Austin's Future Skyline (Clarksville, West: architectural, land, office)

[BevoLJ]

One new thing about that area and where you just mentioned along Guad OpenD is all that land that UT has been buying around the Dobie is going to be a new 500,000 sq foot graduate business school and expansion of the AT&T. They are planning on putting @ the intersection of MLK and Guad right next to AT&T where Players was and Schlotzsky's is.

[homeinatx]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Look - the "Capitol District" here in Austin is BY FAR the worst use of land in town. I would suffer a thousand upper Burnet blvds. over that lifeless, soul-less barren wasteland. The really criminal part is - It's freaking smack dab right in-between two of most foot traffic friendly areas of Austin - the CBD and UT. It's an urban crime and the very idea that we should be protecting this nuclear wasteland is absolutely absurd.

Does the Planetarium Bldg. work in context? My goodness gracious no! And thank god for that. The VERY LAST thing that area needs is more single use mid-rise buildings with attached parking lots the size of a city block.

Is it perfect? I have no idea - but it is a START. And we should be jumping for flippin' joy over the thing. Not arguing over whether it's too tall and will overwhelm the scale of the nearby parking lots.

I strongly agree with this - the area between Lavaca and Red River and MLK and the Capitol is indeed an urban wasteland, and I really hope they build the Planetarium building. At least there will be one interesting building in that desert. But I am not hopeful - the Blanton could have been a magnificent building, but instead a particularly witless and bland horror got built, that looks like it does not know whether it wants to be a parking garage or a hacienda. Small wonder the dean of UT's architecture school resigned in protest. The Bob Bullock is also awful but not quite in the Blanton league of stupid. This area could be the closest Austin gets to a museum district. I think the proposed design for the planetarium building looks fantastic! Please let it be built.

[TexasHorseLady]

Here's a thought - how about a Planetarium building that is interesting architecturally but not so tall as to be out of synch with the neighborhood it's built in? Or is it impossible, in your book, for a building to be architecturally interesting and not many many stories high? (Which, if true, tells me that your book is seriously limited and limiting.)

[Austinite101]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Here's a thought - how about a Planetarium building that is interesting architecturally but not so tall as to be out of synch with the neighborhood it's built in? Or is it impossible, in your book, for a building to be architecturally interesting and not many many stories high? (Which, if true, tells me that your book is seriously limited and limiting.)

The planetarium itself will be at the base of the tower, and is separate.

Why would we want the tower "in sync" with the dead, soul-less, lifeless neighborhood around it? If you want that, then you would like an ugly, brutalist low-rise office building there. The tower portion should be a residential tower of as many stories as the developer sees the market can take. Preferably 40-50+ stories. Needs an injection of people.

[JJG]

.... I'm not really feeling the design.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Here's a thought - how about a Planetarium building that is interesting architecturally but not so tall as to be out of synch with the neighborhood it's built in? Or is it impossible, in your book, for a building to be architecturally interesting and not many many stories high? (Which, if true, tells me that your book is seriously limited and limiting.)

Being out of synch with the worst neighborhood in Austin is a good thing, not something to be avoided.
Being out of synch with those who presume to know what is best for any particular area and woud impose rather stale standards is even better.

[migol84]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Here's a thought - how about a Planetarium building that is interesting architecturally but not so tall as to be out of synch with the neighborhood it's built in? Or is it impossible, in your book, for a building to be architecturally interesting and not many many stories high? (Which, if true, tells me that your book is seriously limited and limiting.)

If you are against a tall building just "because" then it is you who are limited in your book.

However, if we'd be okay with not having a tall building just for the sake of not having a tall building, then sure. So long as it adds a more dynamic street feel to the area and the architecture truly adds to the neighborhood. But if the architecture so happens to be tall, I'd rather have that. I'm not a stickler in this issue, but I'm not limiting my options obviously despite you insisting.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Here's a thought - how about a Planetarium building that is interesting architecturally but not so tall as to be out of synch with the neighborhood it's built in? Or is it impossible, in your book, for a building to be architecturally interesting and not many many stories high? (Which, if true, tells me that your book is seriously limited and limiting.)

