AUSTIN | 606 East 3rd | Feet | Floors | Proposed - Page 4

427MM · #61 Posted **Feb 29, 2016, 10:59 PM**

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...-center-hotel/

wwmiv · #62 Posted **Feb 29, 2016, 10:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

That building is pushing 600'. BUT...it's "conceptual." This is Manchester we're talking about. They have a proven they'll sell a grand vision and then dumb it down (see current Fairmont Austin design).

^THIS^

Like I said earlier, even if it is scaled down, we're still going to get something huge because this will be another 800-1000+ room convention center hotel almost definitely. So we're not likely to get anything less than 400'.

KevinFromTexas · #63 Posted **Feb 29, 2016, 11:30 PM**

Well, ok then. Let's do this.

First of all, the Austonian block sea level elevation is 476 feet. The block where this new tower is planned is 467 feet above sea level.

This new tower is easily taller than the Frost Bank Tower, and judging from the renderings provided so far - it appears to be easily 600 feet tall. It may even be a bit taller than that because the main roof of the Austonian is 622 feet, and this tower looks to be almost level with that - and that's with a nearly 10 foot lower sea level elevation. So it very well could end up being more than 600 feet tall. And when I look at this tower and compare it to the 456 foot roof of the Fairmont, it looks to be a good 160+ feet taller than it does. I wish they'd included the spire in the rendering for the Fairmont. It would have made it easier to guess.

wwmiv · #64 Posted **Feb 29, 2016, 11:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I wish they'd included the spire in the rendering for the Fairmont. It would have made it easier to guess.

Agreed.

However, I'll also say that the floor count and seeming height don't seem to match up, so I'm thinking the scale of the building is off compared to the context in which it is placed.

GoldenBoot · #65 Posted **Feb 29, 2016, 11:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Well, ok then. Let's do this.

First of all, the Austonian block sea level elevation is 476 feet. The block where this new tower is planned is 467 feet above sea level.

This new tower is easily taller than the Frost Bank Tower, and judging from the renderings provided so far - it appears to be easily 600 feet tall. It may even be a bit taller than that because the main roof of the Austonian is 622 feet, and this tower looks to be almost level with that - and that's with a nearly 10 foot lower sea level elevation. So it very well could end up being more than 600 feet tall. And when I look at this tower and compare it to the 456 foot roof of the Fairmont, it looks to be a good 160+ feet taller than it does. I wish they'd included the spire in the rendering for the Fairmont. It would have made it easier to guess.

How tall is the Hilton? It is directly catty-corner from this development and there is a "rendering" in the story...

Going forward (at least until we get more info) I vote for referring to this "potential" development as something like: "4th+Red River." AND, potentially creating its own thread...

Also, if this is Manchester - does someone have a connection at Gensler? I bet they are designing this tower too.

ILUVSAT · #66 Posted **Feb 29, 2016, 11:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb

http://austintowers.net/fairmont-aus...ister-project/

The more I think about it...this is the most exciting prospect for a future building in the ATX. I love the plan for UT's former HQ. But, that is still so far up in the air and years off. UT has not even formally chosen that group to develop their land.

Hopefully Manchester is granted what they seek and does not screw this building up.

wwmiv · #67 Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 12:01 AM**

Kevin,

Can you move all of this discussion to the Le Meridien thread, since this is that lot and I echo the title suggestion by GoldenBoot: 4th and Red River... at least until we know what it is actually going to be called.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218015

JoninATX · #68 Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 12:28 AM**

Ok, I may have misunderstood. This is what I'm trying to say, is that I don't see them stopping construction on the project that they have already started on. That in my opinion would be stupid. But I do see them buying up the land that their wanting to purchase and building their own hotel.

KevinFromTexas · #69 Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 6:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

How tall is the Hilton? It is directly catty-corner from this development and there is a "rendering" in the story...

377 feet. It's hard to compare the heights in that rendering because of the angle.

lzppjb · #70 Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 6:34 AM**

This project got me to notice that parcel nextdoor where the CrossFit building is. Have there ever been rumors or rumblings about that lot?

AustinGoesVertical · #71 Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Kevin,

Can you move all of this discussion to the Le Meridien thread, since this is that lot and I echo the title suggestion by GoldenBoot: 4th and Red River... at least until we know what it is actually going to be called.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218015

Better yet, Kevin can you move those houses so this building can be built. Thanks.

