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

[KevinFromTexas]

The allowable height along the river, I believe, is 90 feet. After that, they must setback before being able to go up another 90+ feet. This is why the CSC/Silicon Labs buildings stop abruptly at 90 feet fronting Cesar Chavez.

As for the crown, it needs work. People can say that street/ground interaction is most important, and it is to an extent, of course, but there will be a lot of eyes on this thing and from afar. Materials, textures, colors, and designs are important not just at ground level, but all the way up. With every new building and every new design, our architectural style takes a step in a new direction.

[The ATX]

Yeah, the crown and design of a building are important. But everyone has a different opinion about what makes a good design or crown. For that reason I'm glad we don't have a city commission (like S.A.) that dictates aesthetics. The one thing I think most everyone agrees upon is that we don't want ridiculous spires like the Fairmont.

[N90]

Personally I love it.

It’s not my favorite proposed Austin building but I really dig the design. Build it ASAP.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Yeah, the crown and design of a building are important. But everyone has a different opinion about what makes a good design or crown. For that reason I'm glad we don't have a city commission (like S.A.) that dictates aesthetics. The one thing I think most everyone agrees upon is that we don't want ridiculous spires like the Fairmont.

To me, the 'spire' on the Fairmont is true to the definition of the word 'spire' in that from base to tip, it tapers to a point. However it has no architectural merit as it appears to be nothing but a very long flag pole. Worse yet, I think it was intended to exaggerate the overall height of the building. That's cheating. I could accept it if it was perhaps half as tall. I do think a smaller similar spire at the apex of the crown of this building could make an easy and positive difference by drawing the eye to the pinnacle, more so than the obvious upward angle. Every time I look at the crown, and by that I mean wonky crown, it looks like its missing something...like a subdued spire.

[Vexal]

I am not a fan of obvious spires. The list of world's tallest buildings is kind of messed up now due to the buildings using their spires instead of floor height, especially the World Trade Center.

If it doesn't look like the average, reasonable person can ascend a part of the building, that part of the building shouldn't count towards its height (however I think it's okay if it's not actually possible to ascend, such as Frost Bank nose clippers being inaccessible to users -- it just has to look possible).

[H2O]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The allowable height along the river, I believe, is 90 feet. After that, they must setback before being able to go up another 90+ feet. This is why the CSC/Silicon Labs buildings stop abruptly at 90 feet fronting Cesar Chavez.

As for the crown, it needs work. People can say that street/ground interaction is most important, and it is to an extent, of course, but there will be a lot of eyes on this thing and from afar. Materials, textures, colors, and designs are important not just at ground level, but all the way up. With every new building and every new design, our architectural style takes a step in a new direction.

The height and stepback requirements of the Waterfront Overlay District vary by sub-district. The most common one is maximum 45' vertical from the property line, and 70 degrees above that. Both NorthShore and Block 185 meet it with different strategies. NorthShore meets the stepback by stepping back in three large blocks. Block 185 is almost a literal diagram of the height and stepback requirements. The reason Block 185 can go higher than 45 feet on the creek side is that the original property line / Rio Grande ROW is within the creek, so the bottom of the stepback slope at 45 feet is some distance from the building located on the top of the bank. When Silicon Labs and City Hall were planned, they amended the North Shore Central subdistrict of the WOD to create a new three block City Hall subdistrict. In the new subdistrict, the height and stepback requirements can be met the standard way (45'/70 degrees) or if the maximum height is 90 feet. So the Silicon Labs buildings cannot be any taller unless they redevelop with a maximum 45' height on Cesar Chavez, or amend the WOD again.

[lonewolf]

h2o you are my favorite poster

[kingkirbythe....]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

never clarify or rebut labels others put on you! this is an opinion community, fire away!

[kingkirbythe....]

Originally Posted by H2O

The height and stepback requirements of the Waterfront Overlay District vary by sub-district. The most common one is maximum 45' vertical from the property line, and 70 degrees above that. Both NorthShore and Block 185 meet it with different strategies. NorthShore meets the stepback by stepping back in three large blocks. Block 185 is almost a literal diagram of the height and stepback requirements. The reason Block 185 can go higher than 45 feet on the creek side is that the original property line / Rio Grande ROW is within the creek, so the bottom of the stepback slope at 45 feet is some distance from the building located on the top of the bank. When Silicon Labs and City Hall were planned, they amended the North Shore Central subdistrict of the WOD to create a new three block City Hall subdistrict. In the new subdistrict, the height and stepback requirements can be met the standard way (45'/70 degrees) or if the maximum height is 90 feet. So the Silicon Labs buildings cannot be any taller unless they redevelop with a maximum 45' height on Cesar Chavez, or amend the WOD again.

So there is some height restrictions.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by the Genral

To me, the 'spire' on the Fairmont is true to the definition of the word 'spire' in that from base to tip, it tapers to a point. However it has no architectural merit as it appears to be nothing but a very long flag pole. Worse yet, I think it was intended to exaggerate the overall height of the building. That's cheating. I could accept it if it was perhaps half as tall. I do think a smaller similar spire at the apex of the crown of this building could make an easy and positive difference by drawing the eye to the pinnacle, more so than the obvious upward angle. Every time I look at the crown, and by that I mean wonky crown, it looks like its missing something...like a subdued spire.

Slightly off-topic, but the spire on the Fairmont could have easily fit in far better if the actual crown of the Fairmont were sloped slightly upward in that direction.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

h2o you are my favorite poster

Umm...thx!

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

Slightly off-topic, but the spire on the Fairmont could have easily fit in far better if the actual crown of the Fairmont were sloped slightly upward in that direction.

Yeah, Fairmont is probably the biggest disappointment of the last decade for downtown towers.

[ILUVSAT]

Shouldn't this project be labeled "proposed?" They have submitted changes to the approved site plan which makes this a proposal until it receives said new approvals.

The last time I was in Austin (this past summer), there was no activity on the site. Just a weak fence, slabs, trees, bushes, roots, etc.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Just because we haven't seen these for several posts...

I'm sure others have noticed this, but there's some serious similarity between these renderings and Ranier Square Tower in Seattle, especially with a side-by-side comparison. The renderings show this to be a bit different color, and segmented out more, but I think the overall shape is going to be very close, if this ends up happening as-is.

[the Genral]

Hmmm, pretty sure I prefer the one in Seattle, especially the color of it.

[We vs us]

Kinda blah that our first supertall comes from a Butterick pattern

[mercury6]

It's a building, it's mixed use, it's 1,000', I'm good with it

[StoOgE]

We really in here arguing about the aesthetics of a supertall not being as nice as we want.

[SproutingTowers]

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

I'm sure others have noticed this, but there's some serious similarity between these renderings and Ranier Square Tower in Seattle, especially with a side-by-side comparison. The renderings show this to be a bit different color, and segmented out more, but I think the overall shape is going to be very close, if this ends up happening as-is.

Rainier Square Tower is 850 ft but looks much taller compared to the Waller Creek Tower renderings.

[kingkirbythe....]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

We really in here arguing about the aesthetics of a supertall not being as nice as we want.

Damn right we are. That is one of the main reasons skyscraperpage.com exists for.

Rainier Square Tower looks tall. The Austin tower looks like the shortest tall building I’ve ever seen before. All the horizontal stripes and blocking of two floors together make it look like a 500 foot building.