HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 5:00 AM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaceman View Post
The Fairmont will be a true barometer of this latest building boom...It is to be built after the Presidential election and the F1 race... The national economy could be affected by the election and the local lodging demand will be impacted by the USGP.. There is a lot of Austin's future riding on this race..Did I make a pun?
didn't the austonian begin building right after the election? just wondering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 5:10 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaceman View Post
The Fairmont will be a true barometer of this latest building boom...It is to be built after the Presidential election and the F1 race... The national economy could be affected by the election and the local lodging demand will be impacted by the USGP.. There is a lot of Austin's future riding on this race..Did I make a pun?
I won't disagree about the USGP having an impact on hotel demand, but I will disagree with your conclusion about that impact. If anything, it will have a positive impact.

I also disagree with your assertion that the Presidential election will have any impact whatsoever on the economy. One of the biggest misconceptions the average American citizen has about our political and/or economic system is that the President has the ability to alter the course of our economy.

Last edited by wwmiv; Jun 16, 2012 at 5:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 5:15 AM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
If anything, it will have a positive impact.
I totally agree. Am I the only one that thinks that this little condensed area of skyscrapers being built here will look a little like Vancouver style skyline?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 5:23 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol24 View Post
didn't the austonian begin building right after the election? just wondering.
Yeah, it did.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 5:24 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol24 View Post
I totally agree. Am I the only one that thinks that this little condensed area of skyscrapers being built here will look a little like Vancouver style skyline?
Probably. We've got a long ways to go before we'd be in the same league as Vancouver. I.E. we'd need at least 30 more 15-25 story buildings for that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 5:27 AM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Probably. We've got a long ways to go before we'd be in the same league as Vancouver. I.E. we'd need at least 30 more 15-25 story buildings for that.
yeah, you're right. i was just thinking this because the towers going up on this section are all very striking and will all probably look seemingly tall. even the Spring tower was built by that vancouver architect and designed it specifically with that vancouver look of having a slender shape giving the illusion as if it were taller. i think this particular building might give that impression a bit. and they'll all be similar in height, much like vancouver. but totally, will need tons more skyscrapers to be as dense. haha
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 6:29 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Probably. We've got a long ways to go before we'd be in the same league as Vancouver. I.E. we'd need at least 30 more 15-25 story buildings for that.
We'd need more than that. Vancouver has around 400 highrises, where as Austin, citywide, only has around 143 or so. We would need to triple the number of buildings we have now before we could come close to Vancouver.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 6:54 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
We'd need more than that. Vancouver has around 400 highrises, where as Austin, citywide, only has around 143 or so. We would need to triple the number of buildings we have now before we could come close to Vancouver.
Shit. Really? Well, lets just say I was underestimating.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 12:39 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
Vancouver's geography encourages high rises, much like New York or Miami. Austin will always have sprawl affecting the amount of high rises that get built - just like most cities that don't have coasts/waterways or mountains preventing sprawl. But thanks to Austin's desirable downtown we are getting a lot of them built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 11:47 PM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Between RRock and a hard place
Posts: 4,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
I won't disagree about the USGP having an impact on hotel demand, but I will disagree with your conclusion about that impact. If anything, it will have a positive impact.

I also disagree with your assertion that the Presidential election will have any impact whatsoever on the economy. One of the biggest misconceptions the average American citizen has about our political and/or economic system is that the President has the ability to alter the course of our economy.
Only time will prove you wrong my friend. Every sitting president and their admin during my lifetime has influenced the economy in one way or another. GW Bush is blamed for the last recession by many including Obama and Obama will get blamed for the next one or continuation of this one, so clearly they can and do alter the course. Granted, the war and Katrina didn't help the economy or GW. Need more?
Nixon imposed wage and price controls to try to prevent inflation which would mess with his chance for re election, result...higher inflation.
Carter adopted credit control, which led to a recession. But he also was a champion for deregulation which helped keep the recession short.
Reagon had a huge tax cut package right after he took office and continued with Carter's deregulation policies and the result was years of economic growth.
Skip to Obama, his $800 billion stimulas package did a lot for banks and the auto industry but not much for we the people. There is not much investor, business or consumer confidence in his policies now, result, slow to recover economy and if re elected possible new recession, and a negative impact to the economy.
A president's impact on the economy depends on his ability to get Congress to support his agendas. When support is high, consumer and investor confidence is also high and the impact to the economy is positive. When support is low as I believe it is now, consumer and investor confidence is low, and the economic impact is generally negative. This can lead to recession and some of our planned projects downtown from being built. As bazaar as this sounds, I believe Obama getting re elected could cost our skyline some of the bigger planned projects including the Farmount.

Last edited by the Genral; Jun 17, 2012 at 2:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2012, 2:31 AM
gmsalpha gmsalpha is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 65
Well, at least you're an equal opportunity critic.

I'd recommend just a little spell-checking though. It's "stimulus", "Reagan", and "affect".

Is anyone else annoyed by the way buildings are being named these days with the address? Or starting with a number? When I browse around a national hi-rise condo website and click around different cities' properties, it's almost always going to be the case that the buildings that start with a number are the newer buildings. Perhaps a lot of the best condo names have been taken and they want to avoid confusion? Or perhaps they're lazy? Or maybe they simply think it sounds fancy?

