HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2019, 11:26 PM
zrx299 zrx299 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 206
Someone needs to forward those renders to the Independent folks and tell them *this is how you finish the top of a building!*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2019, 11:28 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
I ♥ NY
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 48,442
I don't know. I'm really very underwhelmed by these towers. Maybe it's just the renderings, but so far, I'm not impressed. They just look like one more tower in a forest of high rises you'd see somewhere like New York or Chicago, except that the height of these two warrants a better design.
__________________
I love chicken, I love liver, Meow Mix Meow Mix please deliver - Dr. Evil
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2019, 11:32 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of your fence
Posts: 7,909
I'm wondering why we don't have any quality/higher def renderings of the towers like we do of the podium? The crappy renderings of the towers with the out of date base photo aren't doing much for me. But the height and density for that area are pretty nice.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2019, 2:57 AM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: S.A. | Nashville
Posts: 787
Based on those renderings...one is not 594' and the other 704'. They're much, much closer to the same height - like originally proposed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2019, 2:58 AM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: S.A. | Nashville
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
I don't know. I'm really very underwhelmed by these towers. Maybe it's just the renderings, but so far, I'm not impressed. They just look like one more tower in a forest of high rises you'd see somewhere like New York or Chicago, except that the height of these two warrants a better design.
From day one the developer basically said don't expect too much! Their goal was not to be the most glamorous and tallest building(s) in Austin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2019, 5:30 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
I ♥ NY
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 48,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
Based on those renderings...one is not 594' and the other 704'. They're much, much closer to the same height - like originally proposed.
I'll go with what the elevations say rather than the renderings. For one thing, the two towers are not side by side. The two towers sit caddy corner from each other and face the podium of the other building. The shorter tower is actually farther away from the camera than the taller tower is, according to what the site plan shows of the building footprints. Also, the original 595 foot heights for these were only referring to the main roofs and did not count the mechanical penthouses. This is typical for Austin developments as mechanical penthouses are exempt from height bonuses. Also, at that time when the two towers were stated as being 595 feet tall, they were both listed as having 50 floors. Later, the project stated that the taller tower would be 695 feet with 60 floors, but again, that was without counting the mechanical penthouse.

Also, 704 feet with 60 floors certainly is one of the tallest in Austin. Today it would be our tallest, and would only be our third tallest assuming 6 X Guadalupe and The Republic get built.

Something else I noticed is that the renderings showing the podium and garage section appear somewhat different in design from that of the towers themselves in the overall towers rendering. The renderings are also using an outdated photo that doesn't include 70 Rainey. Now, I don't blame them for not wanting another residential tower in their marketing info, but 70 Rainey as we all remember seemed to take forever to get up into the air, which suggests the rendering is several years old. I'm still wondering if they'll tweak the designs a bit.

In fact, they already have somewhat. The shorter tower has some detail changes from the last rendering we saw. The placement of the shorter tower also seems to be different from what is being proposed based on the site plan showing the building footprints. Notice that the podium in both of these renderings appears to be the same, but the taller tower in the new rendering is sitting on top of that same section. Also, it looks to me like both buildings are sitting a bit farther south in the 2nd rendering. Notice how much closer the podium is to The Shore condos than it is in the first rendering. Also, notice that more of the Millennium apartment building in the background is visible in the 2nd rendering than in the first.



__________________
I love chicken, I love liver, Meow Mix Meow Mix please deliver - Dr. Evil
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2019, 11:59 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of your fence
Posts: 7,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoOgE View Post
Are we getting restaurant space in the first floors?
The only retail is a coffee shop. That was one of the criticisms of this project by the Design Commission Working Group. The Working Group does not recommend approval of the density bonus/FAR increase that this project needs.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2019, 2:59 AM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: S.A. | Nashville
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
...the two towers are not side by side. The two towers sit caddy corner from each other and face the podium of the other building. The shorter tower is actually farther away from the camera than the taller tower is, according to what the site plan shows of the building footprints. Also, the original 595 foot heights for these were only referring to the main roofs and did not count the mechanical penthouses...
Kevin, the two towers sit on the same plat of land. And, thus, are basically right next to each other. I'd agree with your assessment should these towers be a few blocks from one another. But, they are not. So, one should see a clear difference in height - especially since this height delta is over 100'.

I would not be surprised if this is a recent release of original renderings (pertaining to the original plan of having two 595' towers).

Since there is no decorative crown, the overall height in reference to the mechanical roofline is inconsequential.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2019, 3:14 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of your fence
Posts: 7,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
Kevin, the two towers sit on the same plat of land. And, thus, are basically right next to each other. I'd agree with your assessment should these towers be a few blocks from one another. But, they are not. So, one should see a clear difference in height - especially since this height delta is over 100'.

