DAB First Look: These Are The Top 3 Seaholm Intake Ideas You Voted For

DAB First Look: These Are The Top 3 Seaholm Intake Ideas You Voted For

Earlier this week, the City of Austin announced the Top 10 and requested public input to select the Top Three ideas for the redevelopment of the Seaholm Intake Building (that concrete bunker on the north shore of Lady Bird Lake by the train bridge).

Below are the Top Three finalists.  Ostensibly, these are three designs the public most preferred.

Each of the winners get $5,000, but it is unclear if their ideas will ever become a reality. This fall or winter City Hall will issue an RFP for the project, and presumably these design winners stand a better chance than others of being selected. However, it doesn’t appear like this is going to go down like the Waller Creek competition did and these winning ideas are just that: ideas.

Below (in no special order) are the three winning visions, as selected by an anonymous jury of 10.

“Link” – Gumbully (pdf)

Team: Brendan Wittstruck, Justin Beadle, Philip Burkhardt, Roberto Jaime Deseda, Heath Henderson, Julia Weese-Young


“Link” – Gumbully

“Lakehouse” – BOKA Powell + Design Workshop (pdf)

Team: Laura Bryant, Nathan Wilcox, Alex Ramirez, Sarah Simpson, Allison Moore Eric Van Hyfte, Kim Villavicencio, Philip Koske, Steven Moore, Tim Campbell, Mary Martinich, Conners Ladner, Jason Ferster, Magda Sayeg (local artist), Will Steakley (DEN)


“Lakehouse” – BOKA Powell + Design Workshop

“Intake” – Gensler Team George (pdf)

Team: George Blume, Brittney Couch, Jesse Adler, Vineta Clegg, Chris Curson, Adrianna Hong, Gerardo Gandy, Stacy Reed


“Intake” – Gensler Team George

About Jude Galligan

Jude Galligan, REALTOR, Principal of TOWERS Realty and publisher of Downtown Austin Blog (aka. "DAB"), spends his time matching remarkable people with remarkable properties in Austin’s urban core. A resident owner in downtown Austin, Jude has served on the Board of the Downtown Austin Alliance (DAA) and the City of Austin Downtown Commission. Contact Jude.


  1. None of these options seems to recognize that the lake itself is an important recreational area that is used by many virtually every day of the year. Each of these options extends the Seaholm footprint out into the water. This would narrow the passageway and make it even trickier for rowers, kayakers, paddleboarders,canoers, etc, to all peacefully live together and navigate without hitting each other.

    More and more people are using the lake which is a great thing for an awesome public gem-whatever happens at Seaholm will hopefully minimize disruption to people in and on the water. I personally have seen a rower going into a rage after hitting a kayak and capsizing his boat right in front of Seaholm where the bushes, bridge piers, buoys, etc. already make it an already especially challenging area to navigate.

    Expanding Seaholm’s footprint out over the water will only increase unfortunate incidences like that and make Lady Bird Lake a less desirable recreational destination for people who want to do more than sip wine and look at it.

  2. Scull Island says

    As a rower, I see that there would be a pretty big backlash against any plan with a pier extending out as far as the one pictured in “Link”. The Seaholm intake area is one of the narrowest parts of the lake and is already highly congested with boats, kayaks, and SUP’s– although not as congested as portrayed by “lakehouse” 🙂

  3. “Intake” is the clear winner in my opinion. Love the Farmers Market, Cafe, extended trail and pool!

  4. Lakehouse rendering looks like Kayakageddon 🙂

  5. J Douglas says

    “Link” is sorely in need of a second station for the Zilker Zephyr. Imagine extending the beloved miniature train route across Lady Bird Lake and to the updated Intake. How many downtowners would hop the train to Barton Springs for a quick escape from the heat then head back to work refreshed… Less parking congestion in Zilker and an “ultralight” rail in Austin that would, comparatively, be quite cheap.

Add New Comment or Leave Reply