Austin | 6G | 874 Feet | 65 Floors | Complete

[chinchaaa]

One of Gensler’s worst projects yet.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

One of Gensler’s worst projects yet.

tbqh I think Gensler needs to step away from Austin very slowly. Enough with them.../Page too. Signature towers only now, thanks!

I don't dislike them, it just seems like.... a lot lately.

[Urbannizer]

Gensler has been doing better lately (Springdale Green, Whole Food HQ, and 506 West.)

Im over Solomon Cordwell Buenz, the architect who puts out the same design for every Hanover tower.

[Urbannizer]

Austin Morning by Grexsys, on Flickr

_DSC7450 by Brett Spangler, on Flickr

Downtown Austin Lightning by Brett Spangler, on Flickr

[Jdawgboy]

The west side is the most unique IMO. It kinda reminds me of the Sears Tower or whatever it's called now in a sense from that angle. The different offsets that stick out make it interesting and more sleek compared to pretty much every other side. It's not my favorite building by far, but it brings heft to the skyline that we desperately needed.

The only other gripe is it's placement when viewed from the boardwalk. The Austonian is in the same line of sight and even though 6X is taller, because it's farther back, it doesn't look much taller than the Austonian from that angle and the two kinda blend into a muddy skyline silhouette.


Awesome pictures! Love the lightning bolt.

[We vs us]

Those airport shots tho. . .

EDIT: I'm surprised at the way the Indeed Tower crest lights up. It's . . . horizontal lines?

[Billy Cannon]

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

Gensler has been doing better lately (Springdale Green, Whole Food HQ, and 506 West.)

Im over Solomon Cordwell Buenz, the architect who puts out the same design for every Hanover tower.

To be fair, Hanover had different architects on their “twin” towers. I think that was a Hanover decision, not the architects

[Urbannizer]

Originally Posted by Billy Cannon

To be fair, Hanover had different architects on their “twin” towers. I think that was a Hanover decision, not the architects

Same architect:

https://austin.towers.net/demolition...wntown-austin/

Each tower features design from national architecture firm Solomon Cordwell Buenz, but we definitely prefer the Brazos Street version’s appearance — featuring warm metal screening to gussy up its parking podium and the possible integration of design elements from the site’s former brick warehouse into the appearance of its ground level — over the relative simplicity of the Republic Square tower.

Though they have done that before in Houston. Ziegler Cooper was chosen as the architect for two projects but Hanover conveyed them to design something that’s a bit out of their portfolio and more in line with the design of their existing projects.

https://zieglercooper.com/highrise-r...ial/autry-park

https://zieglercooper.com/highrise-r...l/the-driscoll

318 Colorado is also being designed by SCB.

[papertowelroll]

I like the building quite a bit in general, it's just the exposed concrete on the south side that is absolutely terrible. Not sure what the architects were smoking when they came up with that. Should have at least painted it.

[KevinFromTexas]

I'm not crazy about the unfinished look on the southern elevation, but from afar that is one of the better views. This thing takes on a sort of optical illusion effect where it looks like a flat wall. The southwest elevation even enhances the effect, since the facade angles away to miss the capitol view.

On Gensler, I don't blame them so much as I do modern architecture in general, which has become pretty boring while thinking it's edgy and cool. Sure, there are some sleek buildings out there, but just look at that photo that Urbannizer just posted. Those new modern towers are every bit as boxy as almost anything from the 80s, and even the 70s. They even have flat roofs, which, we generally did NOT have during the 80s boom. I'm not saying I want a Gherkin building boom, just a little more variation. Less slabs, more shape and *gasp* setbacks. Residential towers benefit most from being boxy, though, as it assures you can have rows of balconies wrapping the building.

On the railings, they'll all have glass on the south elevation. Just refer to the rendering.

[WestAustinite]

Looks like Meta is pretty much abandoning downtown Austin.

"Meta is subleasing over 100,000 square feet of space at 300 West Sixth Street in Austin, The Real Deal has learned. The move comes seven months after the parent company of Facebook decided to sublease 589,000 square feet at Sixth and Guadalupe, setting off a string of major subleases by tech tenants in the state capital. Commercial brokers across the city have been on edge as a downturn in the tech sector and increasingly permanent work-from-home setups spell doom for Austin’s offices."

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by WestAustinite

Looks like Meta is pretty much abandoning downtown Austin.

"Meta is subleasing over 100,000 square feet of space at 300 West Sixth Street in Austin, The Real Deal has learned. The move comes seven months after the parent company of Facebook decided to sublease 589,000 square feet at Sixth and Guadalupe, setting off a string of major subleases by tech tenants in the state capital. Commercial brokers across the city have been on edge as a downturn in the tech sector and increasingly permanent work-from-home setups spell doom for Austin’s offices."

Meta still has 3rd and Shoal, no?

I think Meta, like Google, leased too much office space in Austin expecting growth that did not happen.

[bobbywest87]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

Meta still has 3rd and Shoal, no?

I think Meta, like Google, leased too much office space in Austin expecting growth that did not happen.

Someone that's more familiar with the tech downturn: Is this a permanent crash of the tech industry or a temporary slump?

