Austin | Block 185/Google Tower #2 | 594 Feet | 35 Floors | Complete - Page 3

Syndic · #41 Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Matt

Actually, the property is subject to multiple restrictions because it is fronts town lake (like North Shore apt.) and shoal creek (like Proper), so it must follow the 70 degree rule on both West and South sides of the property. Therefore any height would be restricted to a sliver in the NE corner.

This seems to only make it likelier that it will be tall. To maximize the potential for the lot, the tower portion will have to be tall and slender.

GoldenBoot · #42 Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 8:32 PM**

I don't believe so. If they have to adhere to the 70-degree rule from the west and south (at the 45' level), then the max height of this tower would be about 250' (including an angular crown to reach max height).

I have, however, not completed any research into any conditional overlays which may encumber the height of any tower on Block 185. So this 70-degree rule may not apply (fully) or a variance may be obtained.

In any case, I don't see a tower taller than 480' on this site. Within Green Water, a "super tall" would have had to been built where 500 West Second is going up. And we know that's going to be a squatty 397' tower.

GoldenBoot · #43 Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 8:40 PM**

As an example, the building depicted below was to show developers what a building could look like if they adhered to the "rules" and almost maximizing revenue-generating square footage for the Austin Proper site. This design could have produced a tower near 480' tall.

If the 70-degree rule does apply to Block 185, then you would have to imagine a 70-degree slice through the south façade of this tower...cutting it's height dramatically (as the point in which the two angles would meet reduced the maximum height by roughly 230' or so).

austlar1 · #44 Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 10:05 PM**

Back in the 1950s most cities the size of Austin were thrilled to have a couple of 400 footers. I guess that is no longer the case. Thought this was interesting. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178409

AustinGoesVertical · #45 Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 10:41 PM**

Pure pontificating here, but what is the status with Sand Beach Park, wedged between Cesar Chavez and the part of W 2nd St. that deadends. That is very close to the Seaholm/power plant etc. Would also be in the "Independent Neighborhood." Can that land be privately developed because then in theory this Facebook tower could be going there.

wwmiv · #46 Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 10:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

Pure pontificating here, but what is the status with Sand Beach Park, wedged between Cesar Chavez and the part of W 2nd St. that deadends. That is very close to the Seaholm/power plant etc. Would also be in the "Independent Neighborhood." Can that land be privately developed because then in theory this Facebook tower could be going there.

That's a publicly owned park and will never be developed.

AustinGoesVertical · #47 Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

That's a publicly owned park and will never be developed.

Okay, thanks. Must be block 185 then.

Austin1971 · #48 Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 11:29 PM**

Facebook should either buy the future TC courthouse site or the old post office and go big. If they truly want to go tall at the 185 site they certainly have the money and clout to change the variance and build it.

wwmiv · #49 Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austin1971

Facebook should either buy the future TC courthouse site or the old post office and go big. If they truly want to go tall at the 185 site they certainly have the money and clout to change the variance and build it.

I would be opposed to such an action. It would fundamentally alter the visual element along the riverfront.

LoneStarMike · #50 Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 12:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IluvATX

Does anyone know if it's possible this could be commercial. It goes against the master plan, but I'd think demand would determine the end product.

Absolutely it could be commercial. While it was originally supposed to be residential, I just found this on the RECA's Facbook page:

Link

TBD=to be determined.

loonytoony · #51 Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 12:28 AM**

Hi all. Long time lurker. I've seen a lot of recent posting about Block 185 potentially being a FB or office tower. Where did that idea come from? Very curious as I've only ever heard of this being a residential component. Apologies for any formatting issues.

The ATX · #52 Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 1:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytoony

Hi all. Long time lurker. I've seen a lot of recent posting about Block 185 potentially being a FB or office tower. Where did that idea come from? Very curious as I've only ever heard of this being a residential component. Apologies for any formatting issues.

It was based on a comment made by a friend of a friend of an anonymous internet poster.

wwmiv · #53 Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

It was based on a comment made by a friend of a friend of an anonymous internet poster.

A well sourced one, though.

The ATX · #54 Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 1:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

A well sourced one, though.

And I certainly don't doubt Syndic's sincerity.

wwmiv · #55 Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 1:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

And I certainly don't doubt Syndic's sincerity.

agreed.

loonytoony · #56 Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 1:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

It was based on a comment made by a friend of a friend of an anonymous internet poster.

I see. So pretty much a sure thing then

The ATX · #57 Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 2:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytoony

I see. So pretty much a sure thing then

Almost as good as building permit and a rendering!

AusTxDevelopment · #58 Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

Absolutely it could be commercial. While it was originally supposed to be residential, I just found this on the RECA's Facbook page:

Link

TBD=to be determined.

Here is the original massing plan (from Kevin's post on the Greenwater/Seaholm thread back in 2012: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=239 ) It was originally going to very much like Northshore, in both height and shape. However it was going to have fewer units.

drummer · #59 Posted **Apr 24, 2015, 1:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Almost as good as building permit and a rendering!

Great, so they're starting construction tomorrow then, right? I like how quickly this is going...

AusTxDevelopment · #60 Posted **Apr 24, 2015, 10:33 PM**

I don't think Block 185 is where Facebook is going. I posted on the Austin Proper thread that there is a very strong rumor that Cielo Property is redeveloping the Austin Music Hall site into a 250,000 square foot office building (see thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=215343&page=6 ). The massing for this rumored building even shows up in the Proper rendering that's posted on RECA's website, as mentioned and posted in the Proper thread. From the below site plan, Austin Music Hall is north of Proper, and Block 185 is south of Proper. I think the building that Syndic's friend was talking about is Cielo's redevelopment, not Block 185.