse District.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2017, 9:31 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,859
I recall the "warehouse district" being referred to as such in the late 80s, early 90s.
It was the frontier... the cool area.... and sketchy. I was at Capitol City Playhouse a lot then....Where "Fado" is now. We were constantly looking to see what could happen in those great warehouses. We would party in and on the warehouse that was where the first AMLI went in. There were other spaces that we're artist studios. ( specifically where the big white state garage is now).
Soooo.... yeah... there were lots of people paying attending to that area early on and you are right, you can thank the gay bars for finding it first... as always.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2017, 9:45 PM
corvairkeith's Avatar
corvairkeith corvairkeith is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 882
The "Warehouse District" has a very interesting history going back over a hundred years when it was called "Guy Town".

https://www.austinchronicle.com/feat...1-01-26/80321/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2017, 10:48 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
you suck
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,946
Did I mention that I like this building? Because I do.

Anyway, on Austin's skyline's pattern of progression and our seeming propensity for plateauedness, it seems to me that throughout its history, at least in modern times, (you know, since the 70s haha), that Austin's skyline has grown in tiers. First, it was a new level (literally) of downtown development when we stepped up to 300+ feet with 200 footers filling in some gaps, and the two made up the bulk of our skyline until the 80s. In the 80s it was like the 70s, but on steroids with many more 300 footers and 200 footers adding more bulk. The 90s were uneventful without a single 200 footer finished that decade. The last two decades, though, has seen our skyline again take another step up where we saw 400 footers really for the first time (since it wasn't until only a few years ago that we realized the One American Center is actually 401 feet). There was even a 500 footer in the mix (Frost), but the bulk of what we got was 400 feet, a step up from the 80s. Now it seems like we might be in for a new era where we see more 500 footers filling things in a bit as the 400 footers did before and more 600 footers crowning that darn plateau. It has me wondering what the next decade or two will bring and how many more 600 footers and possibly 700 footers and even 800 footers we'll see. Our skyline has grown exponentially over the years even on a consistent level of progression of height. I don't think that we'll be stuck with this 400 foot plateau forever (obviously). I think it's just that 400 feet is a such a step up from 300 feet that it's much more noticeable, even from my neighborhood.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2017, 2:07 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximusx1 View Post
Agreed. I like this building and think it's absolutely fine. There aren't that many 'empty lots' left in that neighborhood that it could take. And it is using the useless empty lot between Sullivan's and Bob's.

We get two 500+ foot building rumors in a week (the UT block office tower and this) breaking that 400 ft. 'plateau' that everyone talks about and all yall do is complain.
There is a lot right across the way on the southeast corner that could be built on.

Also as MichaelB meantioned, many of us have paid attention to this building as well as others in that area of DT. I think we need to remember that we can be highrise enthusiasts as well as supporters of preserving buildings that not only have history but give DT a more textured and varied mix of old and new. The existing building is in beautiful condition and there's no good reason for it to be completely demolished. Downtown may be running low on building sites but we are not there yet. We have quite a few surface lots including some right on Congress that need to go. Developers should prioritize building on those lots first.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2017, 2:20 AM
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: 7,093
I don't have the time to watch the video right now, but if anyone wants to know what the Design Commission did/did not decide about the density bonus, the video (Item 3A) for yesterday's meeting is online:

http://austintx.swagit.com/play/07242017-860
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2017, 4:30 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by corvairkeith View Post
The "Warehouse District" has a very interesting history going back over a hundred years when it was called "Guy Town".

https://www.austinchronicle.com/feat...1-01-26/80321/
Interesting article. Sounds like the neighborhood mostly warehoused prostitutes until around 1913.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2017, 2:12 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: 7,093
For those who didn't want to spend 47 minutes watching the Design Commission's discussion about this project, the density bonus needed for this project to move forward was granted in an 8 to 1 vote.
It wasn't made clear if the Historic Landmark Commission will still have a say in the approval process. But the Design Commission didn't make a motion for it.
The GDA presentation didn't provide much new building info. But they did show a couple renderings of the streetscape:



http://austintx.swagit.com/play/07242017-860
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2017, 3:48 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,859
DAMN.... SUPER generic.
I am not for design commissions guiding aesthetics .... but damn...
Can this one just fail until something better comes along.
Not worth loosing the atmosphere over.

NEXT .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2017, 3:59 PM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Far from the maddening crowd
Posts: 2,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
DAMN.... SUPER generic.
I am not for design commissions guiding aesthetics .... but damn...
Can this one just fail until something better comes along.
Not worth loosing the atmosphere over.

NEXT .
Wow, this forum is indeed a house divided.

