AUSTIN | Fairmont Hotel | 595 FEET SPIRE/456 FT ROOF | 37 FLRS | Complete - Page 46

Spaceman · #**901** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

I like the 5 corners and the way the one facade drops down to almost street level. It gives the appearance that the entire hotel room tower doesn't sit on a pedestal. The curved glass corner will have nice curb appeal. We haven't seen the final design on the ped bridge or how they will update the area up to the creek, but despite the lower height, I think we have a winner here. But I respect the opinion of anyone who disagrees.
Being so close to I35, this thing is going to look quite tall, in fact, it will be the tallest building on the eastside of dt. Unless you stick your head out the window or have the roof down on your car, you won't be able to see the top when you drive by. Sould also add a nice bookend effect when viewing dt from the boardwalk.

I can wait to stay there or celebrate my birthday in this new hotel.
I hope other projects, mentioned on this board, break ground soon...

GoldenBoot · #**902** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 12:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

...This project came reeeeally close to not getting financing and being put in turnaround, aka sell the land to cut their losses. The land could have sold...

The Manchester's are leasing the land...they do not own it!!! Who cares if the project didn't come through. Another one would not be that far behind this one. I know of three parties who were interested in the site.

GoldenBoot · #**903** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I'm sure it's to the spire. The roof height is probably around 450 feet. The JW Marriott has 12 foot floor-to-floor heights, so adding three more floors would make it 444 feet. I'll find out for sure what the height is.

Technically the hotel will still be the tallest in Texas (with the spire). Right now the tallest is the Sheraton Dallas Hotel Center Tower. It's 550 feet with 42 floors. Dallas has 3 hotels over 400 feet. Houston has one, with another one on the way. San Antonio has 2 and Fort Worth has 1.

Hotels over 400 feet:

Dallas - 3
San Antonio - 2 - (1 more planned)
Austin - 1 - (1 more planned) - 1 more that is mixed use, and another planned that is mixed use.
Houston - 1 - (1 more under construction)
Fort Worth - 1

If they cut 10 floors and didn't change anything else...then the top of the screen should be in the neighborhood of 470'-480' (then add the roughly 120' spire to get to 595').

GoldenBoot · #**904** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 12:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Nevermind. I think I found it.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...tel-financing/

I believe this may be the "old" version. Look at the cut-out on the hotel floors...that is no longer there, correct?!?

GoldenBoot · #**905** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 1:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You must be blind. How are you typing on the computer?

So...a box almost 300' wide and maybe 470' tall is beautiful? I am personally not a fan of any building with this ratio (it's width is ⅔ of its height)!

JoninATX · #**906** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 1:22 AM**

We can agree to disagree on this project. Yes I know it's disappointing but it's only 10 floors shorter, is it really that big of a deal? plus this will balance out the skyline. Having a 600ft or 700ft. tower on the eastern edge of downtown would look kind of tacky. Also on another note we have the Waller Creek project which if I'm not mistaken will start next month.

wwmiv · #**907** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 1:22 AM**

Have you looked at the high quality glass and interesting facade? It isn't an ugly building at all.

KevinFromTexas · #**908** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 1:58 AM**

Actually, I think this is the new design. First of all, notice the channel running up the tower on the skinny side of it in the below rendering? You can see it in the rendering above, too. Notice the lights under wear that channel begins? You can see them in the rendering below also. Notice the podium has two horizontal bands of blank wall bordered by two horizontal bands with windows. The only thing that is different is the rendering above shows the skybridge connecting it to the convention center, but if you look at the rendering below you can see the notch where it connects to. I believe the rendering above is showing it from the north with the skybridge crossing Red River, while the one on the bottom is showing it from the west along Cesar Chavez.

So it looks to me like the north side of the building won't be very slabby and will be diminished by a setback.

hookem · #**909** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 3:35 AM**

The skybridge is in the new rendering, it just looks much longer and kind of coincides with the horizon. But pretty sure what I'm looking at is the skybridge.

KevinFromTexas · #**910** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 3:49 AM**

Ah, you're right. Good eye. In any case, I think those do show the same design.

NYC2ATX · #**911** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 4:07 AM**

Now that I've had a day to mull it over, I'm feeling much better about it. Either way, it's going to be a stylish, and dare I say, glamorous building. And compared to the no-man's-land that area is now, it's going to be a marked improvement. And that Dallas turd is fugly.

But the best part about this is that it's not going to be taller than the Austonian. I never liked the idea of the city's tallest building being on one end of the skyline, and personally, if something is going to top the Austonian, I'd prefer it do so legitimately, and not with a silly flagpole on the roof.

As far as that, on to the ECC site, boys. As far as this, she ain't perfect but I'll take 'er.

