HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2014, 6:21 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is online now
Duck and covfefe
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Posts: 44,513
Cool AUSTIN | Fifth & West Residences | 459 FEET | 39 FLOORS | U/C

Construction cam:
https://app.oxblue.com/open/616c9323...a4bdab4f4a73e3

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11056288

Quote:
The applicant is proposing the development of a multi-family high-rise and associated improvements.
The address is 718 West 5th Street on the lot that is east of the Austin City Lofts. The project is being called 5th & West.

The stacking plan shows the main roof at 425 feet 10 1/2 inches. The mechanical penthouse continues up for another 26 feet. So 451 feet 10 1/2 inches - or 452 feet if you round it up. The highest occupied floor, the 37th floor, tops out at 412 feet. A Capitol View Corridor runs through part of the property, so to cope with that the tower's facade will step back at an angle.

Construction cam - via The Independent cam.

https://www.workzonecam.com/projects...nt/workzonecam

http://riversideresources.com/downlo...WestBoards.pdf



View from northwest:


View from northeast:


View from southwest


View from southeast.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.

Last edited by KevinFromTexas; Oct 11, 2017 at 7:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2014, 11:11 PM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northwest SA
Posts: 380
Kick A$$!!!



This will be taller than The Bowie, correct? What's going on with Schlosser's expansion for Whole Foods (20+ story tower @ Sixth and Bowie)?

Kevin, the Riverside Resources link does not work...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2014, 11:53 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is online now
Duck and covfefe
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Posts: 44,513
Yes, the Bowie is 423 feet, so this will be almost 30 feet taller.

That Riverside Resources link works for me. Sometimes PDF links can hang, though. Try it again. I always like to save them onto my computer and then open them up to view them that way. It seems to work better for me.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 1:05 AM
Digatisdi's Avatar
Digatisdi Digatisdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Downtown Austin
Posts: 429
452' will put it between Spring and the W, this'd be great for density in the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 2:56 AM
ohhey ohhey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 18
Woohoo! Another moderately tall and utterly forgettable tower for Austin. Will we ever raise our architectural standards?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 3:11 AM
tie_guy's Avatar
tie_guy tie_guy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 162
Enough of these ~400ft buildings and we'll start to resemble Vancouver! Ugh I DREAM
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 3:14 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is online now
Duck and covfefe
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Posts: 44,513
It's funny this popped up. I was just looking at the skyline this weekend from the north along I-35, and was thinking that area could use another tower. 360 pops up over there all by itself. You can even see The Austonian, Frost and 360 from north of 183 along I-35. This one should be visible from there also. And it will definitely help fill in the gap between 360 and Spring.

The view of it from the south from the observation hill in Butler Park should be safe for a while at least until the ECC site gets developed, and since this tower is farther along in development than that project, we should be able to see it from there for a while. The view from the SRV statue is safe for a while, too, at least until the ECC site develops. The western towers at Green probably won't block the view of it, and nothing else will except the ECC lot.

The view from the Pfluger pedestrian bridge will be partially blocked by the Seaholm tower, but that's from the southern end of the bridge. As you move north along the western arm of the bridge especially across Cesar Chavez, the view looks safe. In fact, there is going to be an awesome view shaping up there with Gables Park Tower, Spring, the Bowie, The Monarch, 5th & West, Seaholm Residences, and 360 all in a row. Plus whatever happens at ECC will be between 5th & West and 360 in that view. And then the towers at Green will sort of frame and wrap around to the south. That is going to be one hell of a view. And of course the library will show up also.

The view from the Zilker lawn will be so-so, because it'll be behind The Monarch. It should be visible from there, but not as prominent. The clubhouse view should be pretty good, but it'll be immediately north of the Bowie and the Monarch. And from the parking garage along Mopac next to Zilker, it'll be right behind Spring and probably will poke above it.

The view from the Congress Avenue bridge will mostly be blocked by 360, except maybe the northern end of the bridge, but the tower would only stick up a little.

From the MACC on the east side of downtown, the view will be pretty good. It'll fill in the gap between 360 and the W. The view will be similar along the Boardwalk east of I-35.

