HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #521  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 9:37 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post
Make it four.
Five. Like the setbacks. It will look interesting from both east and west, something different.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #522  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 9:55 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahealy View Post
4real
I want a clause in contracts with these developers where by the general Aesthetic of a project that is proposed is actually followed.

Public opinion is oftened swayed more by how something looks than how it functions. Greenwater feels like a bait and switch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #523  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 10:46 PM
MightyYoda MightyYoda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 422
I don't feel the design itself is beyond hope, but it is a bit plain and needs some additional work to be worthy of all the input given and time it has taken this project to get here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #524  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 10:56 PM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,168
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #525  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 11:06 PM
zedaref zedaref is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Austin, Earth
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol24 View Post
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?
I like it, and it could be better, but I would say every building ever built could be better.
__________________
Don't Dallas my Austin.

ATX Development Map
Capitol View Corridors Map
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #526  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 11:22 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin, San Antonio
Posts: 1,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol24 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #527  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 12:38 AM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
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.
I realize the positives given the project... but the design in and of itself still leaves much more to be desired especially given the size of the project and its location. Its a pretty boring design. I've designed prettier stuff on my spare time. I really have. I'd like to reconsider my opinion, I really do. But I can't. It's too damn mediocre.

And as I've said before... many of you have given even more criticisms than what I am saying about this project on smaller projects because of the stucco or whatever and how certain projects belong out in North Austin or in Round Rock, etc. This is one of those projects that rivals the mediocrity of its design but suddenly everyone is like, "oh its nice... I can live with that." Why couldn't we say the same thing for the lesser crappier projects? And I am not even talking about making this a signature project. Look at the Monarch... its not a signature tower but it lends itself quite beautifully to the rest of the skyline. Even the Gables tower isn't signature but its blending itself well. I'd even wager the Bowie isn't signature but it looks pretty nicely balanced in its spot along with its design. So in the grand scheme of things... this building may very well add to the skyline in the same way that the Hilton adds to the skyline... but this is a huge project and that's why I'm isolating this project specifically. I don't do that, as I have said before, with the smaller projects. If they're mediocre, I can deal with that in smaller projects but this is a huge project and it will very well stand out in Austin's skyline.

I get its all subjective but just given the size and that Austin went through a whole lot to get this project going I'm simply surprised that there are more people defending its design rather than simply saying, "well it could be much better." Catch my drift?

But... in the end, I still say it might be a bit too early and I may very well change my mind on this project. I'm simply stunned that not many people are like, "the hell? after all this wait, that's what we're getting?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #528  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 12:58 AM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 1,176
Holy shit! Can't we all agree that we all have certain expectations of what we consider good, bad, or bland architecture without the mud slinging? You hate it, fine, I don't give a shit...I respect your opinion...I hate peas and lima beans, my wife loves them, we've been married 31 years. To each our own. To me and at least 5 or six others here, we like the overall design and color. To all of you who disagree, I absolutely respect your opinion, you don't have to like it. I totally get it and agree with wwmiv, and I respect migol24's take on it. I hope they break ground with this design tomorrow. But I also wish the Ashton was never built. Feel free to disagree with me...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #529  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 1:10 AM
hookem hookem is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,188
Fixing the colors would do a lot.

Of course, what I'd love to see is ONE setback and a point tower in the back. Or two significantly shorter setbacks then a point tower. Or at least make the setbacks at different intervals so it doesn't look so much like stairstep/sawtooth pattern with almost equal amounts of setback. That's a major problem with the design IMO. Of course, I'm no architect.

BTW -- looking at the picture of the lot, it doesn't seem to me like it was any big deal to design in a way that saves those trees. I hope we haven't given them like some huge tax break for that.

Although I'm surprised how divided people seem to be about this design. I guess that dark glass is the "polarizing" kind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #530  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 1:38 AM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,380
Kevin... Can you re-post the orignal proposal from this group? I was looking thru all the origianls but was not sure which photos belongs with which!
It would be great to see those next to this rendering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #531  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 2:25 AM
zedaref zedaref is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Austin, Earth
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Kevin... Can you re-post the orignal proposal from this group? I was looking thru all the origianls but was not sure which photos belongs with which!
It would be great to see those next to this rendering.
I think these are Trammell Crow's.

