Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Austin Skyline - September 2009


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 LoneStarMike

LoneStarMike

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 18 September 2009 - 02:12 PM

Now that Central Texas' horrendous heat-wave appears to be over, I've managed to get out quite a bit this month photogrphing the Austin Skyline. Since there hasn't been a recent thread on Austin, thought I'd post these as an update.

Daytime photos:

From the Hyatt's swimming pool on the south shore of Lady Bird Lake





From the Mopac Pedestrian Bridge



From Zilker Park





From Lou Neff Point



From I-35





From The dog park



From Joe's Crab Shack



From West 12th Street



From the old TMI Castle (Texas Military Institute)



Dusk/evening photos:

From The Long Center's garage





From the south shore of Lady Bird lake



Fro, Joe's Crab Shack







From West 12th Street





From the ACC Garage on W. 12th Street




From Lou Neff Point


Thanks for looking.





#2 cajunmike

cajunmike

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 263 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Coppell, Texas
  • Interests:Motorcycles, Golf, hunting, geneology

Posted 18 September 2009 - 02:42 PM

Very nice !
Mike

#3 ramjet

ramjet

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Location:Austin and Fort Worth

Posted 18 September 2009 - 06:14 PM

Wow! Very nice pics. I've been in Austin for two and a half years now and the skyline had utterly transformed in that time. (Unfortunately, I think all of the new buildings are mostly empty condos.) But the profile is impressive. I'm sure those condos will fill up eventually. Austin is a great city. Like Fort Worth is...

#4 longhornz32

longhornz32

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 337 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:Architect, photography, woodworking, jazz, guitar/bass/saxophone, sculpture.

Posted 18 September 2009 - 06:56 PM

Wow. That last pic is postcard ready.

I agree with Monee, every time I go to Austin I realize our city is too monochrome. Some color or even variations on a color would make the city look alive. Right now it is looking like a burnt out white light Christmas tree with burnt out lights.

#5 LoneStarMike

LoneStarMike

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 22 September 2009 - 10:03 AM

Thanks guys.

QUOTE (longhornz32 @ Sep 18 2009, 07:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree with Monee, every time I go to Austin I realize our city is too monochrome. Some color or even variations on a color would make the city look alive. Right now it is looking like a burnt out white light Christmas tree with burnt out lights.


Speaking of "burnt out lights". I've noticed recently that One Congress Plaza (the one with the blue neon lights) has been dark. Across the street at 100 Congress, they've been dark at night, too. (They're the one that usually has those three rows of "^" shaped lights. A summer or two ago, 100 Congress had a row of red, a row of white and a row of teal lights. I wish they'd bring back that scheme. 301 Congress had lights years ago but there was a fire one night on the roof years ago and those lights never came on again after that. Also San Jacinto Tower used to be lit with floodlights, but they haven't done that in years, either.

I heard some of the office buildings are staying dark or turning off their lights early to save money. I wish the city would give the building owners some sort of incentive to turn on their lights at night.

At any rate, Austin is just about at the end of its building boom. The Austonian has topped out now, as has the Four Seasons Residences, and the W Hotel is about halfway (or a little more) to the top. Those three and the new Federal Courthouse (which just broke ground) are the only major projects left.

Here's two more I took Saturday from the 17th floor of the Hyatt on the south shore.





Our boom may be coming to an end, but our skyline has really transformed in the last 5 years since Frost tower was completed. It's been an exciting time.

#6 UncaMikey

UncaMikey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 22 September 2009 - 10:21 AM

I agree, great pictures of a great skyline. We left Austin a little more than two years ago, and it's already getting hard to recognize.

#7 Owen

Owen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Irvine, CA
  • Interests:Architecture, astronomy, cats, classical music, football, Fort Worth, linguistics, religion, Tolkien

Posted 22 September 2009 - 12:03 PM

When I left Austin in 1967, the only two notable landmarks I remember were the Calitol and the UT Tower. They hadn't even established the bat-colony under the Congress Ave. gridge yet. I look at the pix now, and the place is barely recognizable.

#8 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 23 September 2009 - 09:57 AM

QUOTE (UncaMikey @ Sep 22 2009, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree, great pictures of a great skyline. We left Austin a little more than two years ago, and it's already getting hard to recognize.

Agreed. I saw a shot of Austin on TXCN a week ago, and it took me a while to realize what city it was. The change in the skyline in such a short time is incredible.

#9 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 23 September 2009 - 12:40 PM

It had been many years since I'd been to Austin when we took Amtrak there last Christmas-time, and the changes were shocking. Downtown Austin is becoming very, very impressive. Loved the new 2nd Street District.

