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

[valhalla]

The top should have been tapered like the bottom. I like this building from certain angles where none of the tapering is apparent. But no matter how hard I try to convince myself that the decision not to taper the top is some genius architectural move, its just a head scratcher. If I'm trying this hard to convince myself it looks good, it probably doesn't.

[Riverranchdrone]

[IMG]Austin, TX by Jason Luebbe, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]Austin, TX by Jason Luebbe, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]Austin, TX by Jason Luebbe, on Flickr[/IMG]

[chinchaaa]

It’s pretty ugly.

[AusTex]

Originally Posted by valhalla

The top should have been tapered like the bottom. I like this building from certain angles where none of the tapering is apparent. But no matter how hard I try to convince myself that the decision not to taper the top is some genius architectural move, its just a head scratcher. If I'm trying this hard to convince myself it looks good, it probably doesn't.

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

It’s pretty ugly.

I have learned in 62 years of being in Aw of all things about "Skyscrapers," that new ones really can not be fully critiqued until the Very Last Finishing Touch is complete! I have not been impressed until the late part is done, and I have have been deeply disappointed about the last stuff is done. Whether it has been the street scape, signage, lighting, the crown, what have you.

This tower is different from most past single use towers. It might work. It might not. I like the thought and design and money that has gone into the whole of the project. We will All see in the end.

[Riverranchdrone]

It really stands out in the skyline. That is a huge plus. I am having to really adjust my pictures from cool colors to warmer colors due to how many of the buildings are blue. It really makes the editing difficult.

[Riverranchdrone]

• Video Link

[Urbannizer]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

I believe they said "we" had "elevations" for both 1022' and 1031'. I have not seen one for 1031'.

I too thought the arrived height of 1031' was by someone subtracting 3' from the 1034' FAA filing (for some reason). If so, that needs to be explained again.

At this point, I would go with either 1022' or 1034' for this tower - unless anyone wants to get confirmation from the GC on the project.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=1189

[Nickelplate]

Some rascal took it upon themselves to taper the wiki image to their liking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterline_(Austin)

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=1189

Thanks for posting.

Just to nitpick here...The two heights are taken from two different elevation images. So, I feel that is an issue (regardless if it was in the same package). As we have seen before, one can have slightly different elevation heights within the same development package. And, as posted, there is a 1.2" difference in the crown hight in the same elevation image.

Also, if one were to choose 450.41' as the lowest point, why not use 449.23'? It is in the same image and lies on the same façade just a few feet north of the 450.41' mark. I know the difference is minimal, but, it point to some level of subjectivity in obtaining the true height of this tower.

A foot here or a foot there can make a difference in this tower's world ranking.

[AJB]

Originally Posted by AusTex

I have learned in 62 years of being in Aw of all things about "Skyscrapers," that new ones really can not be fully critiqued until the Very Last Finishing Touch is complete! I have not been impressed until the late part is done, and I have have been deeply disappointed about the last stuff is done. Whether it has been the street scape, signage, lighting, the crown, what have you.

This tower is different from most past single use towers. It might work. It might not. I like the thought and design and money that has gone into the whole of the project. We will All see in the end.

I don't necessarily agree. Once the roof which is angled upward/slanted is added I think the total look will be visually pleasing not to mention stunning when the whole tower is light up. I don't live in Austin anymore but get there every few years to revisit family and friends. It is such a pleasure to see how much building activity and infrastructure has been coming to the Austin area since I left at the end of 1999. I live in Southern California where things have fallen apart and are stagnant.

[gillynova]

[JoninATX]

Great update Gillynova!

Btw this has got to be one of the tallest tower crane outside of NYC!

[davidtexan]

Got a few more nighttime shots. You can also see they're making solid progress on the hotel room interiors when the lights are on, but I couldn’t get a photo of it.

[Bblasa]

The top is tapered, it will be larger as it grows, opposite the lower section
To whoever was upset about it not being tapered…

[zx14]

I believe we're exactly nine hundred and ten feet at the core

[WestAustinite]

Originally Posted by Bblasa

The top is tapered, it will be larger as it grows, opposite the lower section
To whoever was upset about it not being tapered…

Are you sure? When I look at the vertical white panels on the top section, they seem to align.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by WestAustinite

Are you sure? When I look at the vertical white panels on the top section, they seem to align.

The floor plates definitely get larger as you near the top. The safety screen is just probably in the way to notice.

[Urbannizer]

https://x.com/walkableaustin?s=11&t=...KAMHVCgfx518rg

[Mopacs]

From Ben White at Riverside Drive this weekend

[zx14]

I believe the core is topped out. They will pour two more floors than start the crown.e