Mikey711MN · #72 Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 7:34 PM**

Ack! So much for the Downtown East transit hub in my Fantasy Austin Rapid Transit plan.

(for Metrorail lines from/to Leander, Pf, Manor, and the airport connecting to C-line streetcars to/from the Capitol, UT, and Riverside)

AustinGoesVertical · #73 Posted **Mar 1, 2016, 10:37 PM**

I personally think that moving the houses next to the Castman-Bull wouldn't create a "zoo effect" but would rather generate a really interesting area, especially if integrated into Palm Park. Again though, the Convention Center is currently restoring that house and redeveloping that area so does Manchester already own the land across the street that they want to move those houses to? If so, the Convention Center might have to oblige as well.

I love this conceptual design, with the tiered height and the apparent curve. What I don't understand is why moving those houses is such a deal breaker. It seems like the portion of the design that would be most compromised is the one-two story grand entrance (maybe this is also convention space) and a roundabout courtyard. I'm sure they could do without that appendage or add more space vertically. If they were serious about this project, then it has to be a bluff. If it's really that cut-and-dry of an issue, then this seems more like a vision wrought with indifference rather than a real plan.

drummer · #74 Posted **Mar 2, 2016, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

Better yet, Kevin can you move those houses so this building can be built. Thanks.

Tech House · #75 Posted **Mar 3, 2016, 10:49 PM**

Y'all, this needs to happen as currently conceptualized. Makes me very nervous to think of the usual cost-cutting revisions that would turn it into just another wall of blah. Please, PTB, make this happen!

the Genral · #76 Posted **Mar 4, 2016, 1:36 AM**

I like how it will frame the CC with the Fairmont on the other side. Love the height way east of Congress Ave, and I also like the less obvious than the typical podium we usually get. I'm worried that this will definately be scaled back for reasons we discussed before on this forum, to be profitable, you have to be modest on aesthetics, and in the case of the Fairmont, height. Or maybe I should say, more affordable to build and easier to finance. I want this thing built, and built to the current rendering because I don't like my dick tickled with the idea of top shelf then having to settle for a watered down version in the end.

drummer · #77 Posted **Mar 4, 2016, 2:09 AM**

IF this happens, which I hope it will, then that means the only other truly available block between the Convention Center and I-35 would be where the crossfit place is (3rd/access road). If they decide to not place the older houses on the lot, the one between Fairmont and 4th/Red River would be available, too. I don't see Palm School changing much, if at all, due to historical status and the push to preserve the area, along with the park next to it (which is part of the Waller Creek plan anyway).

What'd I'd love to see happen is this 4th/Red River building, one on the crossfit lot, maybe something along the access road between 4th and 5th streets, and then of course the huge lot west of Ihop. That'll help to cover up at least part of the ugly, stumpy wall that is the convention center in its current form. Oh, and it'd bring more life to that area, along with the eventual creek improvements.

The ATX · #78 Posted **May 5, 2016, 1:00 PM**

We're slacking on here. Way back on March 28th the Historic Landmark Commission voted 10-0 to allow Manchester to move the two historical homes to make room for this project. From the meeting minutes:

1. HDP-2015-0783

606 and 608 E. 3rd Street

Council District 9

Proposal: Relocate two houses from the north side of 3rd Street to the south side of 3rd Street in the same block.

Applicant: Tim Langan

City Staff: Steve Sadowsky, Historic Preservation Office, 974-6454

Staff Recommendation: Release the permit.

Doug Manchester, Steve Drenner, and Alyson McGee spoke in support of the application. There were no speakers in opposition. The public hearing was closed on a motion by Commissioner Panju. Commissioner Osburn seconded the motion; vote: 10-0.

MOTION: Release the permit for relocation of the two houses upon the conditions that:

1) The applicant and owner complete an archaeological investigation that meets state standards, and

2) That they are committed to restoring the two relocated homes, and

3) That the relocated houses are oriented toward third street, and

4) That the two relocated structures are protected with a covenant or zoned historic, and

5) That the HLC approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the relocation of the Wedding House prior to permit release.

Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. Vote: 10-0.

Link: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=252760

Jdawgboy · #79 Posted **May 5, 2016, 5:46 PM**

Yea I've noticed that it seems quiet on the forum lately.

I'm so glad that they passed and unanimously too no less.

AustinGoesVertical · #80 Posted **May 5, 2016, 7:11 PM**

That's awesome news! Realistically though, this one isn't likely to break ground until the Fairmont is completed, right?