AUSTIN | 300 Colorado | 446 FEET | 32 FLOORS | COMPLETE

[austlar1]

Two huge parking podium buildings just a block apart. We should start calling it the Car-house District. Joking aside, it is important to keep in mind that more jobs downtown help maintain the demand for more housing. Presumably this building will house at least some workers earning enough (and having the desire) to live downtown. I'm pretty sure the high end condo market is near saturation at this point, or it will be soon.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by freerover

It's important to remember that these building is only 1/4 of a block. Garages in buildings this slender are extremely inefficient due to the limited flat open space for actual cars.



There might be a finite amount of money that they are have to spend. You would be asking for more money from an investor and telling him it'll take longer to recoup it. You are also increasing the amount of time it'll take to recoup your investment especially since they are building 1 floor of garage for every 1.3 floors of office. It's not only the 1 time extra in construction costs but also the increased costs of utilities, and building maintenance from more floors.



Adding more levels for offices also adds more levels for garages. At some point, you reach a reasonable (and likely legal) limit of how many levels of garage you can build so you can't keep building office levels because they don't have the parking spaces to support them.




[Not trying to be jerkish. Really asking] If it's so simple and makes so much sense then why is it happening like this?

On the parking, that's really part of my point is that I don't understand this ratio. I think you should be able to add more office space without adding a proportionate amount of parking. Now as we've belabored over and over, Austin doesn't have the best public transportation infrastructure (what we really need is light rail) but it still seems like way too much parking.

And if it had to increase variably, then 15-20 story podiums become a logistical and inefficient nightmare on a lot with this small of a footprint.

My original statement did have a level of simplification, which you actually touched on when you talked about a funding limit. While you could increase the debt, it's entirely possible that the developer doesn't have the going-in equity required to lever up the project. Say they got a 65-percent LTV loan for this project, that's still about $60 million needed from equity partners to fund the construction.

So it's possible that's where funding is dried up, but these projects are often joint ventures so with the underlying data backing the Austin market they should in theory be able to source more capital.

Now, maybe the single-year snapshot is attractive but investors and even lenders are weary of Austin's long-term stability. The going-in rate might look good, but maybe they don't buy the year-by-year projections. But this isn't spec office, when you're talking about securing 12-year leases before an excavator even moves, then there's a little more certainty there.

That's probably their big sell when getting the requisite capital, so I do wonder what puts a sort of cap on these projects. We've seen other cities with lower PSF for Class A office space and more supply deliver much more aggregate square footage and usually it's packaged in buildings in the 45-65 story range. So Chicago, NYC, and San Francisco have arguably less robust markets but are somehow getting it done.

My one answer here would be that investors have not fully bought into the Austin market, but I'm not really sure why that is.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by paul78701

With an office tower, at least they avoid the potential problem of residents complaining about noise from the Warehouse District nightlife.

[KevinFromTexas]

I think we're reaching a point where without better mass transit into downtown that we'll hit a wall with development. 18 floors of office space sitting atop a 13 story stump of parking is not urban and it's not sustainable, both for the long term of desiring to decrease the need to travel into and out of downtown (by car) and to decrease traffic as a result of that. It's also not the best use of land since we're risking running out of it in a relatively small area that is supposed to be zoned to accommodate the highest densities and height in the city with the best transit connections to all the areas surrounding it. I think developers understand better than the city does that their tenants have to get to work somehow and they have to be able to leave. Providing better transit is not the responsibility of developers and their buildings being car-centric isn't exactly their fault. They can promote having their tenants ride bikes by having showers and lockers and bike storage, but on a larger scale, the city needs to step up and step in. The push for more housing in downtown is also eventually going to be threatened if the transit issue isn't fixed because no one wants to be stuck on an island unable to get off. Living on an island sounds nice and all, but without either bridges or ferries at your disposal, you're just a prisoner. At this point, some of the development such as this that we're seeing in downtown is no more urban or better than what areas along highways are seeing. Just office buildings with sufficient parking spaces. Seeing this reality playout I don't believe we have a chance to win Amazon's bid, for example. It's going to have to take a few major losses like that before the city gets serious about taking on mass transit for real, and if it means losing something like Amazon to get it, then so be it.

