AUSTIN | Waterline | 1,034 Feet | 73 Floors | T/O - Page 19

ILUVSAT · #1 Posted **May 13, 2015, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IluvATX

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

It is not. Furthermore, the elevations listed on the detail pages are not completely consistent with those on page 28. I went with the numbers on page 28.

There is definitely some type of screening which rises above the mech. penthouse roof on Tower C.

wwmiv · #2 Posted **May 13, 2015, 2:42 AM**

These all look to be the same designs as the most recently released sim city renderings.

KevinFromTexas · #3 Posted **May 13, 2015, 10:08 PM**

What page are you see any other numbers? I was tired yesterday, so I may have missed it...

I agree that the elevations on page 28 do seem inconsistent/incomplete.

GoldenBoot · #4 Posted **May 14, 2015, 3:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

What page are you see any other numbers? I was tired yesterday, so I may have missed it...

I agree that the elevations on page 28 do seem inconsistent/incomplete.

What makes calculating heights of these towers difficult is that grade is uneven. I see basically three different grade levels: Cesar Chavez, Red River, and creekside.

Also, as has been mentioned previously, the numbers on Page 28 do not completely coincide with the numbers provided on the "Detail Page 1" (Page 43). The question is which "numbers" are correct (if either are)?

In any case, until the correct/official numbers are identified, no tower's height can be accurately calculated. Additionally, there still lies the question of a possible screening which tops out above the mech. penthouse roof on Tower C. That screening seems to be in the neighborhood of 10' taller than the mech. penthouse roof.

Also, Tower B has direct creekside access (i.e., there is an entrance into the tower from the creek level). The measurement of this tower should be calculated from that point up to the architectural tip. I cannot decipher if Tower C has the same direct creekside access from the building as does Tower B.

I'll try to dive into the numbers later. At a quick glance, the "detail page" may have calculation errors and missing numbers.

ILUVSAT · #5 Posted **May 14, 2015, 10:26 PM**

On Page 43, the "detail page," all of the "actual" elevation numbers for the Office Tower are incorrect above level 13.

I also agree that this would lead me to question the base elevation of both Cesar Chavez and Creekside. Creekside elevations were not input on the "elevation" page (Page 28). Also, the "elevation" page notes Cesar Chaves as having an "actual" elevation of 458' while the "detail" page shows the same location as being 461'.

For example: Notice Tower C shows a P1 Creekside F-to-F level of 15'. However, the "actual" height from P1 to Cesar Chavez only increases by 6'. That would mean P1 would extend 5' into the Office Tower's level 1...by my understanding. I could be wrong.

If you went by the "detail" page, the following would be the height of each tower from Cesar Chavez Street to the roof of the mech. penthouse (rounded to nearest foot):

-Tower A (Office) = 321' ("actual" elevation = 782')
-Tower B (Residential) = 517' ("actual" elevation = 978')
-Tower C (Hotel+Residential) = 616' ("actual" elevation = 1077')

**Again - (1) there is a "screening" question regarding Tower C still out there. How tall is that above the mech. penthouse? Plus, (2) if any of these towers has access to the building from the Creekside, that height would need to be added to the total. Finally, (3) there needs to be a more clarification regarding the "actual" elevation of Cesar Chavez and Creekside. Any delta would need to be taken into account regarding height as well.

ivanwolf · #6 Posted **May 20, 2015, 8:24 PM**

Based on the elevations I calculate that Tower B is 89' lower than Tower C. Please give me say 2' on these as I had to convert the TIFF image to PDF and use the PDF XChange Viewer program and had to find the new scale. So I could be off a little but likely close. Not sure if that helps, but there you go.

GoldenBoot · #7 Posted **May 28, 2015, 5:52 PM**

Almost June...site plan approved and released...still no word on a hotel operator. Worrisome?!?

AusTxDevelopment · #8 Posted **May 29, 2015, 1:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Almost June...site plan approved and released...still no word on a hotel operator. Worrisome?!?

A colleague of mine talked to Mac Pike who said that this project is about 2 years out. Of course that could change if McCourt or their new equity partner decide to push it up, or push it back.

loonytoony · #9 Posted **May 29, 2015, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

A colleague of mine talked to Mac Pike who said that this project is about 2 years out. Of course that could change if McCourt or their new equity partner decide to push it up, or push it back.

Do you mean the project as a whole or just hotel element, and 2 years from breaking ground or completion?

