AUSTIN | JW Marriott Convention Center Hotel | 408 FT | 34 Floors | Complete

[ski-man]

Great pics, Merry Christmas!

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by tie_guy

It does seem a bit short for topping out next month. Hmmmm.. perhaps it's not counting the part of the building that won't be glass at the top. I don't know what to call it, but it'll have the the JW MARRIOTT logo facing east.

Great pics and some cool angles. That alley view is impressive.

The Marriott's height is only 408 feet to the mechanical penthouse, so yes, only to the part where the JW sign is. The main roof, the broader roof above the sheer glass walls, will be 374 feet.

[lzppjb]

Looking at the webcam, I can't help but imagine what will go in the lot beside the Colorado Tower, the lot across the street west of Frank's, and the 2 lots south of Frank's.

Are there projects pending on those lots that I just forgot about? It's hard to keep up.

[KevinFromTexas]

[Syndic]

I'm pretty sure we've reached the top of the normal/glass floors. All that's left now is this top part, which seems to be about 3 floors tall.



Photo courtesy of Kevin, of course

[KevinFromTexas]

^That's actually 427MM's photo.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I'm pretty sure we've reached the top of the normal/glass floors. All that's left now is this top part, which seems to be about 3 floors tall.

Photo courtesy of Kevin, of course

When I look at the photo of the 3D model, I count 28 windows up from the podium to the top of the blue glass section. On the webcam, they are on the 27th of those 28, and are working on putting up the floor of the 28th. After that, there are 4 more levels of windows.

Either way, it'll be topped out soon!


EDIT: This is the photo I used to count...

[airreek]

JW Marriott one year ago and now.



http://www.pinterest.com/pin/156429787030927341/

[corvairkeith]

1-22-14

[tie_guy]

1-25-14



Finally looks taller than One Congress Plaza!

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

1-22-14

Nice pictures! And I like that ad for the APD. Anyone know who their ad agency is?

[hookem]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Nice pictures! And I like that ad for the APD. Anyone know who their ad agency is?

The "Click it or Ticket" campaign is nationwide, but I think it's handled on a state level by different ad agencies. Regardless, I don't think it's the APD which commissioned that ad, they just put their name on it. The ad agency for the Texas Click it or Ticket campaign is http://www.sherrymatthews.com/dynamic/latest.php. They are located in my favorite building (or attached to it) at Barton Springs and S. Congress.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by hookem

The "Click it or Ticket" campaign is nationwide, but I think it's handled on a state level by different ad agencies. Regardless, I don't think it's the APD which commissioned that ad, they just put their name on it. The ad agency for the Texas Click it or Ticket campaign is http://www.sherrymatthews.com/dynamic/latest.php. They are located in my favorite building (or attached to it) at Barton Springs and S. Congress.

Paid for by TxDOT I believe. There are a bunch of clever and creative minds at work at sherrymatthews. Still think the 'Don't Mess With Texas' campaign is their most recognized, but Click it or ticket and their DWI campaigns the most clever and important in terms of highway safety. Now if people would just heed the message. What I like about the big banner on the APD Headquarters is that it hides at least some of that eyesore building...

[JACKinBeantown]

Thanks, hookem.

Funny, the Genral. When I was in architecture school at UT (for one year) we had an assignment to draw light and shadow. The APD headquarters was a popular subject choice because of the square and rounded corners.

[lzppjb]

Click It or Ticket is a BS money-grab law. It's the same as when they started requiring vehicle inspections for "safety" reasons, but took most of the money as basically a tax. I wear my seatbelt without fail, but that's my prerogative. If I don't want to, then I'm risking my own life, but it should be my decision. I hate the law.

To me, there is a big difference between creating an ad campaign to encourage a behavior, and mandating it by law and taxing the public through fines.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Click It or Ticket is a BS money-grab law. It's the same as when they started requiring vehicle inspections for "safety" reasons, but took most of the money as basically a tax. I wear my seatbelt without fail, but that's my prerogative. If I don't want to, then I'm risking my own life, but it should be my decision. I hate the law.