[Jdawgboy]

Okay I missed the part that there would still be a restaurant component, however my concern lines up with what others have said.

If there is such high demand for office space, then why are we not seeing an increase of larger building proposals? I would have expected we would start to see multiple buildings at least as large as 6th and Lavaca if not larger. We only have so much space left. I figured that we have finally reached the threshold for the next level of office construction but we can't seem to really move past these sorts of midrise offices on top of giant parking podiums.

[austlar1]

Another forum participant, who shall go un-named, predicted about 6 or 7 years ago that development in downtown Austin was finished until such a time that public transit (preferably that person's beloved 2001 light rail proposal) became a reality downtown. The exact opposite happened. I am beginning to think that Austin might somehow create a dense central city without rapid transit being a significant part of the mix. We bitch and moan about traffic, but anybody who has spent time trying to drive in other larger cities knows that Austin's traffic woes are about what you find elsewhere regardless of transit options. I am not sure that morning and evening traffic jams in the vicinity of downtown will mean an end to development.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Okay I missed the part that there would still be a restaurant component, however my concern lines up with what others have said.

If there is such high demand for office space, then why are we not seeing an increase of larger building proposals? I would have expected we would start to see multiple buildings at least as large as 6th and Lavaca if not larger. We only have so much space left. I figured that we have finally reached the threshold for the next level of office construction but we can't seem to really move past these sorts of midrise offices on top of giant parking podiums.

The answer you are looking for is to tell developers that they can't build anything higher than 10 floors unless it's at least a half city block. That's the problem here. You have to make it so the only opportunity is for lot owners to parter with their neighboring lot so they have a bigger foundation to work from so they can build something bigger. 6th and Lavaca has about 3/4 of a lot to work with.

I'm not sure what all the other building proposals like this you are referring to. I know of 400 Colorado that is similar and it to is on a lot of similar size. Offices need parking spaces and skinny garages are extremely inefficient in how much space can be utilized for spaces.

[wwmiv]

That would make downtown less urban and less walkable by promoting super blocks.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

That would make downtown less urban and less walkable by promoting super blocks.

That's not what a superblock is.

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

On the parking, that's really part of my point is that I don't understand this ratio. I think you should be able to add more office space without adding a proportionate amount of parking. Now as we've belabored over and over, Austin doesn't have the best public transportation infrastructure (what we really need is light rail) but it still seems like way too much parking.

It's not too much parking as it's on par with the industry. However, it's fair for you to disagree and say you shouldn't need to provide parking for office space. The issue then for investors is trying to lease out an office building without much parking for an interested company. I'm sure if the developers of the building thought they could do that then they would have.

[wwmiv]

A superblock is a type of city block that is much larger than a typical city block or a regular block that, when walked, feels much larger than a typical city block. Having the same building across an entire city block accomplishes the latter.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

A superblock is a type of city block that is much larger than a typical city block or a regular block that, when walked, feels much larger than a typical city block.

Yep.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Having the same building across an entire city block accomplishes the latter.

No it doesn't. What your describing is a regular block.

[wwmiv]

... okay... whatever you say, captain.

[KevinFromTexas]

I actually have a hard time seeing superblocks as being super.

Speaking of superblocks, there's a thread going on them now.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=231067

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by freerover

The answer you are looking for is to tell developers that they can't build anything higher than 10 floors unless it's at least a half city block. That's the problem here. You have to make it so the only opportunity is for lot owners to parter with their neighboring lot so they have a bigger foundation to work from so they can build something bigger. 6th and Lavaca has about 3/4 of a lot to work with.

I'm not sure what all the other building proposals like this you are referring to. I know of 400 Colorado that is similar and it to is on a lot of similar size. Offices need parking spaces and skinny garages are extremely inefficient in how much space can be utilized for spaces.

I was including 3rd and shoal so should have said what is under construction as well. Even 600 Guadalupe will essentially be the same thing when you just look at the office segment. If not for the residential potion, it would be about 30-31 floors. Another point is that there are other cities that have tall office towers that don't have large contiguous floor plates. It's established that most companies prefer as many of their workers as possible on the same floor, but if they can do it in other cities, then I don't see why they can't in Austin. It comes down to our city's horribly outdated zoning rules regarding building highrises. Something that the city council should have tackled years ago. Let's face it, don't expect more than another bland box with little in the way of it standing out. I will be shocked if the new renderings show anything else.

