Austin | Indeed Tower (Block 71) | 542 Feet | 36 Floors | COMPLETE

[ahealy]

Oh I hope this baby is full steam ahead.....with tweaked lines and balconies.

[Geckos_Rule]

Yesssss I'm glad to see my inside source wasn't BS. Ti'me to go bug him for other info....

[The ATX]

This goes to the Design Commission on Monday, and the backup files have some new info. The height is now 555' (elevations page 32), and we finally have info about the second building in this quote from a letter by Page:

Future development may include a hotel or residential development at this location as well, displacing part of the plaza.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=288396





http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=288397

[The ATX]

Here's a rendering of the plaza where the possible future residential or hotel tower would go.


http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=288397


This is the podium along Colorado St.


http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=288397

[ahealy]

Ok these renders are make me feel sooooo much better. Build it!

[CastleScott]

Nice project for Austin and plus awesome view from that balcony render.

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, I'm liking this one. The only thing is I was getting used to the idea of them building the new plaza and omitting the 2nd tower from the project. As was mentioned in that humorous article up there, the new plaza would preserve the view of the north facade of the Claudia Taylor Johnson Hall, which is just as nice as the south facade. What I would love is for there to be some sort of way to have the tower cantilever over the plaza or else be on a pedestal or something where it would allow the plaza to remain intact, but with shade, while still preserving the view of the north side of the Johnson Hall. I also doubt the residential tower would want to be very close to the office tower. I'm curious to see what they'll do there.

[The ATX]

The targeted start date is now listed as January 2018 in the first backup file.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yeah, I'm liking this one. The only thing is I was getting used to the idea of them building the new plaza and omitting the 2nd tower from the project. As was mentioned in that humorous article up there, the new plaza would preserve the view of the north facade of the Claudia Taylor Johnson Hall, which is just as nice as the south facade. What I would love is for there to be some sort of way to have the tower cantilever over the plaza or else be on a pedestal or something where it would allow the plaza to remain intact, but with shade, while still preserving the view of the north side of the Johnson Hall. I also doubt the residential tower would want to be very close to the office tower. I'm curious to see what they'll do there.

Yeah, I agree. That may be really awkward or really amazing depending on how they design it. The render with all of downtown is giving me London skyline for some reason. Perhaps that's the blue look we'll have in the near future...

[The ATX]

Since this is a Design Commission presentation, they added the Great Streets treatment to the previously released street level renderings. One important thing I noticed in one of the drawings is that the plaza area is labeled as "private landscaped plaza." I was under the impression that it was a public space. But it makes sense that it is private because no public space will be lost when/if the second tower goes up. The office tenants will be the only folks losing their plaza space. But the wording indicates there will still be a small plaza after a second tower goes up.



http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=288396

[starboy92]

Anybody think the post office would be a great location for an Apple store? or am I alone in that idea

[AustinGoesVertical]

Nice, a height increase! Looks like they changed up the balconies too and added a larger, more central one. Those are some glossy renderings, this building looks sleek and the slant is a nice touch. Knowing Speck, I don’t doubt that the interior of this one and the general consideration of the space will be top-notch.

Very excited!

[The ATX]

It may not be smooth sailing at the Design Commission meeting. The Design Commission Working Group did not find the project in substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines. Substantial compliance is needed of course to get the density bonus/F.A.R. increase needed to build the tower as proposed.

From backup file #1:

Concerns noted by the Working Group included removal of live oaks along Colorado Street because they are off the
standard Great Streets dimensions. The curb cut width on Colorado with loading and vehicle curb cuts side by side.
The amount of frontage that the transformer vault occupies on Colorado St. will severely impact the pedestrian
experience, especially in that it is adjacent to the 2 curb cuts/vehicle entrances. Intersecting volumes at the lower
levels could help break the scale. The east and west elevations are expansive and over-scaled in relation to the
surrounding context. Suggest sun shading over garage entrances or trees between garage and loading curb cuts to
shelter pedestrians.
We have determined that this project, as presented, is not in substantial compliance with the Urban Design
Guidelines. Please address the issues above to become complaint before presenting to the full Commission. The
Working Group has appreciated the opportunity to review and comment on this project.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=288396

