Austin | ATX Tower (321 West 6th) | 675 Feet | 58 Floors | Complete - Page 18

mercury6 · #**341** Posted **Nov 10, 2021, 2:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

This is different than other projects because the developer previously announced that it was cut to 58-stories which roughly matches 675'. The permit is probably referring to the original project by mistake, and I think the city released the old elevations as the new ones. Despite the 10/27/2021 approval stamp on the elevations, they also have the original 2019 date. I think the chances of several FAA permits being wrong compared to the City making a mistake is unlikely.

There aren't many of us, they type to discuss tower and crane elevations, city and FAA permits, and watch for any sign or prep work. Cheers amigos

The ATX · #**342** Posted **Nov 10, 2021, 2:51 PM**

Either way we get a tower that is at least 675' going up on the same intersection as 6xG. That'll make a nice skyline peak - until the taller projects get underway.

JGFrisco · #**343** Posted **Nov 10, 2021, 6:09 PM**

The FAA permit shows a site elevation of 498 and a peak elevation of the roof of 1173, so they are not starting at 100'.

For reference, the crane permit for 6X is 500' ground, 925' structure height, reaching up to 1425' MSL. If the building is 850', that would put the top at 1350', about 175' higher than 321.

ILUVSAT · #**344** Posted **Nov 10, 2021, 6:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

All of these are "proposed cases."

It also states: "For information only. This proposal has not yet been studied. Study outcomes will be posted at a later date. Public comments are not requested, and will not be considered at this time." So...I take these as unofficial at this juncture.

Mr. Scraperwill...are you out there?

ATX2030 · #**345** Posted **Nov 10, 2021, 6:58 PM**

I sent an email to the case manager, Ann DeSanctis, and was informed that she was no longer involved with this project. My inquiring was forwarded to Christine Barton-Holmes, Program Manager for DSD. Perhaps she can shed some light on the floor count and height discrepancies. Patiently waiting.

KevinFromTexas · #**346** Posted **Nov 11, 2021, 9:38 AM**

I think I'll wait until we see some updated elevations showing it with a different number than the 774 feet we've been going with. I'm not sure why the FAA numbers are exactly 100 feet shorter, but it does make me think there was some kind of miscalculation.

As for the 100 feet starting point, the building elevations for this project never actually used 100 feet as a starting point. They always used 0 feet as the base number for every set of elevations I've seen for it, and even for the stacking plan. For whatever reason, projects use one of three different baseline numbers. Some use 0 feet, some use 100 feet, and some use the actual sea level elevation of the site as the starting point.

One thing I did notice with the FAA numbers is that while the roof height is at 675 feet, shorter than we've been seeing for the building so far, they did list the podium height as 255 feet, and that is pretty much in line with what we've seen so far. The height I've seen on all the elevations I have saved shows it to be 242 feet at the 18th level. It reaches 258 feet at the 19th level, which looks to be a balcony that juts out above the podium.

Those FAA heights were quite specific, so I think there's some truth in what they say, even if the numbers are off because of some miscalculation.

WestAustinite · #**347** Posted **Nov 11, 2021, 12:29 PM**

Not to nitpick but isn't this project located at 321 West 6th St and not 321 West St which is another actual street nearby in downtown?

The ATX · #**348** Posted **Nov 11, 2021, 1:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestAustinite

Not to nitpick but isn't this project located at 321 West 6th St and not 321 West St which is another actual street nearby in downtown?

The name of this project is "321 West" which is why that is in the title. The location of the project is 321 W. 6th St. We put the name of the project in the title, and not the address - unless the address is also the name.

drummer · #**349** Posted **Nov 11, 2021, 3:22 PM**

I was confused on the same point when I looked it up, but then I typed in 6th and it made more sense.

ATX2030 · #**350** Posted **Nov 13, 2021, 3:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATX2030

I sent an email to the case manager, Ann DeSanctis, and was informed that she was no longer involved with this project. My inquiring was forwarded to Christine Barton-Holmes, Program Manager for DSD. Perhaps she can shed some light on the floor count and height discrepancies. Patiently waiting.

Heard back from Ms. Barton-Holmes. She stated the elevations included in the site plan indicated a parapet height of 770.6’, and a mechanical roof height of 758.4’. I think she would have stated the heights and stories were not correct or finalized on the site plans if that was the case. Who knows? At least she was nice enough to even respond to my inquiry.

She forwarded my inquiry about the crane height to Isaiah Lewallen, who is conducting the crane review for the project. Patiently waiting.

The ATX · #**351** Posted **Nov 13, 2021, 7:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATX2030

Heard back from Ms. Barton-Holmes. She stated the elevations included in the site plan indicated a parapet height of 770.6’, and a mechanical roof height of 758.4’. I think she would have stated the heights and stories were not correct or finalized on the site plans if that was the case. Who knows? At least she was nice enough to even respond to my inquiry.

She forwarded my inquiry about the crane height to Isaiah Lewallen, who is conducting the crane review for the project. Patiently waiting.

