HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 9:26 PM
_Matt _Matt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 327
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.
According to Kevin Burns, there is a fire code regulation that significantly increases expenses when the building goes above that height. This is through one of my coworkers when he made the remark about similar height buildings (this was pre-Independent).

I would be interested if others had insight into the fire code for these taller structures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 9:30 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Neon Dreams
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a dream
Posts: 5,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Matt View Post
According to Kevin Burns, there is a fire code regulation that significantly increases expenses when the building goes above that height. This is through one of my coworkers when he made the remark about similar height buildings (this was pre-Independent).

I would be interested if others had insight into the fire code for these taller structures.
Someone commented a while back that construction costs - like pumping cement - go up significantly higher than ~400'.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 11:22 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,851
Okay if all those things are such an issue when building towers over 400 feet then most cities in this country would be 400 foot flat plateaus. It may be a factor but in all honesty I don't think it's that much of a deal to actually make sure a building doesn't go above 400 feet. If it can be done in other cities it can be done here. These companies are just too damn cheap to invest in a real quality tower in Austin for some reason.

Also I don't buy the whole Houston is on another level so they can have taller towers. There are cities smaller than Austin with 700-800 foot office towers. Yes having a large company HQs helps but it makes no difference. Whether or not 5 or 10 companies take up a 30 floor tower or 50 floor tower they will rent the space regardless.

You know wwmiv makes a good point but it's kinda ironic that in this day and age where everything can be done through cloud servers, people don't really have to leave their workspace other than for breaks and lunch. Even communication can be done by live video feed. So large floor plates should be an obsolete concept right?.. Of course despite all that, the idea of a paperless society just never materialized and it's just as well considering the cyber crime, hacking and identity theft that is so prevalent. So in the end larger floorplates will continue to be favored by most companies.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2015, 12:04 AM
AusTxDevelopment AusTxDevelopment is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 483
One thing I think you all are overlooking is why developers build towers. It's the same reason they build anything...to make a profit. Office space in New York towers rents for 8 to 10 times what an Austin building can expect to get in rent. Developers in Austin will only build as high as their profit margin will allow. Taller towers cost more due to all the reasons mentioned in this thread, but the rent that building owners can charge an office tenant in Austin does not go up in direct relation to the height of the tower. Unless its for vanity reasons, businesses won't pay enough for better views to justify spending the extra money to go taller.

Also, many large tenants (the ones developers want for their buildings) don't want to be on the highest floors due to the elevator waits. You would be surprised how big of a deal this is. For tall towers, it's not practical to have one set of elevators serving every floor. Tall towers almost always switch elevators at a certain floor - in other words, one set of elevators serves floors 1-20, and the other one serves floors 1, 21-50 (skipping 2-20), etc. just to try to speed up the elevator wait times. And if you are not on the 1st floor, you go up to the highest floor of one elevator bank, then you have to get off of that elevator and get on the next one to go higher up. Otherwise the elevators would take forever to go from top to bottom. Frost Bank has split elevators. So does Colorado Tower. It's such a concern for some tenants that in new buildings, the first floor to lease is almost always the highest floor the first elevator bank goes to, so that tenant doesn't have to switch elevators or take the slower one that has to bypass the lower floors first.

Last edited by AusTxDevelopment; Jul 11, 2015 at 12:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2015, 3:19 AM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northwest SA
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment View Post
Office space in New York towers rents for 8 to 10 times what an Austin building can expect to get in rent.
FYI...Average Class-A office in Austin's CBD are around $40/SF. Class-A office space in Manhattan average almost $80/SF (newer properties are asking in the $100-$110/SF range..average). Where are you getting the 8-10 times rate that of Austin?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2015, 3:21 AM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northwest SA
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Matt View Post
According to Kevin Burns, there is a fire code regulation that significantly increases expenses when the building goes above that height. This is through one of my coworkers when he made the remark about similar height buildings (this was pre-Independent).

I would be interested if others had insight into the fire code for these taller structures.
Define "significantly..."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2015, 12:09 PM
hereinaustin hereinaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul78701 View Post
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?
Along with the fire code comments, I agree that the density bonus program is pretty whack. With all other things we incentivize what we want and penalize what we don't want: Ex: charge a higher rate for people who use more water to discourage excess water use, charge a toll to discourage road use, etc.

My hope is that the city will either 1) incentivize density, or 2) stop trying to prevent density. As Paul said, charging someone to build more density is the same as discouraging density. I know the city has been trying to force developers to pay into this or that fund, but it would be much better to grow the tax base instead.

