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

[JoninATX]

Very interesting considering that they stated a while back that this project was fully funded. Here's to finding them success.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

Very interesting considering that they stated a while back that this project was fully funded. Here's to finding them success.

I thought so too. Guess not.

[austintilIdie]

If Waller builds out like that without a rail plan in the pipeline we may have to push for a pedestrian/bike bridge to the future SouthShore/Statesman area. It would save time a hike from Rainey to SoCo.

[loonytoony]

Originally Posted by austintilIdie

If Waller builds out like that without a rail plan in the pipeline we may have to push for a pedestrian/bike bridge to the future SouthShore/Statesman area. It would save time a hike from Rainey to SoCo.

The Waller Creek project has plans for a ped/bike bridge: https://www.wallercreek.org/vision/l...ontoon-bridge/

[KevinFromTexas]

I would really love that. I'm just not a fan of the overhead junk. I would also rather the bridge be permanent. I really dislike the idea of the bridge only being extended twice daily. That seems like it would make it a waste of money then. It would probably cost $5 million to build.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would really love that. I'm just not a fan of the overhead junk. I would also rather the bridge be permanent. I really dislike the idea of the bridge only being extended twice daily. That seems like it would make it a waste of money then. It would probably cost $5 million to build.

It's too low to be permanent. Going by those renderings it looks like it won't be any higher above the water than the boardwalk. That would stop all the sight seeing boat tours which go a little further east not to mention kyakers and conoes.

I agree with you about the twice a day extension. I think they should just build a higher permanent bridge like the one next to Lamar. It could even be a city icon if they do a suspension type bridge with a unique design. I would love to see something like the bridges in Dallas cross over the river. Why not a pedestrian bridge?

[Digatisdi]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would really love that. I'm just not a fan of the overhead junk. I would also rather the bridge be permanent. I really dislike the idea of the bridge only being extended twice daily. That seems like it would make it a waste of money then. It would probably cost $5 million to build.

Yeah I have to say I kind of hate the pontoon bridge. I've always thought it looked kind of stupid and I've been trying to let it grow on me but... I'd rather it be something that is a permanent connection while preserving water access to the eastern part of Town Lake. Like a low pedestrian bridge that's high enough to allow access for paddleboarders or something.

[loonytoony]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would really love that. I'm just not a fan of the overhead junk. I would also rather the bridge be permanent. I really dislike the idea of the bridge only being extended twice daily. That seems like it would make it a waste of money then. It would probably cost $5 million to build.

I talked to one of the architects on the project, albeit years ago (old brain gets fuzzy sometimes!). Believe he said that as it is a pontoon bridge, it's technically a "boat" in the eyes of the city. That meant it was easier to permit and/or cheaper to construct.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would really love that. I'm just not a fan of the overhead junk. I would also rather the bridge be permanent. I really dislike the idea of the bridge only being extended twice daily. That seems like it would make it a waste of money then. It would probably cost $5 million to build.

I agree - I'd rather see something like the Pfluger bridge by Lamar. Maybe not exactly the same design, of course - have something new - but the same concept. It'd be high enough for the tour boats, it could have stairs and a ramp down to the ground level, etc. I don't see why it couldn't work. Not to mention, yet another front-row seat for downtown views.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by drummer

I agree - I'd rather see something like the Pfluger bridge by Lamar. Maybe not exactly the same design, of course - have something new - but the same concept. It'd be high enough for the tour boats, it could have stairs and a ramp down to the ground level, etc. I don't see why it couldn't work. Not to mention, yet another front-row seat for downtown views.

It could be design in a similar visual style as the boardwalk, except much higher. I'd also really hope that any new pedestrian bridge have a direct connection to the boardwalk. My only concern is that it'd block spectacular views from the boardwalk itself.

The obvious location balancing cost and strategic impact would be from Cummings and Rainey on the north shore to about 200 feet north of where the boardwalk begins on the south shore. If you design it properly such that the highest portions of the bridge are on the north shore and have it go progressively lower as it approaches the south shore you would be able to preserve the view of the boardwalk.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It could be design in a similar visual style as the boardwalk, except much higher. I'd also really hope that any new pedestrian bridge have a direct connection to the boardwalk. My only concern is that it'd block spectacular views from the boardwalk itself.

The obvious location balancing cost and strategic impact would be from Cummings and Rainey on the north shore to about 200 feet north of where the boardwalk begins on the south shore. If you design it properly such that the highest portions of the bridge are on the north shore and have it go progressively lower as it approaches the south shore you would be able to preserve the view of the boardwalk.

You ought to be on the design committee, haha. I wouldn't want to lose the views from the boardwalk either...the other option is - expand downtown and get tall buildings in other places so as to have new views!

[The ATX]

The elevations have been released!

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11055030

Tower C (Condos, Hotel) looks to be 605'.
Tower A (Office) is 333'

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, I was aware of the boat clearance issue. Surely there has to be a way to design a taller bridge that could still connect to the boardwalk.

Also, the rendering doesn't even suggest that their current plan has the bridge tying into the boardwalk anyway. That trajectory has it coming out of the mouth of Waller Creek at Trinity Street and connecting somewhere between the east parking lot of Austin American-Statesman's property and that state office complex. The boardwalk is around 1,100 feet east of there. Ideally that state office complex on Riverside should be redeveloped. Build the bridge across there and let it connect to the driveway that exits on Riverside. It's too bad the MACC is located where it is, otherwise I'd say put the bridge across from there connecting from Red River across the river to where the boardwalk starts. It's a straight shot across. Of course the Trinity connection makes more sense anyway because it's closer to the convention center.

