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

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ATX2030

ATX you're the GOAT! This thing is flying along. Perhaps they already have a hotel operator and large commercial tenant on board.

WeWork's LLC is still listed as the owner, and they are listed as a co-developer along with Lincoln and Kairoi. Let's just hope they still have some of that Soft Bank money.

[Sigaven]

I'm so conflicted about the angled columns. From up close they look really cool. Like you're in a forest. A modern "hypostyle hall" feel. But afar it makes the building look kinda junky in my opinion, especially the crown

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

I'm so conflicted about the angled columns. From up close they look really cool. Like you're in a forest. A modern "hypostyle hall" feel. But afar it makes the building look kinda junky in my opinion, especially the crown

It makes me think of matchsticks, or a jumble of reeds.

Part of what makes this interesting to me - but also a little maddening- is that their best ideas are about how to deal with the creek, and the podium; but higher up in the tower itself, something about it seems to lose coherence. And it just looks kinda weird.

[AustinGoesVertical]

This is pretty phenomenal. It’s essentially an extension of the creek bed, as though it grows out of it. Hard to imagine better integration with the natural environment and that overall design seems to reappear throughout various levels of the building. The site clearly informed this project. I never even considered that the northwestern portion adjacent to the WCC property (Trinity Tower haha) was really part of this site due to the creek separation, but it is and that enables some interesting connectivity. What would be awesome is if they built a sort of kayak boat launch/dock at the base, so you could rent a kayak from somewhere near the Seaholm district (maybe the old water utility plant even) and then paddle to Rainey. It also looks like some of those Waller Creek trails will be public, right? Isn’t that similar to what the city did with the Shoal Creek improvements, especially around the library. I wonder what semi-public means and how much this oasis of fountains, greenery, boardwalks, and terraces will remain under public access. This is incredibly intriguing.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

This is pretty phenomenal. It’s essentially an extension of the creek bed, as though it grows out of it. Hard to imagine better integration with the natural environment and that overall design seems to reappear throughout various levels of the building. The site clearly informed this project. I never even considered that the northwestern portion adjacent to the WCC property (Trinity Tower haha) was really part of this site due to the creek separation, but it is and that enables some interesting connectivity. What would be awesome is if they built a sort of kayak boat launch/dock at the base, so you could rent a kayak from somewhere near the Seaholm district (maybe the old water utility plant even) and then paddle to Rainey. It also looks like some of those Waller Creek trails will be public, right? Isn’t that similar to what the city did with the Shoal Creek improvements, especially around the library. I wonder what semi-public means and how much this oasis of fountains, greenery, boardwalks, and terraces will remain under public access. This is incredibly intriguing.

You have great instagram pics by the way.

[Maximusx1]

Originally Posted by ATX2030

ATX you're the GOAT! This thing is flying along. Perhaps they already have a hotel operator and large commercial tenant on board.

Seriously, thank God TheATX came back to this board.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by The ATX

^^^Notice about ½ the way up the western facade of the North building is a door at 450.41'

Originally Posted by The ATX

^^^See the two doors on the left-hand side of this rendering - lowest level. They both are at 450'.



So...is the FAA filing incorrect - 1492' AMSL? From where is the 1482' coming?

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

You have great instagram pics by the way.

Thank you

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

So...is the FAA filing incorrect - 1492' AMSL? From where is the 1482' coming?

Here is some clearer evidence for that ~1.6' lower starting point for counting the height. That brings it 1,031'.





I don't know where the info on the FAA filing came from. But I've noticed incorrect info on FAA filings before. All five or so permits for this project say it's in Dallas for Christ sake.

I would prefer to use one source for the height calculation rather than picking the tallest point from one source and the lowest point from another. So I'm sticking with the ~600 page document dump from Anonymous source #2 since it has the most info about the lowest and highest points. The tallest point on the tower that I could find was 1,481' 6" or 1,481.5'.

That's 1481.5 - 450.41 = 1,031 (Rounded)

[KevinFromTexas]

^I'm good with those numbers. Unless we can find a lower elevation than 450.41 feet near an entrance, then I'm good with calling it 1,031 feet.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Here is some clearer evidence for that ~1.6' lower starting point for counting the height. That brings it 1,031'.





