Austin | 6G | 874 Feet | 65 Floors | Complete - Page 97

KevinFromTexas · #**1921** Posted **May 2, 2021, 2:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Maybe theyr'e adding antennas or spires at the top?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

The new FAA filings for 883' are for a change in the project's height - "Notice Of: Alter" on the form. We just need to know if it's something mechanical that can be added to the official height of the building or an antenna that can't be counted. If it were additional floors, a site plan change filing would be needed as far as I know. The fact that all four corners of the building have a filing for the new 883' height leads me to believe that the mechanical screen is increasing in height. I don't think a filing for a 35' antenna or spire would reflect an equal height increase for all four corners. So I believe the official height of the building is now 883' and not 848'. But it would be nice to have some corroborating evidence.

A few things I forgot to add before. If it was just an antenna they were adding, then the FAA permit should be listed as antenna side mount. Since it says building on the permit, that's suggesting it's the height for the actual building. I would think that if the permit was for the addition of a spire that it would be included in the notes as a spire.

On the City of Austin side of it, typically increases of mechanical height and changes there do not require filing a site plan change. At least, that hasn't been the case in the past, though, those were very minor changes that almost went unnoticed. I say that because for Windsor on the Lake, they approved and released it, we had the height nailed down with renderings and all, and then when Google Earth updated their Austin imagery, I noticed the mechanical roof was slightly different (and taller) than what was shown in the elevations and renderings. 360 Condominiums also never showed the mechanical roof on the elevations, and I wasn't able to measure it until after Google Earth updated.

On the floor count of 6 X Guadalupe, some of the local media was calling it a 66-story tower recently, which seemed odd. I was wondering where that came from. So, with what DaveinWimberley is saying, that could be why. I guess they were able to get that info out of the developers/architects.

Still, I would not be expecting the addition of one parking level to add 35 feet.

KevinFromTexas · #**1922** Posted **May 2, 2021, 3:03 AM**

It would be nice if this got a height bump. At 848 feet, that makes it the 6th tallest in Texas with the 5th tallest roof.

I've always heard that the Renaissance Tower in Dallas is 886 feet to the spire that they added to it in 1987. But I've only ever been able to measure it at 857 feet to the top of the spire. So, a bump to 883 feet would push 6 X Guadalupe the 5th tallest overall.

gillynova · #**1923** Posted **May 2, 2021, 3:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinWimberley

Actually, I believe they have ALREADY added one floor. If you refer to the detailed schematic for the Southwest Elevation, The building shows Level 1 and level M1, then level 2 through level 11 (P1 through P10). That meant there were TEN parking levels after Level M1. But we now have ELEVEN parking levels now completed above level M1. I even remember you commenting after they completed the tenth parking level that the parking podium was topped out, but, voila, the 11th parking level was built before the actual topping out of the parking podium. It surprised me, as well.

Very nice first post and welcome to the forum! Hope to see more contributions from you in the near future

This might be the first time I'm actually seeing a height increase on a project that is already under construction. Would be really dope to see this get bumped to 883 feet! I'll wait for the confirmation before I celebrate

Vexal · #**1924** Posted **May 2, 2021, 4:32 PM**

Maybe they accidentally added an additional parking level. I've done similar things when building lego and k'nex towers. Even when following the instructions exactly, I somehow manage to screw up and add an extra something somewhere. Now imagine a hundred people following colorful instructions to build a real building, statistically one of them will add an extra floor somewhere.

IluvATX · #**1925** Posted **May 2, 2021, 4:48 PM**

The elevations state that there are 12 floors of above ground parking. The podium ends at level 14 (as there is no 13th floor). And as is evident on the webcam. IMO the height change is either for an antenna or a typo.

IluvATX · #**1926** Posted **May 2, 2021, 5:27 PM**

Delete.

ILUVSAT · #**1927** Posted **May 3, 2021, 1:44 PM**

^^^I think Kevin is correct - if it were an antenna, it would have been labeled as such. There is a "FCC Number" under the "Structure Summary" in the FAA filing. There is also an entire section called "Frequencies" - which, I believe, is for antennae.

Does One American Center have increased height due to its antennae?

As the number is too fuzzy for me to see - what does the total height number on the left read? And, what are the 6th Street-side Level 1 elevation numbers?

KevinFromTexas · #**1928** Posted **May 3, 2021, 2:17 PM**

35 feet would be abnormally tall for an antenna. Even the tallest ones in downtown now are only 15 to 20 feet at most, such as the ones atop the One American Center and Bank of America Center. I think if they were much taller than that, they'd need some guy wires to stabilize them.

Also, if it does turn out to be an antenna, which I'm not thinking it is, it would likely need a red light on top. It seems to depend on what the diameter and or height of the antenna is that requires it to have a light.
https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/...0_7460-1l_.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

^^^I think Kevin is correct - if it were an antenna, it would have been labeled as such. There is a "FCC Number" under the "Structure Summary" in the FAA filing. There is also an entire section called "Frequencies" - which, I believe, is for antennae.

Does One American Center have increased height due to its antennae?

As the number is too fuzzy for me to see - what does the total height number on the left read? And, what are the 6th Street-side Level 1 elevation numbers?

