Quote:
Originally Posted by migol24
all of you guys liking this building... what in the world are you people smoking? i'd at least like to hear one of you say that it could be slightly better. or are you all compleeeetely satisfied with it? in other words, nothing better could replace it?
|
all of you guys hating this building... what in the world are you people smoking? i'd at least like to hear one of you say that it could be substantially worse. or are you all compleeeetely disgusted with it? in other words, nothing worse could be built?
...
...
...
It certainly isn't the best building ever, but it sure as hell ain't the biggest eyesore in the world either. You all are acting as if it is the most disgusting thing you've ever seen. Have you ever stopped to consider than such an understated design might be better long-term for the overall aesthetic of the downtown skyline? Especially if there is a twin to this building built next door as is currently planned. Signature buildings that are twins draw the eye and do NOT lend themselves to such a small skyline like Austin's (yes, in the grand scheme of things Austin's skyline is small). The understated nature of the design lends itself to a twin, and even if I hate twins in principle (as I've previously discussed) I can at least see where the positives are for this building.
I love the color of the glass, and the steps are an intriguing design element that promote a certain sense of place for the pedestrian which is lacking in this area. Furthermore, it creates a visual cue for those passing by on the hike and bike trails that un-encumbers the building from the trail itself - leaving the purposeful use there undisturbed visually/aesthetically.
It also easily blends the sidewalk atmosphere into the small scale buildings for the next three blocks (city hall and the two adjacent buildings) that create a more cohesive environment and brand the area subtly. And the color scheme also harkens back in a
positive way to earlier buildings that, yes, may have been built in the 80s, but also include iconic structures such as city hall. This is further district branding that
works. It's incredibly hypocritical of many people here to suggest that Austin work harder to visually brand areas of downtown (such as conversations have been had recently to do with UT and their engineering building and the medical school area) and then turn around and degrade any attempts to DO just that when it comes to another development.
Still further, have you considered how the impact of a bunch of signature buildings lined along the river with no immediate counterbalancing effect anywhere else in the skyline would look aesthetically? It'd be visual overload, especially given that this will be the most dense bloc of towers in the entire skyline to date. And the likelihood of drowning the visual overload out over time as more towers are built isn't very good given the position of these tower along the river! It's much better to have a single (or maybe two) signature pieces in a given area surrounded by more understated buildings.
It is my sense that the office tower (of which we've seen renderings) is that signature tower. It is beautiful.
So, please, reconsider your opinions given this broader context. You simply cannot look at each tower in isolation. You must look at it as one piece of the grand puzzle.
Prev
Linear Mode
