AUSTIN | The Independent | 690 FEET | 58 FLOORS | Complete

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

So the Independent has yet to release exterior renderings or an official height... but the good news is that the floor plans offer some clues. First of all, the walls have window symbols along the entirety of the exterior facing sections, meaning it looks as though this building will be mostly glass. Unit C5 is the largest unit at 3,485 SF. It is described as a 3 bedroom, 3.5 bath, with a study, media room, and butler's pantry. So, I would think this is the penthouse, even though it isn't labeled that officially. However, the site says that this floor plan exists from levels 52-58. So we know it will be at least 58 stories! This makes me think that floors 59-60 could house two-level penthouses and that those designs just haven't been released yet. This would mean floor 61 is mechanical, if original floor projections were accurate. It says that the most expensive unit will be over $3,000,000, and that's what makes me think the 3-bedroom floor plan isn't actually the penthouse because that would put the price point at over $861 per square foot, and that's if the price was at exactly $3,000,000, which it will be more. At 61 stories with 12 foot ceilings, this building would be 732 ft, which is in line with initial projections. I'd think they would go for high ceilings to compete with the Austonian, but they could opt for just 10 ft, because only 8 ft ceilings are the standard for residential buildings. Even at 10 ft ceilings, this building would be at least 610 ft. It looks like that top cube part, may not be an architectural addition after all. It appears as though the first 10 floors will be office or amenity floors because residential units don't start until the 10th floor. From there, the design calls for 3 tiers, that proceed to alternate the direction they jut out. It appears as though what they label as the "4th tier" is that cube at the top. So it's unclear if they'll add a spire, or crown. What do you guys think?

I don't know what to think. You pretty much thought of everything.

[wwmiv]

A few responses, but they're all good for height:

A) they're almost certainly going to have 12 foot ceilings for floors 10 through 51, given the way that this building has been marketed thus far.

B) I'd bet that there's a good chance for 14 foot ceilings (i.e. ceiling height which is in today's market considered the top) for floors 52+, for the same reason.

C) I agree re: penthouse. Those floor plans are rarely if ever marketed in the same way, and there's almost certainly 2-4 penthouse units at two stories each bringing the floor count to 60.

D) re: mechanical level. This is probably synonymous with the cube on top.

E) the first two floors are likely to have 14-16 foot plate to plate heights, with floors 3 thru 9 likely having 10 foot ceiling heights since they aren't residential units, but rather are likely parking levels.

F) you're forgetting that ceiling heights are always necessarily shorter than plate to plate heights because of the stuff between each floor. So all of those heights above for ceilings actually translate into greater height than you're thinking by anywhere between .5 and 1.5 feet depending on the design.

G) amenities are probably located on the first two floors, and since they're marketing a sky fitness center I think there's likely a level between the top marketed units and the penthouse suites or above the penthouse suites (less likely) that is amenity as well. That's another 12 feet.

In other words, this building will be anywhere between ~765 (assuming the lowest values possible for ceiling heights and taking into account point F above) and ~825 feet without including the mechanical level's potential cubic architectural flourishes. With the fact that the official hints have been that the top is an architectural flourish, I'd say this building is between ~790 and ~850. It is impossible that this building will not be taller than the Austonian.

[lzppjb]

I noticed something on a quick run through the floor plans.

Floor 24 is only mentioned as part of Tier 2 for the C2 1,831 sf 3 bed + study floor plan.

Floors 34-35 are not listed on any of the floor plans. Maybe this is where the fitness center will be?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I noticed something on a quick run through the floor plans.

Floor 24 is only mentioned as part of Tier 2 for the C2 1,831 sf 3 bed + study floor plan.

Floors 34-35 are not listed on any of the floor plans. Maybe this is where the fitness center will be?

Floors 34-35 could be where one of the "off sets" are and may indeed have different uses. The massing model indicates an off set about half up.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I noticed something on a quick run through the floor plans.

Floor 24 is only mentioned as part of Tier 2 for the C2 1,831 sf 3 bed + study floor plan.

Floors 34-35 are not listed on any of the floor plans. Maybe this is where the fitness center will be?

Ah good catch!

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Wasn't that ahealy?

t'was

this will be our best looking building.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

A few responses, but they're all good for height:

E) the first two floors are likely to have 14-16 foot plate to plate heights, with floors 3 thru 9 likely having 10 foot ceiling heights since they aren't residential units, but rather are likely parking levels.

