AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

Here's a question, coming from me, someone who knows nothing about skyscrapers.

The skyscrapers we have, and are getting soon, don't seem very tall.

Why isn't anyone building anything over 1,000 ft? Are there height restrictions?

They become considerably more expensive when they're taller and the demand just isn't there yet.

[427MM]

I'm sure fifty of us will have fifty different answers but I think it's a demand issue at this point. We're a metro of barely over two million and just don't feel we're there yet and a part of me is thankful for that. When I visit BOA in Atlanta I recognize how beautiful it is (above street level) but the area around it has been moribund for decades though it is finally coming to life more and more nowadays. I love our city of shorter skyscrapers but welcome our 700-850 planned towers too, but hope we continue to grow the pie! Also, as land prices continue to rise you'll see us go taller--been that way for 2,000 years...

[Animu]

Originally Posted by 427MM

Make sure you vote tomorrow!! Yay Prop A--Hell no Prop J. Also be sure to consider Natasha Madison in D1, Pop Renteria in D3, Rich DePalma in D8 and Danielle Skidmore in D9. Imagine a council with fewer NIMBYs that supports transit and walkability and housing! Ah...

Seriously. So glad Prop. J failed. I live in D1, upset that Tovo is still representing us.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by 427MM

We're a metro of barely over two million and just don't feel we're there yet and a part of me is thankful for that.

I wouldn't consider 2.2 million to be "barely over two million." But, that's me.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

Here's a question, coming from me, someone who knows nothing about skyscrapers.

The skyscrapers we have, and are getting soon, don't seem very tall.

Why isn't anyone building anything over 1,000 ft? Are there height restrictions?

Seeing as how the city's tallest is being finished and its third tallest is getting started, and a new tallest is in the works (taller than Boston's tallest which is 40 years old... and Boston has 4.7 million people), I think Austin is doing OK.

[Sigaven]

Notice how our tallest towers are residential. Austin's downtown, as well as in general, just doesn't have as much of a business presence as other major cities. We only have a couple of fortune 500 company headquarters here as far as i know. Most of the tallest buildings in other cities are office towers and there isn't demand yet for that much office space downtown yet I don't think. Even our tallest proposed, 848', is half residential.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Animu

Seriously. So glad Prop. J failed. I live in D1, upset that Tovo is still representing us.

Tovo reps D9.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Notice how our tallest towers are residential. Austin's downtown, as well as in general, just doesn't have as much of a business presence as other major cities. We only have a couple of fortune 500 company headquarters here as far as i know. Most of the tallest buildings in other cities are office towers and there isn't demand yet for that much office space downtown yet I don't think. Even our tallest proposed, 848', is half residential.

I've actually read the opposite: that Austin has one of the highest rates of commuting downtown of all metros. Presumably that stat includes UT as "downtown".

I would say that traditionally the major industry that wasn't downtown was high tech. Of course with the transition from semiconductor to software you are seeing more tech downtown as well.

The lack of tall towers has more to do with Austin being a relatively small metro, even now, but especially prior to the last ten years or so. We are seeing big office buildings getting built.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

Here's a question, coming from me, someone who knows nothing about skyscrapers.

The skyscrapers we have, and are getting soon, don't seem very tall.

Why isn't anyone building anything over 1,000 ft? Are there height restrictions?

Many cities don't have the number of 400 footers that we have. I wouldn't say that our skyline is short. We need more 700-1,000 footers to bring more height variation to the skyline but it's not like a whole lot of cities have 1,000ft or higher highrises either. Our issue is we have so many in a certain height range that the skyline has a plateaued look.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Many cities don't have the number of 400 footers that we have. I wouldn't say that our skyline is short. We need more 700-1,000 footers to bring more height variation to the skyline but it's not like a whole lot of cities have 1,000ft or higher highrises either. Our issue is we have so many in a certain height range that the skyline has a plateaued look.

I just posted this is another thread, but here ya go for comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ta..._States#Cities_with_the_most_skyscrapers

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by paul78701

I just posted this is another thread, but here ya go for comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ta..._States#Cities_with_the_most_skyscrapers

We have 13 buildings over 400’ that are completed, so we do t yet qualify. However, we have 5 currently under construction or in site prep and a number of other proposals. We’d be tied with Sunny Isles Beach if only those under construction were finished and somewhere close to where Philadelphia, Dallas, and Boston are now by this metric if those proposals all make it through.

[We vs us]

I'm still baffled by our size (ahem) problem. It's pretty firmly established that DT Austin is one of the hottest CRE markets in the country right now, and the things that make it hot show no signs of abating. It's a very strong market, has been a very strong market for literally years, and will continue to be a strong market at least into the short to medium term.

My question ends up being, if we know the market is scorching hot, why don't we see more height? Why wouldn't Parsley Energy (for instance) not redesign 300 Colorado so that it has not only enough room for itself but also several more floors of office to sell to 3rd parties? And if that's already happened, why wouldn't they THEN add 25 floors of condos on top? THAT market is hot, too!

(Just using Parsley as an example here -- I know that they're much too far along to reconceive the building.)

I understand I probably have a lot of gaps in my reasoning -- not to mention knowledge about factors outside of market demand that could limit the height. But it would seem that, all things being equal, builders would want to go as high as they possibly could, damn the torpedoes.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I'm still baffled by our size (ahem) problem. It's pretty firmly established that DT Austin is one of the hottest CRE markets in the country right now, and the things that make it hot show no signs of abating. It's a very strong market, has been a very strong market for literally years, and will continue to be a strong market at least into the short to medium term.

