AUSTIN: Green Water Treatment Plant & Seaholm Power Plant Redevelopment Update Thread

[dee_dub]

isnt it about time to separate seaholm with green water?

[AusTex]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I think the posted article kind of illustrates my point that the comments and criticism made on this site do not go un-noticed by the media and probably by the developers of these various projects.

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Your constant whining about every single project finally paid off.

Michael B......are you the one moving to...? If so who will be the designated "whiner"? Oouch!

I am glad sooo many negative comments were written about the latest rendering. That is the ONE block left on the waterfront, and really all of downtown, that the development MUST enhance the skyline. That development (on city land) will ALWAYS be visible from many, many, many perspectives. As I have stated before...twin towers would be a mistake there as was the previous design; however, I would take the older design over the monstrosity in the latest rendering in a heart beat.

Way to go Forumers! Keep the dialogue going.

[MightyYoda]

Originally Posted by AusTex

Michael B......are you the one moving to...? If so who will be the designated "whiner"? Oouch!

I am glad sooo many negative comments were written about the latest rendering. That is the ONE block left on the waterfront, and really all of downtown, that the development MUST enhance the skyline. That development (on city land) will ALWAYS be visible from many, many, many perspectives. As I have stated before...twin towers would be a mistake there as was the previous design; however, I would take the older design over the monstrosity in the latest rendering in a heart beat.

Way to go Forumers! Keep the dialogue going.

While I am not overly fond of the building, it is just one of the buildings and there hasn't been an updated rendering of how the whole block would look with the new design or if they would keep the theme constant as the previous rendering showed. I also agree it is the most visible block on the waterfront left, but not the only one considering the Rainey St. district.

I would like to see a few more renderings before passing final judgement, but I do feel the design needs more to it from what little we have seen.

[KevinFromTexas]

I wasn't completely sure if this had been posted or not. It shows the office building.

http://www.cityfeet.com/cont/ForLeas...ustin-TX-78701

[OtherKevin]

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I wasn't completely sure if this had been posted or not. It shows the office building.

http://www.cityfeet.com/cont/ForLeas...ustin-TX-78701

all these need to be captured on our first page main forum!

[The ATX]

Great update!

[KevinFromTexas]

Interesting.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl....html?page=all

Sep 18, 2013, 2:41pm CDT
Downtown Austin development looks to cash in on condo market

Robert Grattan
Staff Writer-
Austin Business Journal

Downtown Austin's Seaholm development has converted its residential units from 309 apartments to 280 condominiums, according to the website for the project.

The switch could position Seaholm as one of the only projects downtown offering condos in an Austin real estate market that has been starved for condo inventory. If the shift proves successful, it could be an indicator that the financial markets backing developments are returning to prerecession strength.

[GoldenBoot]

Look for more to come...the lending environment is beginning to change regarding projects in Austin.

[JoninATX]

Switching from apartments to condos. Sounds like a great change in the Austin market.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

Switching from apartments to condos. Sounds like a great change in the Austin market.

I agree -- there is a big hole in the Austin market for those who want to become homeowners (ie stop renting) but live centrally. The SF homes are unattainably expensive (for the first time buyer), and the condo market went from non-existent to tiny during the last boom. In other cities with desirable central areas, there is a much bigger condo market that serves as a step-up market for first time buyers. I'm thinking of CA cities especially. We need that here now.

[Solutioneur]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

Switching from apartments to condos. Sounds like a great change in the Austin market.

Prices are supposed to range from $400-$550 per square foot. That's more than 360 and Spring. Not much info on quality and finishes, but the market is for condos priced between $250-$350 per square foot and asking buyers to wait 2-3 years will be a tough sell.

No word yet on when they'll begin the sales process.

[bigdogc]

Most condos DT are going for well over 400sq/ft. I wonder if this will bring the average costs of DT condos down a bit when new inventory hits in 2-3 years.

[MichaelB]

Really happy to see more owner occupied on the market!

[corvairkeith]

9-22-13

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/news/busine...-instea/nZ7dY/

Posted: 10:37 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2013
Seaholm project’s evolution shifts to condos, instead of apartments

By Shonda Novak
American-Statesman Staff

The vision for the redevelopment of Austin’s former Seaholm Power Plant site has evolved several times over the past few years — and now developers are tweaking the plans again.

A planned 30-story apartment tower on the site will now house about 280 luxury condominiums instead, the developer told the American-Statesman on Wednesday.

[H2O]

Yes, $500 sf for this location is moderately priced.

[Solutioneur]

Originally Posted by H2O

Yes, $500 sf for this location is moderately priced.

The location justifies those prices? You're suggesting it has nothing to do with the quality, finishes and amenities?

It's an apartment (unless we see some upgrades from the financed design) and that means it's worth $300 PSF. As they release additional information you'll see this project isn't much different than the Gables next door. It costs $3.00/SF per month to live next door or about $2,000/Month for a 1-bedroom. If you believe the Seaholm apartments are worth $500 SF to purchase, that's about $3,600 per month for essentially the same product.

You attribute that to the "location?" The "location" next door has a value of $300 PSF. Same product, same value.

[Solutioneur]

Originally Posted by H2O

Yes, $500 sf for this location is moderately priced.

For those that were following the discussion about Seaholm as condos:

If Austonian is the current standard for luxury ($600 PSF) there is no comparison to rental properties. Suggesting the Seaholm apartments are comparable at $500 PSF is silly. If you make specific comparisons you'll find very little is comparable - from finishes, building quality and developer provided amenities. That's why it cost $280 PSF (blended) to construct Austonian and the construction budget for Seaholm is only $180 PSF (blended). That's a big difference. If we wanted to demonstrate that difference we'd simply double the construction cost PSF and Austonian would price at $560 PSF and Seaholm would be $360 PSF, but we don't know yet what additional investments the Seaholm Developer will make based on the switch to condos.

Based on the $500 PSF quoted price for Seaholm condos and rents at the similarly designed Gables (next door), it would take 18 years before buying was better than renting. If you purchased the condo and stayed for 6 years and then sold it, renting is much better. It would cost $38,612 less than buying, an average savings of $6,435 each year. This includes everything related to purchasing or renting and is based on a $2,100 rent (increasing 3% a year) and a $350,000 purchase price with 10% down.

If, as Ive suggested, the real value (and price) of the Seaholm Apartments-Condos is $350 PSF, then buying would be better. If you purchased the condo and stayed for 6 years and then sold it, buying is a little better. It would cost $7,165 less than renting, an average savings of $1,194 each year. Buying is actually better than renting after 5 years. That's reasonable, 18 years is not.

You can enter the data here and see the results:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/b...ator.html?_r=0

By using this very objective calculator and entering all the relevant data it becomes clear when buying is better than renting - the primary factor is the price. $350 PSF makes sense, $500 PSF does not.

[jngreenlee]

http://michaelbluejay.com/house/rentvsbuy.html

The results from this calculator are different and interesting.