AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II - Page 146

MichaelB · #**2901** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 12:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shanny

woops, double post

you're banned....

just kidding.

Re: photos.... ah, ha! missed the fact they were found! Sorry! Could you imagine hanging out there. They remined me of the picks another forumer took (Greg) when he got access to the roof. Anyone know where those got off to?

JGFrisco · #**2902** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 1:33 AM**

How'd you like to have had the NW corner office on the 15th floor of 100 Congress? You used to have a million-dollar view of the hills and sunset. Now you see a wall about 50 feet away.

KevinFromTexas · #**2903** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 1:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

They remined me of the picks another forumer took (Greg) when he got access to the roof. Anyone know where those got off to?

The fun starts on page 4 of the Austin Update thread. He took a few rounds of photos before these, but these were the first from the crown of Frosty.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=104192&page=4

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGFrisco

How'd you like to have had the NW corner office on the 15th floor of 100 Congress? You used to have a million-dollar view of the hills and sunset. Now you see a wall about 50 feet away.

Actually, I'd say the two buildings are as close as 15 feet apart. At one point one of the cranes appeared to be just 6 feet from 100 Congress. Nearly close enough to reach out and slab the adjacent building if you were up there.

ivanwolf · #**2904** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 3:19 AM**

Well it looks like the site plan for the W has been approved and released. Here are some images from the site plan.

Elevation of W showing 35 stories and 546' or 548'. There are 2 floors (floor 1.5 and 2.5 listed as half floors, so it may truly be around 36 stories?

Under Ground Garage levels (3 levels)

Building Summary showing the number of Condo Units, Hotel Units and Parking space requirements. Note they have half the amount of parking needed from what i get out of the table. I do not know why, GoldenBoot? Seems like those going to see a Austin City Limits show will have to find some other place to park.

South view of the Austin City Limits stage.

KevinFromTexas · #**2905** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 3:47 AM**

Actually the correct height would be 448 feet, not 548 feet. If you notice they have the street level (3rd street) listed at 100 feet. Street level is 100 feet above the street? I doubt it! So the 100 foot number has to be subtracted from the 548 foot height at the top (or any other number up and down the tower that you see). So it's 448 feet. And actually, Goldenboot had mentioned it would be 478 feet with 37 floors. And it looks like the highest point of the podium facing 2nd Street (ACL auditorium) will be 78 feet tall.

sss1234 · #**2906** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 4:01 AM**

I thought the Children's Museum was out of the project? This might be an old plan.

MichaelB · #**2907** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 5:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGFrisco

How'd you like to have had the NW corner office on the 15th floor of 100 Congress? You used to have a million-dollar view of the hills and sunset. Now you see a wall about 50 feet away.

Yes, but... same company owns both buildings. I think they did a great job of having the new building block the least amount of views from the old building and still get in a 30+ story tower. Another developer could have easily killed all the western views from 100 Congress!

MichaelB · #**2908** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 5:30 AM**

Re "W": Can't wait for this building,,,,, I think it will kick ass. Really looking forward to the new ACL Venue. Notice the specs give the house capacity as 770 seats. Smaller than I thought it was to be... but I think that is a good thing. With the arrangement it is in (a fan shape.... or "thrust") it will stiil be a "relatively" intimate experience. ( the paramount theatre is 1200 seats). I think it will be a really welcome new venue for music!

JGFrisco · #**2909** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 2:21 PM**

If you look at the other top level condos, the story height is 16'...so that means the height of the roof will be 446'. Not bad.

Tell you what though...by the time this one, Austonian, and Altavida get done, it's going to look pretty dense in that area.

JGFrisco · #**2910** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 4:06 PM**

Question for Kevin: this sheet shows a height of 442'...but you changed it on the front page to 478'. Why? Is there something I'm missing?

GoldenBoot · #**2911** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sss1234

I thought the Children's Museum was out of the project? This might be an old plan.

It is... As long as the developer falls within the FAR limits, adheres to any conditional overlay restrictions, and/or abides by and additional zoning covenants, they can alter the actual building blueprints pretty much as they wish (which includes adding or subtracting floors/height).