From the boardwalk/Joe's Crab Shack, it might just be visible above the 17th floor setback on 360.

From the Hyatt garage it will just barely be visible around 360 on the southwest corner of 360. The view from the Long Center garage will be really good, at least until the ECC site develops.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 3:22 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is online now
Duck and covfefe
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Posts: 44,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhey View Post
Woohoo! Another moderately tall and utterly forgettable tower for Austin. Will we ever raise our architectural standards?
I'm thinking this one will be rather nice. As it is, we don't have any triangular shaped towers in Austin, so this will be something different.

I'm hopeful that we'll eventually see something really interesting like say Dallas' Fountain Place for a lot somewhere bordering a CVC. I'd like to see a tower have some interesting angles like that to avoid the corridor. Curved towers and flat out round ones don't really do it for me, unless it's an accent in the facade such as Chicago's Trump Tower. But just round or oval towers are kind of bland actually. Angled towers to me are more interesting and appear as completely different buildings from different angles. Just look at the Bowie. It already looks like three different buildings when viewed from different angles.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 4:15 AM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 3rd house on the right
Posts: 2,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
I'm thinking this one will be rather nice. As it is, we don't have any triangular shaped towers in Austin, so this will be something different.

I'm hopeful that we'll eventually see something really interesting like say Dallas' Fountain Place for a lot somewhere bordering a CVC. I'd like to see a tower have some interesting angles like that to avoid the corridor. Curved towers and flat out round ones don't really do it for me, unless it's an acisent in the facade such as Chicago's Trump Tower. But just round or oval towers are kind of bland actually. Angled towers to me are more interesting and appear as completely different buildings from different angles. Just look at the Bowie. It already looks like three different buildings when viewed from different angles.
I like the Fountain Place Tower too for the same reason. It looks like a different building when viewed from different angles. Because its a commercial building as with many commercial buildings, the developers and architechs seem to want dramatic designs to make their buildings stand out in the skyline. With residential, this project is about as good as it gets. I don't imagine lenders want to loan too much on cosmetics. So yes, as long as the majority of the new construction is residential, we will see more of the same, up to 40 floors, rectangular, ect...This one is at least slightly different. For us to get something like Fountain Place, we would need a major demand swing for commercial space dt, so it may be a while. In the meantime, be happy with nice new shiney 300 -400 footers popping up and filling those gaps ohhey, or not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 4:24 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by tie_guy View Post
Enough of these ~400ft buildings and we'll start to resemble Vancouver! Ugh I DREAM
I'd rather not. Vancouver is so bland, IMO. Sure, it's dense and has decent height, but they all look the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 4:48 AM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 2,081
Until a developer finds a way realize (or chooses to sacrifice) a particular profit margin in the development of a residential tower, I do not see any "mainstream" developer bearing the incredibly cost it would take to design a "world class" tower.

__________________
Austin (City): 947,890 +19.93% - '10-'16 | Austin MSA (5 counties): 2,056,405 +19.82% - '10-'16
San Antonio (City): 1,492,510 +12.44% - '10-'16 | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,429,609 +13.40% - '10-'16
AUS-SAT "CSA" (13 counties): 4,486,014 +16.25% - '10-'16 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 5:21 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is online now
Duck and covfefe
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Posts: 44,513
Residential buildings are mostly bland. They're only slightly better than hotels usually, and usually far less interesting than office towers, which tend to be like peacock architecture - "Hey look at me!" Most people don't really care what hotels look like and are mostly just interested in a good location and a good night's sleep in a clean room. Residential buildings aren't so important on the outside as they are on the inside. Location, amenities and good places to eat and shop nearby are key, and good materials and layouts inside. Office buildings are the opposite, though. Most are pretty bland inside except for the lobbies and conference rooms/executive suites. Where office buildings count visually is on the outside to attract tenants. Location is less important, but it doesn't hurt to be within walking distance of lunch and tenants (employees) usually want good parking.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 6:25 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is online now
Duck and covfefe
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Posts: 44,513
Anyway, this one is looking good.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11072034
Quote:
Installation of trash receptacles, benches, trees, tree wells, canopy, drain line for tree wells and pavers
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 11:09 AM
Austin55's Avatar
Austin55 Austin55 is offline
__________
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 4,816
I love the Vancouver look. dense, tall, flat, and soaked with balconies. In moderation it looks great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2014, 10:56 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
Residential buildings are mostly bland. They're only slightly better than hotels usually, and usually far less interesting than office towers, which tend to be like peacock architecture - "Hey look at me!" Most people don't really care what hotels look like and are mostly just interested in a good location and a good night's sleep in a clean room. Residential buildings aren't so important on the outside as they are on the inside. Location, amenities and good places to eat and shop nearby are key, and good materials and layouts inside. Office buildings are the opposite, though. Most are pretty bland inside except for the lobbies and conference rooms/executive suites. Where office buildings count visually is on the outside to attract tenants. Location is less important, but it doesn't hurt to be within walking distance of lunch and tenants (employees) usually want good parking.
Come on Kevin. You and I both have been on this board for more than 10 years. I know you know better than that.

