HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 3:22 AM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahealy View Post
This is great! Hoping a more solid venue could be incorporated into the base. AMH sucked so hard.
.
Yeah... that's where I am ... but sincerely doubt that will happen. I suspect all the spin over the AMH brand is just public relations BS.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 12:08 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Er uh...
Posts: 6,349
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 2:39 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
<Here
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 6EQUJ5
Posts: 5,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown View Post
Nice find there. It looks stubby, but it appears to be about 25-stories which isn't too far off from the announced 28-stories.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 4:15 PM
tsm tsm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ATX View Post
Nice find there. It looks stubby, but it appears to be about 25-stories which isn't too far off from the announced 28-stories.
I don't believe that is it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 4:25 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
<Here
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 6EQUJ5
Posts: 5,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm View Post
I don't believe that is it.
The address is correct, and the 2nd St. bridge over Shoal creek is where it should be. I just think it is an old rendering.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 6:14 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 2,081
Correct me if I am wrong, should there be a required setback on the Shoal Creek side of this building? If so, the building would not be square (or cube-like) in design.

The rendering may be a place holder design.

I also do not see the three 28-foot floors described in the ABJ & AAS articles.
__________________
Austin (City): 947,890 +19.93% - '10-'16 | Austin MSA (5 counties): 2,056,405 +19.82% - '10-'16
San Antonio (City): 1,492,510 +12.44% - '10-'16 | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,429,609 +13.40% - '10-'16
AUS-SAT "CSA" (13 counties): 4,486,014 +16.25% - '10-'16 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 6:51 PM
paul78701 paul78701 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoot View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, should there be a required setback on the Shoal Creek side of this building? If so, the building would not be square (or cube-like) in design.

The rendering may be a place holder design.

I also do not see the three 28-foot floors described in the ABJ & AAS articles.
They'll likely ask for a variance. I'm betting this was a very early rendering and that an update will be forthcoming.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 8:49 PM
_Matt _Matt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 329
That's not even the correct location. The new bridge is the 2nd street bridge, but this building is on 3rd street (despite the address of 208, which yes, perhaps seems closer to 200 than 300).

Also I don't see the 28 foot floors mentioned in the press release.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 8:56 PM
AusTxDevelopment AusTxDevelopment is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 496


Quote:
Originally Posted by The ATX View Post
Nice find there. It looks stubby, but it appears to be about 25-stories which isn't too far off from the announced 28-stories.
It looks stubby because the picture is stretched - check out the white car at the bottom left. It probably looks a lot more like 500 West 2nd's rendering if it was sized correctly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 3:15 AM
Syndic's Avatar
Syndic Syndic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Matt View Post
The new bridge is the 2nd street bridge, but this building is on 3rd street.
It's probably the (eventual) bridge across 3rd Street.

One thing is for sure; it's scrunched up. Look at those cars.
__________________
Anti-palm trees. Death to I-35!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 3:28 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
<Here
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 6EQUJ5
Posts: 5,553
I stretched it to make it more in proportion to this reality:

__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 3:40 AM
AusTxDevelopment AusTxDevelopment is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ATX View Post
I stretched it to make it more in proportion to this reality:

Thanks ATX!

Its such a strange looking building. I wonder if that brownish-orange part is metal or wood or what. I'm not a fan, but this is a preliminary rendering and buildings change drastically between the very first design and construction. It looks like the ground floor is two-stories tall and the penthouse is two-stories tall, but it's hard to tell. That would make it technically 28 stories tall, if that rendering is anywhere close to correct.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 4:36 AM
AustinGoesVertical AustinGoesVertical is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 397
Thanks for stretching the rendering! So what do people think? Will this one ultimately be taller than 3rd and Colorado and 500 West 2nd Street? The fact that three of the unique-office style floors will take up a combined 90 feet, this one looks like it could crack 400, especially if some sort of lit crown is added, a la 3rd and Colorado.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 7:53 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,006
Looks too stubby to be anywhere near 400 feet. I find it hard to believe that is the rendering for this project. It may have been an earlier version but I would surely hope that if there is a new rendering the design looks better than that.