#10 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,672 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 23 September 2009 - 02:32 PM

My last visit into downtown was in May 2006, and it looks like much has changed, even in that short amount of time. I have been through the city several times since, but I was just passing through.

#11 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 27 September 2009 - 01:35 AM

Must be nice to have a skyline that is actually changing with the times and reflects the growth rate of their city! FW's skyline has barely changed since the mid-80's and the lighting scheme at night is really lacking. I used to want the city to revitalize the outlined buildings in FW, but now that cities like Dallas and Austin have added such cool modern lights, FW's old amber bulbs look even more dated now. I tihnk they should just remove them completely. They make the city look dated and run down. As for buildings, every time I mention I'd like to see a couple new taller than 40-story towers go up in FW, people freak out and start ranting about how FW shouldn't build taller and should focus on street level/pedestrian quality projects, etc. I agree the city should focus on street-level walkabilty, but I would also like to see some projects like the Austonian in FW. FW only needs to add a couple impressive buildings to really tranform the city into an up-to-date, cool looking skyline. Add some impressive lighting on the buildings and boom - it's a whole new Cowtown! I think FW could really use a "signature" building. Most skylines have a signature building. I don't think any of the 30+ story buildings in FW are attractive at all. They're all very generic. Acutally, now that I think about it, FW's problem isn't that it needs taller buildings, it's that it needs signature buildings. FW is completely unidentifiable when just considering the skyline. That's really sad given how big, remarkable, and unique the city is. Think about it... Dallas has Reunion tower, BOA, and Fountain Place that makes it recognizable to most. I now people hate any Dallas/FW comparisons here. But, face facts... Dallas has one of the most recognizable skylines in the country. Seattle - Space Needle and BOA. NYC - Empire State Building and the former WTC. LA - Library Tower (or whatever it's called now). Chicago - Sears Tower, Trump, Aon, Handcock... San Antonio - Hemisphere Tower. San Fran - TransAmerica and Golden Gate Bridge. St Louis - The St Louis Arch.

Bring on a couple signature towers that help really "define" FW!








#12 ramjet

ramjet

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Location:Austin and Fort Worth

Posted 27 September 2009 - 06:05 PM

QUOTE (Willy1 @ Sep 27 2009, 02:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Must be nice to have a skyline that is actually changing with the times and reflects the growth rate of their city! FW's skyline has barely changed since the mid-80's and the lighting scheme at night is really lacking. I used to want the city to revitalize the outlined buildings in FW, but now that cities like Dallas and Austin have added such cool modern lights, FW's old amber bulbs look even more dated now. I tihnk they should just remove them completely. They make the city look dated and run down. As for buildings, every time I mention I'd like to see a couple new taller than 40-story towers go up in FW, people freak out and start ranting about how FW shouldn't build taller and should focus on street level/pedestrian quality projects, etc. I agree the city should focus on street-level walkabilty, but I would also like to see some projects like the Austonian in FW. FW only needs to add a couple impressive buildings to really tranform the city into an up-to-date, cool looking skyline. Add some impressive lighting on the buildings and boom - it's a whole new Cowtown! I think FW could really use a "signature" building. Most skylines have a signature building. I don't think any of the 30+ story buildings in FW are attractive at all. They're all very generic. Acutally, now that I think about it, FW's problem isn't that it needs taller buildings, it's that it needs signature buildings. FW is completely unidentifiable when just considering the skyline. That's really sad given how big, remarkable, and unique the city is. Think about it... Dallas has Reunion tower, BOA, and Fountain Place that makes it recognizable to most. I now people hate any Dallas/FW comparisons here. But, face facts... Dallas has one of the most recognizable skylines in the country. Seattle - Space Needle and BOA. NYC - Empire State Building and the former WTC. LA - Library Tower (or whatever it's called now). Chicago - Sears Tower, Trump, Aon, Handcock... San Antonio - Hemisphere Tower. San Fran - TransAmerica and Golden Gate Bridge. St Louis - The St Louis Arch.

Bring on a couple signature towers that help really "define" FW!


I figure your heart's in the right place, but you are dead wrong if you don't think your city has signature architecture. It may not be skyscrapers, but Fort Worth has architecture known around the world - architecture recognized as internationally iconic for the 20th century. I'll let you guess what I'm referring to. I actually agree with your assessment of the amber lights - either fix 'em or nix 'em! I'd rather not Fort Worth have a skyline defined by tall, but empty buildings. (See Austin, Dallas.) And I'll put money that the average American would recognize the Dallas skyline without a hint (like, where was Kennedy killed?) And San Antonio's Hemisphere Tower - really - that's internationally iconic? And in Chicago - it's the Hancock... dry.gif

#13 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 27 September 2009 - 07:31 PM

Thanks for the great pics!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users