Spaceman · #10 Posted **May 29, 2015, 4:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytoony

Do you mean the project as a whole or just hotel element, and 2 years from breaking ground or completion?

This project has been so much BS since it was first announced..

GoldenBoot · #11 Posted **May 29, 2015, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaceman

This project has been so much BS since it was first announced..

Yes. I second that. I could have sworn that they said construction was slated to begin later this year on the project.

Tom Stacy "grand plan" number two??? We will see.

Then again, as loonytoony inquired, what did Pike mean by saying: "two years out?" If they start construction this year, it will be roughly two years before the product is delivered. Hummmm...

AustinGoesVertical · #12 Posted **May 30, 2015, 1:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

A colleague of mine talked to Mac Pike who said that this project is about 2 years out. Of course that could change if McCourt or their new equity partner decide to push it up, or push it back.

But Mac Pike has no direct connection to this project. He has his own slowed development (99 Trinity). It could be wishful thinking on his part that Waller Park Place is "2 years out" because that bodes well for his condo project which will suck up the initial demand in that area.

This one feels too hyped to just be a scam. I wasn't around for T. Stacy, but it would be really strange if this was all a ploy to sell the land for a profit. I mean, why buy that other lot right next to it then?

the Genral · #13 Posted **May 30, 2015, 2:14 AM**

To me this feels like a couple who announced their engagement but not a wedding date. It green lights the planning, but not the commitment until the viability factor is secured. Then if and when that happens, its full speed ahead. I don't think this project is at all like our infamous Stacyroidism letdown, but I'm betting residents of the Independant will be celebrating house warming parties before it breaks ground.

AustinGoesVertical · #14 Posted **May 30, 2015, 2:22 AM**

My bad guys. I got Mac Pike confused with Nate Paul. That's strange that it would be two years out. Didn't he make public comments that it would be breaking ground this year. I don't understand why a developer would want to hurt their credibility like that.

loonytoony · #15 Posted **May 30, 2015, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

My bad guys. I got Mac Pike confused with Nate Paul. That's strange that it would be two years out. Didn't he make public comments that it would be breaking ground this year. I don't understand why a developer would want to hurt their credibility like that.

Nate Paul, king of the storage unit

the Genral · #16 Posted **Aug 11, 2015, 3:35 AM**

Don't worry, if Waller Park Place doesn't happen, another project will happen...perhaps Millennium Waller.

The ATX · #17 Posted **Aug 11, 2015, 3:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

Don't worry, if Waller Park Place doesn't happen, another project will happen...perhaps Millennium Waller.

Right now I give that as much of a chance of happening as this project based on Sutton's history.
It appears (to me at least) that Sutton missed the boat with Downtown rental projects, and are close to missing it with office space and condo units as well since those market appear close to peaking in the current cycle.

Tech House · #18 Posted **Aug 14, 2015, 10:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

Don't worry, if Waller Park Place doesn't happen, another project will happen...perhaps Millennium Waller.

Honestly, I was expecting encouraging responses, but it doesn't look like anyone has much hope for this right now. If it does end up being Millennium Waller then I'll hold you responsible for planting the idea in their heads.

pscajunguy · #19 Posted **Aug 14, 2015, 10:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech House

Honestly, I was expecting encouraging responses, but it doesn't look like anyone has much hope for this right now. If it does end up being Millennium Waller then I'll hold you responsible for planting the idea in their heads.

Just go right ahead and build Millennium Waller. Then we can just fill up Waller Creek with concrete all the way past UT and, voila, no flood plain.

GoldenBoot · #20 Posted **Aug 11, 2015, 6:58 PM**

I would be pleasantly surprised if Sutton is able to pull this project off in its current form. Even with McCourt Global as a partner, this thing doesn't seem to be moving.

Shall we go as far as saying this site is cursed? This was the same site where Vignette Corporation was planning to build its HQ (three or four towers) in the very early 2000's. That failed to materialize. Then it was Australia-based Constellation Property Group's three building condo/hotel project. Again, nothing. Then here comes Poe Companies with their multi-structure plan for 21c hotel, condos, office and, obviously, a contemporary art museum. That plan - dead.

And now, Waller Park Place's three-tower plan. Its outcome, who knows.

**I know three of the aforementioned projects "failed" because of other forces and not a curse. But, it's funny how so many projects over the past 15 years have been proposed with similar plans and not one has come out of the ground on this site.

Hummmmm...