Also if they want to have accurate placement they should get rid of the building next to it that has the same height.

I'm not a fan of the design as is even if it's an early version it leaves little hope an update would be much better. The new DT office buildings and proposals are unimaginative and boring save for 3rd @ Colorado and it's glass is what saves it for me. The IBC building is okay for its location.

Instead of these short buildings which are more parking garage than office I'd rather see a taller tower with a nice design that would make an impact on the skyline. The more 18 to 28 floor office buildings that are proposed and built the less likely we will see a real office tower like the ones in Houston or Dallas. At this rate I seriously doubt we will see an office building over 33 floors for at least 5 years if not longer.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 12:22 PM
tsm tsm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 8
[QUOTE=Jdawgboy;7090565]Looks too stubby to be anywhere near 400 feet.

It's just under 400 ft. I think around 380ft or something like that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 2:54 PM
hereinaustin hereinaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 231
Is there some sort of local ordinance, lending issue, construction cost issue, or something else that keeps so many of our buildings around 400'? In other words, why are developers finding it unprofitable to go taller in our market?

My guess is it has something do with land cost being relatively cheap, lenders and city ordinances requiring parking minimums and FAR ratios, and perhaps not enough demand for density from consumers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 4:01 PM
paul78701 paul78701 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereinaustin View Post
Is there some sort of local ordinance, lending issue, construction cost issue, or something else that keeps so many of our buildings around 400'? In other words, why are developers finding it unprofitable to go taller in our market?

My guess is it has something do with land cost being relatively cheap, lenders and city ordinances requiring parking minimums and FAR ratios, and perhaps not enough demand for density from consumers.
I think the density bonus program is a bit backwards. Instead of making developers pay what seems like a penalty TO build taller, why they don't offer incentives FOR building taller?

Yes, the developers make more money that way, but the city does too. It would bring more of the density that the city wants/needs and surely more tax dollars. There would be more condos units to get property tax from, more hotel room stays to get tax money from, more office space to tax, etc. The buildings would just be worth more in general. Or maybe there's more to it than I understand?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 4:39 PM
AustinGoesVertical AustinGoesVertical is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 397
In my opinion, they're not taking advantage of an opportunity to truly separate themselves from other spec buildings. 500 W. 2nd, 3rd and Colorado, and 5th and Colorado are all essentially the same in that they are glass boxes. I personally like glass buildings but I'd like to see more differentiation. If you were a firm would you pay a premium to headline a thin 700 ft tower rather than a 400 ft cube. Maybe? I just think that's the direction AMH should go with this one. With the required set backs on shoal creek, why not build the parking and new music venue along the creek in a midrise and then go 40-50 stories with a thin point tower, enabling views that won't be obstructed by Austin Proper and Greenwater Residential #2. You'd think tenants would pay a premium for a view as 500 W. 2nd won't have one on at least 2 faces of the tower. My hope is that Austin's first blockbuster office building will be the private portion of the civil courthouse project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 5:06 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical View Post
If you were a firm would you pay a premium to headline a thin 700 ft tower rather than a 400 ft cube.
No. Smaller floor plates reduce a company's productivity because it increases average walking travel time between employees who thus have to be stationed on different levels. That's why office towers are usually squatter buildings, because companies really want as many employees as possible on as few levels as possible (to increase productivity and thus bang for buck).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 8:01 PM
dphogan's Avatar
dphogan dphogan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 17
You have to have tenants for the tall office towers that Houston/Dallas etc build. I'm thinking that it's better to have a fully leased 35 story building then constantly trying to fill a 50 story building. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see them be built, but I think Houston and what not are not good comparisons for Austin. Houston is the 4th largest city in the country with plenty of fortune 500 companies to fill multiple floors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:26 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.