[austintilIdie]

For a Waller bridge, a Millennium Park (Chi) or Discovery Green (Hou) type of performance space and promenade over the river would nice.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by austintilIdie

For a Waller bridge, a Millennium Park (Chi) or Discovery Green (Hou) type of performance space and promenade over the river would nice.

The best opportunity for that is gonna be the Dallas's Klyde Warren Park route over a buried and capped I-35.

[GoldenBoot]

54-story Tower = 617' tall from Cesar Chavez & 605' tall from Red River
45-story Tower = ~525' tall from Cesar Chavez & ~513' tall from Red River
26-story Tower = 333' tall from Cesar Chavez & 321' tall from Red River

In any case, the 54-story tower will not be taller than the Austonian when measured from MSL after all. Therefore, when measured from MSL, the Austonian is still king...over the Independent (by ~ 8') & Waller (by ~85').

[drummer]

Hey, I'm just glad that the tallest here will break through the 400 ft ceiling. I'll take what I can.

[KevinFromTexas]

Tower C doesn't front Cesar Chavez, though, so it really should only be 614 feet as the elevation shows. Also, the 54 floor number is including the mechanical level which is typically not counted in floor counts. The Austonian for example is always listed as 56 floors, but it has 4 more mechanical levels. Those levels aren't counted because they're not publicly inhabited spaces.

Tower C:

614 feet to the top of the mechanical penthouse.
596.66 feet to the top of the main roof - this is essentially the 54th level.
584 feet to the highest occupied floor (53rd floor). This is 3 feet higher than the top of the spire of 360.

I wish they showed the elevations for Tower B. It looks to be around 523 feet, but it's probably slightly taller than that since you're using the elevation lines for Tower C which would distort the perspective.

Tower B:
523 feet to the top of the mechanical penthouse.

Tower A:

333 feet to the top of the mechanical penthouse.
312 feet to the top of the main roof.
299 feet to the highest occupied floor (26th floor).

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Tower C doesn't front Cesar Chavez, though, so it really should only be 614 feet as the elevation shows. Also, the 54 floor number is including the mechanical level which is typically not counted in floor counts. The Austonian for example is always listed as 56 floors, but it has 4 more mechanical levels. Those levels aren't counted because they're not publicly inhabited spaces.

Tower C:

614 feet to the top of the mechanical penthouse.
596.66 feet to the top of the main roof - this is essentially the 54th level.
584 feet to the highest occupied floor (53rd floor). This is 3 feet higher than the top of the spire of 360.

I wish they showed the elevations for Tower B. It looks to be around 523 feet, but it's probably slightly taller than that since you're using the elevation lines for Tower C which would distort the perspective.

Tower B:
523 feet to the top of the mechanical penthouse.

Tower A:

333 feet to the top of the mechanical penthouse.
312 feet to the top of the main roof.
299 feet to the highest occupied floor (26th floor).

Kevin,

The numbers from page 28 reveal the following:

Tower C - There is an architectural piece which is slightly taller than the roof of the mechanical penthouse. The mech. penthouse roof line is at 1075' above MSL (Cesar Chavez St. is at 458' and Red River Street is at 470'). Look at the "East Elevation" vs. the one below with the MSL heights. The "architectural piece" to which I am referring seems to be roughly 10' higher than the roof of the mech. penthouse. It stretches halfway across the top from the north to the south. So, the actual height of this tower may be ~627'/~615'.

The highest occupied floor begins at 587' above CC St. (575' above RR St.). The roof of the highest occupied floor is 599.66' above CC St. (587.66' above RR St.).


Tower B - We can only guess as to the height since there is no definitive elevation rendering. I believe it is closer to what GoldenBoot stated (525.33'/513.33'). The roofline seems to be in the neighborhood of 983.33' above MSL.


Tower A - Stands 791' above MSL at the mech. penthouse roof. So, you and GoldenBoot are correct with the 333' height (above Cesar Chavez St.). However, the roofline of the highest occupied floor (level 26) is 770' above MSL. Thus, stands at 300' above Cesar Chavez St. So, I don't know where you are getting 312'.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Kevin,

The numbers from page 28 reveal the following:

Tower C - There is an architectural piece which is slightly taller than the roof of the mechanical penthouse. The mech. penthouse roof line is at 1075' above MSL (Cesar Chavez St. is at 458' and Red River Street is at 470'). Look at the "East Elevation" vs. the one below with the MSL heights. The "architectural piece" to which I am referring seems to be roughly 10' higher than the roof of the mech. penthouse. It stretches halfway across the top from the north to the south. So, the actual height of this tower may be ~627'/~615'.

The highest occupied floor begins at 587' above CC St. (575' above RR St.). The roof of the highest occupied floor is 599.66' above CC St. (587.66' above RR St.).

Tower B - We can only guess as to the height since there is no definitive elevation rendering. I believe it is closer to what GoldenBoot stated (525.33'/513.33'). The roofline seems to be in the neighborhood of 983.33' above MSL.


Tower A - Stands 791' above MSL at the mech. penthouse roof. So, you and GoldenBoot are correct with the 333' height (above Cesar Chavez St.). However, the roofline of the highest occupied floor (level 26) is 770' above MSL. Thus, stands at 300' above Cesar Chavez St. So, I don't know where you are getting 312'.

The architectural piece on Tower C should be in the details section of the plans. I'm too lazy to look for it though.