AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II

[ahealy]

who wouldn't love this???

[KevinFromTexas]

So, I got an email back about the new heights for the Grand Hotel at Waller Creek. It will be 581 feet to the roof and 700 feet to the spire. It will have 47 occupied floors plus a mechanical level at the top, so 48 floors really.

Here's the thread with renderings:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5581139#post5581139

4 levels of parking below grade.

6 levels in the podium:

Hotel Podium Levels
01 – Hotel Lobby, Restaurant and LoungeLevel
02 – First Grand Ballroom LevelLevel
03 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
04 – Second Grand Ballroom Level Level
05 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
06 – Meeting Room, Pool, Spa and Fitness Level

They told me it still has to go through zoning review, so it could still change.

Also I sent an email asking about the JW Marriott on Congress and they told me the 403 foot height hasn't changed. Remember the renderings seemed to show it differently and some news articles were saying it would be 30 instead of 33 floors. They told me nothing has changed with the height.

[gardensoul]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Agreed. This is literally in my backyard, and I SUPPORT IT!

I love this concept, but I am sure opposition to it is not going to be NIMBYism, but rather that they are asking for 25 million in bond money. This will be tough for some city leaders considering that many of our neighborhood pools need repair and investment and many parks lack even the most basic amenities.

[gardensoul]

Originally Posted by migol24

is it just me or does it kinda look like a shorter version of 360 without the spire?

I doubt the rendering of the tower in this document comes anywhere close to a final design. It looks like something that was prepared just to express the massing of the building with little to no detail. Overall, the concept for Seaholm looks great though! Love the way they have organized the public spaces.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by gardensoul

I doubt the rendering of the tower in this document comes anywhere close to a final design. It looks like something that was prepared just to express the massing of the building with little to no detail. Overall, the concept for Seaholm looks great though! Love the way they have organized the public spaces.

The other thing to remember: It is a common technique in renderings to play down the surrounding building. Many renderings will exclude surounding building to make thier project look more dominate. So don't assume there was an attempt at realism. Renderings like this are a tool to raise money and stir excitement. Not criticizing, just sayin' that is how they are used.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

So, I got an email back about the new heights for the Grand Hotel at Waller Creek. It will be 581 feet to the roof and 700 feet to the spire. It will have 47 occupied floors plus a mechanical level at the top, so 48 floors really.

Here's the thread with renderings:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5581139#post5581139

4 levels of parking below grade.

6 levels in the podium:

Hotel Podium Levels
01 – Hotel Lobby, Restaurant and LoungeLevel
02 – First Grand Ballroom LevelLevel
03 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
04 – Second Grand Ballroom Level Level
05 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
06 – Meeting Room, Pool, Spa and Fitness Level

They told me it still has to go through zoning review, so it could still change.

Also I sent an email asking about the JW Marriott on Congress and they told me the 403 foot height hasn't changed. Remember the renderings seemed to show it differently and some news articles were saying it would be 30 instead of 33 floors. They told me nothing has changed with the height.

Yay! The plan is still to have a new tallest.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by gardensoul

I love this concept, but I am sure opposition to it is not going to be NIMBYism, but rather that they are asking for 25 million in bond money. This will be tough for some city leaders considering that many of our neighborhood pools need repair and investment and many parks lack even the most basic amenities.

Agreed. I was very excited that the "Y" was doing this and then very surprised that it was really a "let's think out of the box" proposal. Changes my view of wheather this could/would/should happen..... I think there indeed a strong argument to be made that if you are going to fund this thru a bond, then that bond should go to also find a way to have other pools funded and sustained.

As for the NIMNYism. I will say again, we are all NIMBY's in some why. What you have to see is what make a Laura Morrison so poplular ( not with me mind you, just playing "know thy enemy"!LOL!) She is willing to speak to the pragmatic side. Mind you, that also feeds some of her " I want to stay small and warm and fuzzy" crap. But she gets the ear of people who's pocket books this affect. If folks Wanna be more effective against her..... find a voice/message that addresses the pragmatic side of growth and the social/financial/environmental benefits of dense urban growth.

Edit: I LOVE this project by the way.... felt a little "bait and switch" or in this case.... " bait...... surprise!!!!!! We can't pay for it! How about you!!!!!".

[wwmiv]

Eh. I'd rather we just extend the street grid like the Seaholm project and then use those new parcels of land for VMU developments in the 3-5 story range. Otherwise this is a waste of space.

I.E. Take Pressler, Walsh, and Baylor all the way to Cesar Chavez and extend 2nd all the way through.

There just aren't very many opportunities left in central Austin to create this kindof grid based density where a grid doesn't already exist.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Eh. I'd rather we just extend the street grid like the Seaholm project and then use those new parcels of land for VMU developments in the 3-5 story range. Otherwise this is a waste of space.

I.E. Take Pressler, Walsh, and Baylor all the way to Cesar Chavez and extend 2nd all the way through.

