Austin | 415 Colorado | 640 Feet | 47 Floors | U/C

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by rayfes

Is there a reason why the detailed occupancy history starts at '92 and goes backward with only a smattering of what was there after '92 on all of these? As someone that moved here in '92 I (selfishly) like knowing everything that's been there from that point forward

I looked at the same info on three random but recent projects. Two of them also stopped at 1992, and one stopped at 1987. The source for the info on all of them is the Austin History Center and dated 2008. I suspect The History Center had a project to record the history for a lot of properties, but the project ended in the 90s.

[The ATX]

Some renderings for the Monday DC meeting...






http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=340483

[The ATX]

Here are some more.




http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=340480

[The ATX]

And one more...

It has gained 1' in height from what we previous knew. It's 659'.


http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=340480

[KevinFromTexas]

It looks like they may be considering two different designs. The elevations on one of those PDFs lists it as 670 feet from the west elevation, versus 659 feet from the west elevation on the other one. The roof design and even the position of the slope are different in both versions.

The 670 foot version also just has "notches" above the garage levels instead of those floors being recessed almost all the way around in the 659 foot version. The roof design of the 659 foot version is more like a diamond pattern, whereas the 670 foot one is a flat slope from one side of the building to the other.

There is also a notch in the 670 foot version about halfway between the roof and the garage levels.


http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=340483

[The ATX]

Good catch. I vote for the taller one with the greater slope.

[KevinFromTexas]

Something else I noticed is that the backup file for the Design Commission meeting lists it as 655 feet 11 inches tall. That would probably be the main roof height. There is no way the main roof is only 3 feet away from the top of the glass parapet (sloped roof) around the tower. That makes me think it really will be the 670 foot version since the taller design is referenced in two of three documents.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=340476

The height that I had listed for the mechanical roof that came off the elevations we saw from the AULCC meeting was 590 feet. That's for the 658 foot version we had previously known about.

[Syndic]

Eh, I know it's shorter but the diamond shape is WAY more attractive than the boxy one.

The boxy one also seemingly doesn't preserve the existing façade.

[KevinFromTexas]

The height bump is always a good thing, and the increased slope (which is why it's taller) makes it more dramatic. I will say, though, that I prefer the diamond roof design more over the flat slope. It was a bit more interesting, and it shifted the "face" of the roof to the northeast, which I thought was interesting since it wasn't facing south as most buildings in Austin do.

The diamond design reminded me of Two World Trade Center, when they were considering a diamond pattern for that tower.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...30301&page=258

[myBrain]

Comparison:

v1


v2


Actually, looks like there might be 3 versions of this thing?

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Eh, I know it's shorter but the diamond shape is WAY more attractive than the boxy one.

The boxy one also seemingly doesn't preserve the existing façade.

Agreed. Also I like the staggered glass pattern on that one way more, plus no notches everywhere.

[Sigaven]

Also - 6xGuad and BBVA tower lookin pretty slick there in the background!

[gillynova]

Loving the constant news about this project

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by gillynova

Loving the constant news about this project

They have to keep putting it out there as a viable option if a company like Tesla wants to move their HQ.

[The ATX]

There are two presentations in the back up files. One is dated February for the 659' version, and one is dated May 18th for the 670' version. So I strongly suspect the 05/18 670' version is the current one. The 670' version is also the one that was released to the ABJ.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by The ATX

There are two presentations in the back up files. One is dated February for the 659' version, and one is dated May 18th for the 670' version. So I strongly suspect the 05/18 670' version is the current one. The 670' version is also the one that was released to the ABJ.

They didn't do a good job with 6X Guadalupe as it doesn't look any taller than BBVA considering 6X is nearly 80 feet taller and it's only cadicorner across the street from it.

[ahealy]

Man, this is gonna be show-stopping at night....That curved crown with a soft glow. I will faint!

So 670' with higher notch is most accurate?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ahealy

So 670' with higher notch is most accurate?

I would say so. Hopefully we know more after Monday's DC meeting.

[gillynova]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Man, this is gonna be show-stopping at night....That curved crown with a soft glow. I will faint!

So 670' with higher notch is most accurate?

Imagine during sunrise and sunset when the light hits the glass

Or a bright LED light around the notch during night time

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Also - 6xGuad and BBVA tower lookin pretty slick there in the background!

If this and BBVA get started in January as planned/hoped, all three of these buildings should be topping out around the same time. That will be quite a sight.