HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2641  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2013, 11:39 PM
NYC_Longhorn's Avatar
NYC_Longhorn NYC_Longhorn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 158
Can someone photoshop the Burj Dubai into the Austin skyline?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2642  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 1:16 AM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 2,290
I do not think a 1000' tower in ATX looks too out-of-place; considering how cities are developing in the new world…

Take a look at Dubai: The second & third tallest buildings (Princess Tower & 23 Marina) are roughly 48% the height of the Burj Khalifa. Furthermore, there are another 13 towers, which are approximately 40%, the height of Kalifa.

Oklahoma City: The second tallest building is 59% the height of Devon Tower. All other buildings are below 52%.

Mobile, AL: The second tallest tower in Mobile, RSA BankTrust Building, is 57% the height of RSA Battle House Tower.

Malmö, SWEDEN: The second tallest tower is 43% the height of the Turning Torso.

Nanjing, CHINA: The second tallest tower is 57% the height of the city’s tallest: Zifeng Tower.

And Austin: The Austonian would be 68% the height of a proposed 1000’ tower (not knowing the final height of the forthcoming Fairmont Hotel tower).

Thus, I do not think a 1000’ tower in Austin would look too out-of-place. The infill would fill-in the difference over time.
__________________
Austin (City): 950,715 +20.28% - '10-'17 | Austin MSA (5 counties): 2,115,827 +23.28% - '10-'17
San Antonio (City): 1,511,946 +13.90% - '10-'17 | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,473,974 +15.47% - '10-'17
AUS-SAT "CSA" (13 counties): 4,589,801 +18.94% - '10-'17 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2643  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 1:50 AM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 2,814
I agree, a 1000ft tower would look great in our skyline, but if one where to be built I think it would look awesome right next to the Austonian, it will help balance the skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2644  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 1:57 AM
Kotliz's Avatar
Kotliz Kotliz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyYoda View Post
Also a difference between a 1000 footer with a spire or crown like key bank in Cleveland (I know its ~950ft) and 1000+ all the way to the top. Also using the oh so precise measurement of comparing it to 301 Congress which is 300, that building looks closer to ~1100 to the rooftop. Having the Fairmont and continued to Rainey St. development will help balance the east side of the skyline. I do think right now, a 850ft building (about t.stacy proposal height) would be perfect.
How about this. Just over 800 to the roof, then just around a thousand to the top of the spire. The skyline still would look better with a couple more 600-700 foot additions. The Fairmont might be too far west in this view to give any visual balance.
(Original photo: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ps48c637ed.jpg)


Last edited by Kotliz; Aug 16, 2013 at 9:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2645  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 2:33 AM
Kotliz's Avatar
Kotliz Kotliz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 101
The Burj in Austin

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC_Longhorn View Post
Can someone photoshop the Burj Dubai into the Austin skyline?
This is a rough estimate. The Burj Khalifa is about 3.98x taller than the Austonian (2722 feet / 683 feet) and trying to take into account the vertical perspective, it might be something along this line. Anyone??
(Not a great fit for us, I think)
(Original photo: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ps48c637ed.jpg
Burj Khalifa image from Wikimedia)


Last edited by Kotliz; Aug 16, 2013 at 9:22 PM. Reason: Added photo address
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2646  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 2:45 AM
Austin_Expert Austin_Expert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotliz View Post
This is a rough estimate. The Burj Khalifa is about 3.98x taller than the Austonian (2722 feet / 683 feet) and trying to take into account the vertical perspective, it might be something along this line. Anyone??
(Not a great fit for us, I think)

Now that would maybe be a bit much for Austin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2647  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 2:55 AM
NYC_Longhorn's Avatar
NYC_Longhorn NYC_Longhorn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 158
HOLY CRRAAAAAPPPPPP!!!!!! somebody send that to Shonda Novak at the Statesman!!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2648  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 4:31 AM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,178
Burj Khalifa would look better in Houston.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2649  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 4:59 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
I'm here for no one.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of the fence
Posts: 6,971
I love me some tall buildings, but I don't think that thing looks good anywhere. Great skylines are more about the overall symmetry and placement of buildings and not just height.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2650  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 6:49 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
more brains
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,730
I would love to float that around on the American-Statesman comments section and Facebook and watch the NIMBYs freak out.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2651  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 11:49 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotliz View Post
How about this. Just over 800 to the roof, then just around a thousand to the top of the spire. The skyline still would look better with a couple more 600-700 foot additions. The Fairmont might be too far west in this view to give any visual balance.