BTW ATX, I did watch most of the meeting, it was late and I couldn't sleep. This helped a lot...with me getting sleepy that is I was hoping a brawl would break out with someone throwing a shoe or something. Interesting that they are planning on replacing 4 to 6 in diameter trees with 5 inch trees. He said most were 4 inch trees which would be a step up and only a few 6 inch trees would be a step down. I like that they admit that after the construction, they were "obligated"... in writing??, to return the street area back to the original condition, including the benches that would have to be removed. The reps did seem well prepared aside from needing to refer to their references a few times and needing to further research a few questions. The one particular guy on the commission made it clear that the building in question for demolition was not a historic landmark at this time and made it clear they are not advocating its demolition by documenting that point, leaving it up to the Historic Landmark Comm. to decide its fate. Riveting...lol

Last edited by the Genral; Jul 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2017, 5:59 PM
We vs us We vs us is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,012
Yeah, I'm on Team Not Awesome for this one . . . at least for design aesthetics.

It would be nice if they could incorporate the historic facade into whatever they're doing, but to me that's not really a priority. It's pretty clear that what we think of as the Warehouse District isn't really very long for the world anyway, without more formalized protection.

What IS a priority for me is to start seeing buildings in prominent skyline spots start to look less like they were ordered from a Sears catalog circa 1995 and more like they were created for a booming and ambitious metropolis. As a former Chicagoan, I can tell you unequivocally that Austin needs more Daniel Burnham ("make no small plans") in its collective soul.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2017, 6:21 PM
Sigaven Sigaven is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
DAMN.... SUPER generic.
I am not for design commissions guiding aesthetics .... but damn...
Can this one just fail until something better comes along.
Not worth loosing the atmosphere over.

NEXT .
Ugh agreed. They could at least improve the street interaction on what I assume is Colorado.

Although I do like the tower design overall...it would be nice to see them preserve the Sullivan's facade and maybe incorporate brick into the building design to compliment it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2017, 9:05 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: 7,093
Community Impact watched the video too. They confirmed that this goes to the Historic Landmark Commission next. Apparently a demo permit alone will cause a project to go the Historic Landmark Commission.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...oser-approval/
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2017, 10:47 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,684
You all know I'm a guy that loves to keep the historic buildings. But this building is nothing special. It's ~80 years old and just plain brick. I won't lose any sleep if it's torn down.

If they reused the old brick, that'd be pretty cool and a nod to the past.

That being said, I like the height of this proposal. It's nothing special, though.

Meh (w/ height) replacing Meh.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2017, 1:50 AM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 2,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
Meh (w/ height) replacing Meh.
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2017, 1:17 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,608
I wonder if it's possible to contact the historical commission for public input. If they are going to build it then fine but at least keep the facade.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 4:29 AM
ATXPhil ATXPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 29
I'm just glad to see a project finally get upsized from the original proposal. The only other time I can recall that happening lately is Hotel Mirabeau going from 24 stories when proposed as "Waterloo Park Hotel" to 31-33 stories in the most recent proposal. I also think this new proposal actually has a good chance of getting built as proposed since Riverside Resources has a good track record of coming through with their projects.

While the design is nothing spectacular in and of itself, it isn't hideous, and should compliment the other 500'+ buildings in the area well. The flat top of this building will go well with the pointy "owl ears" of the Frost Tower and curved top of the Austonian above the 400' plateau in front of them around the Congress area tower cluster when looking from the South. I consider the new design to be a slight upgrade from the original proposal which would have looked an awful lot like a thicker version of the Spring Tower.

Here's a refresher of the original proposal: http://austin.towers.net/39-story-re...-3rd-colorado/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2017, 12:17 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
you suck
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,946
This says it would be the 4th tallest, but it's actually the 5th tallest. The Independent, The Austonian, Fairmont Hotel and 360 Condos would each be taller.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...oser-approval/
Quote:
315-unit luxury apartment skyscraper proposed for downtown Austin moves closer to approval

If approved, the building at 300 Colorado St. would be the fourth-tallest building in the city's skyline

A 44-story, 315-unit luxury apartment skyscraper moved one step closer to taking the place of the one-story Sullivan’s Steakhouse at 300 Colorado St., Austin, after the city’s Design Commission approved the plans on Monday night.

The proposal now heads to the Historic Landmark Commission as the developer, Austin 3C Venture LP, has requested a demolition permit for the more-than-80-year-old, one-story, brick facade building that sits on the southern end of downtown’s Warehouse District.

Although the plans passed 8-1, commissioners voiced concern over the historic significance of the site. Though they said the Warehouse District is not an official historic district, commissioners said it is one recognized by longtime residents. Rather than demolish the structure—out of which Sullivan’s Steakhouse still operates—commissioners expressed a desire to maintain its character on at least the ground floor, which is planned to operate as a commercial space.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
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 5:34 PM.

     

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