Austin | 6G | 874 Feet | 65 Floors | Complete

[masonh2479]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Of what?

Runway 17R I assume

[myBrain]

The cvc angle on the top half of the building is what does it for me. It looks sharp, like a serrated knife. Also love how the subtly asymmetrical the horizontal lines are.

We need to know more about that FAA decision though. That could be a dreamcrusher.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Of what?

It could be a line of sight obstruction of the plane to the runway and/or the air traffic control tower to the plane. If this is the case then it could affect Waller Place development significantly since its closer. How tall was the Fairmont originally supposed to be? Maybe they had to bump it down because of the FAA and not just because they couldn't get the money for the taller tower.

[masonh2479]

Originally Posted by freerover

It could be a line of sight obstruction of the plane to the runway and/or the air traffic control tower to the plane. If this is the case then it could affect Waller Place development significantly since its closer. How tall was the Fairmont originally supposed to be? Maybe they had to bump it down because of the FAA and not just because they couldn't get the money for the taller tower.

IIFC the Fairmont was limited to 590ft by the FAA, their original concept was 590ft. The reduction wasn't because of the FAA in this case.

[KevinFromTexas]

The Fairmont's original roof height was 572 feet. At least, that's what was listed on the site plan elevations. The spire went up to 691 feet.

[GenslerATX]

The FAA determination was actually an ADD to the standard. The baseline is 499'. So we count our blessings we got 847' cleared.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Any of y'all ever flown in to Love Field? It's right by downtown Dallas - way closer than where ours is to our downtown. You're practically flying right next to all those buildings - seriously not even a mile away. I don't understand why our downtown would have a problem/height limit.

Depending on the wind shift the approach into LaGuardia is right over the top of lower Manhattan and then up the Hudson.

[Jdawgboy]

I'm very suspicious by this because now there seems to be a height reduction for the new office tower at Lavaca and 6th/7th.

This is all pretty sudden IMO.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by GenslerATX

The FAA determination was actually an ADD to the standard. The baseline is 499'. So we count our blessings we got 847' cleared.

Does this affect all of the CBD or certain, specific, lines of sight (similar to CVCs)?

[GoldenBoot]

A straight line drawn from the ATC tower at ABIA to this site (600 Guad) runs right through the Fairmont site and Frost Bank Tower...and the site is 7 miles (as the crow flies) from the tower.

It this is the reason for the FAA to force this tower lower, then why is it allowed in other cities? Change the approach angles! Planes don't fly directly over downtown. Furthermore, doesn't the tower use radar anyway? Geez.

[ILUVSAT]

Well this really 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵!

Are these arbitrary "rules" of the FAA? Seems like the city, developers, engineers and/or architects would know the limits of a particular project site. But, then again, I'm not in the business - so what do I know.

It still really 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵! What was the potential (aside from the FAA determination) of this thing surpassing 900', 950' or even 1000'?

[KevinFromTexas]

^The 847 foot height was first shown on a building elevation that was posted here with it having 62 floors. Then it was discovered they were adding 5 more floors to the plan for a total of 67. Each of the uses in the building would have different floor-to-floor heights - office, residential and parking. TheATX determined what uses those 5 additional floors were. I then referred back to the elevation we had which showed us the heights for the different uses. I came up with 908 feet with those 5 additional floors.

By the way, I've noticed in the past a lot of discrepancies with building heights via FAA filings. So I take them with a grain of salt. More than anyone else, I trust the architects and developers who have the plans laid out on their desk, plus Google Earth which I can use to measure them with.

One example of why I trust Google Earth is that the UT System Admin HQ didn't include the building elevations with the site plan they filed. The only number I remember seeing quoted by them was 270 feet tall. I wasn't sure if that number included the mechanical penthouse or not. Anyhoo, Google Earth updated their imagery this week and I was able to measure the building as being 270 feet tall top the mechanical penthouse. It's 252 feet to the main roof parapet.

[Austinite101]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Any of y'all ever flown in to Love Field? It's right by downtown Dallas - way closer than where ours is to our downtown. You're practically flying right next to all those buildings - seriously not even a mile away. I don't understand why our downtown would have a problem/height limit.

Forget that, have you ever flown into La Guardia? You’re practically waving at the people in the buildings in Manhattan there.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

^The 847 foot height was first shown on a building elevation that was posted here with it having 62 floors. Then it was discovered they were adding 5 more floors to the plan for a total of 67. Each of the uses in the building would have different floor-to-floor heights - office, residential and parking. TheATX determined what uses those 5 additional floors were. I then referred back to the elevation we had which showed us the heights for the different uses. I came up with 908 feet with those 5 additional floors.

By the way, I've noticed in the past a lot of discrepancies with building heights via FAA filings. So I take them with a grain of salt. More than anyone else, I trust the architects and developers who have the plans laid out on their desk, plus Google Earth which I can use to measure them with.

One example of why I trust Google Earth is that the UT System Admin HQ didn't include the building elevations with the site plan they filed. The only number I remember seeing quoted by them was 270 feet tall. I wasn't sure if that number included the mechanical penthouse or not. Anyhoo, Google Earth updated their imagery this week and I was able to measure the building as being 270 feet tall top the mechanical penthouse. It's 252 feet to the main roof parapet.

Kev, didn't the first elevations of this building show it with a slightly slanted roofline and standing about 873' tall?

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Kev, didn't the first elevations of this building show it with a slightly slanted roofline and standing about 873' tall?

The elevations didn't show it to that height, but we did measure it to that height, ultimately.

[ILUVSAT]

Sorry...869.5' I do not currently concur with the additional 3+ feet described a few posts later.


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7880183&postcount=17

[The ATX]

Here's the nine page approval from the FAA for the 847' height for 600 Guadalupe. The height was approved just two weeks ago. It mentions the 499' height limit then goes into FAA speak about the additional height allowed for this project. Maybe somebody can make some sense out of this.

EDIT: The height determination report for 600 Guadalupe didn't display for everyone using the link I previously posted. Click on the determination PDF in this link to see the report:

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/sea...=displayOECase&oeCaseID=343862654&row=58

[GoldenBoot]

It's B.S.!!!

[ATXboom]

Is this what is driving our 500’ plateau?

[Jdawgboy]

And here I thought it was due to this city's outdated and ridiculous F:A:R. This is BS and the city gov needs to enquire why this is even an issue because no planes fly that close or low to DT.