AUSTIN | Waterline | 1,034 Feet | 73 Floors | T/O

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

**The heights on the "new" elevations are very difficult to read...

There are very clear elevations/drawings attached to the site plan.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...ertyrsn=879326

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by The ATX

There are very clear elevations/drawings attached to the site plan.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...ertyrsn=879326

To which download file are you referring?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

To which download file are you referring?

There are a couple. The one named "U2 Redline Responses 2 09/28/21" has clean copies of the elevations.

[GoldenBoot]

Quote from November 20, 2020...

Originally Posted by The ATX

I think we will just have to wait until we get verification as to what elevations were filed with the city before we know the exact height. They could be added to the site plan application or show up for AULCC relatively soon. I'm pretty much done speculating on height until then.

The elevations from Source #1 were much more detailed than Source #2. The Source #1 elevations have a level 0 of 452' which is probably the FFE. These elevations have a more recent date.

The elevations from Source #2 were part of the very large site plan packet. But they did not show the underground levels or have a level 0. There was a slight difference in the heights between the elevations from each source - mainly the hotel/office amenities levels.

Assuming there isn't a different version filed with the city, it looks like 1,022' or 1,030' if we start with 452'.

Source #1




Source #2

Might we still be dealing with two versions? What does your source say? Is Scraperwill out there???

[DanielG425]

Originally Posted by TXLove

Im torn, as a native Houstonian losing the title of Texas tallest building kind of hurts but I'll get over it because Chase will still have more floors (75 vs 74) and it wont be in Dallas. LOL

This is exactly how I feel! As a Houstonian I want H-town to retain the crown of Texas's tallest - or at least compete for the crown, but being born and having lived in Austin for many years I am happy that its ATX and not our neighbors to the North.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Quote from November 20, 2020...
Might we still be dealing with two versions? What does your source say? Is Scraperwill out there???

We have seen three versions based on the dates and differences on the elevations. But we have to go with the most recently dated elevations which are also the ones filed with the site plan awaiting approval. It looks like it lost one floor and 12'. The tower is basically the same as it was originally designed when it was leaked. Losing only one floor this late in the game is positive IMO.

[scraperwill]

1022

[Echostatic]

Well that seals it.

[ILUVSAT]

Well...shoot. A mere 2' would give Austin the tallest tower in the South.

Any chance for a tiny spire?

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by the Genral

If there was ever a tower that I need to reserve judgement until it's built, it's this one. I'm not feeling it at this time, but I think the incredible height, for Austin, will be the main factor for pulling me in, in the end, and the hotel component. I agree with JoninATX regarding having an observation deck for the public but we all know that unless you are a resident or guest...
The best thing you can say about the topper is that it would be an amazing beacon if they do a good job lighting it up. Imagine how far away it will be visible.

Agreed. The height is nice, but the massing at the base, and middle section is quite bulky and heavy in appearance. I do like how the middle section has that gentle curve, but wish they got rid of the podium and just extended the middle section all the way down to the base.

The fact that all 3 sections use different materials, mismatched facade treatments, textures, makes it seem like the architect was unable to make up their mind so they just went with all 3. It would look better if they went with one option, either the middle section or the top section window treatment. It's just not a cohesive design, at the moment.

The crown isn't too bad, but kinda reminds me of a roof top tent. I like how it ties in the open space dividers between each of the 3 main sections, with the diagonal support beams.

[enragedcamel]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Well...shoot. A mere 2' would give Austin the tallest tower in the South.

Any chance for a tiny spire?

I'm wondering this too actually. In some other countries building owners "cheat" a lot using tricks like this just to be able to say their skyscraper is taller than some rival's. I assume it's much more tightly regulated in the US?

[GoldenBoot]

To put this into a bit of scale against a current tower in the neighborhood...the first residential amenity level (#41) is at roughly the same height as 44 East (570' vs. 573'). So, this tower is basically 44 East + another 452' tower (like Vesper). 300 Colorado is 446'...and is already T/O.


YES! Slap a 2' spire on this babe!

[KevinFromTexas]

Actually, the tallest in the south - Bank of America Plaza in Atlanta, is 1,040 feet tall to the spire. So, 92 Red River was never in the running to be the tallest in the south. Of course, the Bank of America Plaza is "only" 953 feet to the roof, so 92 Red River will still have the highest roof in the south at least.

What would have been nice if it had been say, 1,046 feet tall so it would be the tallest in the south, and the same height as the Chrysler Building.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

I'm wondering this too actually. In some other countries building owners "cheat" a lot using tricks like this just to be able to say their skyscraper is taller than some rival's. I assume it's much more tightly regulated in the US?

