AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II - Page 53

GoldenBoot · #**1041** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 9:20 PM**

Priller, again, great job!

Why does it seem that 21c Austin, W, and 360 are too short? Also, I think the W will be a bit narrower (slightly new design).

These renderings look really outstanding!

priller · #**1042** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 10:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Priller, again, great job!

Why does it seem that 21c Austin, W, and 360 are too short? Also, I think the W will be a bit narrower (slightly new design).

These renderings look really outstanding!

Thanks. The 360 probably seems short because a) the mainroof is 462 ft, plus it's a good bit downhill from Congress Ave. But I know what you mean, every time I look at it, it seems small. But I've checked the sizes several times.

The 21c building I don't really know what the height is, I have it at 475' right now.

W may very well be narrower, very hard to tell from the renders. But I have the model's height set at 433', which I think is right.

Strayone · #**1043** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 11:30 PM**

Nice work Priller, and thanks for the sigline link.

ivanwolf · #**1044** Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 2:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I sent an email to find out what the heights of The Monarch will be to certain points on the building. I also got some info about its design concept.

First, I learned a little bit about the design. The east and west sides of the tower at the top will have "butterfly wings" folding up from the mainroof. This is where the name "The Monarch" comes from. These will hide the mechanical penthouse which encloses the elevator motors.

The Monarch heights are:

323 feet to the top of the "wings". This is the official height of the building.
312 feet to the top of the mechanical penthouse.
300 feet to the mainroof.
287 feet to the highest occupied floor, (the 29th floor). That height is to the 2nd level of a 2-story unit on the 29th floor.

These heights came from RTKL Associates, Inc. which is the architect of the building. The heights came from the blueprints.

We were talking about how it seemed that the Monarch has stopped working on the tower and I thought that maybe for some reason they switched to working solely on the parking garage. Why who knows, maybe to get the resturaunts and retail under way as they finish out the tower. I was thinking with limited space for a drive through the property that if they need concrete for the garage they may not have the space for truck or enough being made to send to the tower. Just a thought.

As for the height of the building when I downloaded the plans from the city I saw the one below that lists the height to the wings at 313' 8" with 29 stories. The old plans list the height as 294' 4" with 27 stories. Not saying your wrong KevinFromTexas since you talked to them, but I wonder how often the plans are updated or if they can change the plans after they are submitted. Maybe they changed the floor heights, they list them at 9' 8" for all floors except 3 floors, 2 are 10' 8" and the top floor is 22' 6". Just wandering why the numbers could be different from what your saying. The other thing that changed in the 2 sets of plans was the elimination of one of the underground garage floors.

Notice on the image how the Capitol View Corridor cuts over the parking garage.

Old Plans 27 floors

New Plans 29 Floors, Less one level of parking

priller · #**1045** Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 2:52 AM**

Where did you download the plans from?

ivanwolf · #**1046** Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 3:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by priller

Where did you download the plans from?

See my previous post.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2889440&postcount=949

Monarch is SP-03-0021C. I look for the ones that are Status "Approved and Released" The first one #1 is actually the second set of plans. The #4 is the first set of plans. You will notice that #3 is "Approved and Released". These plans look like they are the original plans for 5 story apartments like 4th and Rio Grande Apartments.

The images are:
460213SPL-SP-03-0021C_1~020
460276SPL-SP-03-0021C_2~020

The last number before the the ~ represents the first set (_1~020) the 2 represents the second set (_2~020)

KevinFromTexas · #**1047** Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 4:26 AM**

How do you find those numbers for each building?

ivanwolf · #**1048** Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 5:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

How do you find those numbers for each building?

Those numbers are along the left side of the images I posted, there is one total height that lists the 313' 8". The same appears for the older one and its height. Actually most of the elevations given are listed from Sea Level, the only heights other than the floor to floor height is the total height. The floors are listed by actual Sea Level elevation.

KevinFromTexas · #**1049** Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 5:14 AM**

I'm not having a whole lot of luck getting it to work, and I'm not finding those elevations you posted.

