AUSTIN | The Independent | 690 FEET | 58 FLOORS | Complete

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Hey Kev, not rounding up to nearest foot? 688' vs. 687'.

687 feet 0 inches was the number I came up with. Since the elevations don't show the heights all the way to the top - only up to 657 feet 6 inches, I had to use a piece of paper to measure out the rest. I marked the distances between the top and bottom of the mechanical penthouse/crown and then compared it to some of the numbers on the rest of the tower where could line up the marks I made. I came up with a height for the mechanical penthouse of 49 feet 6 inches. I then added that height to the main roof height of 637 feet 6 inches. How are you guys getting 687 feet 6 inches?

[ivanwolf]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

687 feet 0 inches was the number I came up with. Since the elevations don't show the heights all the way to the top - only up to 657 feet 6 inches, I had to use a piece of paper to measure out the rest. I marked the distances between the top and bottom of the mechanical penthouse/crown and then compared it to some of the numbers on the rest of the tower where could line up the marks I made. I came up with a height for the mechanical penthouse of 49 feet 6 inches. I then added that height to the main roof height of 637 feet 6 inches. How are you guys getting 687 feet 6 inches?

I use a program PDF-XChanger Viewer that will take the scale of a drawing and accurately allow for measure on items not having dimensions.

I find that its 50' higher totaling 687'6"

[ILUVSAT]

Yep. GoldenBoot stated this a few days ago. 687.5' tall.

637'6" + 10' + 10' + 30' = 687'6" It says it right there on the sheet even without ivanwolf's marks. But, thank you for doing that ivan.

[KevinFromTexas]

Ok cool. I'd never heard of that. Which one do you use? I could definitely use that on a few other building elevations.

360 comes to mind since it doesn't have the dimensions listed on all the points on the spire.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Yep. GoldenBoot stated this a few days ago. 687.5' tall.

637'6" + 10' + 10' + 30' = 687'6" It says it right there on the sheet even without ivanwolf's marks. But, thank you for doing that ivan.

Ok, I didn't see that. Those numbers are only listed on the first elevation - which I didn't use.

[JACKinBeantown]

URL Harborside in Jersey City... From towerpower123 on SkyscraperCity

You can see that the columns go straight up even when the floor plates shift horizontally, so I naturally assume the same structural/design element will be used in Austin.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Ok cool. I'd never heard of that. Which one do you use? I could definitely use that on a few other building elevations.

360 comes to mind since it doesn't have the dimensions listed on all the points on the spire.

Actually, the site plan for 360 does. The tower is 580'11" tall (rounded to 581').

1051'11" elevation - 471'0" elevation = 580'11" in height.

Where this program could be useful is to figure out how tall Tower C of Waller really is when you include the screening (which obviously rises above the mech. penthouse roof).

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Actually, the site plan for 360 does. The tower is 580'11" tall (rounded to 581').

1051'11" elevation - 471'0" elevation = 580'11" in height.

Where this program could be useful is to figure out how tall Tower C of Waller really is when you include the screening (which obviously rises above the mech. penthouse roof).

Yes, I know the elevations for 360 show the spire height to the top, but they don't show the height to the glass part of the spire. I was hoping for more of a breakdown of the heights since there are several points on the building's top.

I downloaded one of those programs that ivanwolf mentioned and tried with the 360 elevation to measure the spire, but didn't have any luck. I set the scale ratio to 1'' to 30' as the scale for the elevations says, but it was giving me numbers that were obviously wrong.

And yes, I was also thinking of Waller Park Place. I could use it for a lot of others as well that don't always show the setbacks. The elevations for the Bowie for example don't show the heights for the wing on the north side of the building.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yes, I know the elevations for 360 show the spire height to the top, but they don't show the height to the glass part of the spire. I was hoping for more of a breakdown of the heights since there are several points on the building's top.

Ahh, I see. Didn't understand what specific number for which you were searching. My apologies.