It looks like the project was approved for the original height. But the developer's statement about this now being 58-stories and the height in the FAA filings match up. Maybe they can build something of a lesser height than what was approved in the site plan? Either way this seems close to starting, and Ryan/Tishman should be releasing some info and renderings soon.

H2O · #**352** Posted **Nov 13, 2021, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

It looks like the project was approved for the original height. But the developer's statement about this now being 58-stories and the height in the FAA filings match up. Maybe they can build something of a lesser height than what was approved in the site plan? Either way this seems close to starting, and Ryan/Tishman should be releasing some info and renderings soon.

Yes, as explained previously, the City doesn't really care about the exact height in CBD because there is no height limit. They only care if it is in a CVC, Waterfront or other overlay that has height or stepback requirements.

ATX2030 · #**353** Posted **Nov 13, 2021, 9:31 PM**

Good info. Thanks. Just holding onto that sliver of hope that this thing goes with the 770' height. Weird how they wouldn't just update the site plan with the new numbers if they have changed prior to approving it. Either way not complaining about a 675 footer but a 770 footer would have been very impressive for that corner.

The ATX · #**354** Posted **Nov 19, 2021, 2:35 PM**

The tower crane license permit was filed this morning:

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...ertyrsn=319485

ATX2030 · #**355** Posted **Nov 23, 2021, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATX2030

Heard back from Ms. Barton-Holmes. She stated the elevations included in the site plan indicated a parapet height of 770.6’, and a mechanical roof height of 758.4’. I think she would have stated the heights and stories were not correct or finalized on the site plans if that was the case. Who knows? At least she was nice enough to even respond to my inquiry.

She forwarded my inquiry about the crane height to Isaiah Lewallen, who is conducting the crane review for the project. Patiently waiting.

Here's the response I received from Mr. Lewallen:

"I apologize for the delayed reply. My committee, Austin Utility Coordination Location Committee, reviews proposed tower crane installations with respect to impact on public right-of-way and utilities. Top elevation of the crane mast doesn’t impact that realm, so that data is not collected for our review. I did search all documents in the License agreement file and did not find the information there. Data for final structure height in the Utility Coordination case matches data in the Site Plan review case.

There are two (2) cranes proposed for this site. We don’t have any information explaining the discrepancy between City review cases and the FAA permit."

JACKinBeantown · #**356** Posted **Nov 23, 2021, 7:08 PM**

She put in the effort and he gave a pretty good response. I appreciate that.

The ATX · #**357** Posted **Dec 4, 2021, 2:35 PM**

Here's more evidence for the 675' height and 55-story version of this tower. A Plan Review was filed on 11/18 which was three weeks after the site plan was approved. I believe this was filed similarly to what a SC (Site Plan Change) filing would be used for - a change from the approved site plan. Updated elevations could be added to the Plan Review. A comment from the filing:

Quote:

New Construction Of A 55-Story Mixed Use Residential/Office/Retail/Financial Services High-Rise Shell Bldg. With Core Improvements, Finish-Outs For Each Floor, And A 13 Level Podium Parking Garage (1,313,168 SF) [1ST FLOOR- Retail/Bank Shell, Residential Lobby with Leasing Mezzanine, and Office Lobby: FLOORS 12-18 - Office: 19TH FLOOR - Maintenance and Pool Equipment, 20TH FLOOR - Amenity with Exterior Deck: FLOORS 21-54 - Residential, 55TH FLOOR - Amenity with Exterior Deck]

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...ertyrsn=319485

ATX2030 · #**358** Posted **Dec 4, 2021, 3:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Here's more evidence for the 675' height and 55-story version of this tower. A Plan Review was filed on 11/18 which was three weeks after the site plan was approved. I believe this was filed similarly to what a SC (Site Plan Change) filing would be used for - a change from the approved site plan. Updated elevations could be added to the Plan Review. A comment from the filing:

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...ertyrsn=319485

675' it is. Thanks for the info.

ILUVSAT · #**359** Posted **Dec 5, 2021, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATX2030

675' it is. Thanks for the info.

With as many discrepancies this thing seems to have I would by no means call this height (675') final.

Ms. Barton-Holmes and Mr. Lewallen seem to both - separately - indicate that the tower was still 771'.

H2O · #**360** Posted **Dec 6, 2021, 12:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Here's more evidence for the 675' height and 55-story version of this tower. A Plan Review was filed on 11/18 which was three weeks after the site plan was approved. I believe this was filed similarly to what a SC (Site Plan Change) filing would be used for - a change from the approved site plan. Updated elevations could be added to the Plan Review. A comment from the filing:

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...ertyrsn=319485

Plan Review is for the building permit. The Site Development Permit (site plan) only allows for construction of site elements like site prep and utilities. The SDP contains information about the building because you have to show compliance with zoning requirements such as height, F.A.R, parking, etc. to obtain the SDP. The SDP has to be approved before the building permit (plan review) can be issued, but they can be approved concurrently.