Downtown Development In Austin

[Trae]

^^That's San Antonio.

[JDawgATX]

I don't see why Austin can't have a dominating skyline for a city of now over 700,000 inside the city limits and over a 1.5 million metro? Come on people, there are cities smaller than we are that have bigger skylines. By the way I got some information from a really cool forumer on another site that did some research regarding the Austonian. Officially the height of the building is 683 feet. Even though it wont break the 700 foot mark it will still have the title of the tallest building in Texas outside of the Houston and Dallas areas. It will be the Tallest all residential building in Texas. And unless some other projects in other cities come to reality, it will be the tallest all residential tower west of the Mississippi River. One thing that Austin is trying to do is lessen the urban sprawl. With a dense downtown as a start and as the city continues to densify the inner-city, that will help a bit. Also the Austonian may not stay the tallest for long once built. The 5th at Congress tower is not out of the picture yet and from what we know right now Tom Stacy who is the developer is changing a good amount of its components to office space. Not sure if the building's design has changed but more than likely will have to be tweaked and wether or not the height has changed we will have to wait and see. Last but not least we can not stop growth just like Houston or Dallas can't stop growth or many other cities for that matter. But what we are doing is we are trying to make Austin a livable city as it continues to get larger and larger.

[N Judah]

A "dominating" skyline is fine w/me, but a skyline that is dominatED by a residential building seems awkward...Unless they really do have a bunch more of the same size planned, which would be pretty cool esp. if they were all in close proximity.

[Saddleman]

/\/\/\/\ How does what's going on inside a building make it awkward?

[marc]

^^^My thoughts exactly. Not too sure about what he means.

Anyway, i am happy that Austin is getting a denser DT. Maybe it is a solution to two ongoing concerns.

1. Keeping the "charm" of Austin intact. Yes, DT has some charming, quaint haunts, BUT most of what makes Austin...."Austin" lies outside of the DT area, right? So, more urbanization concentrated in a central location would probably save many of these favorite spots.

2. Urban sprawl. No offense, but i think Austin has some of the worst traffic problems of any TX city. I think, in part, is that the city grew too quickly to keep up with the traffic needs. Once city planners deal with that, then i say, sprawl away.

Hey, in a few generations San Antonio, Austin, Dallas and Houston will all connect into one enormous MEGALOPOLIS, anyway.

So, bring it on! But first, get some decent freeways, rail lines, bus lines etc.

I personally want to see Austin grow as long as it doesn't repeat Houston's and Dallas' mistake of building too much, and then having half empty highrises for the following decade.

m.

[N Judah]

Office buildings and residential towers look completely different.

[Saddleman]

That's just your perception.

[marc]

Office buildings and residential towers look completely different.

I think that depends on the architect. I wouldn't think that Big John in Chicago was partly residential, but it is. To me it "looks" like an office building because of having no balconies, and i couldn't imagine living in a place which encompasses those HUGE X braces. To me, that would cover up too much of my viewing window space.

Conversly, i think the BoA building in Houston would make a rather cool residential tower.

See my point?

m.

[N Judah]

The John Hancock tower does not even come close to dominating the Chicago skyline.

All I'm saying is that if Austin wants some run of the mill condo tower to be the tallest thing around, then I say go for it, but it's not going to be pretty.

[Saddleman]

Have you seen the renderings of the Austonian? It's certainly not 'run of the mill'.

[marc]

The John Hancock tower does not even come close to dominating the Chicago skyline.

I'm sorry. Are we talking about the same John Hancock Tower? Ummmm.....it is currently the second tallest building in the city.

AND although many tall towers are being built in the near vicinity, when it was built, it dominated that part of Chicago for a generation.

We are talking about the 100 storey tower with the two red and white antennas on top with X-like bracing?? Right?

m.

[N Judah]

Yep, that's the one. The one by about a hundred other office / condo towers, not to mention one taller and more visually significant building. It's more office space than condo space, and has more in common with an office building than with the Austinian. It would be a terrible thing if the Austinian dominated the skyline for "a generation," wouldn't you agree? That was my original point. Like I originally said, it only works if it is surrounded by similar condo towers (like Seattle or Vancouver).