There is no "regulation" about this, though there is an independent body that rules if a spire is part of the buildings height or not. I mean, its not like anyone actually cares about this stuff beyond bragging rights.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Actually, the tallest in the south - Bank of America Plaza in Atlanta, is 1,040 feet tall to the spire. So, 92 Red River was never in the running to be the tallest in the south. Of course, the Bank of America Plaza is "only" 953 feet to the roof, so 92 Red River will still have the highest roof in the south at least.

What would have been nice if it had been say, 1,046 feet tall so it would be the tallest in the south, and the same height as the Chrysler Building.

BOA Plaza (in Atlanta) is 1,023' to the tip of the spire. 933' to the roof. 728' to highest occupied floor. So, 98 Red River would be 1' short of tying for the tallest tower in the South.

Source

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

BOA Plaza (in Atlanta) is 1,023' to the tip of the spire. 933' to the roof. 728' to highest occupied floor. So, 98 Red River would be 1' short of tying for the tallest tower in the South.

Source

That's an old height that we never actually had a source for. Since there's no source there's no way of knowing if it's authentic or not.

The 1,040 foot height comes from the CTBUH, but you can also measure that height with Google Earth, which I do trust. Google Earth heights for Austin buildings have checked out and match the same numbers on several building elevations.

https://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=57

We also went with 395 feet for the One American Center for years as being the "official height" even though there was no source listed for the number. That number was proven wrong when I viewed the original building plans for it. Google Earth also reflects that number when you measure it.

I'll go with an old height if I can cite the source or verify it by measuring the building. If we can't do that then we shouldn't go with those heights.

There were also old heights insisting that the Marriott Rivercenter in San Antonio is 541 feet, but there's no way it is that tall, and there was no source given for that number. I believe it's more likely that the true height is 441 feet and that it was a miscalculation by whoever was reading the building elevations - likely forgetting to subtract the 100 foot number which was likely listed as the baseline number on the elevations. Some building elevations use 0' feet as the baseline "groundlevel" number and some use 100 feet as the baseline number. Some also use the sea level elevation of the site as the base number. Whatever the number is at grade, if it isn't 0, then you have to subtract that from the top height to get the true height.

[The ATX]

The bottom line of all the height discussion we have had about this project is that we are getting a supertall that will be the tallest building Texas. I really, really don't care about the "tallest in the South" designation or that Atlanta will have a building 12 inches taller.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The bottom line of all the height discussion we have had about this project is that we are getting a supertall that will be the tallest building Texas. I really, really don't care about the "tallest in the South" designation or that Atlanta will have a building 12 inches taller.

Another interesting takeaway for me is that only 6 cities in the United States will have a taller building than Austin.

NYC
Chicago
Philly
LA
San Fran
Atlanta

There will be a total of 21 buildings taller, but 17 of those will be in either NYC or Chicago.

This is a big league building, and it's sort of remarkable it will likely be built in Austin.

[myBrain]

It would also be one of the most out-of-the-box, riskiest, and modern supertall designs in the US (say what else you will about the aesthetics). It's not some kind of PoMo pillar or pinstriped obelisk, it's like a weird surfing lighthouse. It's not gonna look like anything else in the country.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

That's an old height that we never actually had a source for. Since there's no source there's no way of knowing if it's authentic or not.

The 1,040 foot height comes from the CTBUH, but you can also measure that height with Google Earth, which I do trust. Google Earth heights for Austin buildings have checked out and match the same numbers on several building elevations.

https://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=57

We also went with 395 feet for the One American Center for years as being the "official height" even though there was no source listed for the number. That number was proven wrong when I viewed the original building plans for it. Google Earth also reflects that number when you measure it.

I'll go with an old height if I can cite the source or verify it by measuring the building. If we can't do that then we shouldn't go with those heights.

There were also old heights insisting that the Marriott Rivercenter in San Antonio is 541 feet, but there's no way it is that tall, and there was no source given for that number. I believe it's more likely that the true height is 441 feet and that it was a miscalculation by whoever was reading the building elevations - likely forgetting to subtract the 100 foot number which was likely listed as the baseline number on the elevations. Some building elevations use 0' feet as the baseline "groundlevel" number and some use 100 feet as the baseline number. Some also use the sea level elevation of the site as the base number. Whatever the number is at grade, if it isn't 0, then you have to subtract that from the top height to get the true height.

Kevin. No disrespect. Did you see my source? Obviously not. It was from the CTBUH!

Also, Google Earth will never be an official source. No matter what you may think of it. It's a great "guide," but will never be the rule.

Again, no disrespect, but you do not have the singular power to determine the official height of any given tower.