To me, there is a big difference between creating an ad campaign to encourage a behavior, and mandating it by law and taxing the public through fines.

Sorry lzppjb, gotta stray off topic and disagree with you. Since driving is a privilege and not a right, then following the laws of that privilege is not a prerogative. Also, as a former firefighter who saw my share of fatalities caused by dwi AND not wearing seatbelts, you might see the campaign in the manner for which it is intended...to save lives. 3 family members out of 5 who were killed by a drunk driver would be alive today if they were wearing seatbelts, the youngest, a ten year old boy. I pulled their bodies from the suv they were in. I35 near Grand Ave, 1995 or 96. I can be seen on the old news footage also cutting the dead drunk guy out of his car. Non compliance affects everyone. Maybe his parents were like you, anti seatbelt law so they didn't make their kids wear one either. Now, mother and two children are dead. The only 2 who didn't die that night, in fact, were not even seriously injured , were wearing seatbelts, Nuf said....
My apologies again for straying off topic.

[KevinFromTexas]

I like car inspections. Bumpers belong on cars, not on the interstate. Just ask Arizona, (it has no inspections). Duct tape is legitimate repair equipment there. As for not wearing your seat belt, I see your point on that, lzppjb, but then again marijuana is still illegal, too, and it's something that only affects the user and should be their decision. My only worry with a driver not wearing their seat belt is if they get knocked out of the driver seat, that means the car would be out of control with no one behind the wheel and it could put the passengers in danger.

Check out this clip of a boat and what happened to its passengers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYX1rIe3SaQ

[Syndic]

Not trying to delve into conspiracy theories here but I feel like many things are the way they are because they benefit somebody. I see seat belt laws -- I rarely wear mine, though I'm trying to break that habit -- as just another in. Another way for cops to wedge their way into your lives. Another excuse for them to stop you, thus giving them an opportunity to run checks on you, search your belongings, sniff your car with drug dogs, etc. It's a method of control. Similarly, I think that's also why we have such car-centric cities. If you're walking or biking or riding a bus/train, there's way fewer opportunities for cops to confront you. Just think of all the reasons for cops to stop you while you're driving; seat belts, expired stickers, head/tail lights being out, speeding, not stopping completely at stop signs, not using your blinker, texting while driving, swerving, random checkpoints. The list goes on and on. How many fewer arrests (namely, big arrests) would cops make if we didn't have cars? I completely agree with laws mandating seat belts for children, but once you're an adult I think you should be allowed to make your own decisions. I can't really pinpoint who specifically is responsible for our car-centric cities but suffice to say the powers-that-be want it that way.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Sorry lzppjb, gotta stray off topic and disagree with you. Since driving is a privilege and not a right, then following the laws of that privilege is not a prerogative. Also, as a former firefighter who saw my share of fatalities caused by dwi AND not wearing seatbelts, you might see the campaign in the manner for which it is intended...to save lives. 3 family members out of 5 who were killed by a drunk driver would be alive today if they were wearing seatbelts, the youngest, a ten year old boy. I pulled their bodies from the suv they were in. I35 near Grand Ave, 1995 or 96. I can be seen on the old news footage also cutting the dead drunk guy out of his car. Non compliance affects everyone. Maybe his parents were like you, anti seatbelt law so they didn't make their kids wear one either. Now, mother and two children are dead. The only 2 who didn't die that night, in fact, were not even seriously injured , were wearing seatbelts, Nuf said....
My apologies again for straying off topic.

Children are a different matter. I agree there should be common sense laws that require parents to protect children who cannot make informed decisions on their own. But adults should be able to make up their own mind.

I know driving is not a right, but that doesn't mean anything goes when you're driving. You still have rights. Cops aren't supposed to illegally search your car, for instance.

As for inspections, I see the benefit in them. But when they first started, they were about $2. Mechanic got maybe $.50 and the state got the rest. If it was strictly for the safety of motorists, why charge so much?

[lzppjb]

Also, I forgot to add this to my last post and was busy getting ready for work.

Thank you, Genral, for your service as a Firefighter!