AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[KevinFromTexas]

By the way, we already have a thread on the Block 35 Tower with some renderings from 2 1/2 years ago - so this isn't totally unknown.

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/...d.php?t=218015

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Block 35 is right up the road from the Fairmont. It would border Moonshine Grill.
https://austin.towers.net/dont-look-...owntown-tower/

That article has already been updated and apparently Block 35 is dead according to George. So we are basically chasing phantoms at this point. I'd even venture a hypothesis that we know less about upcoming DT projects this year than we have in any year over the past decade.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

That article has already been updated and apparently Block 35 is dead according to George. So we are basically chasing phantoms at this point. I'd even venture a hypothesis that we know less about upcoming DT projects this year than we have in any year over the past decade.

One thing we do know now, we will never see anything 900ft or taller.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

... I'd even venture a hypothesis that we know less about upcoming DT projects this year than we have in any year over the past decade.

I've been thinking the same thing.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by the Genral

One thing we do know now, we will never see anything 900ft or taller.

There's always the Domain area 100+ years from now.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

There's always the Domain area 100+ years from now.

Sign me up for cryogenics. Just imagine Austin 100 years from now...with our plateau of 800ft towers and 120 gates at ABIA.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Sign me up for cryogenics. Just imagine Austin 100 years from now...with our plateau of 800ft towers and 120 gates at ABIA.

That would still be a world class skyline.

[Jdawgboy]

I still say foul on the FAA, there is no legitimate reason why we can't have a building over 900 feet. And we will get to the bottom of it, some sooner than others I'd wager...

[The ATX]

I checked multiple approved FAA height determinations for buildings in Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.

Austin buildings had a DNE (Does Not Exceed) height limit of 499' on the determinations. Dallas, Houston and San Antonio did not have a DNE limit. But the DNE limit only shows up for buildings tall enough to reach the DNE limit. If there is a DNE limit for Dallas, Houston or San Antonio and I'm sure there is, the buildings I looked at may just not have reached it.

The determination for 70 Rainey had a DNE of 414'. So the DNE can apparently be less than 499' depending on location. 70 Rainey was approved for 440' by the way.

The DNE is not an absolute height limit. It just triggers an FAA look at the project. I have not seen any project taller than 499' denied the extra height by the FAA. I also haven't found any reference to an absolute height ceiling for any buildings in Austin either.

Note: Cranes, antennas, transmission lines, utility poles don't have a DNE height listed.

[The ATX]

Here's part of an extensive FAA document regarding the height of structures. This indicates to me that 499' is a standard height (not just Austin) that requires an FAA determination. "AGL" means Above Ground Level.

§77.17 Obstruction standards.
(a) An existing object, including a mobile object, is, and a future object would be an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater height than any of the following heights or surfaces:

(1) A height of 499 feet AGL at the site of the object.

(2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet.

(3) A height within a terminal obstacle clearance area, including an initial approach segment, a departure area, and a circling approach area, which would result in the vertical distance between any point on the object and an established minimum instrument flight altitude within that area or segment to be less than the required obstacle clearance.

(4) A height within an en route obstacle clearance area, including turn and termination areas, of a Federal Airway or approved off-airway route, that would increase the minimum obstacle clearance altitude.

(5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under §77.19, 77.21, or 77.23. However, no part of the takeoff or landing area itself will be considered an obstruction.

(b) Except for traverse ways on or near an airport with an operative ground traffic control service furnished by an airport traffic control tower or by the airport management and coordinated with the air traffic control service, the standards of paragraph (a) of this section apply to traverse ways used or to be used for the passage of mobile objects only after the heights of these traverse ways are increased by:

(1) 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance.

(2) 15 feet for any other public roadway.

(3) 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road.

(4) 23 feet for a railroad.

(5) For a waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...4#se14.2.77_15

[The ATX]

I'll begin discussion of this mysterious drawing in this thread instead of the Block 185 thread since it's not that project. Mr. Blume has now confirmed that this is not Velocity Tower along with Block 185, Block 87, the substation site and Block 35. In his most recent Instagram post he added that "This picture isn’t on the 10 year website."


https://www.instagram.com/p/BcV75FRj...y=blume_george

[Jdawgboy]

And the mystery continues...

[KevinFromTexas]

What the heck is a "10 year website"?

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by The ATX

I'll begin discussion of this mysterious drawing in this thread instead of the Block 185 thread since it's not that project. Mr. Blume has now confirmed that this is not Velocity Tower along with Block 185, Block 87, the substation site and Block 35.


https://www.instagram.com/p/BcV75FRj...y=blume_george

I don't know what block number it is, but what about that hideous Texas State Parking Garage N that's east of The 360 and two blocks west of the Hobby Building. I was looking at it on Google Maps the other day and was wondering how much of the existing parking garage could be torn down without affecting the district cooling plant (chilled water) on the southeast corner.

See Here

Emporis shows that construction on the garage started July 1994, the district cooling plant wasn't added until about 6 years later.

Downtown Coolin' Plant Chillin' Like Paul Robbins -
Who's Paul Robbins, and what's a cooling plant?

Robbins began calling for a Downtown cooling plant in the mid-1990s. Aided by fellow civic-minded greens Shudde Fath, Scott Johnson, Andrew Donoho, and AE's Roger Duncan, he was able to advance the concept through the city's Electric Utility Commission and to City Council, which, following a feasibility study, agreed to build the plant in 2000 -- originally intending it to cool the state Hobby office building, the new City Hall, and the Computer Sciences Corp. complex.

Also, there was a plan to expand the district cooling plant see here - page 3 and 4

I'm just wondering about the rest of the garage though. That whole block is not in a Capitol View Corridor, either.

[futures]

That Charlie Brown design on the mystery tower REALLY would have been perfect for the Hooters lot since it was owned by Charles Shulz, creator of Peanuts.

It's just too perfect for it.

I love it.


VVVVVVVVVVVVVV

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by futures

That Charlie Brown design on the mystery tower REALLY would have been perfect for the Hooters lot since it was owned by Charles Shulz, creator of Peanuts.

It's just too perfect for it.

I love it.


VVVVVVVVVVVVVV

Charles Schulz owned a Hooters? Did Peppermint Patty work there?

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Charles Schulz owned a Hooters? Did Peppermint Patty work there?

I don't think she would have made the cut...

[hookem]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Charles Schulz owned a Hooters? Did Peppermint Patty work there?

No, but she was a regular...

[KevinFromTexas]

Old Fairmont proposal? I've never seen this.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/55943220354471688/

Bruce Bondy saved to Bondy Studio Architectural Renderings
HPA. Austin, TX. Charrette Drawing by Bondy Studio

Click the link above then click on the image for a larger version.


https://www.pinterest.com/pin/55943220354471688/

[The ATX]

That building on the parking lot next to the IHOP is strange looking. That doesn't look like 99 Trinity at that location next to the Four Seasons condos.