AUSTIN | Fairmont Hotel | 595 FEET SPIRE/456 FT ROOF | 37 FLRS | Complete - Page 63

The ATX · #**1241** Posted **Nov 10, 2015, 3:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I can't believe it has made so much progress! It feels like it is moving way faster than it should be, given the floorplate size of these levels.

I agree with you on the recent construction progress. But the fact that this was announced in 2011 makes it seem like it's taking fooooreeeeever.

drummer · #**1242** Posted **Nov 11, 2015, 12:06 AM**

Haha, no kidding - go back several pages and count the times we all complained of its slow or nonexistent "progress"...I'm excited that it is going up quickly.

AustinGoesVertical · #**1243** Posted **Nov 17, 2015, 4:24 PM**

So the spire to roof height percentage on the Fairmont is 30%. Off the top of my head, I thought the new World Trade Center had to have it beat, but it's a 29% ratio. One Predential Plaza in Chicago is a 34% ratio, so I guess it's not the top, but it still has to be up there. I know there are thousands of building candidates I'm not thinking of but I would guess this is an unprecedented spire height/roof ratio for a hotel at least. In other words, it's not crazy to think this will look out of place.

the Genral · #**1244** Posted **Nov 17, 2015, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

So the spire to roof height percentage on the Fairmont is 30%. Off the top of my head, I thought the new World Trade Center had to have it beat, but it's a 29% ratio. One Predential Plaza in Chicago is a 34% ratio, so I guess it's not the top, but it still has to be up there. I know there are thousands of building candidates I'm not thinking of but I would guess this is an unprecedented spire height/roof ratio for a hotel at least. In other words, it's not crazy to think this will look out of place.

One World trade and 2 Prudential Plaza and many other scrapers like them look good with spires because they are centered on the narrower pointed roof. One Prudential's spire looks ridiculous but if it has an antenna function, then it explains, perhaps, the reason its so tall. It should also disqualify the total recorded height, but that's another worn out argument. I think as far as aesthetics are concerned, the Fairmont falls between the examples. I certainly don't think its a necessary feature because I think it was added to the design to inflate the overall height of the building, and unless its a flagpole with a flag, a spire on top of a rectangular roof looks ackward to me. I'm hoping there will be some sort of night time value add with lighting at least.

Jdawgboy · #**1245** Posted **Nov 17, 2015, 6:17 PM**

It's hard for me to really get a good sense of how the spire will look just by the renderings but I'm not really thrilled by how long it will be. I agree that if the roof would be pointed rather than flat that it may work better, but the shape of the building isn't really the best for a pointed roof unless it was just on one end rather than the entire length of the rectangle.

Who knows, maybe the finished product will suprise us.

KevinFromTexas · #**1246** Posted **Nov 17, 2015, 8:05 PM**

Of course they've removed it now, but the Tower Life Building in San Antonio had one of the biggest antennas on any building I can think of. The building itself is 404 feet tall, but the antenna was 154 feet. So that's 38%.

I'm not sure about spires, though. Antennas tend to be way disproportionate for sure. One building that comes to mind is one in Beaumont. I'm not sure what the name is, but it's an older 11-story building in their downtown. The building itself is only 146 feet to the mechanical penthouse, but on the main roof slab, which is at 119 feet, it has a 160 foot steel tower standing on the roof. That comes out to 134% of the building's height. The building itself is only 119 feet tall, but overall to the top of the steel tower they're 279 feet together.

We vs us · #**1247** Posted **Nov 17, 2015, 9:31 PM**

Has anyone been able to find updated renderings? Everything I can dig up online is at a weird angle that gives you no real sense of what it'll look like.

KevinFromTexas · #**1248** Posted **Nov 18, 2015, 12:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

Has anyone been able to find updated renderings? Everything I can dig up online is at a weird angle that gives you no real sense of what it'll look like.

I believe these are pretty much all the current ones. If anyone has anymore, do post them.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=192117&page=6

the Genral · #**1249** Posted **Nov 18, 2015, 12:43 AM**

www.themeetingsgoup.com

Slightly different render showing the spire and placement.
As much as I am at odds ends with this thing, it does give this sort of reaching higher into the sky effect for the whole building, and I might actually miss it if it wasn't there. And it may be just high enough to peek out from above the low fog line like the Austonian does, and the Independent will.

We vs us · #**1250** Posted **Nov 18, 2015, 3:58 PM**

Thanks for the pics, Kevin and General. Looks like they're using the same old Butterick "JW Marriott" pattern. Ah well, at least we get a spire out of the deal.

GoldenBoot · #**1251** Posted **Nov 18, 2015, 4:13 PM**

Speaking of a "JW..." Check out the 38-story, 755-room expansion tower to the JW Marriott in downtown LA. Gensler could have given The Fairmont a more interesting crown with a spire than what exists now - a straight line.

Jdawgboy · #**1252** Posted **Nov 18, 2015, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Speaking of a "JW..." Check out the 38-story, 755-room expansion tower to the JW Marriott in downtown LA. Gensler could have given The Fairmont a more interesting crown with a spire than what exists now - a straight line.

Hey that's what 311 Bowie could have looked like if they flaired out the pointed corner.

I agree, I like the LA rendering. Our JW is nice as a stand alone but Austin is getting way too many boxy or rectanglar flat roofed buildings. The Fairmont isn't going to help much. How many people are really going to notice the spire if they are viewing the hotel from a couple of miles away?. Can't really tell that 360 has a spire from a certain distance other than the base of it. The spire itself just fades away and it's not lit up at night.

KevinFromTexas · #**1253** Posted **Nov 18, 2015, 8:58 PM**

I actually like our JW Marriott. The view from the south/southeast especially is good. While a spire would have been nice for the extra height, I think it wouldn't be all that noticeable from a distance being so close to The Austonian. And to have a spire be higher than the top of Frost so close to it would look strange. I actually think having a spire on the Fairmont will look good. It'll help the design by drawing your eye up, but it'll also be a sort of beacon for the convention center area.

ATX RE Attorney · #**1254** Posted **Nov 20, 2015, 3:07 PM**

Gensler's website has better pics:

http://www.gensler.com/projects/fairmont-austin-hotel

clubtokyo · #**1255** Posted **Nov 20, 2015, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATX RE Attorney

Gensler's website has better pics:

http://www.gensler.com/projects/fairmont-austin-hotel

Wow the second from last picture shows how beautiful the building will be. I think this one is going to surprise us when its done.

We vs us · #**1256** Posted **Nov 20, 2015, 5:58 PM**

I'm a fan of the last pic. I've had a hard time imagining how it will relate to the Center and everything around it, and that helps a ton.

drummer · #**1257** Posted **Nov 20, 2015, 11:48 PM**

I agree - I like renderings that are more than grey boxes all around the building in question. That one helps a lot.

corvairkeith · #**1258** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 11:24 PM**

12-15-2015

Digatisdi · #**1259** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 11:30 PM**

Is it just me or is this going up really fast? Not that I'm complaining, but wow.

drummer · #**1260** Posted **Dec 16, 2015, 12:16 AM**

^ I was thinking the same thing. Hard to believe we were debating whether it would happen at all a few months back.