AUSTIN | Fairmont Hotel | 595 FEET SPIRE/456 FT ROOF | 37 FLRS | Complete

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

We shouldn't even bother mentioning T. Stacy around here any more. His project was announced in 2004 before all of the other projects built during the boom were even proposed. The fact that it wasn't built during the boom years makes it nothing more than a developers old wet dream. (ie., bed spread stain.)

But I must say, Jdawgboy, I really like the eternal optimism of your posts over the past few years.

I will keep holding out for that project. Something must be happening or they would not have posted an update on the status of the proposal in April of this year. Don't forget that one of the primary reasons for the reconstruction of Brazos street was to get new and better utility lines which would be needed for such a massive project, that is almost complete. Now what will really excite me is if they do start construction of the parking garage at the end of this year or the start of next.

[KevinFromTexas]

Hmm.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/pr...ts-zoning.html

Hotel gets zoning
Austin Business Journal by Cody Lyon, Staff writer
Date: Friday, November 18, 2011, 5:00am CST

Cody Lyon
Staff writer - Austin Business Journal

The Austin City Council gave preliminary approval during its Nov. 10 meeting for the developer of a proposed downtown hotel to build it higher.

Proponents of the Grand Hotel at Waller Creek, as it’s now called, would bring the city and the Waller Creek redevelopment plan a lot of money. The hotel would likely generate $4.1 million in property taxes, said Steve Drenner, a lawyer with Winstead PC who is representing Manchester Texas Financial Group LLC, which is developing the hotel.

[TXAlex]

Are you not entertained?!

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Hmm.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/pr...ts-zoning.html

[KevinFromTexas]

Well, I'm wondering if this means it might be taller than the 600 foot height we heard. It's interesting that while we were contemplating F1's future being uncertain and that affecting the hotel's development, that the hotel's developers were possibly considering making their hotel even taller.

[TXAlex]

Ahh!!! It's fortunate that they just agreed to make immediate payment. Hopefully that means F1 construction will be back on next week. yeah!

[Jdawgboy]

To be honest, I don't think F1 is the main catalyst for the Manchester Hotel project. Im assuming that one of the main reasons behind it is the future of Waller Creek and the new River Walk and in fact is stated it will bring in revenue for the Waller Creek development plan. They, as with all Hotels in the Austin area would benefit from F1 but I still think they plan to go through with it wether F1 comes or not.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Well, I'm wondering if this means it might be taller than the 600 foot height we heard. It's interesting that while we were contemplating F1's future being uncertain and that affecting the hotel's development, that the hotel's developers were possibly considering making their hotel even taller.

The zoning is for CURE to allow them to exceed 8:1 FAR, which they need for the previously stated height.

[Jdawgboy]

Im tired of the FAR ratio, they should make it to where unless you are in a CVC, there is no height limit. Yes there is no height limit in part of Downtown now but thats not really the case when you take into account the FAR ratio. You have to get that changed so you can build higher and it does not matter where in Downtown you are.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Im tired of the FAR ratio, they should make it to where unless you are in a CVC, there is no height limit. Yes there is no height limit in part of Downtown now but thats not really the case when you take into account the FAR ratio. You have to get that changed so you can build higher and it does not matter where in Downtown you are.

I have always thought ( with no evidence) that the city maintains height limitations as a way to negotiate for other benefits from developers.

Anyone know?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

I have always thought ( with no evidence) that the city maintains height limitations as a way to negotiate for other benefits from developers.

Anyone know?

This is generally the case.

[The ATX]

New pictures and info:

http://www.ccimtexas.com/images/webs...ment_12012.pdf

[KevinFromTexas]

So, I got an email back about the new heights. It will be 581 feet to the roof and 700 feet to the spire. It will have 47 occupied floors plus a mechanical level at the top, so 48 floors really.

4 levels of parking below grade.

6 levels in the podium:

Hotel Podium Levels
01 – Hotel Lobby, Restaurant and LoungeLevel
02 – First Grand Ballroom LevelLevel
03 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
04 – Second Grand Ballroom Level Level
05 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
06 – Meeting Room, Pool, Spa and Fitness Level

They told me it still has to go through zoning review, so it could still change.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

So, I got an email back about the new heights. It will be 581 feet to the roof and 700 feet to the spire. It will have 47 occupied floors plus a mechanical level at the top, so 48 floors really.

4 levels of parking below grade.

6 levels in the podium:

Hotel Podium Levels
01 – Hotel Lobby, Restaurant and LoungeLevel
02 – First Grand Ballroom LevelLevel
03 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
04 – Second Grand Ballroom Level Level
05 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
06 – Meeting Room, Pool, Spa and Fitness Level



They told me it still has to go through zoning review, so it could still change.

Thanks for finding that out Kevin

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

So, I got an email back about the new heights. It will be 581 feet to the roof and 700 feet to the spire. It will have 47 occupied floors plus a mechanical level at the top, so 48 floors really.

