Austin | 6G | 874 Feet | 65 Floors | Complete

[Sigaven]

Now we're down to 832'-6"?

[masonh2479]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Now we're down to 832'-6"?

Where are you seeing that?

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by masonh2479

Where are you seeing that?

Dimension line on the very right hand side of the drawings. Labeled "Building height per LDC."

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Now we're down to 832'-6"?

No. Not exactly. That is not the overall height as measured from the lowest exterior point of the tower. That is simply the height per the "Land Development Code." A structure can be slightly taller than its LDC height.

[78701]

Roof Parapet: 1,323'-10"
LDC Grade Plane: 491'-4"
Building height from grade: 1,323'-10" - 491'-4" = 832'-6"

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

No. Not exactly. That is not the overall height as measured from the lowest exterior point of the tower. That is simply the height per the "Land Development Code." A structure can be slightly taller than its LDC height.

So from the average adjacent grade maybe?

the Low Point grade appears to say 481'-5", so I guess from the low point grade it is still about 842' tall.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The site plan with the elevations was posted to the city's AULCC site on Tuesday.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...cape_PLANS.pdf

The tallest height is achieved when measuring from the southwest corner of the building at the lowest sea level elevation of 481 feet 8 inches.

842 feet 2 inches to the mechanical roof parapet/screen.

800 feet to the main roof.

786 feet to the highest occupied floor (the 65th floor).

53rd floor setback - 655 feet 4 inches

34th floor setback - 447 feet 4 inches

14th floor setback - 149 feet 4 inches

Guys, the height has not changed, believe me, I doublechecked. The elevations that The ATX posted most recently are the same as the ones we saw last month.

The 491 foot sea level elevation is the average sea level elevation for that block. The building elevations for this building were unique in that they listed the high, low and average sea level elevation on the plan. Most building elevations actually rely on the average sea level elevation to get their height and very rarely list any other numbers. Some don't even list the sea level elevation, and merely start at either 0 feet or 100 feet for their baseline number. The 842 foot height was achieved by measuring from the southwest corner of the block - which is at 481 feet 8 inches. This block is lowest on the southern end, but it gains 20 feet in elevation as you move north. The northeast corner of the building is at the highest sea level elevation - 501 feet. The average is 491 feet 4 inches.

Also, it's better to use the link that The ATX posted instead of squinting at the screenshots he took because you can use the zoom function to get a closer look at the numbers. The lowest sea level elevation is 481 feet 8 inches, not 5 inches.

[KevinFromTexas]

I disagree with using the average sea level elevation even though it's what most site plans use. It's a fine method when you live in a pancake flat place, like say, Lubbock, but in Austin even in our downtown even on one block, there can be an impressive variation of sea level elevation. This block gains 20 feet in elevation in less than 300 feet. Some cities don't gain that number citywide.

I think maybe in extreme situations where you would have wild elevation variations because of extreme topography, such as in San Francisco, you could maybe offer heights measured from the high and low sea level elevation and make a note about it if you wanted to be technical.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I disagree with using the average sea level elevation even though it's what most site plans use. It's a fine method when you live in a pancake flat place, like say, Lubbock, but in Austin even in our downtown even on one block, there can be an impressive variation of sea level elevation. This block gains 20 feet in elevation in less than 300 feet. Some cities don't gain that number citywide.

I think maybe in extreme situations where you would have wild elevation variations because of extreme topography, such as in San Francisco, you could maybe offer heights measured from the high and low sea level elevation and make a note about it if you wanted to be technical.

Height is always measured from average grade for LDC compliance. Matters especially if you're designing something with a particular height restriction (60' for example) - if your lot slopes 20 feet, obviously a developer doesn't want the height restricted to 60' from the lowest elevation - that means your building is only 40' tall from the highest elevation! So it's done from the average of the two points - to the city, your building can be 60' tall from the average elevation, this means your building is 70' tall from the lowest point.

[AustinGoesVertical]

They have a GC for this. It’s supposed to start construction in December, demo probably before that. For what it’s worth, this was described to me as being 65-floors and 890 ft.

[masonh2479]

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

They have a GC for this. It’s supposed to start construction in December, demo probably before that. For what it’s worth, this was described to me as being 65-floors and 890 ft.

I’ll take 890ft, I hope what you were told was true! As long at this stays above 800ft I’ll be happy, can’t wait to see it break ground

[We vs us]

Really happy to hear this is moving forward.

It'll completely reorient the skyline.

[masonh2479]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Really happy to hear this is moving forward.

It'll completely reorient the skyline.

I can't wait, even though I have been critical of Gensler's products recently this building looks really nice! Kudos to them! Next up we need a 1,000 footer

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by masonh2479

I can't wait, even though I have been critical of Gensler's products recently this building looks really nice! Kudos to them! Next up we need a 1,000 footer

Either on the Post Office or Courthouse block. Just saying.

So much perfect real estate, just begging for the next biggest thing.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

They have a GC for this. It’s supposed to start construction in December, demo probably before that. For what it’s worth, this was described to me as being 65-floors and 890 ft.

Do you have a link/source for your good news today? Or was it at meeting or lecture?

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Either on the Post Office or Courthouse block. Just saying.

So much perfect real estate, just begging for the next biggest thing.

whynotboth.jpg

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Do you have a link/source for your good news today? Or was it at meeting or lecture?

The latter, so unfortunately no link. But it’s definitely from a reliable place, not just scuttlebutt. As always, you never know with development but the GC being chosen and getting logistics together is a really good sign.

[KevinFromTexas]

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...rtyrsn=5189526

Some info on the size:

332 residential units

25,076 square feet restaurant space

556,700 square feet of office space

960,955 square feet, presumably office and residential

1,107,595 gross square feet

[masonh2479]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...rtyrsn=5189526

Some info on the size:

332 residential units

25,076 square feet restaurant space

556,700 square feet of office space

960,955 square feet, presumably office and residential

1,107,595 gross square feet

Kinda wish a hotel was part of this (Ritz-Carlton) but I guess they can save it for the next 800ft+ tower

[We vs us]

That’s a crap ton of office space all in one place in DT. Certainly they’d have someone already committed to that, right?

EDIT: and I’m not even trying to be all HQ2 fan-boy about it, but am honestly curious... wouldn’t a project that size for the Austin market need a commitment for some/all to secure financing?