AUSTIN: Green Water Treatment Plant & Seaholm Power Plant Redevelopment Update Thread - Page 13

BevoLJ · #**241** Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 6:59 AM**

Damn, that Plaza from Hotel view looks like London. lol.

MichaelB · #**242** Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 2:50 PM**

Anyone know if they are still going to build in phases as once discussed or build all at once?
I just wish they would do it already! LOL!

KevinFromTexas · #**243** Posted **Jun 14, 2012, 1:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Anyone know if they are still going to build in phases as once discussed or build all at once?
I just wish they would do it already! LOL!

I know. At first I wasn't sure I liked the color, and I'm sort of on the fence about modern architecture. I like some of it, but most of it comes off just plain weird. But, the more I look at this project the more I like it. And I'm actually VERY excited to see it happen. I really can't wait to be downtown and see it. I'll probably be visiting there a lot, once they get the new central library built across the creek. That area is going to be incredible.

the Genral · #**244** Posted **Jun 14, 2012, 2:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I know. At first I wasn't sure I liked the color, and I'm sort of on the fence about modern architecture. I like some of it, but most of it comes off just plain weird. But, the more I look at this project the more I like it. And I'm actually VERY excited to see it happen. I really can't wait to be downtown and see it. I'll probably be visiting there a lot, once they get the new central library built across the creek. That area is going to be incredible.

I agree with you Kevin, as I almost always do. While I am excited about our ever changing skyline, I too am excited about seeing chunks of unused or under used areas of downtown bristling with activity. Its almost unimaginable how transformed the area between the Gables and the old waster site will be, as well as the Rainey Street area. I know some people in Boise who would love to just get one decent tower to break ground. There are many envious eyes upon us.

migol24 · #**245** Posted **Jun 14, 2012, 2:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

I agree with you Kevin, as I almost always do. While I am excited about our ever changing skyline, I too am excited about seeing chunks of unused or under used areas of downtown bristling with activity. Its almost unimaginable how transformed the area between the Gables and the old waster site will be, as well as the Rainey Street area. I know some people in Boise who would love to just get one decent tower to break ground. There are many envious eyes upon us.

Which leads me to believe that it's probably the main reason why people say untrue and negative things about Austin.

MichaelB · #**246** Posted **Jun 14, 2012, 2:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I know. At first I wasn't sure I liked the color, and I'm sort of on the fence about modern architecture. I like some of it, but most of it comes off just plain weird. But, the more I look at this project the more I like it. And I'm actually VERY excited to see it happen. I really can't wait to be downtown and see it. I'll probably be visiting there a lot, once they get the new central library built across the creek. That area is going to be incredible.

I would be happy to see this built as it. I actually think the architecture is fine. Only a bit adventurous within a new modern generic. But, a nice addition to Austin.

I hope the massing on top for the Mechanical penthouses stays. Those are some cool elements that would be the first thing to go in budget discussions.

KevinFromTexas · #**247** Posted **Jun 14, 2012, 4:08 AM**

Yeah, I like the boxes on the roof. What I liked the most about the old design for the Marriott convention hotel on 2nd Street were the rooftop boxes. And I liked the "arm" overhang for the IBC Bank Plaza building planned for West 5th. Apparently that element has been removed from the design, though. I hope they keep the boxes here. These buildings would be a lot different and even (boring?) without them.

MichaelB · #**248** Posted **Jun 14, 2012, 5:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yeah, I like the boxes on the roof. What I liked the most about the old design for the Marriott convention hotel on 2nd Street were the rooftop boxes. And I liked the "arm" overhang for the IBC Bank Plaza building planned for West 5th. Apparently that element has been removed from the design, though. I hope they keep the boxes here. These buildings would be a lot different and even (boring?) without them.

agreed

Mopacs · #**249** Posted **Jun 14, 2012, 5:06 PM**

What a great project... Also a very seamless extension of the existing 2nd street district with great street appeal. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the offset window design (I suspect they will look rather dated in 10 years), but not a deal-breaker for me by any means.

BevoLJ · #**250** Posted **Jun 14, 2012, 6:02 PM**

I agree that the off-set windows will look kinda old pretty quickly, but I really like them. 30-50 years from now they will probably be thought pretty well of. I think it is kind of a newish-oldish look (ok, I know that makes zero sense, lol). But something that I think will last and look interesting for a long time.

Like I have never liked the 1980 glass box look of Dallas and Houston's downtowns. These off set windows will never disappoint me in a way a bunch of 1980's glass boxes could. I think a long time from now they will still be interesting.

KevinFromTexas · #**251** Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 6:52 PM**

I emailed Gensler to get the building heights for GreenWater, which is the official name by the way. The individual buildings, however, do not have official names yet. So they're calling them by their block number.

GreenWater | Block 23 Office
419 feet to the rooftop box
379 feet to the mechanical penthouse
349 feet to the main roof
28 floors
566,074 gross square feet
524,143 usable square feet

GreenWater | Block 1 Residential
412 feet 6 inches to the rooftop box
388 feet 6 inches to the main roof
110 feet to the podium
141 feet to the taller portion of the podium.
38 floors
682,120 gross square feet
531,700 usable square feet

GreenWater | Block 185 Residential
410 feet to the rooftop box
380 feet to the main roof
110 feet to the podium
39 floors
436,975 gross square feet
336,600 usable square feet

GreenWater | Block 188 Hotel
234 feet to the mechanical penthouse (highest architectural point).
219 feet to the main roof
19 floors
245,643 square feet (Not sure which this is).

Click for site plan

Click for aerial site plan/map

hookem · #**252** Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 7:43 PM**

Not too bad. 3 buildings that would currently be in top 10 tallest in Austin, clustered together. I'd love to see more height like the Austonian, like they initially proposed of course.. but if the Fairmont hotel and Planetarium tower happen, I'll be OK with this kind of height at Green.

GoldenBoot · #**253** Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 11:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I emailed Gensler to get the building heights for GreenWater, which is the official name by the way. The individual buildings, however, do not have official names yet. So they're calling them by their block number.

GreenWater | Block 23 Office
419 feet to the rooftop box
379 feet to the mechanical penthouse
349 feet to the main roof
28 floors
566,074 gross square feet
524,143 usable square feet

GreenWater | Block 1 Residential
412 feet 6 inches to the rooftop box
388 feet 6 inches to the main roof
110 feet to the podium
141 feet to the taller portion of the podium.
38 floors
682,120 gross square feet
531,700 usable square feet

GreenWater | Block 185 Residential
410 feet to the rooftop box
380 feet to the main roof
110 feet to the podium
39 floors
436,975 gross square feet
336,600 usable square feet

GreenWater | Block 188 Hotel
234 feet to the mechanical penthouse (highest architectural point).
219 feet to the main roof
19 floors
245,643 square feet (Not sure which this is).

Click for site plan

Click for aerial site plan/map

This is outrageously ridiculous. I know financing and profit margins are at play. And, I know that the economy has changed since 2008. But, our lazy ass city council was in such a hurry to get "something" built on this site, they didn't hold Trammell Crow's feet to the fire.

What a drastic change from the original proposal to the one which “may” be built…let’s not forget that Trammell does not have to build this out. They may be forced to pay some fines; but, they are not forced to have to build anything.

And if that is the case…another RFP will be sent out by the city and the whole bidding process begins again.