F) you're forgetting that ceiling heights are always necessarily shorter than plate to plate heights because of the stuff between each floor. So all of those heights above for ceilings actually translate into greater height than you're thinking by anywhere between .5 and 1.5 feet depending on the design.


In other words, this building will be anywhere between ~765 (assuming the lowest values possible for ceiling heights and taking into account point F above) and ~825 feet without including the mechanical level's potential cubic architectural flourishes. With the fact that the official hints have been that the top is an architectural flourish, I'd say this building is between ~790 and ~850. It is impossible that this building will not be taller than the Austonian.

Really good point! I didn't consider the 1.5 ft space between the floors. You're probably correct about the parking levels being the first 10 floors. The building seems to sit on a large base, which could be included in that floor count but maybe not. If not, that would also add height.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

Really good point! I didn't consider the 1.5 ft space between the floors. You're probably correct about the parking levels being the first 10 floors. The building seems to sit on a large base, which could be included in that floor count but maybe not. If not, that would also add height.

The only other option is ten floors of some other use, which isn't going to happen. Those are parking levels.

[GoldenBoot]

If I am not mistaken, there was a rather large office component to the original plan. This space was going to be placed in the podium.

[KevinFromTexas]

My guess would be that any office component would likely have larger floor plates than the rest of the building since companies like large continuous spaces for their employees.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

If I am not mistaken, there was a rather large office component to the original plan. This space was going to be placed in the podium.

I don't remember this at all. Link?

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I don't remember this at all. Link?

It's quoted in an article on the first page of this thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...55&postcount=8

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

It's quoted in an article on the first page of this thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...55&postcount=8

Awesome. I wonder what this means w/r/t parking and height.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

My guess would be that any office component would likely have larger floor plates than the rest of the building since companies like large continuous spaces for their employees.

Office components always have higher floors.

[lzppjb]

I don't know if this has been posted, but I was snooping around on the city permit site and took a screenshot of this in one of the files for this project:



This was from 10/2014, so things change. But what caught my attention is the West 3rd Street extension listed as being built with this project.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I don't know if this has been posted, but I was snooping around on the city permit site and took a screenshot of this in one of the files for this project:



This was from 10/2014, so things change. But what caught my attention is the West 3rd Street extension listed as being built with this project.

That doesn't mean they're building a bridge at all. They could just be extending W. 3rd from the west so they can have an entrance to their garage on the south side of the property and/or more street front commercial pads with a bridge connecting the two parts of W. 3rd separated by the creek being built later by the city. Unless and until we hear a dispositive statement that there is gonna be a bridge built in tandem with this project, I think we should operate under this assumption.

[lzppjb]

I didn't mention a bridge, but you are probably right. I could see them completing 3rd up to the creek, then a bridge being built in the future by the city.

[Tech House]

I would think that any of the stakeholders would prefer to have a pedestrian and bicycle bridge connecting 3rd, rather than auto bridge. Aesthetically much more pleasing, more peaceful, and creates an opportunity for a nice little public space where the street ends on the west side of the creek, which could tie in to the Independent property. This would also be preferable from the perspective of people utilizing the Shoal Creek trail. I predict no auto bridge, there's just no reason for one.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Tech House

I would think that any of the stakeholders would prefer to have a pedestrian and bicycle bridge connecting 3rd, rather than auto bridge. Aesthetically much more pleasing, more peaceful, and creates an opportunity for a nice little public space where the street ends on the west side of the creek, which could tie in to the Independent property. This would also be preferable from the perspective of people utilizing the Shoal Creek trail. I predict no auto bridge, there's just no reason for one.

But we've had quotes from leaders who have said they want the auto connection.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by Tech House

I would think that any of the stakeholders would prefer to have a pedestrian and bicycle bridge connecting 3rd, rather than auto bridge. Aesthetically much more pleasing, more peaceful, and creates an opportunity for a nice little public space where the street ends on the west side of the creek, which could tie in to the Independent property. This would also be preferable from the perspective of people utilizing the Shoal Creek trail. I predict no auto bridge, there's just no reason for one.

I agree, the lack of traffic is what will make the Independent attractive to live in. There will be less noise, because it is sort of isolated, while the new residential buildings at Greenwater will be sandwiched between Cesar Chavez and a bustling extension of 2nd Street. Ideally, they could replace the current pedestrian bridge with a much wider one that as you mentioned has some green space. Does anyone know what the deal is with the old wooden, abandoned train tracks that are next to it now. Will those ever be removed?