I would not be surprised if this is a recent release of original renderings (pertaining to the original plan of having two 595' towers).

Since there is no decorative crown, the overall height in reference to the mechanical roofline is inconsequential.
Renderings are not the best or most definitive source for a building's height. The height of the buildings cannot vary from what is approved by the City. And right now all the permits and documents filed with the city show one tower of ~600' and one tower of ~700'. I only use renderings for height info when there are not yet any permits or documents filed with the city.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2019, 8:00 PM
bigdogc's Avatar
bigdogc bigdogc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 352
Lot Size: 2.291 acres / 99,796 square feet
1,236,806 total square feet
13:1 total proposed FAR


Phase I – 575 feet in height, 56 stories
Phase II – 695 feet in height, 61 stories

Apartments - 662,636 Gross SF
Condos - 377,247 Gross SF
Hotel - 194,523 Gross SF
Coffee/Bar - 2,400 Gross SF

Developer asking for 13:1 FAR (vs 8:1) and in exchange willing to pay the city ~2MM.

This is going to the design commission on Monday 6/24/19.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2019, 8:50 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of your fence
Posts: 7,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdogc View Post
Phase I – 575 feet in height, 56 stories
Phase II – 695 feet in height, 61 stories
Just to clarify, those heights and floor counts are what are stated on the density bonus application that was filed in February. Updated elevations were released in late April, and the height and floor counts in the thread title come from the elevations.
Stated floor counts tend to include mechanical levels which we don't count. Also, stated building heights tend to only be to the roof, and we include the height of mechanical screens or crowns.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2019, 2:07 PM
Geckos_Rule's Avatar
Geckos_Rule Geckos_Rule is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Austin
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ATX View Post
The only retail is a coffee shop. That was one of the criticisms of this project by the Design Commission Working Group. The Working Group does not recommend approval of the density bonus/FAR increase that this project needs.
That just doesn't make business sense... With how close these are to the lake, how could they not plan for some restaurants/bars? All they need to do is take one look at the places at the 4 seasons, and the Line Hotel to know that those print money regardless of whether they're good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2019, 10:23 PM
Geckos_Rule's Avatar
Geckos_Rule Geckos_Rule is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Austin
Posts: 410
The Design Commission presentation was delayed today, so as to give the surrounding neighborhood "time to review the drawings and meet with various stakeholders."

Which in reality, I think means so condo-owners (besides me, since I like this project) in the area can go and complain about a building being built in a downtown....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2019, 11:13 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of your fence
Posts: 7,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule View Post
The Design Commission presentation was delayed today, so as to give the surrounding neighborhood "time to review the drawings and meet with various stakeholders."
That's a rather unusual move for the Design Commission. City Council, not so much.

EDIT: After watching the video, I see that the developer voluntarily pulled the plug to work with the Rainey ST. NA.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/

Last edited by The ATX; Jun 25, 2019 at 6:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2019, 6:10 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of your fence
Posts: 7,909
The Rainey St. NA has two months to complain about the views and traffic (but it's really about the views), and this project returns to the Design Commission in August.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2019, 7:02 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of your fence
Posts: 7,909
Ruh, roh. There are most likely big changes afoot. No doubt that was the reason for this being pulled from the Design Commission. The site plan was withdrawn and re-submitted today. The original site plan application mentioned two towers, and the first tower to be built was the rental tower. This one doesn't mention two towers, and states the use as condo. It's too early to know for sure, but I'm guessing they are scaling this project down to single condo building. But that's just a guess.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=524421
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2019, 8:36 PM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 2,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ATX View Post
Ruh, roh. There are most likely big changes afoot. No doubt that was the reason for this being pulled from the Design Commission. The site plan was withdrawn and re-submitted today. The original site plan application mentioned two towers, and the first tower to be built was the rental tower. This one doesn't mention two towers, and states the use as condo. It's too early to know for sure, but I'm guessing they are scaling this project down to single condo building. But that's just a guess.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=524421
It doesn't specify only one tower, but the fact that it doesn't specifically mention two is concerning. That said, it also doesn't mention any height...so probably a 400 ft rectangle. Maybe 420 ft.
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2019, 9:47 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
I ♥ NY
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 48,442
That's a huge site, though. It could easily support two towers, and that area isn't exactly wanting for park space or access to it.
__________________
I love chicken, I love liver, Meow Mix Meow Mix please deliver - Dr. Evil
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2019, 8:30 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of your fence
Posts: 7,909
A second site plan was filed today. This one is just for a waste water line relocation. That shouldn't take long to get approved. So we may see some site prep before the tower site plan is approved.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=524421
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 9:40 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.