AUSTIN | Photos & Videos Thread - Page 90

Jdawgboy · #**1781** Posted **May 7, 2018, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Just IMO... I think independent looks taller from a lot of angles because there are fewer tall buildings around it.
You get a lot more Top to ( almost ) bottom look at the building from more angles.
So context and contrast are playing into it.

That's a good point, plus it's size plays a part too.

KevinFromTexas · #**1782** Posted **May 7, 2018, 8:38 PM**

The sea level elevation of The Austonian lot is higher than The Independent block.

The Independent lot ranges from 458 feet above sea level on the northeast corner to 469 feet on the southwest corner. So, The Independent ranges from 1,148 feet to 1,159 feet above sea level at the roof.

The Austonian lot ranges from 474 feet above sea level on the southwest corner to 477 feet on the northeast corner. So, The Austonian ranges from 1,157 feet to 1,160 feet.

The building elevations for both buildings don't show what the baseline sea level elevation was that they used. The elevations simply use "0" as the baseline. The number they likely used is the average. The average sea level of the lot for The Independent would be 463.5 feet, which would make the average roof height 1,153 feet above sea level. The average sea level elevation for The Austonian lot would be 475 feet, and that would come to 1,158 feet. So, it's likely only a difference of maybe 5 feet, which is hard to tell from certain angles. There are other issues at play like optical illusions that can make them appear taller or shorter. The Independent is also a bit wider than the Austonian is from the north and south, so it may appear shorter since it's not as slender as the Austonian is.

urbancore · #**1783** Posted **May 7, 2018, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The sea level elevation of The Austonian lot is higher than The Independent block.

The Independent lot ranges from 458 feet above sea level on the northeast corner to 469 feet on the southwest corner. So, The Independent ranges from 1,148 feet to 1,159 feet above sea level at the roof.

The Austonian lot ranges from 474 feet above sea level on the southwest corner to 477 feet on the northeast corner. So, The Austonian ranges from 1,157 feet to 1,160 feet.

The building elevations for both buildings don't show what the baseline sea level elevation was that they used. The elevations simply use "0" as the baseline. The number they likely used is the average. The average sea level of the lot for The Independent would be 463.5 feet, which would make the average roof height 1,153 feet above sea level. The average sea level elevation for The Austonian lot would be 475 feet, and that would come to 1,158 feet. So, it's likely only a difference of maybe 5 feet, which is hard to tell from certain angles. There are other issues at play like optical illusions that can make them appear taller or shorter. The Independent is also a bit wider than the Austonian is from the north and south, so it may appear shorter since it's not as slender as the Austonian is.

The thing is, "perception is reality". People will argue with you all day long if you tell them it is taller, but to them it LOOKS shorter. Sounds like it will indeed look shorter from most vantage points....if that's the case, if I was an owner, I'd be pissed. When I had my 360 under contract, I backed out the week of closing (Sept 08), I was happy to one day live in the tallest building in ATX.....sounds dumb, but it's true.

KevinFromTexas · #**1784** Posted **May 7, 2018, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Don't forget there's only a 2 foot difference between the two and I believe the ground elevation At the Independent is a little lower than the ground the Austonian sits on. Reality is both buildings are pretty equal in terms of overall height. It will come down to where you are viewing the skyline from. If your viewing the skyline from the west, the Independent should look a little taller because it's closer to your vantage point than the Austonian. Conversley if your viewing from the east, the Austonian will look taller. From the south, I think they look about the same,

The media keeps reporting that The Independent is 685 feet, which would be 2 feet taller than The Austonian.

However, I remember someone on the forum measured it as 690 feet tall.

The elevations for The Independent don't actually show the number 690 feet. That number came from someone on the forum who measured it with a feature that the Adobe PDF program has where you can measure distances on elevations.

The highest listed height on one set of the elevations says 657 feet 6 inches, however, that's only to the 61st level in the mechanical crown, which is about halfway up the crown.

A second set of elevations shows the highest height as 670 feet at the 62nd level inside the mechanical crown, which is about 1/3 way up the crown. That set also has a line running to the top that lists it as 685 feet.

KevinFromTexas · #**1785** Posted **May 8, 2018, 2:43 AM**

Some old posts here from The Independent thread. Here's where the 690 foot numbers came from. I wanted to go back and find them to post since we were talking about the height compared to the Austonian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I think I'll go with the 688 foot number since it seems more accurate and detailed.

One thing I did notice, though, is that the 688 foot site plan doesn't show the elevation drop for the lot. It shows it as 0 and flat all around the lot. The 685 foot site plan shows two sides at 0 feet, with two other sides that drop below that line for a few more feet. I measured it out on paper and was getting about 5 feet below the 0 feet line. So that would add 7 feet for a total of 690 feet. I don't think I would go with that number, though, because my method of measuring it wasn't exact. I was simply using a sheet of paper against my monitor and marking the distance below the 0 feet line and then comparing it to listed elevations of some of the other floors above. It wasn't an exact match, though, because none of the floor elevations had the same number. And each time I did it I got a different number by comparing it on other floors.