Sometimes buildings can change slightly after they've been approved. Even during construction heights can change. The roof of the Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Antonio for instance was still being planned up until just a few weeks ago, even though the tower is already half way up.

Remember there's two years between groundbreaking and the topping out of a building. A lot can change in that time.

KevinFromTexas · #**1050** Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 5:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

Those numbers are along the left side of the images I posted, there is one total height that lists the 313' 8". The same appears for the older one and its height. Actually most of the elevations given are listed from Sea Level, the only heights other than the floor to floor height is the total height. The floors are listed by actual Sea Level elevation.

Oh, and I wasn't asking about the height, I was asking how do you find the case numbers for each project?

priller · #**1051** Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 1:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

See my previous post.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2889440&postcount=949

Monarch is SP-03-0021C. I look for the ones that are Status "Approved and Released" The first one #1 is actually the second set of plans. The #4 is the first set of plans. You will notice that #3 is "Approved and Released". These plans look like they are the original plans for 5 story apartments like 4th and Rio Grande Apartments.

The images are:
460213SPL-SP-03-0021C_1~020
460276SPL-SP-03-0021C_2~020

The last number before the the ~ represents the first set (_1~020) the 2 represents the second set (_2~020)

Mwa ha ha ha!! Many thanks. Wow, real info! Now I've gone from very little info to waaaay too much. Don't really care about drainage and wastewater and how the road cones look. But the side elevation at least has actual numbers on it. And it's weird that there's detailed plans for each level of the parking garage, but not for the building itself.

GoldenBoot · #**1052** Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I'm not having a whole lot of luck getting it to work, and I'm not finding those elevations you posted.

Sometimes buildings can change slightly after they've been approved. Even during construction heights can change. The roof of the Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Antonio for instance was still being planned up until just a few weeks ago, even though the tower is already half way up.

Remember there's two years between groundbreaking and the topping out of a building. A lot can change in that time.

Even though this is plausible, it's not common. Do you know the costs of continuously "redesigning" a crown of a building - let alone anything else pertaining the structure? A building's exterior design is pretty much set-in-stone once construction begins. The developer cannot, and most of the time will not, incur additional cost in adding a mere 9' to a tower – as in this case! There is no financial cost benefit. Remember, developers are in the business of making a profit for them and/or their company’s shareholders.

It is much more reasonable to assume that fluctuations in the heights of buildings really stem from misinformation people are ascertaining and supplying in this forum - albeit in a non-malicious manner, i.e., unintentional.

KevinFromTexas · #**1053** Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 6:49 PM**

All I know is those are the heights the architect sent back to me. I can send another email asking about the discrepancies.

I very much want the information to be correct. One thing that irks me is incorrect info, rounded up numbers and estimates. I want it to be right, both for my own interest in the subject, my model of downtown, and priller's great job on the drawings, and for everyone else to enjoy. I've also even gotten requests at Emporis from developers wanting to know the heights of existing buildings for their research into an area. So it's quite important that everything be up to snuff.

priller · #**1054** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 4:17 PM**

Rainy and overcast yesterday morning. Here's the Monarch from 5th street. You can see they're working on the tall top floor.

Taking photos while driving. Probably not a good idea.

Foggy Frost. Actually, I think it was raining around the Frost building but not at the Monarch yet. The rain hit me a few minutes later.

Doing a lot of work under the street. They had all but one lane blocked off:

Working on the parking garage:

Working without a net. Crazy:

The sun finally came out:

Green power:

I could take pictures of the old power plant all day. Very cool that they decided to keep the building and make it part of a new development.

360:

The 360's photogenic balconies. I'm afraid it will ruin the effect once they get the railings on:

Now I can finally see what the outside surface looks like:

Started getting hungry by then, decided to join the 360's crew and get some tacos. The fajita tacos are very good. And cheap!

