AUSTIN | Fairmont Hotel | 595 FEET SPIRE/456 FT ROOF | 37 FLRS | Complete - Page 14

migol24 · #**261** Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 6:15 AM**

This building will be impressive, no matter what.

KevinFromTexas · #**262** Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 7:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

In today's always accurate AAS, they stated the Fairmont would be the 2nd tallest building in Austin. The rendering did not show a spire. They may not be totally comitted to having one if a helipad is planned for the upper rooftop.

Can someone save that rendering from the article and post it? Or email it to me - [email protected] and I will.

The American-Statesman of course has no ownership over the rendering.

the Genral · #**263** Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 8:41 AM**

It was in the June 14th paper which I no longer have, however the article is on line, search fairmont to break ground in november, you need to sign in for the complete article

The ATX · #**264** Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 9:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Can someone save that rendering from the article and post it? Or email it to me - [email protected] and I will.

The American-Statesman of course has no ownership over the rendering.

This one?

KevinFromTexas · #**265** Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 10:05 AM**

So is that the one from the article? We've already seen that one.

The ATX · #**266** Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 10:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

So is that the one from the article? We've already seen that one.

That's the one.

wwmiv · #**267** Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 7:31 PM**

I honestly prefer it without the spire.

Homecreek · #**268** Posted **Jun 20, 2013, 5:06 AM**

I think the spire is still a go. You don't see it in that particular rendering because the spire is located on the southwest side of the building.

migol24 · #**269** Posted **Jun 20, 2013, 6:18 AM**

I personally hope the spire stays. It looks a bit boring without it. Austin could use another spire.

lzppjb · #**270** Posted **Jun 20, 2013, 7:03 AM**

I also don't mind the spire. Helipads don't really do anything for me.

MightyYoda · #**271** Posted **Jun 20, 2013, 5:19 PM**

I would like the spire to look like less of an afterthought such as the one on 360. It just feels very "optional" and not part of the design.

GoldenBoot · #**272** Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 12:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homecreek

I think the spire is still a go. You don't see it in that particular rendering because the spire is located on the southwest side of the building.

Exactly. The spire is on the opposite side of that rendering. Furthermore, in original paperwork filed by the group with the City of Austin describes a 53-story tower. I believe the final height is still in question.

Also, I believe the spire would be considered part of the overall architecture of the tower; thus making the peak of the spire the "Architectural Top," similar to 360. If that is the case, then the Fairmont will be the tallest tower in Austin. According to several ranking systems (including the CTBUH), the "Architectural Top" is the height at which one would measure the official height of a tower.

KevinFromTexas · #**273** Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 1:27 AM**

I sent an email to my contact at Gensler last week, but I haven't heard back from them. I asked whether the spire would stay or not and what the final height would be.

Jdawgboy · #**274** Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 3:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Exactly. The spire is on the opposite side of that rendering. Furthermore, in original paperwork filed by the group with the City of Austin describes a 53-story tower. I believe the final height is still in question.

Also, I believe the spire would be considered part of the overall architecture of the tower; thus making the peak of the spire the "Architectural Top," similar to 360. If that is the case, then the Fairmont will be the tallest tower in Austin. According to several ranking systems (including the CTBUH), the "Architectural Top" is the height at which one would measure the official height of a tower.

I will be very happy if the tower is 53 floors. I didn't quite understand how the building could be as short as what the previous height stated even at 47 floors. Take the JW Marriott in Los Angeles, that hotel is 54 floors with only 830 or so rooms and while I don't know the height, that thing is tall. I assume it is at least 700 feet or more. Of course there may be condos as well in the tower but I don't know I'm sure somebody here does. Either way I can't see how the Fairmont won't be comparable to that hotel in height it just doesn't add up.

KevinFromTexas · #**275** Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Take the JW Marriott in Los Angeles, that hotel is 54 floors with only 830 or so rooms and while I don't know the height, that thing is tall. I assume it is at least 700 feet or more. Of course there may be condos as well in the tower but I don't know I'm sure somebody here does. Either way I can't see how the Fairmont won't be comparable to that hotel in height it just doesn't add up.

I think you mean the LA Live Hotel & Condominiums? - http://goo.gl/maps/BOV1I

The project actually consists of two hotels in one. The lower portion of the building is a JW Marriott while the main "upper" tower is the Ritz-Carlton. The top floors have condos.

It is actually only 667 feet. The top floor is just 606 feet high, which is 1 shorter than the top floor of the Austonian. These numbers came from Emporis which I'm sure came from the building elevations.

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/trave...geles-la-live/
http://www.ritzcarlton.com/en/Proper...es/Default.htm

Jdawgboy · #**276** Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 8:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I think you mean the LA Live Hotel & Condominiums? - http://goo.gl/maps/BOV1I

The project actually consists of two hotels in one. The lower portion of the building is a JW Marriott while the main "upper" tower is the Ritz-Carlton. The top floors have condos.

It is actually only 667 feet. The top floor is just 606 feet high, which is 16 feet shorter than the top floor of the Austonian. These numbers came from Emporis which I'm sure came from the building elevations.

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/trave...geles-la-live/
http://www.ritzcarlton.com/en/Proper...es/Default.htm

Interesting, it looked so tall when I saw it but it might be because its away from the main cluster of high rises so it stands out, crazy that it is actually shorter than the Austonian.The Austonian would make an impact on the LA skyline. We really are lucky to have that tower. here

KevinFromTexas · #**277** Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 6:19 PM**

Correction, make that 1 foot shorter. The Austonian's top floor is 607 feet while the LA hotel's top floor is 606 feet. The 16 foot number I was thinking of would have been the 622 foot main roof of the Austonian.

GoldenBoot · #**278** Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Correction, make that 1 foot shorter. The Austonian's top floor is 607 feet while the LA hotel's top floor is 606 feet. The 16 foot number I was thinking of would have been the 622 foot main roof of the Austonian.

You mean top residential floor in the Austonian begins at 607'. There are two amenity levels in the crown (weight room and meeting facilities/party room).

KevinFromTexas · #**279** Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 8:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

You mean top residential floor in the Austonian begins at 607'. There are two amenity levels in the crown (weight room and meeting facilities/party room).

Yeah, that's actually the 54th floor. I sort of forgot about that. I just checked the elevations, and the 56th floor is at 634 feet 11 inches. The 55th floor is actually level with the main roof at 621 feet 11 inches.

So I guess technically we should be saying the top floor is 635 feet. There's also two mechanical levels at the 57th and 58th levels. The 58th level is at 669 feet 11 inches, but it's off limits to everyone except building maintenance. It's inside that crescent slope in the crown at the very top.

KevinFromTexas · #**280** Posted **Jul 10, 2013, 4:19 AM**

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...lects-dwg.html

Quote:

Jul 9, 2013, 6:00pm CDT
Fairmont Austin developer selects dwg. for landscaping assignment

Jan Buchholz
Staff Writer-
Austin Business Journal

Dwg., an Austin-based landscape architectural firm, has been selected to handle landscaping for the new Fairmont Austin Hotel, which will be built at the northeast corner of Cesar Chavez and Red River streets.

Developer Manchester Financial Group LLC announced the selection Tuesday. Manchester is planning to break ground on the $350 million, 50-story hotel in November with completion by summer 2016.