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

[Sigaven]

13 floors of parking though, ugh. I am really getting worried about downtown's future with all these podium garages. If we keep going this way, the downtown experience will just be walking through a dark and imposing sea of hulking parking garages on buildings pretending to be urban because they have one small retail space on the corner.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by freerover

There is still a restaurant component.

At 300 Colorado, Del Frisco’s [Company that own's Sullivan's signed a 10-year lease and plans to open a Del Frisco’s Grille, an upscale concept featuring modern American cuisine, said Bill Martens, chief development officer for Del Frisco’s.


I think it's a great development. I would rather see space used in downtown for badly needed office space to support a growing economy and growing business that is actually based in Austin. Seems like great news to me.

As far as all the parking levels, it's the right thing for them to do. They city has to be the one to get better public transit options approved first. Investors can't not provide parking out of the hope that Austin will get transit in order. You don't make public transit better by taking away parking spaces for people who work at a single company. You make it better by getting people in the city to vote for public transit.

You must have some ultra rose colored glasses on....

I'm genuinely curious what makes you think this is a "great development"?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by ahealy

You must have some ultra rose colored glasses on....

I'm genuinely curious what makes you think this is a "great development"?

Austin needs office space 1000 times more than it needs high end residential. I edited my above post before your repose. Let me copy paste:

Austin badly badly badly badly baldy needs more office space. As of last July, out of the top 15 cities vying for Amazon, the only ones with a lower office vacancy rate are San Fransisco and New York City. NYC is building 11.1 million sq feet right now, SF is building 6.6 msf and Austin is 1.9 msf. We have hit a huge huge stumbling block for generating new business and growing the economy. I don't mean for Amazon HQ2. I'm talking about for anything. We are having a very hard time servicing our existing companies.


If we have a hypothetical choice between an office tower or residential tower in downtown then it should be an office tower. Downtown is not your answer to higher density residential zoning. THat's why we need something like Code Next to open up density in other parts of the city. The point of downtown is to have a center of commerce. Yes, development diversity is good and important but we have to understand that we can put top hats on the beast, give it a cane and some nice shoes but we still have to feed the beast. We need offices. We can better serve more businesses by building tall buildings and it's cheaper to serve the needs of those buildings when they are clustered together.

[Sigaven]

whaaaaaaaaaaat

I am so disappointed

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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).

[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.

[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

[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 . . . .

[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."