Why do we obsess over density anyway? Because it makes our communities more diverse (more people!), it allows us to be healthier (i.e. walk/bike to work), and it makes it easier for city services, businesses, etc to know where to provide resources.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2015, 5:03 PM
paul78701 paul78701 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul78701 View Post
Some good perspective:


Chad's Take: Why you shouldn't freak out about Austin Music Hall
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...ut-austin.html
As we may lose AMH and some other music venues, new ones are still being created. Here's an ABJ story on All ATX Music Factory:
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...ess+Journal%29
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2015, 12:25 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Neon Dreams
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a dream
Posts: 5,288
A site plan was filed for this thing today. But there is no building info attached to it yet.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11395235
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2015, 1:08 AM
Urbannizer's Avatar
Urbannizer Urbannizer is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: ATX, HTX, GTX
Posts: 6,430
As well as the site plan, soil samples were taken today.

__________________
HAIF

Last edited by Urbannizer; Aug 4, 2015 at 4:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2015, 7:48 PM
HighGuy HighGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Matt View Post
Just to note: that rendering is just a massing of the property and isn't the likely build. There is a max height of 60 feet along the creek and so the building will likely have Proper-style cutbacks.

Source
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?
Hope you're both right. I'm really curious to see how the design plays out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2015, 12:37 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
400 feet tall
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sunshine and taco trucks on every corner
Posts: 44,155
They posted the site plan to the city's FTP site today. The building elevations start on page 21. The building is 387 feet 4 inches to the mechanical screen with 29 floors. That makes it 6 feet taller than what Austin Proper will be. This also shows one of the renderings of the building.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...reet_PLANS.pdf
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.

Last edited by KevinFromTexas; Sep 10, 2015 at 7:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2015, 2:09 AM
futures futures is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 71
Welp....it's a building.

It's good infill, but sure is boring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2015, 4:08 AM
Mopacs's Avatar
Mopacs Mopacs is offline
Austinite
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Austin.TX.USA
Posts: 4,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
They posted the site plan to the city's FTP site today. The building elevations start on page 21. The building is 387 feet 4 inches to the mechanical screen with 28 floors. That makes it 6 feet taller than what Austin Proper will be. This also shows one of the renderings of the building.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...reet_PLANS.pdf
Here's a capture of the rendering in the linked document

__________________
Austin.Texas.USA
Home of the 2005 National Champion Texas Longhorns
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2015, 4:24 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Neon Dreams
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a dream
Posts: 5,288
It reminds me of the Colorado tower, but a better rendering in color is needed. The setbacks on creek side will look interesting along with the setbacks on Austin Proper.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/

Last edited by The ATX; Aug 28, 2015 at 4:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2015, 5:31 AM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 2,030
Yeah, color might make it look pretty good, actually. There are several "boxes" that don't look half bad - Colorado being one of them. They spiced it up with a couple of neat features. This one could change a couple of things. I think the creekside may be the best angle...wish they had renderings from the west and south.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2015, 10:58 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,382
I think it looks pretty cool. Not groundbreaking or anything. But not bad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2015, 1:43 PM
resansom resansom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 73
I assume that's the other greenwater building and the Austin Proper building in the background - and you can just see the Google building, on the left. Nice density, but that sure looks like very little variation in height, among the four of them - and the first greenwater building (Northshore) isn't much taller. Can anyone say "plateau?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2015, 6:35 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by resansom View Post
I assume that's the other greenwater building and the Austin Proper building in the background - and you can just see the Google building, on the left. Nice density, but that sure looks like very little variation in height, among the four of them - and the first greenwater building (Northshore) isn't much taller. Can anyone say "plateau?"
Agreed. What will stand out about this area won't be the height but the density. A tiny taste of NYC on a couple of blocks.

How far apart will this building be to Austin Proper? From that angle it looks like they are almost right up against eachother. Office workers could stand at the windows and wave at the people in the hotel. Lol
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2015, 6:49 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Neon Dreams
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a dream
Posts: 5,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
Agreed. What will stand out about this area won't be the height but the density. A tiny taste of NYC on a couple of blocks.

How far apart will this building be to Austin Proper? From that angle it looks like they are almost right up against eachother. Office workers could stand at the windows and wave at the people in the hotel. Lol
There won't be much space between the two. It'll be like the Ashton and the office building next door.

__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
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 1:42 PM.

     

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