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by bobbywest87

Someone that's more familiar with the tech downturn: Is this a permanent crash of the tech industry or a temporary slump?

There are a couple of aspects to this I think.
1. Many employees went remote and thus no longer require office space, particularly in satellite offices like Austin where many were effectively remote to begin with.
2. Pandemic caused a spike in revenue for internet companies when everyone was stuck inside. These companies failed to recognize that this was a temporary bubble and overhired in response. That bubble has since corrected and that correction has led to hiring freezes and layoffs.
3. Both companies employed a lot of recruiters in Austin, who were hit extra hard by layoffs given the lack of hiring.
4. Meta in particular has lost market share to TikTok and not really identified a long term play beyond FB and Instagram (VR stuff hasn't got anywhere)

[bobbywest87]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

There are a couple of aspects to this I think.
1. Many employees went remote and thus no longer require office space, particularly in satellite offices like Austin where many were effectively remote to begin with.
2. Pandemic caused a spike in revenue for internet companies when everyone was stuck inside. These companies failed to recognize that this was a temporary bubble and overhired in response. That bubble has since corrected and that correction has led to hiring freezes and layoffs.
3. Both companies employed a lot of recruiters in Austin, who were hit extra hard by layoffs given the lack of hiring.
4. Meta in particular has lost market share to TikTok and not really identified a long term play beyond FB and Instagram (VR stuff hasn't got anywhere)

Thank you for the great explanation. Hopefully there are enough other strong markets in Austin to make up for the tech absences.

[austlar1]

Worth noting that there are two other very large office projects currently under construction downtown. The 47 floor Republic is slated to be strictly an office building. One of the components of the Waterline super-tall contains a large amount of office space. I think the combined office square footage of these two projects is well in excess of 1,000,000 square feet of new office space coming online in the next few years. I hope the construction financing is 100% secured for these projects because I think the bottom is about to fall out of the office market here in Austin, if it hasn't already begun to do so. This isn't an Austin specific problem, nor is it specifically tech related. The same thing is happening in cities across the country.

[JoninATX]

Wouldn't all construction projects have to be fully funded before starting?

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

Wouldn't all construction projects have to be fully funded before starting?

You would think so, but I am not certain that is always the case. If you may recall, the W project almost stalled mid construction many years back because of issues with construction financing. It was a dicey economic period following the 2008 financial meltdown, and there was uncertainty in the real estate markets. Not sure what role that played, but there was concern at the time that the W project might stall. There were still memories of the halted Intel Building project, which resulted in the derelict Intel shell that was finally pulled down in 2007.

This is what ChapGPT had to say on the topic of construction financing. I am not trying to start any rumors by the way. Just feel a bit uneasy about current conditions in commercial real estate-

It is not uncommon for large construction projects to begin without having 100 percent construction financing in place. In fact, many projects start with only a portion of the financing secured, with the expectation that additional funding will be obtained as the project progresses.

There are several reasons why construction projects may commence without full financing:

Phased financing: Some projects are financed in phases, where initial funding is secured to begin construction, and subsequent financing is obtained as the project reaches certain milestones or as additional investors come on board.

Pre-sales or pre-leasing: In real estate development projects, it is common for developers to secure commitments from buyers or tenants before construction starts. These pre-sales or pre-leasing agreements can provide a level of confidence to lenders and investors, allowing the project to move forward even if full financing has not been secured.

Project viability assessments: In certain cases, construction may begin based on preliminary funding commitments or the expectation that financing will be obtained based on the project's viability and market potential. This is more likely to occur when there is strong market demand or government support for the project.

Joint ventures and partnerships: Large construction projects often involve multiple parties, including developers, investors, and construction firms. These parties may enter into joint ventures or partnerships, sharing the financial burden and risk. Construction may start with the understanding that financing will be secured collectively.

While it is not uncommon for construction projects to commence without full financing, it is important to note that the availability of adequate financing is crucial for the successful completion of the project. Developers and project stakeholders typically work diligently to secure the necessary funding to ensure the project's continuity and mitigate any financial risks along the way.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by austlar1

If you may recall, the W project almost stalled mid construction many years back because of issues with construction financing. It was a dicey economic period following the 2008 financial meltdown, and there was uncertainty in the real estate markets. Not sure what role that played, but there was concern at the time that the W project might stall.

The W's financial challenges were prior to breaking ground, if I remember. However, it was the pre-construction road to find financing that was very bumpy. But, they secured a $295 million construction loan in May of 2008 (and construction ensued soon thereafter).

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

The W's financial challenges were prior to breaking ground, if I remember. However, it was the pre-construction road to find financing that was very bumpy. But, they secured a $295 million construction loan in May of 2008 (and construction ensued soon thereafter).

I think you are mostly correct, but there was a slight lull in construction along the way. The project was started with financing from Corus Bank, but it required "replacement construction financing" obtained by the Stratus/Canyon-Johnsont team. Corus Bank, the original lender, determined that it would be unable to complete the loan. Here is a press release that details some of that "bumpy" road. Looks like they were already on the 27th floor when this financing finally was secured in October of 2009. https://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR...9_WAustin.html