SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Austin (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=446)
-   -   AUSTIN | Fifth & West Residences | 459 FEET | 39 FLOORS | Complete (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=209673)

The ATX Apr 23, 2014 3:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digatisdi (Post 6550257)
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.

Digatisdi Apr 23, 2014 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country (Post 6550352)
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.

JoninATX Apr 23, 2014 11:36 PM

Cool. But a bit surprised. Isn't that site historical. because I do see a Texas historical marker right out front.

Digatisdi Apr 23, 2014 11:47 PM

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.

JoninATX Apr 23, 2014 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digatisdi (Post 6551112)
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. :cheers:

Jdawgboy May 13, 2014 11:23 AM

I'd really like to see this building get built. Will make a great addition to the West End skyline.

Jdawgboy May 21, 2014 8:33 PM

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?

GoldenBoot May 21, 2014 8:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy (Post 6586416)
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'!?!

LoneStarMike May 21, 2014 9:21 PM

This document from April 22, 2014 indicated 39 floors at 430 feet.

lzppjb May 21, 2014 10:55 PM

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.

the Genral May 22, 2014 1:17 AM

Regardless of the actual height, it bugs me that they couldn't add one more floor for an even 40.

GoldenBoot May 22, 2014 4:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb (Post 6586608)
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?!?

lzppjb May 22, 2014 5:55 AM

Very.

KevinFromTexas May 22, 2014 6:03 AM

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.

GoldenBoot May 23, 2014 5:40 PM

The referendum was approved by Council Council yesterday...that is, Riverside Resources was granted the 20:1 FAR they requested.

KevinFromTexas May 23, 2014 6:10 PM

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.

Digatisdi May 23, 2014 9:31 PM

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.

LoneStarMike May 23, 2014 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot (Post 6589343)
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.

JoninATX May 23, 2014 11:58 PM

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.

KevinFromTexas Jun 3, 2014 12:16 AM

Utility reroute.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...out1_PLANS.pdf


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.