[We vs us]

I know we've had a lot of discussion about why the Austin Podium is what it is -- it's just distressing to see buildings that might otherwise break it up be pulled back down to within those constraints.

Kind of waiting for Austin Towers to do an authoritative explainer on the subject . . . .

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Okay I missed the part that there would still be a restaurant component, however my concern lines up with what others have said.

If there is such high demand for office space, then why are we not seeing an increase of larger building proposals? I would have expected we would start to see multiple buildings at least as large as 6th and Lavaca if not larger. We only have so much space left. I figured that we have finally reached the threshold for the next level of office construction but we can't seem to really move past these sorts of midrise offices on top of giant parking podiums.

There is more space left than one might realize. As I've mentioned before, there are plenty of spots with low slung buildings on them that can be redeveloped.

Also, last I looked, CodeNext expands the amount of zoning that is CBD. In particular, I recall significant expansion into much of the northwest part of downtown (north to 12th and west to Lamar...if I'm remembering correctly).

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I was including 3rd and shoal so should have said what is under construction as well. Even 600 Guadalupe will essentially be the same thing when you just look at the office segment. If not for the residential potion, it would be about 30-31 floors.

I forgot about 3rd and Shoal. Good call. It's a really good point of comparison about the ratio of garage to office floors as it relates to building width. While it looks like 300 Colorado has more parking per sq ft of office, it likely has less due to how drastically efficiency drops in garages as they become thinner.

What point are you making about 600 Guad. Do you think that if we fix the core problem, 600 guadalupe would be 100 floors instead of 60-70 because it will add offices?

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Another point is that there are other cities that have tall office towers that don't have large contiguous floor plates. It's established that most companies prefer as many of their workers as possible on the same floor, but if they can do it in other cities, then I don't see why they can't in Austin.

Do you really know how many buildings in other cities are super tall office towers that are independent developments? By that I mean that they have no business affiliation with any garages that might be on the same lot. I really don't think office space without parking is as common (outside of NYC and maybe Chi) as you seem to think.

I think another factor might be that there seems to be very very few dedicated public garages on the west side of downtown. You can drive through downtown houston, dallas and other cities and see a healthy diet of dedicated big garages and I don't think you have that nearly as much (certainly not in west DT) in Austin.

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

It comes down to our city's horribly outdated zoning rules regarding building highrises. Something that the city council should have tackled years ago.

What specifically do you want changed about high-rise zoning?

[ATXboom]

[QUOTE=freerover;8042324]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

What specifically do you want changed about high-rise zoning?

I'd love to see the FAR requirement inversed. Meaning that developers have to meet a minimum FAR ratio otherwise they incur some cost/penalty. This would drive densification in CBD. Currently the FAR policy does the opposite - limits the density on lots - developers incur costs/penalties if they exceed the FAR threshold... that's just bone-headed.

I'd also like to see form/use policies strengthened to those of say Portland... to enhance and optimize the ground level pedestrian experience. E.g. limit curb cuts, dictate ground floor uses, control form (ie great streets), etc.

[Jdawgboy]

[QUOTE=ATXboom;8042420]

Originally Posted by freerover

I'd love to see the FAR requirement inversed. Meaning that developers have to meet a minimum FAR ratio otherwise they incur some cost/penalty. This would drive densification in CBD. Currently the FAR policy does the opposite - limits the density on lots - developers incur costs/penalties if they exceed the FAR threshold... that's just bone-headed.

I'd also like to see form/use policies strengthened to those of say Portland... to enhance and optimize the ground level pedestrian experience. E.g. limit curb cuts, dictate ground floor uses, control form (ie great streets), etc.

ATXboom sums it up nicely. This is something the city should have dealt with 10 years ago.

[nixcity]

Here is a good article about our beautiful garage podiums.

https://austinonyourfeet.com/2018/01...build-parking/

According to a prominent local developer a good way to fix this is to, "have above ground parking count against allowable FAR."