While I was eating lunch, one of the construction guys asked me why I was taking photos. After giving him the Google Earth spiel, he told me to go by the sales office and see their model. It was really great to see to see a lot of the details that aren't apparent from the plans:

AMLI II:

MichaelB · #**1055** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 4:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

There is no financial cost benefit. Remember, developers are in the business of making a profit for them and/or their company’s shareholders.

I have always had (and continue to have) a high opinion of your insights. I have a question: Do you think there is a value to a building that comes with notoriety? Ex in Austin:How many people know the name of the Frost Bank Building? Did that come from a great lobby design? Or the bank itself? Or from the fact that the design of the building (mostly the crown) was distinctive? Does that not generate notoriety and then status? Seems to me all of those things create an additional value to a building. Not to mention the names associated with it. How many people will excitedly say: "Wow, my offices are in the new ABC bank building!"

THoughts? Is this truly a point that most developers just don't get?

Jdawgboy · #**1056** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 5:05 PM**

I love the model buildings that they have in the showrooms for these projects. It would be cool if you could buy them when they are done using them.

crewer · #**1057** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 6:15 PM**

Great pics, Priller. Heading back to Austin in two weeks. With all these great pics, I'm going to have a really good idea what to expect after being away for 7 months.

One big complaint is with your first shot. It really reminds me how badly Austin needs to get its act together and start burying cables. We have these great new buildings going up contrasted with power lines strewn across the street on crooked wooden poles leaning in various directions, supporting unsightly transformers. What an eyesore! I just wonder which will happen first... cables being buried or all those maturing trees topped beyond recognition to protect the power lines.

KevinFromTexas · #**1058** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 7:33 PM**

Whoa! Great pics, priller. You have a good eye! Love the shots with the Frost Bank Tower looming in the background with the rain. Yeah, yesterday we were out and about here in South Austin and I could just barely make out the skyline with the rain in the area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

I have always had (and continue to have) a high opinion of your insights. I have a question: Do you think there is a value to a building that comes with notoriety? Ex in Austin:How many people know the name of the Frost Bank Building? Did that come from a great lobby design? Or the bank itself? Or from the fact that the design of the building (mostly the crown) was distinctive? Does that not generate notoriety and then status? Seems to me all of those things create an additional value to a building. Not to mention the names associated with it. How many people will excitedly say: "Wow, my offices are in the new ABC bank building!"

THoughts? Is this truly a point that most developers just don't get?

I would think there is some prestige and as a result, desire of course to living in a tower as nice and striking as Frost. I've been to concerts and have overheard people talking about the Frost Bank Tower. Mostly just people pointing it out and making some comment or compliment about its design. I think other than the Capitol and UT Tower it's probably the most recognizeable and popular building in Austin. Every night on the news on Fox7 they point their tower cam towards the Frost Bank Tower and the weathermen almost always make a comment about the building. They use the building and surrounding skyline as a measurement of visibility. In the future, whatever developer aims to build the next landmark skyscraper in Austin definitely has their work cut out for them. At this point I haven't seen any proposals that can rival it. Sure, some will be taller, but design-wise I don't think any of them are in the same league as Frost. The Austonian may be a contender, but we'll have to see about that.

eburress · #**1059** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 8:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by crewer

Great pics, Priller. Heading back to Austin in two weeks. With all these great pics, I'm going to have a really good idea what to expect after being away for 7 months.

One big complaint is with your first shot. It really reminds me how badly Austin needs to get its act together and start burying cables. We have these great new buildings going up contrasted with power lines strewn across the street on crooked wooden poles leaning in various directions, supporting unsightly transformers. What an eyesore! I just wonder which will happen first... cables being buried or all those maturing trees topped beyond recognition to protect the power lines.

I would agree with that. Austin has a lot of great qualities, but it also has a lot of issues with its infrastructure. Horrible roads and power lines everywhere were two of the things that struck me.

KevinFromTexas · #**1060** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 8:53 PM**

I'm sure those power lines will come down and be buried once these projects are finished. What you have remember is those areas of downtown weren't very active before these went up. Either warehouses which really didn't see a lot of activity, or else parking lots. There's not much point in burying them then.