[Jdawgboy]

East and west elevations are expansive and overscaled? Really??? Its an office tower in the middle of DT for goodness sake. If that kind of mentality dictated all buildings, then we wouldn't have highrises at all. I'm not really sure why they are making that an issue. I can understand the street level interaction.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

East and west elevations are expansive and overscaled? Really??? Its an office tower in the middle of DT for goodness sake. If that kind of mentality dictated all buildings, then we wouldn't have highrises at all. I'm not really sure why they are making that an issue. I can understand the street level interaction.

Yeah....that doesn't make total sense. The JW and Fairmont are huge girthy boxes next to.... parking lots. As proposed, this would at least be near it's friends in the CBD

[Sigaven]

I actually kind of agree that the east and west facades are overscaled - it's a huge flat wall rising straight up from the sidewalk. I think those side walls could use some small setbacks of some kind to break up the mass and add a bit more interest. I know that this might compromise the design intent of two simple masses intersecting, but I think that design concept would only work properly if this building were perhaps slimmer and taller. Seems too big and boxy - ala the Fairmont - and I think we can all agree that the Fairmont is pretty disappointing.

Edit: looked through the presentation. They are also completely justified in their assessment of the Colorado Street pedestrian experience. There is absolutely no pedestrian interaction on that street except for the southern corner where the glass wraps around a bit. The rest is blank walls with blank doors for transformer vaults and parking garage entrances. Absolutely dead street experience. This could have been much better designed. I am happy the design commission is stepping in. Better a delayed building that is built right, than one that is built quicker but detracts from downtown.

[Jdawgboy]

I'm all for making this sucker taller but that compromises office floor space. Also this scale issue with setbacks and so forth seems a little tripe when you consider this building will be in the traditional heart of DT that isn't fronting Congress Ave. Highrises are supposed to go straight up. Look at other major cities around the country. Heck we have a few buildings that do the same thing. Bank of America is a prime example. If your in the city center, you expect highrises rising straight up from the street.

I understand why they don't want that affect along Congress Avenue and I can understand setbacks along 2nd but in this particular case I don't see why it matters if the building doesn't have setbacks along Lavaca.

[futures]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

I actually kind of agree that the east and west facades are overscaled - it's a huge flat wall rising straight up from the sidewalk. I think those side walls could use some small setbacks of some kind to break up the mass and add a bit more interest. I know that this might compromise the design intent of two simple masses intersecting, but I think that design concept would only work properly if this building were perhaps slimmer and taller. Seems too big and boxy - ala the Fairmont - and I think we can all agree that the Fairmont is pretty disappointing.

Edit: looked through the presentation. They are also completely justified in their assessment of the Colorado Street pedestrian experience. There is absolutely no pedestrian interaction on that street except for the southern corner where the glass wraps around a bit. The rest is blank walls with blank doors for transformer vaults and parking garage entrances. Absolutely dead street experience. This could have been much better designed. I am happy the design commission is stepping in. Better a delayed building that is built right, than one that is built quicker but detracts from downtown.

I just can't see how the east and west are "overscaled". It's a massive office building in a downtown just like thousands of examples all over the world. It may be some people's personal preference from an aesthetic standpoint to include a setback or two, but this is as normal of an office building as you could imagine.

There are multiple examples from The Fairmont, W, Omni, 500 W 2nd, JW, etc. in Austin that are tall rectangles with no setbacks. Super confused by these comments.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Street Level interaction I get... but any talk of the east/west elevations is BS. What does that even mean? Any growth is going to lead to more density. 600 Guadalupe is slated to be built right by there. This lot in question has plans for a second tower. The 360 may have looked over-scaled at one point too. If we wind up with a 350 ft 5th and Colorado glass rectangle because of the design commission, that will be extremely disappointing.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Question:

How many levels of parking does this one have?

Also, if 405 Colorado got approval and the FAR increase with that podium, then this one could certainly get by, no?