There are plenty of large office towers U/C and proposed. The article just doesn't include them.

There is several million square feet of office space under construction. At least 1.4 million of that is in two projects in downtown - Block 185 and Block 71.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=235229

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=220389

There is also several million square feet going up outside of downtown, most notably at the Domain where the tallest office buildings outside of downtown are happening now. This article was focusing only on downtown. I'm not sure why they didn't include office space in it.

x-post from another thread, some office buildings under construction downtown:

^^ Is that last one the corporate office for a dentist association or something?

It should be!

LMAO that's a good one. :tup:

*THE MOLAR CORP*

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190...austins-future

@Kevin, that is only speaking about CBD, right? Or is it more generally the central part of the Austin area?

I take it as meaning downtown only. We don't really have any other high rise districts outside of downtown at the moment that might be filling up. There's the Domain, but this seemed to only be focused on downtown.

Hanover Republic Square

516' - 44 floors

Demo now underway.

https://i.imgur.com/OHLxcPb.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/fHEsjo9.png

The Quincy

369' - 30 floors

Crane went up recently.

https://i.imgur.com/deDT2at.jpg

https://austin.towers.net/wp-content...1105x663-1.jpg

We have enough buildings under construction and proposed in Austin to end up with at least 16 buildings over 500 feet. By comparison, Dallas has 20 in that range. We also have enough buildings under construction and proposed to end up with 29 buildings over 400 feet. By comparison, Dallas has 29 buildings in that range. They have enough under construction and proposed to push that number to 42.

That's great to hear. Hopefully all projects planned for each city come to fruition.

Don't get me wrong, while I find the rate and diversity of Austin's tower diversity to be impressive, it's downtown skyline won't have the same impact that Dallas' and Houston's downtown skylines have, even when all of those projects are completed, IMO. I'm just personally not a fan of its linear, along-the-lake density pattern (that you also find in a couple of other major US cities); instead, I prefer the more traditional circular- or square-cluster downtown buildouts that you see in not only Dallas and Houston, but also L.A., Philadelphia, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, etc. Downtown Austin's skyline still looks cool (and will only continue to look cooler) though, and way better than one could have envisioned just 15 years ago.

Austin does not have any of the types of skylines you've described. It isn't circular, it isn't square, and it isn't just density along the river. In reality, it is a triangle with the Lamar & the river, 35 & the river, and the State Capitol being the three corners encapsulating its density (although even this understates the degree to which Austin's skyline currently pours over those boundaries, and will ever more so into the future). This will be even more true once the current wave of skyscrapers is finished.

Yeah, I wouldn't say Austin's skyline is linear anymore. Sure, most of it is situated along the river, but more and more we're seeing highrises planned farther north toward the capitol building. Eventually, it'll stretch from West Campus all the way to the river.

Its been 4-5 years since I was downtown. How have they done with street level design on the new buildings? Some of the old demolished structures were not really anything special like the picture above, but they do have a certain patina and charm.

Wow. Really?

You honestly interpreted "linear, along-the-lake density pattern" to mean "linear" as it is literally defined by Merriam Webster? The lake itself doesn't cut through town in a straight line either, so I would think that anyone with common sense would understand that it was simply a phrase used to distinguish the fact that most of the tower development is happening in a pattern that resembles a dense grouping a stone's throw away from the lake. Obviously there are a few significant towers that have popped up in other areas downtown, but by and large - especially West of Congress - the most substantial development is (as Izppjb noted above) occurring right along the lake.

And if you'd prefer to describe it in such completely literal terms, then breaking news: the skyline isn't a "triangle", either (regardless of the "corners" you set forth as boundaries).

Bottom line, no matter how you choose to categorize the shape of Austin's skyline it in no way falls into that of the cities mentioned in my previous post.

To be fair, you said, "its linear, along-the-lake density pattern."

wwmiv said, "it isn't just density along the river."

He didn't mention linear at all in his post. He was making the point that I did. Austin's density is growing northward away from the river, albeit at a slower rate.

No point in trying to debate them. Honestly, I should have known better than to contradict someone who knows everything...

A map of every highrise (above 35m in height) in Austin:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=93

There's a very clear triangle of density between the points I mentioned, with only scattered highrises outside of that triangle. In fact, you might even go so far as to say that there's a square. Austin's density, in the current built form, is not just along the river and not even just primarily along the river. And it is getting less so.

Put your money where your mouth is.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1928/4...c912354d_h.jpg

... (drops mic) :D