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

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

Or just imagine the overall height of the BOA Plaza, which is Dallas tallest tower with an extra 4ft too spare.

Not a great (downtown Austin) visual comparison when your suggestion lies 185 miles to the north of downtown Austin.

[SproutingTowers]

I was driving on Loop 360 in West Lake Hills and the distant view of downtown showed Sixth and Guadalupe at the same height as the Independent and Austonian.

[myBrain]

Was driving past on Mopac during sunset and I thought this building had the best reflections on the skyline, even better than the Sail. The way the reflected light on the flat and angled faces contrasted with the corner cutout was gorgeous. The strange geometry of this building really makes it do interesting things with light.

[wd4015]

Took these today. It’s getting tall!

[ILUVSAT]

Why is this tower still listed as being 848' tall in the Diagram and Database sections of SSP?

[bobbywest87]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Why is this tower still listed as being 848' tall in the Diagram and Database sections of SSP?

I can’t remember, but was 848’ the above-ground height?

[SproutingTowers]

View from the Triangle.

[ahealy]

Gorgeous view, Sprouting. Thank you. That southern view is so damn —.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by bobbywest87

I can’t remember, but was 848’ the above-ground height?

It's my understanding, the building is 875' tall from its lowest point of entry to the architectural tip (according to current elevations). All above ground.

[JoninATX]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Not a great (downtown Austin) visual comparison when your suggestion lies 185 miles to the north of downtown Austin.

I just thought I'd throw it out there. If one has been to Dallas and saw BOA Plaza, they'll get the idea of just how tall 6 X Guadalupe will be.

[AusTex]

The above drawing shows an Angled Crown. I thought the top of this tower is flat. Which is correct?

[The ATX]

The final elevations were never released. So any elevations posted are not entirely accurate. The building is 875' from the lowest corner (SW) to the top.

[KevinFromTexas]

What was the reason for the height increase? I remember it being something about them adding some height to the residential floors. What was the number?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

What was the reason for the height increase? I remember it being something about them adding some height to the residential floors. What was the number?

The increase was for the residential floor to ceiling ratio. They then refiled FAA permits for a 880' building height. A couple people allegedly connected to the project said the actual height was around 876'. The 875' height came from a spokesperson for Lincoln who was quoted in a Towers and/or ABJ article. We may never know the exact height.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The increase was for the residential floor to ceiling ratio. They then refiled FAA permits for a 880' building height. A couple people allegedly connected to the project said the actual height was around 876'. The 875' height came from a spokesperson for Lincoln who was quoted in a Towers and/or ABJ article. We may never know the exact height.

If that's the case, will we go by the FAA permit height? Spokespeople of large development companies are not usually specific heights. They tend to round off to the nearest 5' or 10'.

Is Scraperwill out there?

Also, this doesn't resolve the Diagram & Database issue.

[KevinFromTexas]

I tend to not put too much importance on FAA permits. They tend to give a little "cushion" to the actual number - meaning, they'll post a higher height than the actual height of a building. Better to post the permit for something taller than lower.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

If that's the case, will we go by the FAA permit height? Spokespeople of large development companies are not usually specific heights. They tend to round off to the nearest 5' or 10'.

Is Scraperwill out there?

Also, this doesn't resolve the Diagram & Database issue.

We have three people connected/allegedly connected to the project including Scraperwill who said it's less than 880'. Scraperwill said 876'.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I tend to not put too much importance on FAA permits. They tend to give a little "cushion" to the actual number - meaning, they'll post a higher height than the actual height of a building. Better to post the permit for something taller than lower.

Exactly. I only use them if there are no elevations or public comments by people with a proven connection to a project.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by The ATX

We have three people connected/allegedly connected to the project including Scraperwill who said it's less than 880'. Scraperwill said 876'.

Doesn't Scraperwill work at the city (or something)? He seems to have his hands on plans for a myriad of projects.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Doesn't Scraperwill work at the city (or something)? He seems to have his hands on plans for a myriad of projects.

I know his connection to projects. But he does not work for the City.