I don't know where the info on the FAA filing came from. But I've noticed incorrect info on FAA filings before. All five or so permits for this project say it's in Dallas for Christ sake.

I would prefer to use one source for the height calculation rather than picking the tallest point from one source and the lowest point from another. So I'm sticking with the ~600 page document dump from Anonymous source #2 since it has the most info about the lowest and highest points. The tallest point on the tower that I could find was 1,481' 6" or 1,481.5'.

That's 1481.5 - 450.41 = 1,031 (Rounded)

My interpretation of the rendered site plan (based on nearly 40 years experience in the architecture / development world FWIIW) is that the lower terrace adjacent to the two doors is at 452.0. The 450.41 spot elevation is at the top of the bank adjacent to the terrace.

So, 1481.5 - 452.0 = 1,029.5 rounded up to 1,030.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by H2O

My interpretation of the rendered site plan (based on nearly 40 years experience in the architecture / development world FWIIW) is that the lower terrace adjacent to the two doors is at 452.0. The 450.41 spot elevation is at the top of the bank adjacent to the terrace.

So, 1481.5 - 452.0 = 1,029.5 rounded up to 1,030.

I'm good with that. Try convincing ILUVSAT. There is also a close by 449.23. So I'm sure 1,032 will come up soon.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by The ATX

I'm good with that. Try convincing ILUVSAT. There is also a close by 449.23. So I'm sure 1,032 will come up soon.

Yes. I was also going to point out that 449.23 was another spot elevation at the top of the bank adjacent to the terrace at 452.0. The reality is that there will be some variation in the grade of the terrace (most likely 2% slope away from the building), but it will not vary by almost 3 feet unless there is a section of stairs. Based on the information available the door sill will be at approximately 452.0.

[ILUVSAT]

You all make very compelling arguments. Thank you. And thank you for the clearer diagrams.

I'm good with 1030'/1031'.

[H2O]

The ATX, in the Site Development Permit set (probably the 600 pages) that gets submitted to the city from which you got the b+w sections and elevations with the heights labeled, there should be a plan drawing with a rectangle within the building footprint with a number and F.F.E. (Finish Floor Elevation). This will typically be the lowest occupied level, because it needs to be at least 1 foot higher than the 100 year flood plain elevation (unless they seek a floodplain variance and have some extraordinary life safety engineered solutions). Very important when building immediately adjacent to a creek. Anyway, that FFE number should confirm the elevation of that lowest door.

[The ATX]

I think we will just have to wait until we get verification as to what elevations were filed with the city before we know the exact height. They could be added to the site plan application or show up for AULCC relatively soon. I'm pretty much done speculating on height until then.

The elevations from Source #1 were much more detailed than Source #2. The Source #1 elevations have a level 0 of 452' which is probably the FFE. These elevations have a more recent date.

The elevations from Source #2 were part of the very large site plan packet. But they did not show the underground levels or have a level 0. There was a slight difference in the heights between the elevations from each source - mainly the hotel/office amenities levels.

Assuming there isn't a different version filed with the city, it looks like 1,022' or 1,030' if we start with 452'.

On another note, this project certainly has a leaky history. Word of this project was leaked on another forum that is not HAIF in May. The site or height was not disclosed. But it was confirmed to be a supertall that was not one of the ATX East/West towers. The poster has since confirmed it was this project.

Source #1




Source #2

[We vs us]

I was wondering about your references to the leakiness of this project. Really interesting that it’s been floating around for as long as it has.

It doesn’t seem to have affected the seriousness of it, so far as it seems...

[futures]

I want to hear speculation on the hotel operator! What are some educated guesses (and non-educated)?!?!

[Tornado]

with the back and forth on height, I think there needs to be an official skysraper_austin motion for approval for a height of 1031' so this can be put to bed. not sure what quorum will be but The ATX can work on that one.

[GoldenBoot]

I second the motion.


If the base of this tower is anything like this one from KPF; Man, we're in for a treat - a true gem.

https://www.kpf.com/projects/centra-metropark