AUSTIN | Fairmont Hotel | 595 FEET SPIRE/456 FT ROOF | 37 FLRS | Complete - Page 12

KevinFromTexas · #1 Posted **Jun 17, 2013, 3:43 AM**

I am wondering if they're still planning the spire or not, although it is still included in the building elevations.

With the spire it would be our tallest. Without it, the building would actually be the 3rd tallest. The Austonian is 683 feet. 360 Condominiums is 581 feet to its spire, and the Fairmount without its spire is 572 feet.

MightyYoda · #2 Posted **Jun 17, 2013, 6:20 PM**

I don't care much about the spire since it is fairly uninspired.

While I agree that spire on the 360 should count, the Fairmont's looks tacked on. It will still look like the second tallest building regardless.

Spaceman · #3 Posted **Jun 17, 2013, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MightyYoda

I don't care much about the spire since it is fairly uninspired.

While I agree that spire on the 360 should count, the Fairmont's looks tacked on. It will still look like the second tallest building regardless.

Enough about a few feet of height. Just build this thing. I'll have my birthday party there.

the Genral · #4 Posted **Jun 17, 2013, 11:10 PM**

[QUOTE=Spaceman;6167592]Enough about a few feet of height. Just build this thing. I'll have my birthday party there.[/QUOTE

Its going to be built but its not just about a few feet to me, its an opportunity to get a second 600 footer into our skyline when everything else going up is 400 - 500 or less. I want more height, and I want it now

Syndic · #5 Posted **Jun 18, 2013, 1:55 AM**

Calm down, Veruca.

KevinFromTexas · #6 Posted **Jun 18, 2013, 4:23 AM**

Ooh, Willy Wonka meme possibilities!

migol24 · #7 Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 6:15 AM**

This building will be impressive, no matter what.

the Genral · #8 Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 8:41 AM**

It was in the June 14th paper which I no longer have, however the article is on line, search fairmont to break ground in november, you need to sign in for the complete article

KevinFromTexas · #9 Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 10:05 AM**

So is that the one from the article? We've already seen that one.

The ATX · #10 Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 10:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

So is that the one from the article? We've already seen that one.

That's the one.

wwmiv · #11 Posted **Jun 19, 2013, 7:31 PM**

I honestly prefer it without the spire.

Homecreek · #12 Posted **Jun 20, 2013, 5:06 AM**

I think the spire is still a go. You don't see it in that particular rendering because the spire is located on the southwest side of the building.

GoldenBoot · #13 Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 12:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homecreek

I think the spire is still a go. You don't see it in that particular rendering because the spire is located on the southwest side of the building.

Exactly. The spire is on the opposite side of that rendering. Furthermore, in original paperwork filed by the group with the City of Austin describes a 53-story tower. I believe the final height is still in question.

Also, I believe the spire would be considered part of the overall architecture of the tower; thus making the peak of the spire the "Architectural Top," similar to 360. If that is the case, then the Fairmont will be the tallest tower in Austin. According to several ranking systems (including the CTBUH), the "Architectural Top" is the height at which one would measure the official height of a tower.

Jdawgboy · #14 Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 3:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Exactly. The spire is on the opposite side of that rendering. Furthermore, in original paperwork filed by the group with the City of Austin describes a 53-story tower. I believe the final height is still in question.

Also, I believe the spire would be considered part of the overall architecture of the tower; thus making the peak of the spire the "Architectural Top," similar to 360. If that is the case, then the Fairmont will be the tallest tower in Austin. According to several ranking systems (including the CTBUH), the "Architectural Top" is the height at which one would measure the official height of a tower.

I will be very happy if the tower is 53 floors. I didn't quite understand how the building could be as short as what the previous height stated even at 47 floors. Take the JW Marriott in Los Angeles, that hotel is 54 floors with only 830 or so rooms and while I don't know the height, that thing is tall. I assume it is at least 700 feet or more. Of course there may be condos as well in the tower but I don't know I'm sure somebody here does. Either way I can't see how the Fairmont won't be comparable to that hotel in height it just doesn't add up.

KevinFromTexas · #15 Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Take the JW Marriott in Los Angeles, that hotel is 54 floors with only 830 or so rooms and while I don't know the height, that thing is tall. I assume it is at least 700 feet or more. Of course there may be condos as well in the tower but I don't know I'm sure somebody here does. Either way I can't see how the Fairmont won't be comparable to that hotel in height it just doesn't add up.

I think you mean the LA Live Hotel & Condominiums? - http://goo.gl/maps/BOV1I

The project actually consists of two hotels in one. The lower portion of the building is a JW Marriott while the main "upper" tower is the Ritz-Carlton. The top floors have condos.

It is actually only 667 feet. The top floor is just 606 feet high, which is 1 shorter than the top floor of the Austonian. These numbers came from Emporis which I'm sure came from the building elevations.

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/trave...geles-la-live/
http://www.ritzcarlton.com/en/Proper...es/Default.htm

Jdawgboy · #16 Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 8:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I think you mean the LA Live Hotel & Condominiums? - http://goo.gl/maps/BOV1I

The project actually consists of two hotels in one. The lower portion of the building is a JW Marriott while the main "upper" tower is the Ritz-Carlton. The top floors have condos.

It is actually only 667 feet. The top floor is just 606 feet high, which is 16 feet shorter than the top floor of the Austonian. These numbers came from Emporis which I'm sure came from the building elevations.

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/trave...geles-la-live/
http://www.ritzcarlton.com/en/Proper...es/Default.htm

Interesting, it looked so tall when I saw it but it might be because its away from the main cluster of high rises so it stands out, crazy that it is actually shorter than the Austonian.The Austonian would make an impact on the LA skyline. We really are lucky to have that tower. here

migol24 · #17 Posted **Jun 20, 2013, 6:18 AM**

I personally hope the spire stays. It looks a bit boring without it. Austin could use another spire.

lzppjb · #18 Posted **Jun 20, 2013, 7:03 AM**

I also don't mind the spire. Helipads don't really do anything for me.

MightyYoda · #19 Posted **Jun 20, 2013, 5:19 PM**

I would like the spire to look like less of an afterthought such as the one on 360. It just feels very "optional" and not part of the design.

KevinFromTexas · #20 Posted **Jun 26, 2013, 1:27 AM**

I sent an email to my contact at Gensler last week, but I haven't heard back from them. I asked whether the spire would stay or not and what the final height would be.