2008


2011


Current
__________________
Don't Dallas my Austin.

ATX Development Map
Capitol View Corridors Map
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #532  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 2:38 AM
austin242 austin242 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 411
Funny that while all the other projects seemed to get better with each redesign this one got worse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #533  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 2:59 AM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by zedaref View Post
I think these are Trammell Crow's.

2008


2011


Current
Yep....it's the 2011 that I was thinking about. Realisitc aproach, but still more interesting.
Especially miss the crowns.
Now.... I'll say it. Don't like the aesthetic shift. Feels old an lack luster. The south facade has the beginings of an interesting tought, but it;s just way too safe. If they were trying to "look forward" to return to warm tones. Didn't go far enough. It just feels like a 20 year old hotel/office building by the Galleria in Houston.
very dissapointing to have such a dominate place on the river.
A huge lack of effort to contribute a city that this company will profit from.
I will also cause a stir and say I am thrilled that the city is at least making them redesign to accomodate trees. At least this will force them to not just stack building blocks. ...
Have at it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #534  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 3:04 AM
Komeht Komeht is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
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.
In the broader context the building still sucks. Sorry. I'm glad for the retail on the ground level, but honestly, that should be the price of admission today - no skyscraper should get away without at least this.

As far as the deathstar black glass - I'll pull no punches, that is ghastly and will look dated on day 1. The stepped setbacks are ridiculous and the fact that they'll make 2 of them makes it twice as bad.

Looking at the earlier concepts makes me wonder what the hell happened, some of those were quite good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #535  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 3:12 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,406
I think that there might be more informed criticism if only we really knew what it is supposed to look like. We seem to be relying on the one rendering. It looks interesting. It is head and shoulders better than the tacky buildings that draw so much criticism from me and others on this site. The materials are probably going to be first rate and the finishes are likely to be very good. I see things about this building in the glass curtain that remind me of the W project, a building that I have come to like very much. I think we are all just kind of guessing right now about how we feel regarding this building. In defense of the setbacks, it is worth noting that setback buildings look very impressive when viewed from afar. This building will really pop when viewed from certain angles and at a certain distance. That is part of what makes a skyline interesting. Hopefully there will be more complete renderings made public before too long. I am curious as to whether anybody knows when this building is slated to begin construction. Have plans been filed and permits started? What is the actual status of this project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #536  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 3:16 AM
Komeht Komeht is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 294
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #537  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 3:22 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 1,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
A comment from that link...

Quote:
The Overhead Wire said...

Can't they do better than this? It looks like the red building at Cesar Chavez and Congress.

Sigh...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #538  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 3:24 AM
zedaref zedaref is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Austin, Earth
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
What is the actual status of this project.
In review.
__________________
Don't Dallas my Austin.

ATX Development Map
Capitol View Corridors Map
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #539  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 3:26 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,406
I thought this picture was kind of interesting. Guess what city? https://www.jaunt.ca/source/image.ph...kyscrapers.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #540  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 3:53 AM
Syndic's Avatar
Syndic Syndic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 798
I can't believe people don't think this is at least better than the 2011 proposals for those twin towers. Did people really want those twin towers in Austin? I didn't. They looked cheap, like they were made out of rusted metal and stucco. This is classy. It's glass. And it's unique. It's funny that people are deciding to be opposed to this when the JW Marriott is just a featureless glass wall on one side and has a similar brownish tan color. But people are stoked about that.

I just can't imagine what you would rather see in its place. Some misshapen Frank Gehry starchitectural blob? No thank you. Art is for the art gallery, not our city blocks. This is a classy building. Use the analogy of the best dressed guy you know. Does he wear elaborate, brightly colored clothing? Or is it more of a subtle tastefulness. Chances are, it's the latter. And that's how I think of this building.
__________________
Anti-palm trees. Death to I-35!
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 8:05 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.