I'd take a projector out on my balcony and watch movies on the blank wall.

I was looking at the new colorized elevations we have in the new document, not the section diagrams showing the stacking plan, but the colorized elevations and I noticed they're still listing the lowest elevation of the lot as -5'-0" just as they had in the previous elevations we saw. That additional 5 feet should count toward the height.

The previous elevations didn't show us the mechanical penthouse that goes up to 511 feet 2 inches, it only showed the roofline below that that only went to 503 feet 8 inches, for a total of 508 feet 8 inches with the lowest site elevation. Including the section of the roof that the new elevations show, plus the 5 foot lowest elevation on the south side of the lot, that brings the overall height to 516 feet 2 inches.

That's going to make this building a few inches taller than the Frost Bank Tower.

At first glance, this one bored me a little. But I've changed my tune now. The renderings that show it from the Republic Square perspective really sell me on it. This will be a nice, high quality project overlooking the park. And it's got great height. Looking forward to it.

If you look closely it looks like the windows for these lower units stop just past the corner of the building in this area, so there just wouldn't be any windows facing that direction in those floor plans (or maybe smaller windows if they need).

Anyway it's a pretty generic design but at least it's handsome, well-proportioned and tall!!

First thought was it looks like a residential version of Duke Energy tower in Charlotte with the gaps at the top, thick white border and same blue hue. I approve:tup:

Anyone else notice that in the massing image for the Hanover building from the Towers.com article that the height of the Republic is listed at 807'? Anything to that or just a typo?

I saw that. It's a typo. The other heights aren't all correct either.

Some building elevations use 100 feet as their baseline number at grade. To get the correct height, you have to subtract 100 feet from every number above grade. Someone forget to do it. Not every set of elevations uses 100 feet as the baseline number. Some actually use 0 feet. The Republic is one of the ones that uses 100 feet.

It's a nice tower and the best part about it is the Roosevelt Room is staying put. I was there lastnight and showed my mixologist the renderings.

Now we just need a international class supertall on the old post office block and we'll have it made... The only block that will stand out like a sore thumb will be that ugly state garage. It needs to go because it leaves a big honking hole in what is rapidly becoming the densest part of Downtown.

The Design Commission approved the FAR increase. Here are a couple screen caps from the meeting.

https://i.imgur.com/vUCxLhs.png
https://i.imgur.com/kuIzotp.png
http://austintx.swagit.com/play/02252019-1212

This will probably be the highest pool in Austin, no?

Yep. The current highest pool deck now is on the main roof of The Bowie at 386 feet. The pool on this one will be on the main roof, which is 462 feet. It'll even be higher than the roof of Fifth & West by 3 feet.

Looks like 500' is the new plateau.

Feels good :)

It's probably for the better that the "plateau" steps up gradually over time. There will be more buildings in each height category that will give the skyline a full, fleshed-out appearance from afar and create a thorough urbanism on the ground. I would rather that then what is happening in Dallas and Houston, where a smattering of tall buildings were built all at once, and now the real density of people and activity has been retroactively been filled in around them.

..and don't forget, when the plateau rises, so too do the peaks ;)

Trying to figure why the upward trend is happening creates a few questions to me...
Running low on parcels of land could cause developers to utilize more of that space by going taller, but there's seems to be an adequate supply of parcels available for the near future. Financing is available now and maybe not so much in the future so get as much as you can now...maybe a factor. As the skyline fills in, developers may want to go taller so some of their tenants can get some sort of a view and also make their buildings stand out among the others in both height and fancier designs...nah, that would buck the trend that has plagued Austin for years, with a few exceptions, but those exceptions seem to be for developments that are almost or entirely pre-leased. Could it be that it's becoming easier to get approvals from the CoA to go taller than in the past? Is there a major demand for space that justifies the need to go taller? I agree with NYC2ATX's assessment. We end up with a plethora of buildings in each of the self proclaimed plateaus, 300' and 400'. I don't think 500' should be considerd the next plateau because there probably won't be enough of them built to give us a sense that we are stuck at that height, given the 600 to 800+ footers in the planning stages.
One last thing that troubles me...if 6x drops the residential component, will they add more floors of office space or will we end up with another 500 + or - footer?

Yess!!

Great thread

Actually, if built, 6XGuad will have a pool about 60 floors up. That would be the highest pool in Texas (and maybe west of the Mississippi).

That's true. I was only thinking of existing buildings though.

This one should be starting soon - at least the demo part. Building permits for the demo were issued today for all three buildings. The demo was previously approved, but the building permits allow for the start of the actual demo. Permits for capping the water and waste water were filed today as well.

Well considering how bad those empty buildings have deteriorated, it's about time. There's tons of trash piling up in and around them to the point that I'm suprised it was even allowed to get as bad as it did.