Remember, according to 360’s site plan, the building was to have been 581’ tall and, in actuality, it’s only 567’ (or so says Novare).

Also, if you notice on the site plan, it references a FAR of 10.84:1. The original zoning for this project was approved in early 2007 for a FAR of 11:1. If they knew they were going to fall within that original zoning restriction, why would they spend the time, effort and money in requesting a new zoning FAR of 12:1??? The actual building will be very similar to what you see, but slightly larger.

MichaelB · #**2912** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

It is... As long as the developer falls within the FAR limits, adheres to any conditional overlay restrictions, and/or abides by and additional zoning covenants, they can alter the actual building blueprints pretty much as they wish (which includes adding or subtracting floors/height).

Remember, according to 360’s site plan, the building was to have been 581’ tall and, in actuality, it’s only 567’ (or so says Novare).

Also, if you notice on the site plan, it references a FAR of 10.84:1. The original zoning for this project was approved in early 2007 for a FAR of 11:1. If they knew they were going to fall within that original zoning restriction, why would they spend the time, effort and money in requesting a new zoning FAR of 12:1??? The actual building will be very similar to what you see, but slightly larger.

Ah, GoldenBoot... your avatar has become my graven image of architectural information. I worhsip thee!

( and greatly applaud your even-keeled informative nature)

KevinFromTexas · #**2913** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGFrisco

Question for Kevin: this sheet shows a height of 442'...but you changed it on the front page to 478'. Why? Is there something I'm missing?

That sheet shows the height to the roof to be 448 actually. The reason I changed the height to 478 for the building, is that Goldenboot posted that height in another thread. It came from the site plan. The site plan he posted seems to be more up to date since it has 37 floors, instead of 35. And the latest renderings that we had seen a couple of months back showed the building to be taller than it was originally announced to be which was 433 feet. So I went with the info that Goldenboot had since it seemed to be the most up to date. Ultimately after the project breaks ground, I'll try and request the heights from the architects or developers via email. I also chat with a few of the writers for the Statesman, and they said they may be able to request the heights as well.

JGFrisco · #**2914** Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 7:49 PM**

Appreciate it. 478 would be better than 448...obviously. Plus that would put the roofline above the mainroof of 360 (or about the same level, given the ground elevations, I guess).

ivanwolf · #**2915** Posted **Apr 25, 2008, 3:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Actually the correct height would be 448 feet, not 548 feet.

Dang, I meant to check that before I posted but over looked it, thank for catching it.

zx14 · #**2916** Posted **Apr 25, 2008, 12:17 PM**

It looks like the top floor of frost is even with the top floor of 360. Even with the elevation differences this should not be.

shanny · #**2917** Posted **Apr 25, 2008, 2:06 PM**

its because they are so far apart

zx14 · #**2918** Posted **Apr 25, 2008, 9:58 PM**

focusing on highrise construction the one thing I find quite interesting has been lost. The stadium expansion. Now that the stadium seated 82000 before anything was done in the 80s. Now with an upper deck and a larger horseshoe that is now 2 levels the compacity has gone only up to 90,000. Seems to me that more than 8,000 new seats should have been created out of all this.

JGFrisco · #**2919** Posted **Apr 25, 2008, 11:52 PM**

A couple of reasons. One, there won't be any bleachers next year, and that's 4000 seats that are coming out.

It's estimated that the top end game-day crowd will now be around 92,000 or 93,000...and that's without the 4,000 seats that were in the bleachers. So reality is that they've actually added 12,000-14,000 seats, but took out 4,000 temporary ones.

Got it?

I figure if they have another year like '06 when there is a game of interest like Ohio State, they'll put the bleachers back, and the total will get to about 97,000 for that.

LiveattheOasis · #**2920** Posted **Apr 25, 2008, 11:55 PM**

The old end zone seats were much deeper, so we actually lost seats last year in the end zone, but now will gain from the upper deck. Ultimately, the stadium should keep in noise much better now.