ATXboom · #**912** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 1:46 PM**

$370m development in a current no mans land that will catalyze more development in the area...

Over 1000 rooms full of visitors ready to spend money downtown that will catalyze more entertainment and retail...

Hell yes I'll take it... Over nothing?? Hell to the yes.

Downtown_Austin · #**913** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 2:33 PM**

This updated design is a bit 'meh'... and I'm still having difficulty imagining a 37 story building being the 2nd tallest building in Austin. Even if the first few floors have extra ceiling clearance. I'm guessing, to Kevin's point, it's measured to the spire.

Austin1971 · #**914** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 3:39 PM**

They need to lose the spire. It doesn't fit with the current design. Other than that I'll take a 1000 room convention center hotel any day.

The current render versus the old looks the same to me minus 10 floors. How can everything be the same, footprint 1.74 acres, square footage 1.4 million, rooms 1066, cost 370 million and 10 floors get chopped off the top? I even heard a news reporter yesterday saying it was going to be 47 floors......I know Kevin will get us the true height but damn I wanted Austin to have the tallest hotel in Texas. And no a 100' flagpole doesn't count.

H2O · #**915** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

So I guess they won't need to file for another site plan permit since the original one had already been approved?

They will just have to file a correction for all sheets that show out of date information

KevinFromTexas · #**916** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 11:29 PM**

Well officially the way buildings are measured and heights recorded these days, is to include spire height. And let's be clear, there is a difference between a spire and a flagpole. The logic behind it is that if it's part of the building's design then it should be counted. This also applies for things like statues. Now, there are some rooftop elements that are not counted, and the reason is they are not part of the building's design. These are utilitarian objects like flagpoles, antennas, clocks, signs and any kind of rooftop ventilation object such as roof vents or HVAC systems. This is because those objects are not part of the design of the building. Objects like antennas, lightning rods, and ventilation are also routinely upgraded and replaced sometimes with different brands that are totally different in size/height. That makes it impossible to keep track of the heights of those structures and often times those objects are replaced/removed with no official announcement. Spires and statues, though, are permanent design fixtures of the building that won't be replaced. Even if one became structurally deficient at some point, it would simply be either repaired/restored or duplicated and replaced. The most famous case of that in Austin is the Texas Capitol. That is not the original statue up there. It replaced the original one in 1986. Anyway, that's a big big reason why I'm such a height hound. I know some people prefer to count spires or not, so that's why I like to seek out the heights of both the spire height and roof height so there's a mention of both.

My take on the spire is I don't mind it. I would prefer the hotel to be taller to the roof and then have the spire to make it more legit and properly scaled, but I'm still very curious to see how it'll look on the skyline. And I think it's going to look need at night. They may even light it. I'm not really a huge fan of spires, but sometimes they do look good on a building. 360 is an example of a building that really did need a spire. I can't imagine it without it. This one, though, I don't really care either way.

As for the increase in number of hotel rooms even though the building will have fewer floors, my guess is they'll be smaller. I also do think the tower has a bit more bulk. The podium also looks a bit taller than the original design.

KevinFromTexas · #**917** Posted **Oct 25, 2014, 11:43 PM**

Anyway, the news of this thing moving forward sure was popular. That night when news was posted here there were 80 users viewing the Austin section of the forum. That's the most I've ever seen viewing this section.

The ATX · #**918** Posted **Oct 26, 2014, 12:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You must be blind. How are you typing on the computer?

Nice.

Austin1971 · #**919** Posted **Oct 26, 2014, 3:55 PM**

I think it's a bit deceiving to the general public touting this project as Austin's second tallest building when in reality it's not. They need to release the actual roof height so the public will have a true idea of how tall the building will be and what impact it will have on the city's skyline. I guess Manchester is trying to gin up publicity and touting it as the second tallest when it's really a 450 footer with a big flagpole on top. Just ranting since we've been talking about this project for over 2 years now......

brando · #**920** Posted **Oct 26, 2014, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austin1971

I think it's a bit deceiving to the general public touting this project as Austin's second tallest building when in reality it's not. They need to release the actual roof height so the public will have a true idea of how tall the building will be and what impact it will have on the city's skyline. I guess Manchester is trying to gin up publicity and touting it as the second tallest when it's really a 450 footer with a big flagpole on top. Just ranting since we've been talking about this project for over 2 years now......

I think you are overreacting. I'm not sure the people outside of this board know much of anything about the hotel other then the pictures on the site and that is likely all they have seen. I'm really glad they shortened it. I think a super tall building within the interior of downtown is great but on on the edge blocking the depth of the district isn't fantastic. The complex on the other side of Ceaser will add to the closed off look when viewing downtown from that angle.