You are right. It is possible. But you will have to give up on a lot of other stuff.

I don't see how it would be possible to have the plaza, plus an architecturally interesting 150,000 sq foot planetarium plus midrise residential all on the same block limited to under 9 stories tall. Midrise residentials take up whole blocks. You would have to get rid of the open space plaza they want, and just build a carbon copy of any of the zillion West Campus mid rises with the space for the planetarium under it. It might be possible, although quite difficult to keep the 150,000 sq feet of space for the planetarium, but if they wanted to keep the plaza which is supposed to be a big part of their program, then they would probably have to cut a 1/3rd off the space they could use for the planetarium.

If you just don't want mixed use then it can just be the planetarium with the plaza by themselves. Just get rid of the tower. I would rather that than just extend west campus to the capitol district, which is basically what you are suggesting. I love the density of West Campus, and it is a fun area, but that area between the capitol and campus deserves more interesting buildings and some well designed open space (not parking lots, but plaza/parks and such). Mid rise res can't provide either of those. It only gives density and uses a large footprint to do so.

[FueledByBlueBell]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Actually, if you'll read, regarding downtown I said "that ship has sailed", meaning in any vision of a vibrant, living future for Austin that doesn't replicate Any City, USA, I'm writing off downtown - it's already lost to the "'progress' at any cost" crowd who can't see beyond an old-fashioned definition of progress. (You didn't think this was something new and different did you, like my 9 year old did when he told me, in 1981, that the reason I didn't like a particular rock song on the radio was because 'we have electric guitars now'?)

No, a truly creative vision of Austin is going to have to, it appears, just write off downtown as a lost cause as much as the suburbs are, maybe more so, because the vision of multiple centers can actually blossom around the city including the suburbs, whereas downtown will be stuck in its "downtown is the center of the universe and bigger is better and that's progress" mentality. So it will be just a "vibrant" in its way (which makes a lot of people NEVER want to go downtown at all because, gack!) as you want it to be and any really innovative progress will have to take place in the rest of the city where the vast majority of the population actually lives.

Is there a model city that you think has successfully accomplished the type of development to which you are referring? I'm trying to picture what you are describing.

[homeinatx]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Here's a thought - how about a Planetarium building that is interesting architecturally but not so tall as to be out of synch with the neighborhood it's built in? Or is it impossible, in your book, for a building to be architecturally interesting and not many many stories high? (Which, if true, tells me that your book is seriously limited and limiting.)

Obviously, great buildings come in all sizes.

Talking about limited and limiting, from your posts here, you just hate tall buildings. The UT tower is much much taller than any other building on campus, except for Dobie mall which is just off campus, plus it is on a hill. It towers over everything - that is the point of it. Would you say it is out of synch with its environs?

There are many ways of thinking about scale - homogeneity is only one of them and arguably the most boring and limited one. A magnificently designed huge high-rise like the proposed planetarium building could become the focal point of an area that is currently a collection of grotesque 60s brutalist office blockettes and parking garages, and the kind of residential density it would produce and encourage could go some way to bridging the two most pedestrian friendly parts of the city. A huge residential building of that size on the eastern edge of downtown would also benefit the the dozens of independent businesses on the east side

Its linear angularity could contrast and compliment the neo-classicism of the state capitol quite nicely. It is a skinny building so would not interfere with capitol view corridors, and could become the centre of a cluster of buildings of varying heights built where those terrible parking garages currently stand - which are not long for this world - the land is simply too valuable for parking garages. There are already some massive structures in the vicinity - the Drum and DKR. It is not like it is going to be a tower in a cow pasture.

Sometimes tall is bad. I think the ACC campus near the Y is a bit of an eyesore - it is also a very boring building. Sometimes tall is good. I think this would be a great site for a super-tall.

Your height phobia is what is limited and limiting here.