HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 3:48 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
<Here
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 6EQUJ5
Posts: 5,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digatisdi View Post
Do we know how the vote went yesterday? They posted a video on ATXN but I'm having trouble getting it to load.
The vote was at the Planning Commission, not the City Council. I'm sure the Planning Commission rubber stamped it. The City Council will be the usual 5-2.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 8:35 PM
Digatisdi's Avatar
Digatisdi Digatisdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Downtown Austin
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hill Country View Post
The vote was at the Planning Commission, not the City Council. I'm sure the Planning Commission rubber stamped it. The City Council will be the usual 5-2.
Yeah I figured the Planning Commission would approve it, I guess I wasn't clear in my earlier post that I was referring to the later council vote would be the 5-2 split.

Which, by the way, has a date been set for that? I'm still having trouble with the videos on the council website.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 11:36 PM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The ATX
Posts: 2,725
Cool. But a bit surprised. Isn't that site historical. because I do see a Texas historical marker right out front.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 11:47 PM
Digatisdi's Avatar
Digatisdi Digatisdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Downtown Austin
Posts: 429
I'm pretty sure (I'll probably go and check later tonight) that the historical marker refers to the Texas Press Association itself rather than the building, and if I'm not mistaken the TPA has indicated they're not opposed to moving from the site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 11:51 PM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The ATX
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digatisdi View Post
I'm pretty sure (I'll probably go and check later tonight) that the historical marker refers to the Texas Press Association itself rather than the building, and if I'm not mistaken the TPA has indicated they're not opposed to moving from the site.
If there wasn't any delay about it in the Planning Commission, then it's all systems go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 13, 2014, 11:23 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,003
I'd really like to see this building get built. Will make a great addition to the West End skyline.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 8:33 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,003
It's going to be up for city council vote the 22nd.

http://m.bizjournals.com/austin/blog...-councils.html

They are saying its 39 floors now but only 430 feet?
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 8:47 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
It's going to be up for city council vote the 22nd.

http://m.bizjournals.com/austin/blog...-councils.html

They are saying its 39 floors now but only 430 feet?
Don't believe everything you read in the papers. To most "journalists" the story is far more important than the facts.

I assume one of the two (39-floors or 430' tall) is a typo or a misunderstanding by R. Grattan (the story's author).



*If the building was proposed at 37-levels and 452' in height (or ~12.22'/level)...extrapolate that out to 39-levels and you arrive at ~476'. So, maybe Grattan meant to write 480' instead of 430'!?!
__________________
Austin (City): 947,890 +19.93% - '10-'16 | Austin MSA (5 counties): 2,056,405 +19.82% - '10-'16
San Antonio (City): 1,492,510 +12.44% - '10-'16 | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,429,609 +13.40% - '10-'16
AUS-SAT "CSA" (13 counties): 4,486,014 +16.25% - '10-'16 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 9:21 PM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,124
This document from April 22, 2014 indicated 39 floors at 430 feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 10:55 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,446
On p.27 of that document it shows the heights. The 430' number is at the top of the last residential floor, but does not include the top of the white section. That little part looks to be almost twice the height of the other floors. That could be the 452' number.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 1:17 AM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 3rd house on the right
Posts: 2,350
Regardless of the actual height, it bugs me that they couldn't add one more floor for an even 40.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 4:52 AM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
On p.27 of that document it shows the heights. The 430' number is at the top of the last residential floor, but does not include the top of the white section. That little part looks to be almost twice the height of the other floors. That could be the 452' number.
Yes...that same page also shows 37 levels.

Page one mentions a 40-story building...followed by several references to a 39-story tower. Later, the elevations show a 37-story structure. Just a bit confusing, huh?!?
__________________
Austin (City): 947,890 +19.93% - '10-'16 | Austin MSA (5 counties): 2,056,405 +19.82% - '10-'16
San Antonio (City): 1,492,510 +12.44% - '10-'16 | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,429,609 +13.40% - '10-'16
AUS-SAT "CSA" (13 counties): 4,486,014 +16.25% - '10-'16 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 5:55 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,446
Very.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 6:03 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Duck and covfefe
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Posts: 44,541
There was a stacking plan in PDF format that someone posted back in February that showed the 452 foot height. Riverside Resources has since pulled the link, but I still have it saved. I'll email it to anyone who wants it. If you read my first post in this thread you'll see the (now dead) link with the heights mentioned.

The stacking plan showed the building to be 425 feet 10 1/2 inches to the main roof. The mechanical penthouse rises another 26 feet above that - so 451 feet 10 1/2 inches - or 452 feet if you round it up. It also showed the top floor (37th floor) to be 412 feet. Whether or not they've added any floors I don't know, but I would assume the 430 foot height is measuring it only to the main roof parapet. I've noticed that most of the time mechanical penthouses are exempt from height restrictions unless it's in a capitol view corridor.

Anyway, with the 37-story version having a top floor of 412 feet, that gives you a number of 11.1351351351 per floor, so multiply that number by 39 and you get a top floor height of 434 feet. Assuming the other measurements above the top floor stay the same, that should make the building 22 feet taller for a total of 474 feet. By the way, if it really does have a top floor height of 434 feet, that would be level with the roof of Spring.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 5:40 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 2,081
The referendum was approved by Council Council yesterday...that is, Riverside Resources was granted the 20:1 FAR they requested.
__________________
Austin (City): 947,890 +19.93% - '10-'16 | Austin MSA (5 counties): 2,056,405 +19.82% - '10-'16
San Antonio (City): 1,492,510 +12.44% - '10-'16 | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,429,609 +13.40% - '10-'16
AUS-SAT "CSA" (13 counties): 4,486,014 +16.25% - '10-'16 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 6:10 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Duck and covfefe
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Posts: 44,541
This is a really nice one. You guys just wait, it's going to be beautiful. The fact that the renderings show so much of the building from different angles means they put a lot of thought into it. This will be a nice looking building from every side - not one of those "face buildings" and then the other side is meh.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 9:31 PM
Digatisdi's Avatar
Digatisdi Digatisdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Downtown Austin
Posts: 429
I'm really excited about this one, it's gonna bring a lot of density with such a tall tower in such a small footprint, it's a great-looking tower, and it's set a precedent for similar-FAR buildings in the area, which will really fill in the Western skyline nicely. Even with the Bowie tower, Spring has kind of stuck out quite a bit, and even though this'll be East of Bowie, Spring, and the Monarch, it's really going to even things out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 9:58 PM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoot View Post
The referendum was approved by Council Council yesterday...that is, Riverside Resources was granted the 20:1 FAR they requested.
And the biggest surprise is that it passed 7-0 meaning Morrison and Tovo did not vote against it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 11:58 PM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The ATX
Posts: 2,725
Somewhat of a shock that Morrison and Tavo didn't vote against it. Maybe both are starting to realize that urban density is the way to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2014, 12:16 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Duck and covfefe
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Posts: 44,541
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:31 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.