What a bunch of stupid idiots. Bring on single member districts. This might not completely change things; but, it will be SO much better than what we have today!!! Our council members will have to “answer” to the constituents within their respective districts.

nixcity · #**254** Posted **Jul 21, 2012, 1:58 AM**

I'm sorry, but this is a complete failure to me. What is fronting Cesar Chavez is atrocious and I'm more than tired of the huge boxy podiums and although the "crowns" look sweet, just slapping them on top of yet another rectangular prism doesn't do it for me. They are also way to short and due to the fact they are all about the same height it really flattens out the skyline. The office building looks great though, it can stay, lol. And there are a few little nice touches but overall this gets a C- at best compared to an A for their original plan or that of Stratus. City Council, this property is way to valuable to do this!!!!

the Genral · #**255** Posted **Jul 21, 2012, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nixcity

I'm sorry, but this is a complete failure to me. What is fronting Cesar Chavez is atrocious and I'm more than tired of the huge boxy podiums and although the "crowns" look sweet, just slapping them on top of yet another rectangular prism doesn't do it for me. They are also way to short and due to the fact they are all about the same height it really flattens out the skyline. The office building looks great though, it can stay, lol. And there are a few little nice touches but overall this gets a C- at best compared to an A for their original plan or that of Stratus. City Council, this property is way to valuable to do this!!!!

I'm going to have to agree with you on this. Seems like we were told we were getting steak and now we are getting balogna instead. I'm guessing it was unrealistic grandeur on the original proposal and wishful thinking on our part. Still, it could be worse. I'm just not convinced we are ever going to get that one spectacular skyscraper that makes a huge statement and defines our city's skyline. Sorry but I don't think the Austonian qualifies. Yes its tall, but it still has that silly hat on top.

KevinFromTexas · #**256** Posted **Jul 21, 2012, 3:34 AM**

I don't know, I didn't care for the original designs put forth by Trammel Crow. They looked like Sim City buildings. My only gripe with this project right now is I wish it was taller. The buildings should have been 100 feet taller at least and maybe staggered in height. What's most important is how it interacts with the street. Wrap those suckers with retail. And I actually like the large bases. If their podiums had been lower, they'd be nearly the same height as the two Silcon Labs buildings + City Hall and the podium of Ashton. That would look strange having a half dozen structures of the same height fronting the river. I've already done a mock model of this project with my LEGO model of downtown. And there is going to be a really cool view looking between the two residential towers fronting the river back through the hotel and office building to 360 Condominiums.

As for landmark buildings, I really wish they had made the Frost Bank Tower about 200 to 300 feet taller. It's a good enough design to warrant having it be our tallest for a long time. Now it'll get lost in the crowd. There are certain angles you can view the skyline from where the Frost Bank Tower is hidden completely. One place is along Mopac and at the Zilker Clubhouse.

migol24 · #**257** Posted **Jul 21, 2012, 4:27 AM**

I'd have to agree with Kevin on this. I didn't like the original designs either, but like everyone else I wish these buildings would be taller and vary in height. And I also agree with Kevin that the Frost could have been a few 100 ft taller. But even without being the tallest, I honestly believe that it is Austin's signature tower. I, personally, feel that the Austonian simply compliments the Frost.

And I also again agree with Kevin that the Stratus Proposals were the best one's. I remember commenting on it a few years back and some were very against my dislike of this current proposal. But then again, I actually like what they have now as opposed to what Trammel originally had designed.

nixcity · #**258** Posted **Jul 21, 2012, 8:24 AM**

I am liking the stratus proposal more and more, that 600+ footer would have been iconic for sure, I can't recall seeing anything like that...I sure do wish we could go back and make the council choose that one...

The ATX · #**259** Posted **Jul 21, 2012, 10:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nixcity

I am liking the stratus proposal more and more, that 600+ footer would have been iconic for sure, I can't recall seeing anything like that...I sure do wish we could go back and make the council choose that one...

The economy had more to do with Trammel Crow's changes more than anything else. Stratus would have probably modified their plan if they were chosen as well.

H2O · #**260** Posted **Jul 21, 2012, 5:37 PM**

I've said it before, but I guess it bears repeating. This is a phased master development. Trammell Crow will likely partner with different entities for each block. Block 1 residential is furthest along in design in collaboration with Hanover. All the other building designs are schematic concepts only at this stage. They will almost certainly look different by the time they come to market. As for height, they could change, but there are limitations from the Waterfront Overlay and parking capacity, so the overall massing and density will not likely change a great deal.