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

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by freerover

-Austin-based Parsley Energy, a fast-growing oil and natural gas company, has signed a 12 year lease to occupy all 302 sq ft of the office space in a 31-story high-rise planned for downtown Austin.

-Construction to start in December

-Sullivan’s could be reopened at another location in austin

http://www.mystatesman.com/business/...RwP3PV3m7UmpI/

That explains the reason for the crossed out usage in the document posted in post #174. I wish they would have signed a lease with 600 Guadalupe instead.

[We vs us]

Did this one reduce in size? At some point I thought it was supposed to be taller than Fifth and West. If it's now only 31 floors, that's some major shrinkage.

This was also interesting to me:

Parsley follows several other companies in Austin, including Google, Indeed, HomeAway and Facebook, that have leased entire buildings either before they broke ground or while still under construction.

Parsley’s newly signed deal is one of downtown Austin largest ever office leases, according to research from Cushman & Wakefield, a commercial real estate services firm that tracks the local office market.

(snip)

Diana Holford, senior vice president in Austin with commercial real estate services firm JLL, said downtown Austin “continues to be the location of choice for employers.”

“Demand is so great, new construction tends to be leased before the building is five feet above the ground,” Holford said. And with demand for space exceeding the supply, she said, “rental rates continue to escalate.”

[We vs us]

Turns out ABJ has better coverage.

Parsley Energy Inc., a highly active oil driller and one of the few headquartered in Austin, has pre-leased all of the office space, according to a Tuesday announcement. The lease is for 12 years.

It is a slight pivot from Riverside Resource's earlier plans. The Austin-based developer had initially envisioned 300 Colorado as a 44-story residential tower with ground-floor retail. Ironwood initially bought the property in 2006 and later formed a joint venture with Riverside.

and

There's no indication yet of how the building might look. The Tuesday announcement only said "an entirely new concept" is in the works for the design. However, the Statesman reports the skyscraper will be 18 floors of offices atop 13 stories of above-ground parking — about 420 feet tall in all.

Construction is expected to begin in December with delivery estimated in December 2020.

The decision to switch to offices will add more capacity in a tightly constricted market. The asking rate for Class A office space in the Central Business District was about $52 per square foot in the fourth quarter, the highest across the metro by far, and vacancy was 6.8 percent, according to data from CBRE Group Inc.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...d-for-300.html

[Jdawgboy]

Yet more more space being lost in a rapidly shrinking entertainment district. At least with the residential proposal there was going to be a restaurant component.
They might as well say from the get go, 18 floor office with 13 floors of parking. So did Austin give up at reducing single person car commutes or what??

[Sigaven]

whaaaaaaaaaaat

I am so disappointed

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Yet more more space being lost in a rapidly shrinking entertainment district. At least with the residential proposal there was going to be a restaurant component.
They might as well say from the get go, 18 floor office with 13 floors of parking. So did Austin give up at reducing single person car commutes or what??

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.

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.

I think the move to offices is 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.


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.

[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.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Did this one reduce in size? At some point I thought it was supposed to be taller than Fifth and West. If it's now only 31 floors, that's some major shrinkage.

It was planned to be a 315-unit, 44-story, 518' tall building. So, yes, it has been reduced by some 98' - as of now.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

It was planned to be a 315-unit, 44-story, 518' tall building. So, yes, it has been reduced by some 98' - as of now.

When was that the plan? According to this thread, the original plan was for 458' which is a drop of less than 30'.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by freerover

When was that the plan? According to this thread, the original plan was for 458' which is a drop of less than 30'.

Before they made the switch to office, the original multifamily tower was supposed to be much taller.

That in itself is interesting to me. I get the flip from residential to office -- presumably based on demand and profit margins -- but don't understand why then they'd reduce the height by slightly less than 100'. Unless it's a FAR limitation, that's far less leasable space than they originally might've had.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Before they made the switch to office, the original multifamily tower was supposed to be much taller.

That in itself is interesting to me. I get the flip from residential to office -- presumably based on demand and profit margins -- but don't understand why then they'd reduce the height by slightly less than 100'. Unless it's a FAR limitation, that's far less leasable space than they originally might've had.

