Unfortunate. 1,100 ft would have been nice. But at least they got it as tall as they did.

Houston has 2 actual supertalls with JP Morgan Chase Tower (1,002 feet) and Wells Fargo Plaza (992 feet).

Antennas don’t count, if antennas counted the way spires do then One Shell Plaza is exactly 1,000 feet and is the 3rd supertall in Downtown Houston. IOW Houston isn’t hurting for supertalls, it has plenty of its own. NYC, Chicago, and LA are the only other cities besides Houston that have multiple supertalls.

I’m hoping Austin joins that small exclusive list of US cities with multiple supertalls someday in the future.

It looks like we'll have three if the the economy doesn't tank.

Yeah, and aren't they supposed to be even taller than Waterline?

Yes.

Wait. Three? Waterline, 410 E. 5th, and which other tower?

3rd & Congress (said to be 90 floors).

And that doesn’t even include the Railyard condos site, which has the potential to also be a supertall.

Looking at a possibility of 4 supertalls in Austin.

Then I would argue that we are inevitably looking at more, because we all know whatever ends up at the old post office block whenever it is developed is a supertall.

It's not distances to the airport that are so important as it is which way the runways go. In Austin's case, our runways (for now at least) run parallel to downtown. Meaning that inbound and outbound flights never fly directly over downtown on approach, at least, not at altitudes low enough to cause problems.

I agree that 984 feet is a lame threshold for what is considered to be a supertall, but officially, it is.

It's not just a Wikipedia link saying it, but rather what the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat came up with years ago. Personally, I think 1,000 feet should be the cutoff point. One Shell Plaza is 714 feet to the roof, but the huge mast on the tower actually stands on the mainroof - below 714 feet. I think I measured it at 688 feet once. Anyway, the mast goes up to 999 feet, just shy of 1,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertall_building

It’s because the US is the only country in the world that measures buildings by feet and not meters.

Supertalls are 300+ meters, that’s 984 feet, that’s the universally accepted threshold by almost every source and planning department.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertall_building

Houston has 2 supertalls, if counting antannas too then 3 supertalls. Which puts it just behind NYC and Chicago.

It doesn’t apply to us here in the US since we don’t have any but 600+ meters, or 1,969 feet, are considered megatalls.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ll_skyscrapers

Seems like they would allow taller buildings since the approach to Hobby is about 2 miles to the west of downtown. At that point, planes are way above 1000'. Seems like San Diego is much more risky regarding the flight paths and building heights. I'm just thinking out loud here, since I don't know FAA regulations.

Austin, though, shouldn't have any restrictions since the airport is so far from downtown and the runways run north/south.

This could be the decade of supertalls for Austin. :skyhighmind:

Austin has never been sleepy, even when it was a small town in the 70s.

To reiterate...I is my long-held understanding that the FAA doesn't directly restrict the height of buildings, but issues a "determination of hazard" when buildings are too tall near airports. At that point, local zoning boards are reluctant to approve construction and/or buildings taller than the what the FAA deems a hazard can become cost-prohibitive due to higher cost of insurance and smaller GSF of rentable/sellable space.

Didn't the FAA an issue with the original height of 6XGuad - but, later pulled back?

Hanover Brazos Street

https://i.imgur.com/3rIIXyuh.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/bO1EQREh.jpeg

Vesper

https://i.imgur.com/7nxdoWhh.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/VKevVEvh.jpeg

Exactly. I was here in the 70s and it was anything but "sleepy" even then. It was a huge party town and it was pretty crazy even though the population was probably 300K or less.

You're not possibly saying it will be taller than the approved 1400' Tribune tower in Chicago, are you?

I say the same. Personally, back in the late 90s to early 00s, Austin felt more alive. There was an energy then that I just can't capture today. And I am in downtown every night on weekends because of my job. I'm not the only one who shares that opinion. I've had lots of friends say the same. But I get that it's totally anecdotal and probably based entirely on subjective experiences.

What I do find funny is when people come from other parts of the country who know very little of Austin and say that it used to not be cool, but it's cool now.

You mean to say it'll be taller than 1,400 ft?

Right. Plus Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Dallas, SF and a few other cities have concrete proposals taller than 859'.

It'll be interesting to see what 3rd and Congress yields.


Philly basically counts because it's so close.

"Solid?" I don't know. However, what 859'+ proposal for Dallas is "solid?" Did I miss something?

Anyway...getting this tangent steered back toward the subject of Austin developments - when does the 410 E. Fifth (Avenue Lofts) project go before the design commission. I thought it might have been yesterday.