AUSTIN | Waterline (98 Red River) | 1,022 Feet | 73 Floors | U/C

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Geographer

I see now how podium's facade changes for the garage vs the hotel. The garage has more and thicker diagonal beams.

I'm happy that Austin is getting a huge tower like this as it's a major vote of confidence in the future of the city, but the design seems disjointed and unfinished. The prominent diagonal columns remind me up matchstick models and look cheap. They might look cool up close but not at a distance. The different facades for each section make it look like different architects worked on different sections rather than having a single vision for the project. I hope Austin's design commission recommends the developers tighten up and unify the design of the tower.

The ground level interaction with the lake and street is well-done. It is nice that they hide the parking garage away from the lake.

The Design Commission looks for public benefits like retail, public art, street level interaction and this case the interaction with the creek. They don't decide anything about the buildings architecture. They may complain about parking podiums, but that's about it. This project should get a lot of love when it goes to the DC.

[urbancore]

do we know the budget for this?

[Syndic]

Whoa, that looks way better with a spire.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Anyone think this tower could use a spire?

(forgive my poor photoshopping skills)

I generally dislike spires, but that one works.

[ahealy]

Ladies & gentlemen: "The Pfizer"

[Jdawgboy]

It reminds me of an older model wireless phone....

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

It reminds me of an older model wireless phone....

Ok. I disliked the spire, but now I like it.

Hello Moto.

[eskimo33]

Originally Posted by The ATX

It'll get approved, no problem. But the approval process for big projects like this takes a year to a year and a half in Austin. But I'm hoping it can be sooner because they are revising an already approved site plan (WPP). Maybe Eskimo33 can confirm whether or not that makes a difference?

In most cases, a site plan revision is quicker than the original approval. As one would guess, the applicant is submitting revisions not starting the process anew.
For the new buildings, the biggest issues I can see are:
1. The footprints of the new buildings appear to be in a different location than the original plan. Sometimes this triggers a new submittal, sometimes not. It really depends on how different the new footprints are and how the new layout impacts the proposed on-site infrastructure.
2. It appears the new project will be a phased. The North tower has the potential to need significant grading. Not sure how the grading will impact the floodplain and what those impacts might have on the South tower.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by eskimo33

In most cases, a site plan revision is quicker than the original approval. As one would guess, the applicant is submitting revisions not starting the process anew.
For the new buildings, the biggest issues I can see are:
1. The footprints of the new buildings appear to be in a different location than the original plan. Sometimes this triggers a new submittal, sometimes not. It really depends on how different the new footprints are and how the new layout impacts the proposed on-site infrastructure.
2. It appears the new project will be a phased. The North tower has the potential to need significant grading. Not sure how the grading will impact the floodplain and what those impacts might have on the South tower.

Nice. I hope we find out more soon.

A supertall would not look out of place in the skyline by the time its built. We have two 700ish foot towers now and a 850ish foot tower U/C. A 1,000ish foot tower would mean just 150 foot step up in height among the tallest towers - and that's even if none of the other 700 foot + proposals get built. (Yes, I know I rounded the heights for those that are bothered by such things.)

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by eskimo33

In most cases, a site plan revision is quicker than the original approval. As one would guess, the applicant is submitting revisions not starting the process anew.
For the new buildings, the biggest issues I can see are:
1. The footprints of the new buildings appear to be in a different location than the original plan. Sometimes this triggers a new submittal, sometimes not. It really depends on how different the new footprints are and how the new layout impacts the proposed on-site infrastructure.
2. It appears the new project will be a phased. The North tower has the potential to need significant grading. Not sure how the grading will impact the floodplain and what those impacts might have on the South tower.

Isn't the floodplain changing when Waller Creek Tunnel finally becomes fully operational? Was it not a major component of why they built it - pulling several acres out of the floodplain?

[eskimo33]

I am by no means an expert on the tunnel, but yes the impetus behind the project was to remove land from the Waller Creek Floodplain.
However, I think, that this close to Town Lake the flooding from the Lake itself might impact the site. We would have to know the lowest adjacent elevations and compare them to how far up the floodplain from the Lake would go.
At this point, all we can do is speculate until the site plan is submitted.

[drummer]

If I'm honest, most of what I do on this site is speculate...

[GoldenBoot]

Eskimo33, do you have an image of the approved (old WPP) building footprints? I had some at one point. But, I no longer can find them.

The proposed (new) footprints seem to (possibly) be pretty similar to the approved ones. However, my memory cannot confirm.

[The ATX]

The 98 Red River design packet has some WPP drawings.

[The ATX]

Here's a map showing the retail. Level 0 is above ground on the creek side but below ground on the Red River side. Here's a map showing Level 0 and Level 1.

[The ATX]

This one might answer a question or two. Level 0 is counted in the 74 floors count. There is no level 13.

[Jdawgboy]

Gotta be kidding! 2 feet shorter than the tallest in Texas. Can't they go ahead and add 10 measly feet???

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Gotta be kidding! 2 feet shorter than the tallest in Texas. Can't they go ahead and add 10 measly feet???

Huh? Nothing has changed. 1474-452=1,022. That's 20 feet taller than the tallest building in Texas which is in Houston.

Or you can calculate by the -15' starting point and 1,007' number to get 1,022'.

[Geographer]

Thanks for the schematic, The ATX!

Why do office levels have a higher ceiling than residential floors? It seems to me that the opposite would be true since people enjoy higher ceiling in their home while offices are more utilitarian.

[clubtokyo]

I think Jdawg means it says 1007 for the roof?