[KevinFromTexas]

Sneak peek at the #Owner's #Lounge on the 34th floor - only The Independent Austin! #DeclareYourselfHome #ATX

https://www.facebook.com/independent...type=1&theater

[drummer]

That's a pretty great view. I'll agree with wwmiv's previous comment that they should finish out the other buildings in their renderings, though. While the view would still be stellar, a completed Green Water area would change it a little bit.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Are you guys ready for this? They released the elevations today...

They start on page 9.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...enue_PLANS.pdf

I'm really disappointed in all the ground floor parking along the creek. The trails back there are going to be pretty active once the new connections and Rio Grande bike bridge are done. I think something like a bike station would be a much better use. http://home.bikestation.com/

They seem to be marketing to trail users and that whole lifestyle, and yet they go and flip the bird to the creek. I just don't get it.

[Austinshrink]

Here's the response i received last week when inquiring. I just posted similar info for 5th & West. Enjoy!


B5, B6, B7 plans on floors 50-51 will run between $1-1.2M.
C2 on floors 50-51 will run around 1.5M.
C1 on floors 52-58 will run $1.5-1.9M.
C3 on floors 52-58 will run $1.75-2.2M.
C4 on floors 52-58 will run $2.3-2.75M.
C5 on floors 52-58 will run $3-3.6M.

HOA costs are estimated to be around or under $0.50/ft - and only based on interior footage.

We’ll start taking reservations the second week of June. $10,000 will hold a specific unit and lock the price through completion of building in 2018. The fee is refundable until we switch to contract in September/October.

At contract we're asking 7.5% earnest money on primary/secondary unit, 10% on investor. A year down the line we’ll ask 5% on primary/secondary, and 10% on investor. A year later primary/secondary will be asked 2.5%. Totals are 15% on primary/secondary and 20% on investment. The remainder is due at closing.

Please let me know if you’re interested. We're asking for unit preferences by end of month so we can start setting the reservation appointments.

[KevinFromTexas]

The Independent Austin - https://www.facebook.com/independent...type=1&theater


The Independent Austin - https://www.facebook.com/independent...type=1&theater


The Independent Austin - https://www.facebook.com/independent...type=1&theater

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

http://www.independentaustin.com


Look at the floor-to-ceiling height differential between 360 and Independent. Seems to be quite a disparity. Even a 6" to 12" difference in ceiling height can make a huge impact on the feel of the space.

A slightly different rendering than the one above.


The Independent Austin - https://www.facebook.com/independent...type=1&theater

[BuzzBuzzEva]

Another new interior rendering! You can stay up to date with all new renderings and new information by following The Independent on BuzzBuzzHome: http://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/the-independent1

[KevinFromTexas]

The Independent Austin - https://www.facebook.com/independent...type=1&theater

[AusTxDevelopment]

Two things occur to my cynical mind when looking at this rendering. 1. People are going to fall off that elevated wooden deck and right into that pool trying to squeeze past those chairs, and 2. The folks who buy the units overhanging the pool better be sound sleepers and/or early risers. I've lived in apartments that faced the pool, and it gets noisy at odd hours. And yes I realize this is just a rendering and not the actual layout of how it will eventually look. But that's my gut reaction to seeing the rendering, so it's not working if its trying to get me to want to live there. But I'm a cynic and not their target audience, so there's that.

Also it seems to get a little Escher-esque toward the bottom of the rendering. Except for the flat dogs in the dog playroom rendering, they've been pretty realistic as far as computer renderings go. This one confuses me a bit. I probably need more (or less) beer.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The Independent Austin - https://www.facebook.com/independent...type=1&theater

[drummer]

Ha, I understand the Escher influence, but the pool having a clear wall on that side by the stairs gives it that seemingly-impossible shape. If you look closely at the clear wall and make it solid in your mind, it would make sense. With the stairs and the sort of tessellation pattern along the wall below the stairs, it certainly speaks to Escher.

I was thinking the same thing about those bottom rooms being right over the pool. Not for me. However, the thing that caught my eye is the stairs that go down that cut into the pool - I think of kids playing in the pool or something and splashing around while someone is walking up the stairs, unsuspecting...and get soaked.

[KevinFromTexas]

https://www.facebook.com/independent...type=3&theater