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

[The ATX]

The site plan application for revising WPP to what we see for 98 Red River was just filed four days ago and is only at the intake phase. It'll get there.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The site plan application for revising WPP to what we see for 98 Red River was just filed four days ago and is only at the intake phase. It'll get there.

Additionally, nobody is going to take the time, effort and money to create 600+ pages of documents on a project unless they are serious...at least that's my opinion.

[N90]

DT Austin doesn’t have FAA mandated height restrictions, right?

[Austinite101]

Originally Posted by N90

DT Austin doesn’t have FAA mandated height restrictions, right?

I can't remember which, but there was a proposed building a while back where the FAA came into the discussion regarding height.

Unfortunately, I can't remember the building or what came out of the discussion. Does anyone remember?

[corvairkeith]

If this does get built the rusty metal warehouse nextdoor at 99 Trinity is really going to look out of place.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

If this does get built the rusty metal warehouse nextdoor at 99 Trinity is really going to look out of place.

I'm willing to risk that.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

If this does get built the rusty metal warehouse nextdoor at 99 Trinity is really going to look out of place.

Isn't that Nate Paul's lot?

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by freerover

Isn't that Nate Paul's lot?

Yeah, for the time being... That's 99 Trinity I believe

[H2O]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Yeah, for the time being... That's 99 Trinity I believe

I believe ownership is in dispute. I think the property is actually in receivership and is the central property in the dispute that has lead to FBI investigations and Ken Paxton being in legal and political trouble. At this point, it seems hard to imagine anything moving forward on the property anytime soon. This development definitely ups to ante on expected quality though!

[Maximusx1]

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

If this does get built the rusty metal warehouse nextdoor at 99 Trinity is really going to look out of place.

HAHA, coming from the homeless camp at I-35 and Cesar Chavez it'll be IHOP, dirt lot, Supertall, taco truck, rusty metal warehouse, The Four Seasons... Welcome to Austin!

[Echostatic]

I think the FAA debacle was for Indeed Tower.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Echostatic

...FAA debacle...

Ha. Yes, that discussion was a mess.

[JACKinBeantown]

I'll take what I can get I guess, but I liked the original design quite a bit better than the latest. But that's what usually happens with any creative project presented to a client... the client often feels they need to add their design idea to the project thus making it not as good as the artistic designer's vision.

[We vs us]

Useful comparative massings from Towers.

https://austin.towers.net/austins-wa...st-tower-plan/

[ahealy]

That thing is an absolute BEAST. BUILD IT BUILD IT BUILD IT!

[migol24]

When do we know that this is approved?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by migol24

When do we know that this is approved?

It'll get approved, no problem. But the approval process for big projects like this takes a year to a year and a half in Austin. But I'm hoping it can be sooner because they are revising an already approved site plan (WPP). Maybe Eskimo33 can confirm whether or not that makes a difference?

[chrisc94x]

Is someone going to draw a diagram for this tower

[eskimo33]

Originally Posted by The ATX

It'll get approved, no problem. But the approval process for big projects like this takes a year to a year and a half in Austin. But I'm hoping it can be sooner because they are revising an already approved site plan (WPP). Maybe Eskimo33 can confirm whether or not that makes a difference?

In most cases, a site plan revision is quicker than the original approval. As one would guess, the applicant is submitting revisions not starting the process anew.
For the new buildings, the biggest issues I can see are:
1. The footprints of the new buildings appear to be in a different location than the original plan. Sometimes this triggers a new submittal, sometimes not. It really depends on how different the new footprints are and how the new layout impacts the proposed on-site infrastructure.
2. It appears the new project will be a phased. The North tower has the potential to need significant grading. Not sure how the grading will impact the floodplain and what those impacts might have on the South tower.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by eskimo33

In most cases, a site plan revision is quicker than the original approval. As one would guess, the applicant is submitting revisions not starting the process anew.
For the new buildings, the biggest issues I can see are:
1. The footprints of the new buildings appear to be in a different location than the original plan. Sometimes this triggers a new submittal, sometimes not. It really depends on how different the new footprints are and how the new layout impacts the proposed on-site infrastructure.
2. It appears the new project will be a phased. The North tower has the potential to need significant grading. Not sure how the grading will impact the floodplain and what those impacts might have on the South tower.

Nice. I hope we find out more soon.

A supertall would not look out of place in the skyline by the time its built. We have two 700ish foot towers now and a 850ish foot tower U/C. A 1,000ish foot tower would mean just 150 foot step up in height among the tallest towers - and that's even if none of the other 700 foot + proposals get built. (Yes, I know I rounded the heights for those that are bothered by such things.)