I agree completely. Though this tower will be great for downtown, I continually find myself hoping that this project, among all projects, won't make it. Though, I am sure that this isn't a popular opinion on this forum, but I almost would be OK if this lot stayed surface parking for 5 years if it meant a project twice it's height. I feel that this lot deserves so much more because of its premier location.

Yeah, I hear you. It now kinda makes me wonder that if all the spots not restricted by the CVC do get taken up by not so tall skyscrapers, Austin will probably never see a thousand footer rise.

The biggest problem here, and it's been brought up before, is the parking requirements. Office towers in Austin will need to provide parking for their tenants until either the city decides otherwise, or a transit system renders them less necessary...and then the city decides otherwise. Yes parking can be placed underground, but that increases costs exponentially, and it's not appealing to developers. Hotel builders with an already signed brand property or residential builders in Austin's current real estate environment will drop the extra cash because they know they'll make money back on their investments, but commercial office space, as always, is the least certain. Therefore, to build a towering office building now would likely require a massive and undoubtedly hideous parking structure, and if that's the case, I'd rather wait until there is a transit system to support tall office buildings than have them built now in bloated form. We don't want Austin to become Houston or Atlanta, at least not in that sense.

I think the size of this tower is right for the location. Matching or exceeding the height of the Austonian just a block away wouldn't do much for the skyline. This is an opportunity to get rid of surface parking, add quality density, and not have to wait 5 or more years to get it done. It doesn't seem that long ago when we would have all been salivating to get this tower built.

1000 footer? In Austin? LOL, I think we're getting way way way ahead of ourselves. Austin is a long long long way for having the kind of economy that could justify such a monster, let alone have the kind of populace that would ever permit it to happen.

The Fairmount could be the determining factor as to whether we see anything 500 feet being built in the next several years..more than the needed hotel room availability it is a barometer on the high rise mind set of DT developers..Austin could end up looking like Washington D.C.. many buildings all the same height..Trapped by restrictions preserving, justified in some cases, views of historic structures..

No one is getting ahead of themselves. I'm simply speaking about this in the long run, which could be 10 or 20 years from now. That is very possible and could very well happen. The T Stacey building was going to be around 830 ft... anyways, that didn't happen, but something like that can happen someday, if only the lots not affected by the CVC don't get taken all up.

If somebody credible proposed a 1,000 footer on an appropriate site downtown and had the financing lined up and ready to go, the damn building would go up with little or no opposition and lots of enthusiastic support in the media and in the community. Austin is ready. It is nonsense to speculate otherwise. The Austin office market may not be ready, but that is a seperate issue.

There are several sites in downtown where a shortfall building could go up.

http:// http://www.austinchronicle.c...feature1-1.jpg

Particularly this site.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/...ng-change/all/

IF Austin ever gets a 1000 footer it will be an ultra-premium hotel + condo tower brand... mark my words. The days of mega corp headquarters don't exist... thanks to technology, businesses can run on fewer and fewer people than ever before. This reflects the increasing jobless trend paired with record corporate growth. Most of the huge towers in Chicago and NYC are residential too... Out of all the Texas cities, Austin is the most likely to have such a tower.... don't we have the tallest residential tower west of the Mississippi? Plop a 500 room hotel on the Austonian and you might be there... look out for Trump Austin lol.

I am all for a thousand footer, but could we please not get one with the Trump brand on it? Actually, i am not so sure The Donald's name is still such a hot commodity, but there is no telling. I think you may be right about a 1,000 foot office building, but it is not unreasonable to think that Austin could still see a few forty plus story office buildings in the future. The single best thing about the old T. Stacey wet dream was the fact that it included hotel, office, and condo which made it seem almost feasible.

Guys - the Chrysler Building is just over 1000. I really don't expect to see this in my lifetime in Austin. Even big cities like San Francisco (yet - I think they might be building one) and Dallas don't have a 1000' building. Heck, we don't even have a 700' building (yet) - maybe we'll get one or 2 in 2010-20. Perhaps I'm wrong (hey, I'd love to be wrong) but I also thing someone even proposing a 1000' building would rally the CAVE people like nothing else.

In any case - hey, if it happens, great, but I'm not holding my breath for it.

I'm just hoping for an 845 foot tower first. The Devon Tower in OKC is 844 so it would be a Texas/OU thing to beat them by one foot. (Maybe we can hope for an egotistical UT alum to build it.)

Not to rag on OKC, but the Devon tower looks out of place there IMO. Really nice tower and great get for OKC, but they need to step up everything around it in a big way.

Why the cynicism where its really not warranted? At least we should keep our options open, meaning leaving those empty lots where its not protected by the CVC so that if by any chance, even if its not in your lifetime we could get one. Where's the wrong in saying that? Anybody here holding their breath? I thought we were just commenting on some little forum.

And San Francisco also has restrictions like this, that is why we don't have 1000' buildings. The one approved is the Transbay Tower, which was originally intended to be 1200' but got shortened a little over 1,000 because people complained that it would block the sunlight from the local parks. I think its still under some scrutiny, because people here don't want tall buildings, or something like that, not sure.

Hey, I already said I'm all for it, I'm just extremely dubious it will ever happen - it's not like Austin has a history with high-rises. 1000'ers are extremely rare beasts anyway - only a handful of US cities have them - Chicago, NY, Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles - Austin just isn't in that league and won't be for some time.

But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong - you won't find me objecting to it.

Dallas doesn't have a 1,000 footer because of Dallas Love Field. The FAA keeps chopping their buildings. The same thing happened to Houston. The Chase Tower in Houston was supposed to be about 50 feet taller, but the Feds stepped in and said no.

It's the same reason San Diego and Phoenix have shorter buildings. There are other factors to consider for the reason why a city has 1,000 footers. Geography can be one of them. If a city is on a peninsula or island it forces that city to go vertical, where as one that is surrounded by land, anything can happen.

All these size Queens!
I would rather see more wonderfully designed shorter building instead of height for height sake.

I think all we are saying is leaving those lots not blocked by the CVC reserved for anything taller. 700' or 1000', doesn't matter, the taller the better. Those are pretty realistic expectations.

Meh, we're all on here for the same vain reasons. You might as well side with the NIMBYs on this who complain about having anything rise over 10 floors just because and accuse us of liking anything that rises over 10 floors just because. Go figure.

All I know is the taller, the better. :skyhighmind: