Quote:
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.