[N Judah]

Have you seen the renderings of the Austonian? It's certainly not 'run of the mill'.

It is very similar to the Azure that is planned for Dallas or that one condo tower being planned for Kirby.

[marc]

Yep, that's the one. The one by about a hundred other office / condo towers, not to mention one taller and more visually significant building. It's more office space than condo space, and has more in common with an office building than with the Austinian. It would be a terrible thing if the Austinian dominated the skyline for "a generation," wouldn't you agree? That was my original point. Like I originally said, it only works if it is surrounded by similar condo towers (like Seattle or Vancouver).

Point 1. I still don't get you on the John Hancock tower. Honestly, it is #2 in height in Chicago. (currently) Yes, it has some

tall ones surrounding it, but it still dominates doesn't it? Unless you are talking about the Sears Tower which is

completely across DT. Help me out on this one.

Point 2. I happen to like the rendering of the Austonian as several of my posts indicate. BUT, i do see what you mean about

dominating the skyline for a generation before anything close in height is built near it. i concur that it isn't spectacular

enough to be an icon for Austin for a generation. Maybe for a year or two until the others are built! Which, by the by,

aren't there to be other highrises (i think actually 2 or 3) which will be taller than the Austonian and built in a relatively

soon timeframe? SO, dominating may not be an issue by say, 2011.

Talk to me about Big John though. i don't see where you don't think it dominates that part of the Chicago

skyline. I own several books regarding Chicago architecture and the city skyline and such, and any way

you cut it, until The Spire and Trump Tower is built, it dominates along with the Aon Tower and Sears.

Thoughts?

[marc]

Yep, that's the one. The one by about a hundred other office / condo towers, not to mention one taller and more visually significant building. It's more office space than condo space, and has more in common with an office building than with the Austinian. It would be a terrible thing if the Austinian dominated the skyline for "a generation," wouldn't you agree? That was my original point. Like I originally said, it only works if it is surrounded by similar condo towers (like Seattle or Vancouver).

Point 1. I still don't get you on the John Hancock tower. Honestly, it is #2 in height in Chicago. (currently) Yes, it has some

tall ones surrounding it, but it still dominates doesn't it? Unless you are talking about the Sears Tower which is

completely across DT. Help me out on this one.

Point 2. I happen to like the rendering of the Austonian as several of my posts indicate. BUT, i do see what you mean about

dominating the skyline for a generation before anything close in height is built near it. i concur that it isn't spectacular

enough to be an icon for Austin for a generation. Maybe for a year or two until the others are built! Which, by the by,

aren't there to be other highrises (i think actually 2 or 3) which will be taller than the Austonian and built in a relatively

soon timeframe? SO, dominating may not be an issue by say, 2011.

Talk to me about Big John though. i don't see where you don't think it dominates that part of the Chicago

skyline. I own several books regarding Chicago architecture and the city skyline and such, and any way

you cut it, until The Spire and Trump Tower is built, it dominates along with the Aon Tower and Sears.

Thoughts?

[marc]

Yep, that's the one. The one by about a hundred other office / condo towers, not to mention one taller and more visually significant building. It's more office space than condo space, and has more in common with an office building than with the Austinian. It would be a terrible thing if the Austinian dominated the skyline for "a generation," wouldn't you agree? That was my original point. Like I originally said, it only works if it is surrounded by similar condo towers (like Seattle or Vancouver).

Point 1. I still don't get you on the John Hancock tower. Honestly, it is #2 in height in Chicago. (currently) Yes, it has some

tall ones surrounding it, but it still dominates doesn't it? Unless you are talking about the Sears Tower which is

completely across DT. Help me out on this one.

Point 2. I happen to like the rendering of the Austonian as several of my posts indicate. BUT, i do see what you mean about

dominating the skyline for a generation before anything close in height is built near it. i concur that it isn't spectacular

enough to be an icon for Austin for a generation. Maybe for a year or two until the others are built! Which, by the by,

aren't there to be other highrises (i think actually 2 or 3) which will be taller than the Austonian and built in a relatively

soon timeframe? SO, dominating may not be an issue by say, 2011.

