AUSTIN | Sixth and Guadalupe | 874 FEET | 65 FLOORS - Page 2

KevinFromTexas · #21 Posted **Aug 10, 2017, 6:02 AM**

A couple of trucks were spotted on the site today drilling core samples.

Also, hequals2henry used this image of Riverranchdrone's to photoshop the rendering of the building into the skyline at two different heights - 870 feet which is around where it's planned at right now, and 1,040 feet which it could end up being if the developers go ahead with it being around 75 floors. In an Austin American-Statesman article, the developers were quoted as saying that it's currently 62 floors, but that they might push it to the "mid 70s". That would put the height to around 1,040 feet tall.

870 ft

1040 ft

Plokoon11 · #22 Posted **Aug 10, 2017, 11:47 AM**

Holy cow! What a defining proposal for this city!

KevinFromTexas · #23 Posted **Aug 10, 2017, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

The site plan has been filed:

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...rtyrsn=5189526

.

KevinFromTexas · #24 Posted **Aug 18, 2017, 10:52 PM**

360 degree model.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BX6Kq1qD4i7/

The ATX · #25 Posted **Aug 19, 2017, 3:07 AM**

Here's a screen capture from the Instagram video of the model.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BX6Kq1qD4i7/

Urbannizer · #26 Posted **Sep 19, 2017, 11:01 PM**

847'

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external...3862657&row=13

KevinFromTexas · #27 Posted **Jan 17, 2018, 2:32 PM**

A brochure was posted to the Lincoln Property Company's website which includes an updated building elevation showing 67 floors. The height is still shown as 847 feet.

The website also includes some updated renderings with a few design changes. Besides gaining 5 floors and a few facade tweaks, it appears there's a "hole" at the top on the main roof with a balcony and what looks to be a public space on what is the 67th floor.

http://www.lpcaustin.com/properties/600-guadalupe/

View from southwest

View from southwest

View from southeast

View from south

View from northwest

View from northeast

View from west

View from north/northeast

UTEPman · #28 Posted **Jan 18, 2018, 4:15 PM**

Guess I'm in the minority, but not a fan of the design. It looks lije a skyscraper that was originally meant to be a 400ft residential building, but then stretched vertically for more height.

Does not look like a signature tallest. I'd say it's around 3rd or 4th best design in Austin

wwmiv · #29 Posted **Jan 18, 2018, 9:32 PM**

You aren't the only one. I've slowly become less and less enamored with the design, and the latest changes cement that it's just an alright building.

BVictor1 · #30 Posted **Jan 19, 2018, 1:08 PM**

There needs to be a way to make the base more visually active. Blank walled podiums lined with opaque glass is getting played out.

Check out the One Chicago Square thread to see how the base of that tower is being designed.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...wpost&t=230226

Though visually bulky, the height is certainly a plus.

LMich · #31 Posted **Jan 19, 2018, 1:24 PM**

If the base is a parking podium, it's make-up on a pig, so I can get why a developer wouldn't want to waste their money on it.

KevinFromTexas · #32 Posted **Mar 7, 2018, 8:32 AM**

The site plan with the elevations was posted to the city's AULCC site on Tuesday.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...cape_PLANS.pdf

The tallest height is achieved when measuring from the southwest corner of the building at the lowest sea level elevation of 481 feet 8 inches.

842 feet 2 inches to the mechanical roof parapet/screen.

800 feet to the main roof.

786 feet to the highest occupied floor (the 65th floor).

53rd floor setback - 655 feet 4 inches

34th floor setback - 447 feet 4 inches

14th floor setback - 149 feet 4 inches

SLO · #33 Posted **Mar 7, 2018, 6:22 PM**

That is a beast! Another stunning add for Austin...

230Roberto · #34 Posted **Mar 8, 2018, 12:41 AM**

What a great design. This is definitely not a 300m+ worthy design (this is how I feel about most nyc supertalls going up right now),but at 800-900 ft it would look amazing. Great addition for Austin and this is coming from a Chicagoan. Podium needs some work (though I understand its just a parking lot so the developer does not want to invest too much into it)

Zerton · #35 Posted **Mar 8, 2018, 5:38 PM**

Was that cross bracing value-engineered out? That was the only saving grace for this thing, imo.

KevinFromTexas · #36 Posted **Mar 8, 2018, 7:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton

Was that cross bracing value-engineered out? That was the only saving grace for this thing, imo.

Yeah, I think they did. I liked that, too, along with the sloped mechanical screen. That version was slightly taller also.

The building went through some design tweaks because apparently, the FAA disagreed with the height. It ended up with 65 floors, but they had said might have been in the mid-70s.

TallBob · #37 Posted **Mar 9, 2018, 9:07 AM**

Looks similar to a tower going going up in Edmonton!

CHAPINM1 · #38 Posted **Mar 9, 2018, 11:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yeah, I think they did. I liked that, too, along with the sloped mechanical screen. That version was slightly taller also.

The building went through some design tweaks because apparently, the FAA disagreed with the height. It ended up with 65 floors, but they had said might have been in the mid-70s.

What a crock of you know what. Definitely feel your pain. It's a city, it's the the downtown core of a city to boot. Buildings are supposed to be built tall to meet demand. Is the airport really that close in proximity of the city center to even make it an issue? Isn't there plenty of other airspace in the great state of Texas the FAA can fixate on instead? Here in Asia this nonsense is not even an issue. It will probably be decades though until someone is smart enough to figure out the concept of a downtown core and any given airport be a reasonable distance of one another. Cities like Denver are still recovering for these horrible and moronic city planning blunders with many more still held hostage to this idiocy including Phoenix, Miami, Seattle, well more cities than one cares to name...

On a positive note, maybe this will pave the way for the eventual 1,000 footer which will come in a matter of time. It's definitely a great start and a huge step in the right direction. In the meantime, Austin will now have a taller skyline than Minneapolis but will still barely miss OKC. >_<

KevinFromTexas · #39 Posted **Mar 9, 2018, 5:27 PM**

It is a bit strange because Austin's airport is about 5 miles from downtown. The western runway runs parallel (both runways do) to downtown and is a little less than 5 1/2 miles from the center of that block in downtown. We had a conversation with the architects on the forum, though, and they said the FAA wouldn't let it be more than 900 feet.

Apparently, anything over 480 feet has to go through an FAA review here, but it's something that's only recently come to our attention. Another project had to go through a review, but it looks like that project will be ok. That tower will be 2 block east of this one and is supposed to be 555 feet.

CHAPINM1 · #40 Posted **Mar 10, 2018, 5:49 AM**

The FAA is either A.) Extremely corrupt B.) Full of s***. or C.) All of the Above. Unless they have a valid reason for this, their ruling should be put into serious question, especially that they didn't even provide any valid reasoning. They sound like nothing more than a bunch of jack booted thugs and bullies. This isn't the first time they've done this either. One always wonders why certain cites get a golden pass while others are subject to this nonsense without any rationalele or reason on the part of the FAA whatsoever. One just wants to know 'why'. Only if that 'because' is justifiable, only then would it be acceptable.