AUSTIN | Waterline | 1,034 Feet | 73 Floors | T/O

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by urbancore

an agent I know told me there will be a rooftop bar. Can anyone confirm?

That was the plan back in 2020 when I was first given info about this project. But I don't see any recent info indicating that a public space is still planned for the roof.

EDIT: I looked through the 571 page design doc I was sent in late 2020, and the top floor was planned as a residential amenity only. The info about public access was from some unofficial info earlier in 2020.

[gillynova]

Missed opportunity as always, sigh

[Speculator]

I wish they'd put a 10 foot spire on it.

[Tyrone Shoes]

Originally Posted by Speculator

I wish they'd put a 10 foot spire on it.

It'd be nice to have a 200 foot spire then it'd be 1,234 feet tall

[KevinFromTexas]

I'm still blown away that this might be 7 feet away from the freaking Chrysler Building, and spire or no spire, it'll have a higher roof than the Chrysler Building.

[drummer]

That's nuts. That's one of my favorite buildings.

[Urbannizer]

https://x.com/walkableaustin/status/...KAMHVCgfx518rg

[ahealy]

Great shot, Urbannizer! Love that angle.

I really hope Waterline has classic white uplighting on the crown and section break pillars that won't burn out after a year or flicker. So many of our towers look cheap af at night now.

[enragedcamel]

I'm so incredibly resentful of gaps in our skyline. I wish we were thick and dense like NYC or Chicago.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

I'm so incredibly resentful of gaps in our skyline. I wish we were thick and dense like NYC or Chicago.

Or even Houston. The tallest building in this shot is only 32 feet shorter than Waterline. The second tallest (992 ft) is only 42ft shorter.

[drummer]

The change between ten years ago and now is substantial. It took a little while from NYC and Chicago to get to where they are.

[zx14]

People can hate on me all they want. But I just don't see it. 1034 feet? the elevations on the diagram say much different and also I have to wonder if this all was of a publicity stunt. when completed and a measured properly I believe this building will be under a 1000 feet.
And not the tallest in Texas

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by zx14

People can hate on me all they want. But I just don't see it. 1034 feet? the elevations on the diagram say much different and also I have to wonder if this all was of a publicity stunt. when completed and a measured properly I believe this building will be under a 1000 feet.
And not the tallest in Texas

That's a strange take. FAA filings and the City approved site plans are the official sources for height, not conspiracy theories.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by zx14

People can hate on me all they want. But I just don't see it. 1034 feet? the elevations on the diagram say much different and also I have to wonder if this all was of a publicity stunt. when completed and a measured properly I believe this building will be under a 1000 feet.
And not the tallest in Texas

Its base is about 50 feet lower than Sixth & Guadalupe, so it appears 50 feet shorter than it really is in comparison. Plus, it's not actually finished yet.

Bottom left:
http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_brow...662fe005df98b4

Also, if you scroll to align its top with the top of your screen in the picture in post #3327, you'll see that it's significantly higher than 6th & Guad, even though its base is lower.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by zx14

People can hate on me all they want. But I just don't see it. 1034 feet? the elevations on the diagram say much different and also I have to wonder if this all was of a publicity stunt. when completed and a measured properly I believe this building will be under a 1000 feet.
And not the tallest in Texas

I think it's the elevation, floorplate, double floor effect and the breaks that make this seem shorter than it really is.

When I look at this I don't see the Library tower in LA or Chrysler Building, etc.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by zx14

People can hate on me all they want. But I just don't see it. 1034 feet? the elevations on the diagram say much different and also I have to wonder if this all was of a publicity stunt. when completed and a measured properly I believe this building will be under a 1000 feet.
And not the tallest in Texas

Funny!

"Elevations on the diagram"?!?

Yeah...the developers, lawyers, engineers, contractors, workers, city and the FAA were involved in a publicity stunt!

There is nothing stopping you from using basic geometry and going out to the site and measuring it now. Why wait to have some else measure it?

[zx14]

The elevations on page 164 state clearly 455.5 at the base and 1451 at the upper roof. thats 996.5 feet! then above that some crane looking thing and another roof? reaching to 1474 which makes it 1018.5 feet not 1034. But it is topped out right so maybe this is it. upper roof below 1000 feet. am I missing something here?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by zx14

The elevations on page 164 state clearly 455.5 at the base and 1451 at the upper roof. thats 996.5 feet! then above that some crane looking thing and another roof? reaching to 1474 which makes it 1018.5 feet not 1034. But it is topped out right so maybe this is it. upper roof below 1000 feet. am I missing something here?

The official tower height based on that elevation alone would be 1,019' (rounded), not 996.5' Also, that particular tower elevation does not reflect the various elevations of the site because the site is not flat.

[IluvATX]

This is formally “topped out”, not literally. There is still a roof and some sort of parapet.

[ahealy]

For the crown, can we assume this render is no longer accurate since there's a 2nd level spanning the entire crown pressed up to the pillars?

Perhaps VE'd nixing the outdoor slice and wedge upon the ceiling/parapet?