4 levels of parking below grade.

6 levels in the podium:

Hotel Podium Levels
01 – Hotel Lobby, Restaurant and LoungeLevel
02 – First Grand Ballroom LevelLevel
03 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
04 – Second Grand Ballroom Level Level
05 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
06 – Meeting Room, Pool, Spa and Fitness Level

They told me it still has to go through zoning review, so it could still change.

The zoning case is a mere formality...I would not worry about that.

The most common things to take into account on determining the final height of the tower are city codes/ordinances pertaining to the property (i.e., zoning), the building's tenants (amount of space they require), the amount of capital obtained for design and construction, and what profit margin is acceptable to the developer.

Based on the aforementioned, the building could be mothballed, its height could be cut or increased by a number of stories; or, the plans shall remain as they are today. We’ll have to wait and see.

Nonetheless, I would love to see a 700-footer in Austin (even though it’s a spire and not a roof-line which reaches that mark).

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

The zoning case is a mere formality...I would not worry about that.

The most common things to take into account on determining the final height of the tower are city codes/ordinances pertaining to the property (i.e., zoning), the building's tenants (amount of space they require), the amount of capital obtained for design and construction, and what profit margin is acceptable to the developer.

Based on the aforementioned, the building could be mothballed, its height could be cut or increased by a number of stories; or, the plans shall remain as they are today. We’ll have to wait and see.

Nonetheless, I would love to see a 700-footer in Austin (even though it’s a spire and not a roof-line which reaches that mark).

I'm not for counting the total height of a building by adding the height of its spire unless the spire is a significant architechtural feature, by that I mean more than a pole with an aircraft warning light on the top. I have a hard time considering the Grand our tallest just because it has a 119 ft rod sticking out of its roof. All the Austonian would have to do is add a 25 ft pole spire to its roof to reclaim itself as Austin's tallest. I guess adding a spire, antenna, pole to a building to me doesn't make the building taller, it just makes the spire, antenna, or pole higher.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I'm not for counting the total height of a building by adding the height of its spire unless the spire is a significant architechtural feature, by that I mean more than a pole with an aircraft warning light on the top. I have a hard time considering the Grand our tallest just because it has a 119 ft rod sticking out of its roof. All the Austonian would have to do is add a 25 ft pole spire to its roof to reclaim itself as Austin's tallest. I guess adding a spire, antenna, pole to a building to me doesn't make the building taller, it just makes the spire, antenna, or pole higher.

I agree with you. I don't see the point of counting something as the official height of a building unless you can stand on it. A pole is something you can't really stand on so it defeats the purpose of having it included as the height. I don't complain though when they do count it all like for example the 360 tower but at the same time I just think it makes more sense to just count the actual building roof.

Either way it will be a clear second tallest as far as roof height goes and it may help to frame Downtown on the east like a bookmark kinda like Spring and 360 do on the West End.

[JAM]

Are you guys kidding! This is TEXAS. We will use what ever means necessary to make claims that we are the BIGGEST. I don't care if we have to glue popsicle sticks on top of the spire in order to claim we have the tallest building west of the Mississippi and south of the Mason Dixon Line in a city proper of a population under 1M with a metro less than 2M. So lets get with the program and start using that spire in our calculations!!! BTW, I think the spire is traditionally used when counting skyscraper heights.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by JAM

Are you guys kidding! This is TEXAS. We will use what ever means necessary to make claims that we are the BIGGEST. I don't care if we have to glue popsicle sticks on top of the spire in order to claim we have the tallest building west of the Mississippi and south of the Mason Dixon Line in a city proper of a population under 1M with a metro less than 2M. So lets get with the program and start using that spire in our calculations!!! BTW, I think the spire is traditionally used when counting skyscraper heights.

I'm 6 foot tall, raising my arm above my head doesn't make me taller. This isn't a new debate and it appears official heights on record includes antenna and spires. Bragging rights belong to the 800 ft tower with no spire vs a 700 ft tower with a 101 ft spire imo. Developers who want the claim of tallest can easily achieve this through spires and antennas cheaply. I call it cheating unless it has architectural merit. Sort of like 360 or the statue on top of the Cap bldg.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I don't see the point of counting something as the official height of a building unless you can stand on it.

Well they will have to stand on it to change the light bulb.

I've already done a mock model of it to see how it measures up to The Austonian. The spire height is going to be a tiny bit taller. You probably won't even notice the difference in height between the two buildings (spire vs roof), unless you're far away.

And by the way, even the roof height for this building is up there. It won't be all that much shorter than The Austonian. 102 feet isn't much when you're talking about skyscrapers. It's only about 8 floors difference.

[BevoLJ]

I count the 360 and the capitol statue because they are done well. What I ignore is just silly 150 foot tall lightning rods sticking out of a top of a building.