There just aren't very many opportunities left in central Austin to create this kindof grid based density where a grid doesn't already exist.

Are you talking about the park land that is now a soft ball field? That could contiune being public space as a pool?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Are you talking about the park land that is now a soft ball field? That could continue being public space as a pool?

Yes. I'd rather it not be public space. One of the many parcels of divvied up land would be great for a pool or a park, but that entire space is just being wasted.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yes. I'd rather it not be public space. One of the many parcels of divvied up land would be great for a pool or a park, but that entire space is just being wasted.

Respectfully disagree. Can't imagine giving up any parkland that we have been lucky enough to have in the core of the city. THIS is part of what makes that area so desirable. Kill the parkland and the vista to the west and you loose a great benefit that is Ausitn. I would fight that tooth and nail.

[Jdawgboy]

Yea, lets not get rid of parkland. It would not go well with the NIMBYs at all as it is they get irritated with appropriate infill projects.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Respectfully disagree. Can't imagine giving up any parkland that we have been lucky enough to have in the core of the city. THIS is part of what makes that area so desirable. Kill the parkland and the vista to the west and you loose a great benefit that is Ausitn. I would fight that tooth and nail.

I am right there with you Michael. This is a different breed of outdoor space. Something that really is unique for any American city. I hope hope hope this gets the funding and backing it needs. Runa Workshop produces phenomenal work.
For me, my enthusiasm for this project matches that of an F1 Austin fan

[JACKinBeantown]

deleted

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

...Also I sent an email asking about the JW Marriott on Congress and they told me the 403 foot height hasn't changed. Remember the renderings seemed to show it differently and some news articles were saying it would be 30 instead of 33 floors. They told me nothing has changed with the height.

News media outlets usually round-off the height of buildings until they are finalized. And even then, they may still round it off.

The media is in it for the story...not the details. So, I wouldn't pay too much attention to that until the building goes vertical.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

So, I got an email back about the new heights for the Grand Hotel at Waller Creek. It will be 581 feet to the roof and 700 feet to the spire. It will have 47 occupied floors plus a mechanical level at the top, so 48 floors really.

Here's the thread with renderings:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5581139#post5581139

4 levels of parking below grade.

6 levels in the podium:

Hotel Podium Levels
01 – Hotel Lobby, Restaurant and LoungeLevel
02 – First Grand Ballroom LevelLevel
03 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
04 – Second Grand Ballroom Level Level
05 – Meeting Room LevelLevel
06 – Meeting Room, Pool, Spa and Fitness Level

They told me it still has to go through zoning review, so it could still change.

The zoning case is a mere formality...I would not worry about that.

The most common things to take into account on determining the final height of the tower are city codes/ordinances pertaining to the property (i.e., zoning), the building's tenants (amount of space they require), the amount of capital obtained for design and construction, and what profit margin is acceptable to the developer.

Based on the aforementioned, the building could be mothballed, its height could be cut or increased by a number of stories; or, the plans shall remain as they are today. We’ll have to wait and see.

Nonetheless, I would love to see a 700-footer in Austin (even though it’s a spire and not a roof-line which reaches that mark).

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by ahealy

I am right there with you Michael. This is a different breed of outdoor space. Something that really is unique for any American city. I hope hope hope this gets the funding and backing it needs. Runa Workshop produces phenomenal work.
For me, my enthusiasm for this project matches that of an F1 Austin fan

[NYC_Longhorn]

Actually, I don't think Kathie Tovo, will be against it.... Her husband is an outstanding architect who has desinged several high quality projects in Austin, including the CSC buildings downtown, Aquaterra, the Museum tower, the Bridges and several others... I think her opposition to F1 had to do with how it was funded..... which made people think she has a NIMBY, but I don't think that's the case at all... In fact, I'd say she's more pro-development than the F1 position made her appear.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by NYC_Longhorn

Actually, I don't think Kathie Tovo, will be against it.... Her husband is an outstanding architect who has desinged several high quality projects in Austin, including the CSC buildings downtown, Aquaterra, the Museum tower, the Bridges and several others... I think her opposition to F1 had to do with how it was funded..... which made people think she has a NIMBY, but I don't think that's the case at all... In fact, I'd say she's more pro-development than the F1 position made her appear.

Interesting. I'd like to see her endorse this. I think it's a really important investment for all Austinites.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by NYC_Longhorn

Actually, I don't think Kathie Tovo, will be against it.... Her husband is an outstanding architect who has desinged several high quality projects in Austin, including the CSC buildings downtown, Aquaterra, the Museum tower, the Bridges and several others... I think her opposition to F1 had to do with how it was funded..... which made people think she has a NIMBY, but I don't think that's the case at all... In fact, I'd say she's more pro-development than the F1 position made her appear.

I tend to agree with you. There is a big knee jerk reaction on here to preceived "NIMBY"S". I think TOVO is an independent voice and should not be lumped in with Morrison.