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

[clubtokyo]

That first pic makes the glass look so different, like silver or chrome??

[KevinFromTexas]

Man, the core of this thing is almost as big as Spring is.

[gillynova]

[Urbannizer]

Montrose1100 via HAIF

[The ATX]

Awesome photo!

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

Montrose1100 via HAIF

Woah!

[ohhey]

This building looks really good so far - the base seems really well thought out. It gives me some hope the tower portion won't be as ungainly as the rendering make it seem.

[Airwave Dynamics]

Managed to squeeze in part of Waller Creek as it runs through the area... Goes really fast though! (towards the end) Will make a separate video for just the creek alone
• Video Link

[sewaneetigers]

Originally Posted by Airwave Dynamics

Managed to squeeze in part of Waller Creek as it runs through the area... Goes really fast though! (towards the end) Will make a separate video for just the creek alone
• Video Link

I was going to talk shi* but that's pretty fuc*&7 cool - nice job with the music.

[sewaneetigers]

Originally Posted by sewaneetigers

I was going to talk shi* but that's pretty fuc*&7 cool - nice job with the music.

se

[randalls]

Do we know roughly what floor count they are estimated to try and get to by the end of this year (2024)? Seems like at the current pace we'll really see some height on this tower growing this year.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by randalls

Do we know roughly what floor count they are estimated to try and get to by the end of this year (2024)? Seems like at the current pace we'll really see some height on this tower growing this year.

You can reference this post for a general idea of what the construction progress will be going forward. It's from the GC, and so far it looks to be on schedule.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...&postcount=413

[randalls]

Thanks so much for digging this post up. Very helpful. Definitely looks like they are on track with that schedule so far.

Originally Posted by The ATX

You can reference this post for a general idea of what the construction progress will be going forward. It's from the GC, and so far it looks to be on schedule.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...&postcount=413

[Bblasa]

We talked along time ago about how window design can really impact the perceived height of a building. I think library tower in LA was referenced. Despite the windows looking so much larger toward the top I think everyone’s concerns will be moot because this is our only tower that’s not pushed back into town. It’s front and center on the water and will definitely be more intimidating than 6x, which often disappears in the far reaches of north downtown

[AusTex]

Originally Posted by gillynova

Thank You again gillynova for great photos!

This photo shows a developer doing the RIGHT thing by covering the parking component in a respectful way.

Not like the majority of what the City of Austin allows developers to do. The CITY is at fault for not having regulations screening parking levels in a more respectful manor. The CITY NEEDS to change the RULES! The CITY has the power to do something about the travesty of the last DECADE in downtown! Write them! I Have.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by AusTex

Thank You again gillynova for great photos!

This photo shows a developer doing the RIGHT thing by covering the parking component in a respectful way.

Not like the majority of what the City of Austin allows developers to do. The CITY is at fault for not having regulations screening parking levels in a more respectful manor. The CITY NEEDS to change the RULES! The CITY has the power to do something about the travesty of the last DECADE in downtown! Write them! I Have.

Preach! Would you say this falls on city council members or planning commission? I'd love to know so I can rally folks to vote them out of their jobs.

[wwmiv]

WAIT?!

Why is it that when someone else makes valid points about what the city should regulate (yet chooses not to), people all nod their head and agree, but when I do it everyone disagrees?

SMH.

I agree with you, but in the past when I’ve brought about design specific characteristics like this being regulated or stricter enforcement of quality and stupid design facets such as the waterspouts on 6G among other things most of you have chimed in opposing what I say. In fact, many people always seem confused when I point out that many things the city chooses not to regulate, it can, in fact, regulate. It simply chooses not to do so out of fear that the state will sue them.

How is requiring a design that conceals any parking in a fully integrated way any different? It isn’t.

[Urbannizer]

[KevinFromTexas]

Supertalls sometimes miss the mark. They rely a lot on form, which is great and all, and I appreciate that - I'm all about the setbacks and profile and silhouette, gawd, I love post modernism and 80s and 90s architecture but they also need some facade treatment. You can't just throw up 1/5 of a mile of facade and not pay attention to detail. This building does. I like it.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Supertalls sometimes miss the mark. They rely a lot on form, which is great and all, and I appreciate that - I'm all about the setbacks and profile and silhouette, gawd, I love post modernism and 80s and 90s architecture but they also need some facade treatment. You can't just throw up 1/5 of a mile of facade and not pay attention to detail. This building does. I like it.

I agree with your points, but looking only comparatively to other supertall buildings, this one is certainly not the worst looking 900'+ building in the U.S., but it isn't too high up in the rankings either.

Obviously it's subjective, but out of the 50-ish buildings in the U.S. there's really only 432 Park Avenue, One57, the Central Park Tower, a couple of Hudson Yards buildings, and then a couple ancillary WTC buildings that I think would obviously lose out in terms of "is this building better looking than the Waterline?"