Austin | 6G | 874 Feet | 65 Floors | Complete - Page 51

The ATX · #**1001** Posted **Jun 3, 2019, 7:23 PM**

Another sign of progress - FAA permit filed for the building. It lists the height at 847' which means the height hasn't been trimmed. It also shows a project start date of 08/07/2019.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/sea...=displayOECase&oeCaseID=343862657&row=30

ILUVSAT · #**1002** Posted **Jun 3, 2019, 9:55 PM**

Outstanding News!

AusTex · #**1003** Posted **Jun 3, 2019, 10:48 PM**

Does a FAA Permit hold any water? Does the start date mean anything? Inquiring mind wants to know!

The ATX · #**1004** Posted **Jun 3, 2019, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTex

Does a FAA Permit hold any water? Does the start date mean anything? Inquiring mind wants to know!

By themselves, they don't guarantee anything. BUT after a months long period of no news, we have several things happening around the same time:

Hotel on site closing 07/21
City permit filed for excavation/utility work
FAA permit filed

The fact that The Republic is now being publicly marketed can be considered a positive for 6xG as well. Lincoln has always stated that their focus was for 6xG to break ground before The Republic. So maybe it is happening which is why The Republic has more of a marketing focus.

EDIT: I just noticed the building permit was previously filed, but it was just moved back to proposed cases.

etmav · #**1005** Posted **Jun 4, 2019, 12:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Another sign of progress - FAA permit filed for the building. It lists the height at 847' which means the height hasn't been trimmed. It also shows a project start date of 08/07/2019.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/sea...=displayOECase&oeCaseID=343862657&row=30

Does it show start date of 08/07/2018 instead of 2019 or am I looking in the wrong place?

Thanks

The ATX · #**1006** Posted **Jun 4, 2019, 1:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by etmav

Does it show start date of 08/07/2018 instead of 2019 or am I looking in the wrong place?

Thanks

I don't know if that is a typo or the date from when the FAA filing was originally submitted. The filing apparently has to go back for approval though.

427MM · #**1007** Posted **Jun 4, 2019, 2:54 AM**

Fantastic! Such a handsome design and marvelous height. We know the homes will be in high demand, curious to see who takes the office space and what the name ends up being.

Austin1971 · #**1008** Posted **Jun 4, 2019, 9:04 PM**

[

GoldenBoot · #**1009** Posted **Jun 4, 2019, 10:25 PM**

^^^Exactly...This tower was trimmed already by the FAA from 873' to the current 848'.

shanny · #**1010** Posted **Jun 5, 2019, 3:30 PM**

^^^ I still have a very hard time believing the FAA caused the 25' reduction. ABIA is 5 miles from downtown. LaGuardia is 5 miles from Midtown. Seems strange they would be controlling building heights here but not there. Same thing with Love Field, Philadelphia, Charlotte, Vegas, etc... all cities that have buildings taller than 6x and similar airport distances. I apologize for trying to use logic and bringing this up again...

Sigaven · #**1011** Posted **Jun 5, 2019, 4:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shanny

^^^ I still have a very hard time believing the FAA caused the 25' reduction. ABIA is 5 miles from downtown. LaGuardia is 5 miles from Midtown. Seems strange they would be controlling building heights here but not there. Same thing with Love Field, Philadelphia, Charlotte, Vegas, etc... all cities that have buildings taller than 6x and similar airport distances. I apologize for trying to use logic and bringing this up again...

I think I remember reading somewhere that the new height limitations have to do with the possibility of a plane having some kind of emergency when taking off and needing room to turn around and land. those airports and cities were already built up before this rule was put in place I think. But someone who knows much more about this stuff can probably correct me if I'm wrong.

zrx299 · #**1012** Posted **Jun 5, 2019, 4:33 PM**

25 feet... the sheer stupidity of that boggles the mind (assuming it's due to regulations)

What exactly is 25 extra feet supposed to do for a commercial plane in an emergency situation? That's like making highways an extra 2 inches wider.
By that logic, airports should all be 50+ miles from city centers.

the Genral · #**1013** Posted **Jun 5, 2019, 4:38 PM**

Our runways are north to south. In an emergency landing even when circling back, they would have to line up to the north or south and wouldn't be flying over down town. Just my uneducated 2 cents.

GoldenBoot · #**1014** Posted **Jun 5, 2019, 6:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

Our runways are north to south. In an emergency landing even when circling back, they would have to line up to the north or south and wouldn't be flying over down town. Just my uneducated 2 cents.

Because the runways are N-S, to re-line up they (in some cases) may have to use airspace over the CBD.

It's all about a safe turn radius.

Even though they have the capability to do so, they will not turn on a dime with passengers onboard. It's more of a gradual return. They will fly out several miles...commence a turn...return past the airport...turn again to line up...and then land. As a visual...think of the lines which make up a magnetic filed.

Strayone · #**1015** Posted **Jun 6, 2019, 12:01 AM**

Maybe just being a Capital city has another equation to the formula for city building heights.

Jdawgboy · #**1016** Posted **Jun 6, 2019, 12:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strayone

Maybe just being a Capital city has another equation to the formula for city building heights.

That's what the CVCs are for though. Unless someone has heard differently, aside from F:A:R ratio and some overlays in certain areas of DT, what remains doesn't have any height restrictions.

AusTex · #**1017** Posted **Jun 6, 2019, 1:11 AM**

Sooo..... is 850' the tallest a building is going to be allowed in DT Austin? If this building is allowed at only 847' how can we expect the FAA allowing anything taller anywhere downtown? No Super Tall for Austin....Ever!

lzppjb · #**1018** Posted **Jun 6, 2019, 2:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTex

Sooo..... is 850' the tallest a building is going to be allowed in DT Austin? If this building is allowed at only 847' how can we expect the FAA allowing anything taller anywhere downtown? No Super Tall for Austin....Ever!

That's what I've been wondering.

the Genral · #**1019** Posted **Jun 6, 2019, 3:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTex

No Super Tall for Austin....Ever!

Well...that statement, true or not, leaves me with several thoughts. Its the anti 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, the burst in the bubble, the ultimate Debbie Downer, the dream destroyer. On the other hand, for Austin, 850 feet is a huge mile stone that if repeated a few times will still give us an incredibly diverse and amazing skyline.
I personally don't think Austin will garner the demand for a super tall, assuming a super tall is at least 1000 ft, at least not in the next 10 to 20 years anyway. If we can add three or four, 800+ footers to the mix, that would satisfy me.

H2O · #**1020** Posted **Jun 6, 2019, 11:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

Well...that statement, true or not, leaves me with several thoughts. Its the anti 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, the burst in the bubble, the ultimate Debbie Downer, the dream destroyer. On the other hand, for Austin, 850 feet is a huge mile stone that if repeated a few times will still give us an incredibly diverse and amazing skyline.
I personally don't think Austin will garner the demand for a super tall, assuming a super tall is at least 1000 ft, at least not in the next 10 to 20 years anyway. If we can add three or four, 800+ footers to the mix, that would satisfy me.

Toronto, a City / Metro at least 3 times the size of Austin, with one of the largest skylines in the world, has had 800' buildings since the 1970s, and is only now getting super tall.