From what I heard recently, there will be no public spaces up there. You're right, though, it would have been an amazing space to use for some kind of amenity. By the way, I also heard the cranes are 575 feet tall.
Seaholm really REALLY should have been reserved as a transit center...e.g. Austin's 'Union Station'. The fact that a private company is going to use that awesomely historical and unique building is just absolutely recockulous. It really should have been for PUBLIC use. None of us will ever get to see the inside of Seaholm unless we get a job there?? What tha eff?!?! I guess money talks- BS walks.
Seaholm really REALLY should have been reserved as a transit center...e.g. Austin's 'Union Station'. The fact that a private company is going to use that awesomely historical and unique building is just absolutely recockulous. It really should have been for PUBLIC use. None of us will ever get to see the inside of Seaholm unless we get a job there?? What tha eff?!?! I guess money talks- BS walks.
I could not agree more. Austin City Council totally blew it by giving away Seaholm and developing the Seaholm Tower. That could have been such an amazingly grand multi-use city square anchored by a museum or mixed use retail/market. Imagine how cool the square would have been for a large weekly market and also used for events. If anything, they should have given the electrical substation site for the tower, placed a huge underground garage in front of Seaholm and left the square in front of Seaholm open. Too late now. A missed opportunity. Pity.
That link says the site plan shows it exceeding 344 feet, but I doubt that's the case for a 20-story building, unless it has a spire. I'm betting it's 244 feet. Site plans sometimes start with 100 feet as their ground level elevation instead of 0.
Last edited by KevinFromTexas; Mar 3, 2014 at 11:10 PM.
<snip> If anything, they should have given the electrical substation site for the tower <snip>
The substation is not going anywhere, and couldn't. A utility can't just shut off a substation or relocate it, at least not easily or quickly, and certainly not without spending a huge amount of money. They're expensive to begin with, and serve a distinct purpose in the design of the electrical infrastructure.
That link says the site plan shows it exceeding 344 feet, but I doubt that's the case for a 20-story building, unless it has a spire. I'm betting it's 244 feet. Site plans sometimes start with 100 feet as their ground level elevation instead of 0.
Just as a matter of interest and maybe the information is wrong, but on the Wikipedia page about the tallest buildings in Austin, lists the JPMorgan Chase Bank Tower as 21 stories and 322 feet. Could a 20 story building possibly be 344 feet tall then?? Maybe a tall open top like the Marriott?
I think i saw the beginning of activity on the Fairmont site today, and initial work seems to have begun on the Dell Medical School, near little campus.
Last edited by leonashbrook; Mar 7, 2014 at 2:33 AM.
I think i saw the beginning of activity on the Fairmont site today, and initial work seems to have begun on the Dell Medical School, near little campus.
"Work" on the Fairmont site has been a comedy of false starts/misinterpretations since early January. The one thing we know for sure is that AT&T has been doing utility relocation work since January. But I noticed some weird stuff going on the Fairmont site as well. There were flood lights lighting up the area last night for no apparent reason. There have been fewer cars parked on site lately. The "construction fence" that went up shortly after the "construction trailer" is still laying on its side most of the time because it was apparently designed to tip over whenever a butterfly flaps its wings within several blocks. I suspect the recent activity is SXSW related. A big parking lot next to the convention center would not go unused during SXSW.
I am beginning to wonder if they're scaling it down. This thing is beginning to fall far behind.
I do not think that is the case. In fact, the site will be in the 100-year flood plain (as previously mentioned) until the tunnel is complete and functioning. I can clearly see how it might be fairly difficult in securing financing on a project being currently planned for a site in a 100-year flood plain. It has nothing, necessarily, to do with the project itself. Any financial partner must weigh the risks in providing capital to a project...especially when it is currently in a flood plain and has no part in the success of the tunnel project.
Prev
Linear Mode