Talk to me about Big John though. i don't see where you don't think it dominates that part of the Chicago

skyline. I own several books regarding Chicago architecture and the city skyline and such, and any way

you cut it, until The Spire and Trump Tower is built, it dominates along with the Aon Tower and Sears.

Thoughts?

[Saddleman]

I still can't wrap my mind the idea why you think the Austonian (not the Austinian like it should be called) needs to be surrounded by other condo towers. And the only thing that the Austonian seems to have in common with Azure and 2727 Kirby is that they're highrise condos done in glass. This is all subjective anyways. I seriously douby anyone is going to suddenly change their view. So...whatever.

[JDawgATX]

The Austonian will likely not be the tallest building in Austin for too long. Even if the 5th at Congress tower design changes it should still be taller. And there are rumors floating around of something even taller than 5th at Congress, so I don't think you have to worry about the Austonian being the tallest for a decade more like 3 or so years.

[Saddleman]

Now there's another new highrise. A 21c Museum Hotel with condos at 3rd and Brazos that will be 44 stories.

http://www.statesman.com/business/content/...11/11hotel.html

Njudah, maybe you will gets lots of condo highrises around the Austonian.

[editor]

I read the other day that the Austonian has finally broken ground. Anyone have any pictures?

[JDawgATX]

Hey I have a few updates and also wanted to clear some miss-info about some of the buildings. First off the Austonian will be 56 stories, not 55 stories. It will be 683 feet and has broken ground as of Friday Aug 31st.

The Spring tower broke ground about a month ago and will rise to 42 stories.

360 has recently made local history as it passed Frost Bank in the number of floors and is now I think on the 37th floor of the 44 story tower.

The Monarch Tower is nearly topped out and they are working on the penthouse floors and the main roof now. It has been listed as 29 stories but recently on their web site they stated 30 stories I think because of the two level penthouses at the top.

101 Colorado tower is 37 stories not 36 and we are finally seeing it rise out of its pit after a year since groundbreaking.

the Shore tower has topped out and they are finishing the exterior of the 22 story tower in the Waterfront district. We should be seeing a second crane tower in a few months next to the shore as they should be starting on the 29 story hotel soon.

The 31 story Legacy Tower is still in its early stages of construction but it should not be long before we see the crane rise up on the site.

As of right now we are waiting to hear new info on the 5th at Congress or T/Stacy tower. There is no official date for groundbreaking and latest word is that Tom Stacy and Associates have been re-working the ammount of residential and office space they want in the tower as there have been many new condo/appartment towers that have started construction since they first announced the project. We possibly may be seeing a re-design of the building as they will likely incorporate more office space rather than residential space.

C21 project is a 44 story 580 foot condo/museum that will rise on 3rd at Brazos just east of Congress Avenue and should really impact the skyline viewing from I-35 going through downtown. I believe groundbreaking for this project is right now set for Jan of 2008.

The Four Seasons Residency Tower which I am not sure exactly what the floor ammount will be due to recent articles stating it will be around 30 or 31 stories when we had heard 38 stories should break ground in the next 2 to 3 months though again i am not 100% sure.

CBL partners plans to break ground on a 32 story residential tower at 7th and Rio Grand right behind Katz's Deli within the next 3 months or so.

The W Hotel and residences will be 36 stories and they have started work on the sales office which will be right on site with the building. Construction should be within the next 2 to 3 months.

I think thats it for the major projects though there are several smaller projects that are happening which I am blurred about because of the shear ammount. As for the Twelve at the Domain I believe they will start construction on what I last heard will be a 28 story building sometime at the beginning of 2008.

[N Judah]

Waterfront District?

[JDawgATX]

Waterfront District?

Yea its the name that is now being used for the Southeast quadrant of downtown bounded by I-35 to the East, the Colorado river to the south and west, Cesar Chavez to the north. It is poised to become a fairly dense part of downtown with many highrises.

