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

[zx14]

Its just the lower elevation and the slanted roof being visible as the top. Will the higher parapet be noticeable is my question. By the way wouldn't a central located 1200 foot tall observation tower look great!!! Maybe Elon could build one for pocket change to him lol

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

1474-1034= answer

It's maff for the win!

Folks also seemed to have missed my post from three-ish weeks ago showing where the FAA got it's 1,034' height: Corner D: 1489-455=1034.

Notice that there is an 11' difference in elevation on what they determined for the four corners of the building. It's all about where to start counting the height.

[enragedcamel]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I fixed this for you.

Consider learning proper English if you want people to take your arguments seriously.

I don't think potshots like this are necessary. You should engage people on the merits of their arguments or lack thereof. There's no need to attack someone on their improper grammar or punctuation. This is, after all, the Internet. Not only that, not everyone here is a native speaker.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

I don't think potshots like this are necessary. You should engage people on the merits of their arguments or lack thereof. There's no need to attack someone on their improper grammar or punctuation. This is, after all, the Internet. Not only that, not everyone here is a native speaker.

Disagree. We should be, as a society, encouraging people to learn proper English and quit making liberal excuses for people.

… and the user’s argument was bunk on the merits anyway, so why bother defending them?

[drummer]

Originally Posted by The ATX

It's maff for the win!

Folks also seemed to have missed my post from three-ish weeks ago showing where the FAA got it's 1,034' height: Corner D: 1489-455=1034.

Notice that there is an 11' difference in elevation on what they determined for the four corners of the building. It's all about where to start counting the height.

Thanks ATX. I was going to lose a lot of sleep without us being able to settle this...

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by drummer

Thanks ATX. I was going to lose a lot of sleep without us being able to settle this...

Ha. But after almost five years, I doubt it.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Ha. But after almost five years, I doubt it.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Ha. But after almost five years, I doubt it.

Once we get to the next page I will demand you explain to me how the height of this building has been calculated, not because I don't know, but for the lulz

[atx30]

Originally Posted by The ATX

It's maff for the win!

Folks also seemed to have missed my post from three-ish weeks ago showing where the FAA got it's 1,034' height: Corner D: 1489-455=1034.

Notice that there is an 11' difference in elevation on what they determined for the four corners of the building. It's all about where to start counting the height.

I know we've had these FAA filings out for a while, so I find it fairly confusing that the building developers:

1. Announced it was topped out -how can it be topped out when a roof structure/parapet remains that without a doubt adds height,

AND

2. Announced it at 1025 feet.

Did someone in the marketing team drop the ball? I can see how it would be 1025 feet to the top of the tallest beam.. but still, why the top-out announcement and the incorrect height?

[davidtexan]

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by The ATX

It's maff for the win!

Folks also seemed to have missed my post from three-ish weeks ago showing where the FAA got it's 1,034' height: Corner D: 1489-455=1034.

Notice that there is an 11' difference in elevation on what they determined for the four corners of the building. It's all about where to start counting the height.

Ah, there it is. An actual lowest elevation to measure from for all the points on the buildimg... Thanks, dude.

[Urbannizer]

20250728_203842-EDIT by Payton Chung, on Flickr


Full Downtown Austin skyline from east Cesar Chavez by Andy Thrasher, on Flickr

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

Full Downtown Austin skyline from east Cesar Chavez by Andy Thrasher, on Flickr

Crazy to see tiny little Frost in this on the right side. What a change. While we don't have an enormous number of architectural gems, we do have some interesting shapes that, especially in silhouette, break up the rectangular boxes. Waterline certainly does this as well - it's an interesting building overall. Certainly need more, but I'm practicing gratitude...

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by atx30

I know we've had these FAA filings out for a while, so I find it fairly confusing that the building developers:

1. Announced it was topped out -how can it be topped out when a roof structure/parapet remains that without a doubt adds height,

AND

2. Announced it at 1025 feet.

Did someone in the marketing team drop the ball? I can see how it would be 1025 feet to the top of the tallest beam.. but still, why the top-out announcement and the incorrect height?

"Official top outs" are when the last structural beam is placed - not crown, mechanical or spire construction. So whenever a building officially tops out, it's not going to be at it's final official height.

As the ongoing height arguments show, there are multiple ways to count a buildin'tg height. Sometimes average elevations across the site are used as opposed to a single low point.

[ahealy]

SO, I'm not really sure what I'm asking for, but is there a way you can compare diagrams of towers on here? I really wanna compare LA's US Bank to Waterline considering Waterline is a bit taller.

My brain breaks though when I look at Waterline because it just doesn't seem taller than the US Bank. I know it's the giant podium and subway tile facade, etc. etc.

If anyone is savvy with quick mock ups that factor in elevation and whatnot you'll be my hero.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by The ATX

...there are multiple ways to count a buildin'tg height. Sometimes average elevations across the site are used as opposed to a single low point.

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) is internationally recognized as the keeper of the "official" world's tallest list. However, I do not know from where they obtain their data.

They define the height of a building as the measurement from the level of the lowest, open-air, pedestrian entrance to its architectural apex.

Currently, CTBUH lists Waterline at 1021'. If the developer announced the Top-Out height of 1025' and you add 9' of crown (sloped roofline) to get to where the FAA has the tower (1034') - I guess there is still some discrepancy (old information being disseminated) amongst the international community.

[zx14]

What is the hold up with the roof seems like they haven't done much at all over the last month

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by zx14

What is the hold up with the roof seems like they haven't done much at all over the last month

I just got off the phone with the GC. Since you've brought light to their publicity stunt, and now everyone knows Waterline is actually only like 900 feet tall they've cancelled the project.

Thanks a lot, man.

[rfiordie]

Originally Posted by zx14

What is the hold up with the roof seems like they haven't done much at all over the last month

It’s a primarily a pre fab piece going up top.

[zx14]

will it be visable lit up to show the true height?