Antennas typically don't count toward the official height of a building since they can be added or removed after the building has been completed, and the architects don't design them. Now, there can be structures on the roof of a building to support them, and those are counted...*sometimes.* One famous pair were the two stacks atop the Sears Tower. They were designed as part of the building to support antennas before it had any, but I'm not sure if they were kept after the huge antennas were added. If you look at old photos of the Sears Tower, you'll see them up there. Obviously, the Sears Tower has some huge antennas up there now, but they don't count toward the height. Closer to home, there was that big antenna atop the Tower Life Building in San Antonio that was removed some years ago.

I can't see the numbers on that 6 X Guadalupe elevation that IluvATX posted. I hadn't seen that one, at least, I didn't have it saved.

lonewolf · #**1929** Posted **May 3, 2021, 4:34 PM**

looks like top will be 1327' above sea level. that's about as high up as some of the highest parts in NW travis county. this is going to make the skyline visible from a lot of parts out west where it isn't now

ATXSparky · #**1930** Posted **May 3, 2021, 5:14 PM**

The developer is exploring the option of raising the ceiling heights on the residential floors (sounds like it is closer to happening than I thought). There are no additional floors being added.

StoOgE · #**1931** Posted **May 3, 2021, 5:32 PM**

I spoke to someone involved in this - and the height increase is potentially real but not set in stone.

deerhoof · #**1932** Posted **May 3, 2021, 5:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATXSparky

The developer is exploring the option of raising the ceiling heights on the residential floors (sounds like it is closer to happening than I thought). There are no additional floors being added.

I've always considered that these residential floors are going to be for rent, but have always thought these would be better suited for condos. I can't imagine how much these would rent for or be sold for, but every unit would be at least 500 feet up so i'm assuming they would be at the highest end of those markets. Anyways, increasing the ceiling heights would indicate to me that these will more likely be condos for sale.

KevinFromTexas · #**1933** Posted **May 3, 2021, 5:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATXSparky

The developer is exploring the option of raising the ceiling heights on the residential floors (sounds like it is closer to happening than I thought). There are no additional floors being added.

I would think that would require a site plan change then. Since there are 31 residential floors, 35 extra feet would likely mean the top 4 floors (I'm assuming) might be getting a 2 foot bump in height.

GoldenBoot · #**1934** Posted **May 3, 2021, 7:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would think that would require a site plan change then. Since there are 31 residential floors, 35 extra feet would likely mean the top 4 floors (I'm assuming) might be getting a 2 foot bump in height.

I don't know why I think this...but, if the increase is less that 10% of the approved total height then they can do it without a new site plan. Maybe only an amendment or notice (if anything at all).

I think this happened to Spring. It was approved for 400' and it ended up being 434' (8.5% increase).

gillynova · #**1935** Posted **May 3, 2021, 8:50 PM**

May 3, 2021

Credit: http://webcampub.multivista.com/inde...6-E3C4B0C3B2C1

H2O · #**1936** Posted **May 3, 2021, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

I don't know why I think this...but, if the increase is less that 10% of the approved total height then they can do it without a new site plan. Maybe only an amendment or notice (if anything at all).

I think this happened to Spring. It was approved for 400' and it ended up being 434' (8.5% increase).

Since there is no height limit in CBD, I don't think it matters how tall it is. They could double it without needing a site plan amendment (maybe a correction), as long as they do not increase the FAR or parking requirements. Spring was different. It was zoned DMU-CURE.

ILUVSAT · #**1937** Posted **May 3, 2021, 9:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O

Since there is no height limit in CBD, I don't think it matters how tall it is. They could double it without needing a site plan amendment (maybe a correction), as long as they do not increase the FAR or parking requirements. Spring was different. It was zoned DMU-CURE.

For argument sake...if they double the height, the design of the tower must change to accommodate the same FAR. So, I would think more than a correction would be required.

Regarding Spring...how does DMU-CURE make a difference? It was zoned for 400' yet it's 434' tall.

H2O · #**1938** Posted **May 4, 2021, 11:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

For argument sake...if they double the height, the design of the tower must change to accommodate the same FAR. So, I would think more than a correction would be required.

Regarding Spring...how does DMU-CURE make a difference? It was zoned for 400' yet it's 434' tall.

The difference is that Spring had a height limit. The limit in DMU is 120'. They used CURE to get to 400'. That is a 333% increase. Perhaps the extra 8.5% was considered de minimus in that context. I don't know. But in CBD, since there is no height limit, it doesn't matter if the change is de minimus or de maximus. You could, for instance, double the height with the addition of a spire without affecting FAR or parking, which is the only thing the site plan is regulating in terms of the size of the project.

drummer · #**1939** Posted **May 4, 2021, 1:54 PM**

This kinda stuff makes my head hurt, haha.

ILUVSAT · #**1940** Posted **May 4, 2021, 3:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O

The difference is that Spring had a height limit. The limit in DMU is 120'. They used CURE to get to 400'. That is a 333% increase. Perhaps the extra 8.5% was considered de minimus in that context. I don't know. But in CBD, since there is no height limit, it doesn't matter if the change is de minimus or de maximus. You could, for instance, double the height with the addition of a spire without affecting FAR or parking, which is the only thing the site plan is regulating in terms of the size of the project.

Gotcha. Thanks, H2O. Hopefully, this height increase comes to fruition.

On that note, if nothing is required by the city, how will we know if they have moved forward with the height increase?

Anyone have connections with Kairoi or Gensler?