This looks awesome.

The more I look at that first pic, the more I like it. The Fairmont, and the Waller Creek tower, if it's built, will help to balance it to the East.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2652  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 12:58 PM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hill Country View Post
I love me some tall buildings, but I don't think that thing looks good anywhere. Great skylines are more about the overall symmetry and placement of buildings and not just height.
You're on your own there. The Burj Khalifa is one of those rare supertall buildings that looks impressive architecturally as it impressive in height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2653  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 4:22 PM
MightyYoda MightyYoda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotliz View Post
How about this. Just over 800 to the roof, then just around a thousand to the top of the spire. The skyline still would look better with a couple more 600-700 foot additions. The Fairmont might be too far west in this view to give any visual balance.

This right here, this would be perfect for the skyline. Possibly a little further to the west as it will be hard to add a lot of height around the 6th st. district, but I do still think the Fairmont and continued development along Rainey St. would help balance the image. Is your render the old t.stacy site?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2654  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 6:39 PM
Syndic's Avatar
Syndic Syndic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,277
How about photoshopping in the buildings that will actually be a part of Austin's skyline soon; i.e. The Bowie, Colorado Tower, the Seaholm tower, and JW Marriott? Fairmont may be a little difficult to photoshop in because of its location. Or maybe not.
__________________
Anti-Leslie Pool. Death to I-35!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2655  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 7:08 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
I'm here for no one.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of the fence
Posts: 6,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic View Post
How about photoshopping in the buildings that will actually be a part of Austin's skyline soon; i.e. The Bowie, Colorado Tower, the Seaholm tower, and JW Marriott? Fairmont may be a little difficult to photoshop in because of its location. Or maybe not.
Good idea. I don't much care for this fantasy stuff.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2656  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 7:15 PM
Komeht Komeht is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic View Post
How about photoshopping in the buildings that will actually be a part of Austin's skyline soon; i.e. The Bowie, Colorado Tower, the Seaholm tower, and JW Marriott? Fairmont may be a little difficult to photoshop in because of its location. Or maybe not.
This is what I want to see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2657  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 7:25 PM
AusTex's Avatar
AusTex AusTex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 257
^^^^^^^^Now that tower with the spire rocks. Just perfect for Austin right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyYoda View Post
The size of our downtown is interesting in that I think it will be good in the long term, but we are very much the awkward teenager trying to grow into our frame.
HEY SIZE MATTERS...especially to teenagers! Our frame is wider because we are the Capital City of TEXAS. Everything IS bigger in Texas.

The Dubai tower is perfect for Texas! aahh, uuhmmm....not for Austin.

Seriously...our downtown is wide but not that deep. The CVC (capitol view corridor) limitations; the auto lots of old at Lamar; MoPac on the wealthier west side; a great long body of water and green space; relative low crime; and a night life scene throughout have all helped to spread the development across downtown. The view from most places are great. The University of Texas campus has also helped pull taller buildings far the north.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2658  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2013, 7:51 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
I'm here for no one.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of the fence
Posts: 6,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by AusTex View Post
...the auto lots of old at Lamar...
Before Downtown became the destination that is today, W. 5th St (or was it W.6th St?) off of Lamar was pretty much the "Motor mile" of its day.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2659  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2013, 1:55 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
more brains
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,730
^I think both probably had some dealerships, but I do remember there being a dealership at the Monarch location. They moved out, and then it was some outdoor ceramic/terracotta business that was in the parking lot temporarily while the Monarch organized.

There were others of course. Capital Chevrolet would have been one of them I'm sure. There was also a dealership around 12th & Lamar or thereabouts that famously lost a lot of cars in the 1981 Memorial Day flood. A bunch of brand new cars washed into the creek.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2660  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2013, 2:16 AM
AviationGuy AviationGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
^I think both probably had some dealerships, but I do remember there being a dealership at the Monarch location. They moved out, and then it was some outdoor ceramic/terracotta business that was in the parking lot temporarily while the Monarch organized.

There were others of course. Capital Chevrolet would have been one of them I'm sure. There was also a dealership around 12th & Lamar or thereabouts that famously lost a lot of cars in the 1981 Memorial Day flood. A bunch of brand new cars washed into the creek.
There was a Buick dealership somewhere near where the Monarch is. Is that the one you were thinking of?

I bought my first car at Capital Chevrolet around 1980. Downtown and "near town" weren't very exciting then. I can't think of anything in Austin that was exciting then, although it was a nice city overall. It was very clean and green, and well maintained.
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 > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:27 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.