Austin | The Republic | 710 Feet | 47 Floors | U/C

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by CTrox73

I think it's a nicely designed tower, of course it would have been great if it were taller, but in it's location it will add depth to the skyline. If it were already built today it would be the third tallest in the city (not counting towers under construction). A lot of cities larger than Austin would kill to have a tower this size. We all would love to see a new tallest with a signature design......have patience, it will come soon enough.

Agreed.

It would be the 3rd tallest: Austonian, Fairmont, Republic.

If you include towers under construction or in site prep it would be the 4th tallest': Independent, Austonian, Fairmont, Republic.

It would also have a higher roof height than Fairmont, which is nothing to sneeze at.

There are only a handful of proposed towers in our development pipeline that are taller: both Travis Towers, 600 Guadalupe, one of the unlikely towers in the Waller Park Place development, and perhaps what's currently known on this site as Velocity Tower.

It is taller than Block 71, which we're all praising as extending the skyline northward by 44' (and more, visually, because of elevation differences). It is also in a more prominent location and seems to not only incorporate the wedge aspect of Block 71 but also incorporates more angles to make for a more interesting design (almost like a cross between Frost SA and Block 71). Thankfully, the garage will be hidden from the river view because of the number of surrounding highrise buildings.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I think it's becoming clear that we need a law/regulation that if a big block like this in the downtown core ever becomes available it CANNOT be sold as one plot. It must be broken up and sold to different buyers. It's not an understatement to say that this practice is ruining our downtown, as Jdawgboy said, by limiting density and diversity. It is ALSO becoming clear that such a law is not going to come from the city council alone. It is going to need to come from a GRASSROOTS push to make it happen. At the very least, all of us need to contact our city council members.

It might be too late for this one. But on the plus side, I guess it's tall-ish?

I don't know. A developer is going to build the amount of space they intend to, and it doesn't matter if you force them to do it in two towers or not. Height also doesn't automatically equal density. Also, what's the point in having two towers? Are we providing alleys for hobos or developing urban neighborhoods? I mean, I look at Third + Shoal and Austin Proper, and without even considering their designs, they make my head itch sometimes when I can't figure out why it couldn't have just been one building. Of course, the answer is because both buildings were developed and designed by different companies as two separate properties. I'd rather have fewer Third + Shoal/Austin Proper situations than more of them.

We've only seen one side in that elevation. I'm curious to see how the other elevation will look. And, of course, the renderings. I'm not crazy about the parking podium, but I think this tower could be a stunner. And you know this thing is going to be lit like crazy.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I think it's becoming clear that we need a law/regulation that if a big block like this in the downtown core ever becomes available it CANNOT be sold as one plot. It must be broken up and sold to different buyers. It's not an understatement to say that this practice is ruining our downtown, as Jdawgboy said, by limiting density and diversity. It is ALSO becoming clear that such a law is not going to come from the city council alone. It is going to need to come from a GRASSROOTS push to make it happen. At the very least, all of us need to contact our city council members.

It might be too late for this one. But on the plus side, I guess it's tall-ish?

This has to be one of the most senseless ideas I have heard in a very long time. Sorry. It's just totally ludicrous.

Please note: I am NOT referencing you, personally. It's simply the "idea" put fourth.

[Jdawgboy]

I'm going to take over Genral's stance with 806 Barton Springs for this tower...

I hate it. It's a lesser version of Block 71 which I like a lot, but Austin does not need two buildings like this. To be very specific, the podium is what kills it for me, though I think they could have been more creative with the tower portion as well. This is a site that could have an 800-1,000 footer. How many lots will we have left? Post office site maybe? This project is a far cry from what was envisioned when the courthouse was planned IMO.

Now a law that would force developers to design buildings a certain way is going too far, however the city could have some clear cut guidlines that at the very least help guide how future towers are designed. First thing to do is get rid of the floor to height ratio in the CBD. I've said this for a while now but it's part of the problem because it creates a height cap even on sites that "technically" don't have any height restrictions (supposedly). That alone would open up new possibilities with how buildings are designed. I could continue on but I'm running short on time so will have to end it here.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

It's a lesser version of Block 71

How can something bigger than Block 71 be lesser than Block 71?

[Sigaven]

Mixed feelings on this one. Obviously I'm not a fan of the garage podium, but it does say it is to be clad in glass/metal at least. Plus, I think the elevation we are looking at is probably the most unflattering - the "back" side of the building if you will, that will be mostly garage/driveways/electrical rooms, so that sidewalk will hardly be activated except for at the corners.

However, I'm holding out hope that this building could end up looking more interesting than we are giving the elevation credit for. You can see from the site plan that the "front" of the building facing Republic Sq. is angled and so the garage podium will likely not be visible on that side, hidden behind the glass of the building coming down the ground facing Republic Park. Plus, the angles could mean some interesting designs on that side. The sides facing Guadalupe/SA street are meh, but at least they've got retail.

The most disappointing thing for me about this is the height - this could have been 800-1000+ feet. Guess ATX just isn't ready for one of those yet??

Like another user mentioned in another thread, I think this angled tower could play nicely with Block 71 a few blocks away.

Not thrilled about this tower so far, but not enraged either.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

How can something bigger than Block 71 be lesser than Block 71?

Lesser as in uglier and generally worse. I.e. third & shoal is a lesser version of 500 W. 2nd st.