Isn't there a program that can calculate distances in pdf documents like this to determine the number of an unlisted distance by comparing it to known distances?

There actually is a garage entrance below that 0 feet line. While it isn't a pedestrian entrance into the building, it's an entrance nonetheless. 690 feet would be close to that FAA height of 689 feet.

I'm quoting you here because you had said yourself that it was 685 feet. I wish we knew for sure, but I think I'll go with the 688 foot number unless someone can measure it more accurately, or if the developers or architects say otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

I had done just that. PDF-Viewer is a program I use at work to measure based on the scale of the drawing. This is from the top of the thick black line, add a foot for the bottom of the black line on the drawing. Damper is at 670' plus 15' top of structure = 685 + the 5' or 6' is 690' to 691' depending on the base line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

Well remember my number includes the below 0 on the submitted site plan on the COA permit. You know more about how the height is calculated offically. I am just saying that if you go to the lowest below 0 level and measure to the highest point you get 690' and if you measure to the bottom of the thick black line you get 691'. It's just a site plan and until the developer/architect confirms then its still just speculation.

Mopacs · #**1786** Posted **May 8, 2018, 3:13 AM**

Here's another shot I took this weekend along Loop 360 near Westlake HS. Notice how prominent 70 Rainey is now on the southern end of the skyline. The Independent also looks slightly taller than the Austonian from this perspective.

the Genral · #**1787** Posted **May 8, 2018, 3:16 AM**

I used to be able to photo shop those wires and poles out of there.

OU812 · #**1788** Posted **May 8, 2018, 7:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

From the last pick I just realized what makes Austin's downtown so unique and beautiful. In many large cities, if not most, that ribbon of highway cuts through the heart of their downtowns, ie: Cleveland, Cincy, Houston, even Corpus Christi, or right on the edge of it. Its actually is quite unattractive and not that easy to navigate to get to the city streets from them. Austin's skyline doesn't include any major highways or overpasses running through it. You may disagree with me, but I don't see I35 cutting through downtown, even if more and more buildings are headed towards it. Unless you're on it, you really don't see it from most angles. It really isn't that big of a pain in the ass to get into or out of the city, except during rush hour, I get there via Burnet Rd, or Lamar, but I am so glad we don't have to look at ribbons of winding elevated highways cutting through and ruining the view of downtown. I prefer that we essentially have to take the 'small' roads to get there from the ribbons of highways. By default since no one saw the growth we're seeing in the last 20 years, all those major roadways are thankfully in the distance. Regarding I35, it can be hidden by...what do you call it? Cap and bury? At least most of dt is blocks away from it.

Seattle is like this. Pretty much just Interstate 5 running through downtown.

Jdawgboy · #**1789** Posted **May 8, 2018, 5:49 PM**

Watching them work on the crown has made me wish they designed a pointy crown instead of a box. If done right it could have easily complemented the Independent's design plus could have been a nod to Frost as well as break up the overabundance of boxy flat roofed buildings. The picture above gives a good idea of how a pointed tiered crown could have been incorporated. Looks pretty cool when I view it looking down my street.

We really need another building taller than Frost with a similar kind of crown.

JACKinBeantown · #**1790** Posted **May 11, 2018, 12:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

I used to be able to photo shop those wires and poles out of there.

• Video Link

KevinFromTexas · #**1791** Posted **May 16, 2018, 4:46 AM**

Tonight's thunderstorms. Those storms weren't even that close to Austin, but wow, what a light show tonight.

• Video Link

KevinFromTexas · #**1792** Posted **May 26, 2018, 6:26 AM**

• Video Link

KevinFromTexas · #**1793** Posted **May 26, 2018, 11:03 PM**

https://www.flickr.com/photos/121829...09366/sizes/o/

The ATX · #**1794** Posted **May 26, 2018, 11:26 PM**

4th of July 2004?

H2O · #**1795** Posted **May 27, 2018, 1:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

4th of July 2004?

No. City Hall and Frost Bank were complete in 2004. Must have been 2002.

Jdawgboy · #**1796** Posted **May 27, 2018, 3:56 PM**

That was Red Bull's Flugtag 2003. My friends and I were sitting across the river under those oak trees. Was a hot day but hilarious fun.

KevinFromTexas · #**1797** Posted **May 27, 2018, 5:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

That was Red Bull's Flugtag 2003. My friends and I were sitting across the river under those oak trees. Was a hot day but hilarious fun.

We went, too. I remember being surprised how many people showed up. There were people lining the river on both sides, all the bridges were packed and so was Auditorium Shores. I don't think I've ever seen that many people down there.