AUSTIN | Waterline (98 Red River) | 1,022 Feet | 73 Floors | U/C

[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.

[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'

[jngreenlee]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

The tallest tower looks to 605'.
Office = 333'

How did you get that from the page? There's too many files for me to click each one, but I'd love to have a look myself!

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by jngreenlee

How did you get that from the page? There's too many files for me to click each one, but I'd love to have a look myself!

Page 28 has the elevations for Towers A & C. I didn't notice any elevations for Tower B.

[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').

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Page 28 has the elevations for Towers A & C. I didn't notice any elevations for Tower B.

Still will be a significant addition to that area. Guess they were wrong when they said they would have the tallest tower in Austin per elevation. 333' for the office tower means it will be taller than 5th and Colordo. Any spec drawings of the exterior released yet.

[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).

[wwmiv]

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

[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.

[ILUVSAT]

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.

[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.

[GoldenBoot]

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]

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]

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.