Does anyone have a good suggestion for a different/better name?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2012, 2:39 AM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Between RRock and a hard place
Posts: 4,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmsalpha View Post
Well, at least you're an equal opportunity critic.

I'd recommend just a little spell-checking though. It's "stimulus", "Reagan", and "affect".

Is anyone else annoyed by the way buildings are being named these days with the address? Or starting with a number? When I browse around a national hi-rise condo website and click around different cities' properties, it's almost always going to be the case that the buildings that start with a number are the newer buildings. Perhaps a lot of the best condo names have been taken and they want to avoid confusion? Or perhaps they're lazy? Or maybe they simply think it sounds fancy?

Does anyone have a good suggestion for a different/better name?
Too tired to spel chek tonight, sory. thank you for the feadback. btw I think its spelled 'high-rise' not 'hi-rise'...

Last edited by the Genral; Jun 17, 2012 at 3:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2012, 5:14 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral View Post
Too tired to spel chek tonight, sory. thank you for the feadback. btw I think its spelled 'high-rise' not 'hi-rise'...
Hi-rise is a legitimate alternative spelling.

As for your critique of my argument, I've decided that I can only let the accumulated body of knowledge of my field of study speak for itself. If you think that time will prove you right, then time has the opportunity to prove you wrong as well. When most of these proposed towers are built, I trust that you will eat those words.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2012, 5:27 AM
TGBinSD's Avatar
TGBinSD TGBinSD is offline
Time to musk up
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: A whale's vagina
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
We'd need more than that. Vancouver has around 400 highrises, where as Austin, citywide, only has around 143 or so. We would need to triple the number of buildings we have now before we could come close to Vancouver.
i don't doubt this, but why does ssp say that austin only has 82, or something around there, skyscrapers?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2012, 8:04 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmsalpha
Is anyone else annoyed by the way buildings are being named these days with the address? Or starting with a number? When I browse around a national hi-rise condo website and click around different cities' properties, it's almost always going to be the case that the buildings that start with a number are the newer buildings. Perhaps a lot of the best condo names have been taken and they want to avoid confusion? Or perhaps they're lazy? Or maybe they simply think it sounds fancy?
It's just some trendy way of doing it. I'm actually less annoyed by this building's name than one with some made up word or one that means something totally unrelated, but looks/sounds cool. Austin has a few of those already, but I'll not mention them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TGBinSD
i don't doubt this, but why does ssp say that austin only has 82, or something around there, skyscrapers?
Most of those buildings were added by editors here at SkyscraperPage. It probably hasn't been updated for a while. I've been without a computer for the better part of 8 months since our old one quit working, so I wasn't able to do anything really. I do recognize that number from way back, so it just hasn't been updated. And plus, Austin has had so much development both proposed and construction that it's hard for anyone not living here to keep up with it. I really need to update it. I've been sprinting the last few weeks just to play catch up and get things updated. I've also got hundreds (thousands?) of photos to go through and post eventually. Probably 2 dozen photo threads I bet.

One other reason for the difference in numbers between sources is that certain organizations (this website vs others), use a different criteria for measuring/determining what is a highrise. Some say 115 feet, some say 120, 125 or even 150 feet. And some say 10 floors or 12 or 15. It also depends on the city. A 500 foot building in Austin is quite a tall building, but in a place like New York it would go unnoticed. Even The Austonian would get lost in the crowd there. The biggest skyscraper cities in the world have thousands, not hundreds of highrises.

The actual number of highrises that Austin has is somewhere around 143. Traditionally 115 feet is what is considered to be a highrise. It's really just some arbitrary number that someone came up with to say "hey, this is a highrise vs a lowrise."

I have building heights for 132 completed buildings in Austin that are above 115 feet tall. It's taken me about 15 years to gather those heights.

There are 9 more buildings under construction now that I either have heights for proving that it's a highrise, or where it's known (over 10 or 12 floors), or assumed/estimated.

There's also at least three more buildings that I've estimated are highrises, but that I don't have heights for. These three buildings are two with 10 floors, and one has 9 floors.

So I know of 144 buildings in Austin that are at least 115 feet tall, either confirmed or estimated.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2012, 11:45 PM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Between RRock and a hard place
Posts: 4,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Hi-rise is a legitimate alternative spelling.

As for your critique of my argument, I've decided that I can only let the accumulated body of knowledge of my field of study speak for itself. If you think that time will prove you right, then time has the opportunity to prove you wrong as well. When most of these proposed towers are built, I trust that you will eat those words.
Peace wwmiv, I respect your opinion and your posts. Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything all the time. I'll gladly eat my words with a side of turd pie if all the towers get built or at least break ground by let's say the end of 2015
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2012, 3:19 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral View Post
Peace wwmiv, I respect your opinion and your posts. Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything all the time. I'll gladly eat my words with a side of turd pie if all the towers get built or at least break ground by let's say the end of 2015
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2012, 2:23 AM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,263
updated site plan here.

Elevations on pages 43 & 44.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2012, 2:42 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
Thanks for finding that. The elevation shows it to be 423 feet 3 inches to the mechanical penthouse and 400 feet to the main roof. That's 3 feet taller than the height they had given me.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2012, 3:36 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
The site plan also says it's 37 stories.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:36 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.