Austin | 6G | 874 Feet | 65 Floors | Complete - Page 25

loonytoony · #**481** Posted **Apr 12, 2018, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

That’s a crap ton of office space all in one place in DT. Certainly they’d have someone already committed to that, right?

EDIT: and I’m not even trying to be all HQ2 fan-boy about it, but am honestly curious... wouldn’t a project that size for the Austin market need a commitment for some/all to secure financing?

Most of the recent office towers have been almost entirely or completely pre-leased prior to completion. 500 W 2nd - Third and Shoal - 300 Colorado all examples. I can't imagine it will be too hard to find tenants.

KevinFromTexas · #**482** Posted **Apr 12, 2018, 4:40 AM**

Honestly, 556,700 square feet is big and would be the largest so far, but it's only about 11,000 square feet more than the Frost Bank Tower is. One American Center and One Congress Plaza are also each 517,000 and 530,000 square feet. 500 West 2nd also has a little more than 500,000 square feet.

ILUVSAT · #**483** Posted **Apr 12, 2018, 7:45 PM**

Have they decided to add back in the slanted roofline to get 890'?

Is there some way we could get confirmation on wether this thing is going to be 842' or 890'?

KevinFromTexas · #**484** Posted **Apr 12, 2018, 7:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Have they decided to add back in the slanted roofline to get 890'?

Is there some way we could get confirmation on wether this thing is going to be 842' or 890'?

We've already seen the 842 foot elevations that were posted to the city's AULCC page, but the site plan hasn't been approved and released yet from the site plan permit page. Perhaps it might show up there. If it doesn't, then we'll likely have to wait until Google Earth updates their imagery again to be able to measure it. The other route would be to contact someone at Gensler to confirm it.

That's why playing nice with the developers and or architects on the forum is beneficial.

Sigaven · #**485** Posted **Apr 12, 2018, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Have they decided to add back in the slanted roofline to get 890'?

Is there some way we could get confirmation on wether this thing is going to be 842' or 890'?

IIRC I don't think this one ever had a slanted roof line, you might be confused with Block 71

KevinFromTexas · #**486** Posted **Apr 12, 2018, 8:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaven

IIRC I don't think this one ever had a slanted roof line, you might be confused with Block 71

He's talking about this version:

ILUVSAT · #**487** Posted **Apr 12, 2018, 8:01 PM**

Yep.

kmack · #**488** Posted **Apr 12, 2018, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

... But it’s definitely from a reliable place, not just scuttlebutt. As always, you never know with development but the GC being chosen and getting logistics together is a really good sign.

Yes, the GC has been chosen and has already sent out bid requests. I don't have much more information as my company has decided not to pursue this project. Not sure if it's appropriate (or if anybody cares) to list who the GC is...

Jdawgboy · #**489** Posted **Apr 12, 2018, 9:08 PM**

Isn't Block 71 supposed to have around 600k square feet of office?

ILUVSAT · #**490** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 12:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Isn't Block 71 supposed to have around 600k square feet of office?

728,311...I thought, at last count. I'll try to find where I saw that. Maybe the site plan?!?

The ATX · #**491** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 3:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

That's why playing nice with the developers and or architects on the forum is beneficial.

The ATX · #**492** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 3:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Isn't Block 71 supposed to have around 600k square feet of office?

The number varies depending on the source, but it's around 650K to 665K.

The ATX · #**493** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 3:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmack

Yes, the GC has been chosen and has already sent out bid requests. I don't have much more information as my company has decided not to pursue this project. Not sure if it's appropriate (or if anybody cares) to list who the GC is...

Nah, that's not inappropriate, and we do care about GCs.

kmack · #**494** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 8:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Nah, that's not inappropriate, and we do care about GCs.

J E Dunn

The ATX · #**495** Posted **Apr 14, 2018, 11:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmack

J E Dunn

It's a good indicator of a project's viability when a GC is signed on. But it doesn't seem to necessarily indicate a project is financed. Since you are in the business, do GCs get just a small up front fee for signing on to a project without having to do much work at that time? Or do they get a substantial payment and start planning and lining up subcontractors right away?

the Genral · #**496** Posted **Apr 16, 2018, 1:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

We've already seen the 842 foot elevations that were posted to the city's AULCC page, but the site plan hasn't been approved and released yet from the site plan permit page. Perhaps it might show up there. If it doesn't, then we'll likely have to wait until Google Earth updates their imagery again to be able to measure it. The other route would be to contact someone at Gensler to confirm it.

That's why playing nice with the developers and or architects on the forum is beneficial.

Deleted. Whew...some of you would have really dug what I wrote,

others would have wished I was still gone

kmack · #**497** Posted **Apr 16, 2018, 7:46 PM**

ATX,
I'm not really sure when it comes to GC's being in during the development stage. I'm working for (and always have) a concrete Subcontractor. I just know that once a project goes out for a hard bid, then it's pretty much a go.

Now if the project is still in a budget phase, it's 50/50.

Although, I can't imagine a GC going in with an owner in the beginning w/o some sort of contract to allow for some compensation just in case the project doesn't make.

AustinGoesVertical · #**498** Posted **Apr 17, 2018, 5:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

It's a good indicator of a project's viability when a GC is signed on. But it doesn't seem to necessarily indicate a project is financed. Since you are in the business, do GCs get just a small up front fee for signing on to a project without having to do much work at that time? Or do they get a substantial payment and start planning and lining up subcontractors right away?

I think GCs and architects sometimes do a great deal of the initial legwork for no fee in hopes of eventually landing the project. I’m sure it’s different with projects of smaller scope but for a big one like this, they consider even $100K or so in man hours and work a noble investment for what could be a payout in the millions. Like a lot of the work for RFPs is done without guaranteed pay. GC can definitely get the ball rolling before financing but as with anything, it’s a risk assessment, so if they start putting in significant work - like putting out bid requests to subcontractors - they’re more than likely working with a developer who can cross their i’s and dot their t’s in the funding department, which is true of the developers in this case.

H2O · #**499** Posted **Apr 17, 2018, 10:45 AM**

It sounds to me like a Construction Manager at Risk project. This contracting method is increasingly common for large projects. It allows the GC to become part of the design team, providing construction feasibility and cost estimates earlier in the design phase. The CMAR receives a fee for their services in addition to the construction contract. If they are actually going out to bid to subs, it suggests the contract documents (construction drawings and specs) are at least 50% complete, and the project is green lighted, probably including financing. This is not likely unless there is a substantial amount of space pre-leased.

Jdawgboy · #**500** Posted **Apr 17, 2018, 2:53 PM**

Plus we also know that the developer, or in this case two developers, both have a good track record. I remember there was some speculation on whether the Bowie was going to get built and it was. I feel that this project is a pretty good bet on getting built.

The indicator I'm watching is when the Extended Stay shuts down. Once they close shop then demo and groundbreaking shouldn't be far behind. If they are still open at the end of the year with no indication that they are vacating then I might be concerned about financing. Considering the amount of projects we've thought might be in trouble but were built (Rainey 70 was not only slow to start but very slow to get going), there seems to be plenty of financing occuring here in Austin.