“Residential buildings are mostly bland” is subjective, and a very broad stroke of a comment, don’t you think?

I also disagree with your dictum regarding hotels. People do care what they look like. And it is another broad stroke to speak for “most people” in that allegation.

When you are fighting for tenants or buyers, heck, yes, the external façade is important. I will say, maybe not the most important aspect of the entire development; but an important one nonetheless.

With regard to office towers, the interior finish out, in most cases, is up to the tenant. So some may be “bland” while others will be pretty cool.

Also, location is ALWAYS important…not matter what the context.
__________________
Austin (City): 947,890 +19.93% - '10-'16 | Austin MSA (5 counties): 2,056,405 +19.82% - '10-'16
San Antonio (City): 1,492,510 +12.44% - '10-'16 | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,429,609 +13.40% - '10-'16
AUS-SAT "CSA" (13 counties): 4,486,014 +16.25% - '10-'16 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2014, 6:10 AM
ahealy's Avatar
ahealy ahealy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin | Chicago
Posts: 1,304
This isn't bland, but it certainly could use a lil something on the crown. Perhaps a simple spire or two?? It's not awful, but also doesn't really make me remember it. Austin has a limited amount of city blocks left for 30+ story buildings. I'd rather see us improve from here on out than get a bunch of mediocre fillers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2014, 8:12 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,992
I agree, although I keep thinking that it will get to the point to where we will see taller and taller towers as we see more lots filling in.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2014, 8:27 AM
NYC2ATX's Avatar
NYC2ATX NYC2ATX is offline
Yank in Tex
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: JCNJ
Posts: 1,949
I just hope that at this point we start to see a few more proposals with real potential that break the 500' or even 600' barrier. Especially in this corner of Downtown, you have the Bowie, GreenWater Block 1, and now this tower all at some stage of planning/construction, and all within a range of 50' of one another. Seaholm's tower will also visually appear close in height, and closer to Congress you have the JW and Colorado towers within 10' of each other. I worry about a tabletop effect, except it's a tabletop with a centerpiece called the Austonian. However, some new peaks would go a long way towards elevating its profile as an iconic skyline. Maybe the ECC site will surprise us with something tall! One can hope
__________________
"Also, to be frank, I like dense cities best and care about them most." from The Death And Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs.

BUILD IT. BUILD EVERYTHING. BUILD IT ALL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2014, 12:30 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,444
Yeah, hopefully ECC is a nice, tall tower. It would help balance the skyline with Austonian and Fairmont.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2014, 8:32 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Er uh...
Posts: 6,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahealy View Post
This isn't bland, but it certainly could use a lil something on the crown. Perhaps a simple spire or two?? It's not awful, but also doesn't really make me remember it.
Yea, it's actually kinda bland. I love Austin and all, but this is kinda bland.

What's not bland in Austin are Frost, UT Tower, Capitol Building, Austonian, One Congress, One American, San Jacinto, 100 Congress, 301 Congress and maybe even 360. But this is pretty bland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 10:20 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.