I found the problem. The original height was 458' but it went up as talk about the project progressed only to come back down with the most recent announcement. The drop in height is a bummer. It probably came down to the reality of financing the project like with what happened with the Fairmont. Hopefully the drop it hight is made up by a improved design.

Maybe they found a way to increase the sq feet per floor which you would want in an office project vs a residential tower. I just didn't think there was that much space there to make the building much fatter. If they could do that then it would make sense that it gets shorter because you can't make the building fatter and keep it at the same height without a lot more in construction costs.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by freerover

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.

I agree with this post for the most part. My concern is the huge parking podiums, and I really don't know what the solution might be. Requiring all or most of the parking to be below ground is cost prohibitive and would likely discourage development of a major office tower. I guess I might like this project better as an office tower, if it had another 15 floors of office space.

[paul78701]

With an office tower, at least they avoid the potential problem of residents complaining about noise from the Warehouse District nightlife.

[futures]

Why wouldn't they build more floors if Parsley has leased all 18 floors?

Wouldn't you maximize your investment by building more floors for other tennants and/or expansion for Parsley in the future?

[KevinFromTexas]

Austin seriously needs a supertall. If we're seeing buildings switch uses and be pre-leased...in full...before they even clear the site, then that should be telling developers something. We could seriously use another 10 office towers of at least 500,000 square feet.

Originally Posted by freerover

When was that the plan? According to this thread, the original plan was for 458' which is a drop of less than 30'.

The original design was for 458 feet and 39 floors, but a new site plan and elevations showed it with 44 floors and 518 feet and slight design changes. People are bummed out (now) because it would have been taller than the Frost Bank Tower.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by futures

Why wouldn't they build more floors if Parsley has leased all 18 floors?

Wouldn't you maximize your investment by building more floors for other tennants and/or expansion for Parsley in the future?

This.

[AustinGoesVertical]

With such robust demand for Class A office space in the CBD, I don't understand why these office proposals continue to be disproportionately made up of parking. And if there needs to be a 10+ story parking podium, then why aren't they building more office space into the project. If a developer is getting this entire building pre-leased prior to groundbreaking, then they're just leaving money on the table by not maximizing the use of the land. There are only so many downtown sites. These new office towers need to be 600-700 ft, not 30-stories. Construction costs obviously increase with added height, but with pre-leased demand like this, not spec projects, financing should be easier to get. And you leverage your return with debt if you leverage the size of the project as well.

[freerover]

It's important to remember that these building is only 1/4 of a block. Garages in buildings this slender are extremely inefficient due to the limited flat open space for actual cars.

Originally Posted by futures

Why wouldn't they build more floors if Parsley has leased all 18 floors?

Wouldn't you maximize your investment by building more floors for other tennants and/or expansion for Parsley in the future?

There might be a finite amount of money that they are have to spend. You would be asking for more money from an investor and telling him it'll take longer to recoup it. You are also increasing the amount of time it'll take to recoup your investment especially since they are building 1 floor of garage for every 1.3 floors of office. It's not only the 1 time extra in construction costs but also the increased costs of utilities, and building maintenance from more floors.

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

With such robust demand for Class A office space in the CBD, I don't understand why these office proposals continue to be disproportionately made up of parking. And if there needs to be a 10+ story parking podium, then why aren't they building more office space into the project.

Adding more levels for offices also adds more levels for garages. At some point, you reach a reasonable (and likely legal) limit of how many levels of garage you can build so you can't keep building office levels because they don't have the parking spaces to support them.

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

If a developer is getting this entire building pre-leased prior to groundbreaking, then they're just leaving money on the table by not maximizing the use of the land. There are only so many downtown sites. These new office towers need to be 600-700 ft, not 30-stories. Construction costs obviously increase with added height, but with pre-leased demand like this, not spec projects, financing should be easier to get. And you leverage your return with debt if you leverage the size of the project as well.

[Not trying to be jerkish. Really asking] If it's so simple and makes so much sense then why is it happening like this?