[N Judah]

Got it. Wow Austin's really coming along - I'm a tad enviuos that Austin has such a great natural environment.

I am still awaiting development on that plan from a while back to put a series of flood-canals through Houston. Hm, could be a while.

[lookinoveratya]

I just moved to Austin and have found it to be very charming and liveable. However, I'm curious about all of the condo towers under construction and planned - who is the target market for those in Austin? That lifestyle seems so "un-Austin." High rise living is very unique - it's like living in a hotel. And unless you have grocery stores, dry cleaners, drug stores, etc. within walking distance, it can be very inconvenient having to haul things up and down elevators and then trek to a car parked some ways away. Downtown Austin has many great restaurants and shops, but other than the Whole Foods Store on the west end, not much in the way of other amenities. I'm glad they're filling in the Austin skyline with tall buildings; but I'm just surprised, given this city's obsession with nature, fitness, the outdoors, and in my neighborhood, gardens, that high rise living has such appeal here.

[JDawgATX]

Highrise living at the moment is really targeted toward either single professionals or empty nesters who are relocating here. I believe soon it will start to change to families and younger people as eventually the prices will be more competitive once there is more supply for the demand. Right now most of the condos are alittle on the pricy side though the developers are required to put I think 10 percent of the units to affordible housing prices for lower income people. Austin is big on nature but this is actually the best way to go to keep Austin as natural as possible. If we dont build up, then we build out and that causes more wide spread development destroying more land. The taller a building can be, the smaller the footprint is. Slowly but surely people here are beggining to understand this though there are several neighborhood associations around downtown that are hard core NIMBYs and even after you point the obvious benifets to the city they still dont care. Austin is changing right now but its not what it used to be. it still has alot of qualities though that it has kept from loosing over the years. I think in the next decade your going to see a more sophisticated Austin though still charming will feel much more urban in the downtown and central core and hopefully still natural around the city's edge. As far as grocery stores and such several smaller grocers are located in downtown and I think in the near future we should see another grocery store either within downtown or very near. We do have some dry cleaners and other stores that are within walking distance and in time there will be many more choices.

[shinoda28107]

I have pics from the Austin City Limits Festival. Look at the radical change in the Austin skyline in just a years time.

ACL 2006

ACL 2007

[JDawgATX]

By the way the Austonian is not going to be the only condo tower in that area. Right across the street at 2nd and Colorado streets, the AltaVida tower is going up, and a block over the new W hotel. That area is going to continue to densify also there are plans for a second tower on the same block as the Austonian though there is not set timeframe. I would bet it would be a tall tower as well.

[luciaphile]

This structure at 9th and Congress Ave. will be razed: Austin's Historical Commission ruled that modern alterations had too greatly diluted its period character. It will make way for an expansion of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank.

Wow, those words are hard to type in the same sentence: "Texas" and "think tank."

[TheNiche]

This structure at 9th and Congress Ave. will be razed: Austin's Historical Commission ruled that modern alterations had too greatly diluted its period character. It will make way for an expansion of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank.

Wow, those words are hard to type in the same sentence: "Texas" and "think tank."

Now, luciaphile...play nice. Some of us on here can trace our lineage in Texas back to when Texans were Texians. Save for a tiny sliver of Uvalde County (and then only in name), I don't claim that Texas is by any means perfect or Utopian. However, it serves me well. This might explain all the immigration here, both domestic and international.

As for the structure in Austin, I think that Austin bungled the verbiage of the decision. A building from the 1860's that has been re-purposed into so many different uses reflects four dimensions of history rather than just three. It is a culmination of changing geographic, technological, economic, and social influences...not merely some dusty museum piece, some stale snapshot in time. The building does contribute to a historical legacy, mangled as it is. Its demolition and replacement is yet another step in a progression of its historical contribution; after all, that we do not care about it is the evidence and the reality of our culture, and to preserve it would be to deny who we are. Preserving this building would be antithetical to preserving our culture, which is after all the purpose of preserving buildings.