My question ends up being, if we know the market is scorching hot, why don't we see more height? Why wouldn't Parsley Energy (for instance) not redesign 300 Colorado so that it has not only enough room for itself but also several more floors of office to sell to 3rd parties? And if that's already happened, why wouldn't they THEN add 25 floors of condos on top? THAT market is hot, too!

(Just using Parsley as an example here -- I know that they're much too far along to reconceive the building.)

I understand I probably have a lot of gaps in my reasoning -- not to mention knowledge about factors outside of market demand that could limit the height. But it would seem that, all things being equal, builders would want to go as high as they possibly could, damn the torpedoes.

Just thinking maybe at least for Parsley HQ the footprint isnt big enough? More height would probably mean more elevators/staircases, perhaps even mechanical shafts etc, so less overall floorplate space for office space etc. And if i remember correctly 300 colorado only takes up about 1/4 of the block. So might not make practical sense to go taller. But I don't know much about skyscraper design sooo

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Just thinking maybe at least for Parsley HQ the footprint isnt big enough? More height would probably mean more elevators/staircases, perhaps even mechanical shafts etc, so less overall floorplate space for office space etc. And if i remember correctly 300 colorado only takes up about 1/4 of the block. So might not make practical sense to go taller. But I don't know much about skyscraper design sooo

Plus, anti sway devise, bigger plumbing and pumps to get water to upper floors, I think your logic is spot on.

[futures]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Plus, anti sway devise, bigger plumbing and pumps to get water to upper floors, I think your logic is spot on.

You absolutely can build MUCH taller on these lots if you wanted to. NYC is seeing super skinny after super skinny going into production.

The limits for height to width ratios on skyscrapers used to top out at about 7:1, which is what the old WTCs were. But now buldings are going up with 15:1 or 20:1 rations with newer engineering and materials.

This video is a great 4 minute overview of "super skinnys" in NYC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md8fJEShpZM

I think the developers for Parsleys building are probably short sighted, but we have to temper our expectations a bit. The shift of our skyline over the past 10 years, plus what is proposed now is super dramatic. We'll continue to see more height if demand stays steady while available land shrinks.

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't know. I'm not onboard with all those spindly supertalls. They're kind of...cheating? Supertalls should be big and bold and block out the sun so that you shiver in their presence.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by futures

You absolutely can build MUCH taller on these lots if you wanted to. NYC is seeing super skinny after super skinny going into production.

Absolutely right. The physical limitations really are negligible. Something else is keeping us from it.

And we don't have to keep using Parsley as an example. We could look at 5th and Brazos. That footprint is HUGE, relatively speaking. And it's unencumbered by a CVC. Magellan could theoretically build to the sky -- or at least plan something the height of 6X Guad, or the Republic. Why don't they? Think of the amount of revenue they're passing up!

[ATXboom]

Perhaps its culture?? Austin leaders only play infrastructure catch up... they are never proactive. So do we have a catch-up culture? No one wants to get ahead and seize the big opportunity?

[StoOgE]

I think people on here are a little unrealistic. Size of buildings are driven by market factors and profit margins as well as the capacity of the developer.

Yes, building a 1,000 foot tall buildings with 2x the space would have higher theoretical profit, but at lower margins and higher risk. Developers rely on financing and financiers want to minimize risk and maximize profit margins, not just profit. You are also looking at a much longer construction and approval process for a taller building, higher cost of material and all kinds of other factors that play a part in determining when and why people build what they do.

Austin has lots of underdeveloped space in the CBD (not to mention South Shore). It is much cheaper to build 2 500' buildings than a single 1000' building.

The super-talls in New York are driven by a handful of things we do not have:

1) The most expensive real estate in the United States.
2) A workforce of 30MM+ humans
3) Untold numbers of company headquarters that are looking for signature towers to impress clients, attract and retain workers and house their staff all in one place.
4) Billionaire's the world over looking to buy multi-floor 100 million dollar condos that overlook the entire city (and a nice way to offshore assets from China and Russia).
5) Stupid amounts of demand for both housing and new office space.

Austin is just now getting rid of most of our surface lots. Once that happens and the surrounding area becomes denser we wills tart to see older buildings come down and be replaced with taller ones.

In 30 years I imagine lots of these filler hotels and 400' tall office buildings that we all hate that were value engineering nightmares will likely come down and be replaced with taller towers.

I think we also need to understand that the number of cities in the US that can support current construction of 900 foot tall buildings is basically 5 or 6. And cities that can support the regular construction of supertalls is 1.

We're an MSA of 2MM with several 700 footers and an 800 footer proposed. We are outpunching our weight class and will continue to do so in the short and long-term while we grow to a 3MM-4MM person city, and hopefully get our infrastructure up to snuff before that happens.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by futures

You absolutely can build MUCH taller on these lots if you wanted to. NYC is seeing super skinny after super skinny going into production.

The limits for height to width ratios on skyscrapers used to top out at about 7:1, which is what the old WTCs were. But now buldings are going up with 15:1 or 20:1 rations with newer engineering and materials.

The problem is that Austin still has FAR limits. Even in the CBD.

If you have a FAR limit of 8:1, you're not going to build super skinny. That would just be extra expense for no gain in square footage.

Even with bonuses (which again, cost the developer lots of extra money) there's limits.

edit: I ran across this map, if anyone was interested
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=205341