[GoldenBoot]

Question: Why waste time and energy (and excitement) designing a 1000' tower in Austin's CBD only to have the FAA strip it down to 700' (if that)?

Remember, if I'm correct, the FAA tried to lower the height of Block 71 to 481' and it cut the max height of 600 Guadalupe too.

Also, developers are still a bit skittish at being bullish on height in Austin. Are the proper financial margins there to build taller? Don't know.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

How can something bigger than Block 71 be lesser than Block 71?

By lesser I mean design wise, I think Block 71 looks better in comparison, though since that was the first rendering that we have seen, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt to see if they tweek the design in later renderings.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Question: Why waste time and energy (and excitement) designing a 1000' tower in Austin's CBD only to have the FAA strip it down to 700' (if that)?

Remember, if I'm correct, the FAA tried to lower the height of Block 71 to 481' and it cut the max height of 600 Guadalupe too.

Also, developers are still a bit skittish at being bullish on height in Austin. Are the proper financial margins there to build taller? Don't know.

Did we ever find out why the FAA has had issue with some of the recent towers heights? Even with the flight paths, commercial planes are much higher than 1,000 feet.

When it comes to Block 71, seems like that matter was pretty much negated. It may not be as tall as what we first heard but it isn't that much shorter and definetly not going to be under 500 feet.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

This has to be one of the most senseless ideas I have heard in a very long time.

What? Why on earth would you think that? We need to protect downtown diversity and density. I'd rather our downtown not turn into a ghost town of culturally-sterile corporate behemoths like Dallas or Houston.

[KevinFromTexas]

The two buildings aren't really that much alike other than that both have sloped facades, but their actual shape is really very different and their silhouettes on the skyline will be, too. The Block 71 Tower will be relatively skinny when viewed from the south and north, while The Republic will appear large from all directions.

And don't worry, guys, there is still potential for the State garage across the street from this, and also the post office block.

As for Austin's downtown turning into a ghost town of culturally sterile behemoths, big buildings don't do that, but a lack of retail and cohesiveness to their surroundings do. But I would also have to say that what causes that more than anything else is losing the old small buildings that housed things like restaurants. I am, of course, talking about places like Sullivan's Steak House, a place I likely never would have set foot in, but I did appreciate the architecture and what the restaurant brought to the neighborhood.

What killed the downtowns of Houston and Dallas was that some of their old small buildings were replaced with new ones, and it wasn't that they were big buildings, it's that they came about during an era when retail was largely ignored. Corporations wanted trophy towers, and they didn't care about contributing to the neighborhood. I think the wildcard that Austin has against that is that along with the office towers we're getting, we're also mixing it with a lot of residential buildings that have retail in them. We also don't have a lot of buildings from the 60s, 70s and 80s that were oriented away from the street.

[chundercracker]

Originally Posted by Syndic

What? Why on earth would you think that? We need to protect downtown diversity and density. I'd rather our downtown not turn into a ghost town of culturally-sterile corporate behemoths like Dallas or Houston.

I'm confused, weren't you all about capitalism and the free market economy when defending Punchbowl's move into downtown Austin?

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by chundercracker

I'm confused, weren't you all about capitalism and the free market economy when defending Punchbowl's move into downtown Austin?

No, definitely not. Just saying we should excoriate the whole thing instead of only when it doesn't work in our favor.

[We vs us]

So I'm ok dialing back the OMGITLOOKSLIKEBLOCK71WTF (though I'm not the only one who had that same thought). But I still think it's a waste of a gorgeous center-city block -- arguably the BEST center city block (unencumbered by a CVC, surrounded by amenities and transit -- both existing and potential -- overlooking the only downtown park, smack in the middle of tons of new construction.) If anywhere, this would be the place to make the Biggest and Best plans, and make our strongest stand against the FAA's haircut.

This disappoints me twofold: that either the developer didn't see any of these things when we gave them the opportunity. Or they did, and the market made it impossible for their plans to live up to the potential.

I don't agree with Syndic -- I don't really think you can legislate Big Plans into existence; but I also think there's something systemic here that keeps Big Plans from happening. This was a prime spot for something similar to 600 Guad, but the opening bid wasn't even something to rival it in size and scope.

Anyhow. There'll be more renderings, and I reserve the right to change my mind when I see more of it. But for now it looks distinctly underwhelming to me.

[The ATX]

It was apparently planned as two towers at one time as the section of the site plan that I posted indicated. That was when Phoenix Property Group was part of the project. They were going to develop the residential portion much like Kairoi (formerly Lynd) is working with Lincoln to develop the residential portion of 600 Guadalupe. Phoenix left this project when the residential was dropped.

[ILUVSAT]

Page Sutherland Page had a pretty cool rendering/proposal for this site. Too bad this won't be realized.

https://pagethink.com/v/market/Highrise/l/

[The ATX]

I don't know which developer Page was working with with. But yeah, another nice proposal gone by the way side.





Edit: Here's a slightly better version from the web page source code.

[ahealy]

oh man, that would've been aaaaamazing. WHY?!?!?

[KevinFromTexas]

I think we can definitively say that would have been a low 700 footer. The shorter tower seems to be around 450 feet.

The height is nice, but I'm happier with the current design of this project. This one shown above was pretty bland when you realize they were basically two boxes with flat roofs. I also am torn between which might be better. A public plaza (as we're getting) or private amenity space on podiums. I tend to think that having a plaza every once in a while is probably a bigger gain for downtown and a larger number of people than something that isn't only accessible if you live/work there.