Austin | Block 185/Google Tower #2 | 594 Feet | 35 Floors | Complete

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Wait...Isn't Block 71 going to have ~730,000 SF of office? It's only 36 stories tall. I wouldn't build my hopes up too much for a tower taller than 550' or 600' on this site. Not to say I would love to see a true sky scraper here.

The most recent number for the Block 71 tower puts it at 660,000 square feet:

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...implosion.html

Called Block 71, the skyscraper will the largest office tower in Austin with 660,000 square feet of office space plus 3,500 square feet of restaurant and 4,300 square feet of retail space.

Again, the difference between the Block 71 tower and this one is that the block 71 site doesn't have setback requirements on two sides. This one does. The building can only rise 60 feet along the river and creek before having to step back. After that, it can only rise a certain amount more before it has to setback again. This is why Northshore has its setbacks.

[The ATX]

Yup. A 711K sq ft office tower on the Block 185 site will have to be significantly taller than the Block 71 tower.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Yup. A 711K sq ft office tower on the Block 185 site will have to be significantly taller than the Block 71 tower.

Not necessarily. Block 185 has a larger footprint than the tower on Block 71, roughly 3/4 of a block vs. 1/2. They are currently contemplated to be about the same height, but that could, and probably will, change.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by H2O

Not necessarily. Block 185 has a larger footprint than the tower on Block 71, roughly 3/4 of a block vs. 1/2. They are currently contemplated to be about the same height, but that could, and probably will, change.

You are correct about Block 71 being larger. According to Google, Block 185 is ~314' wide on the side where the tower will be built, and Block 71 is 5' wider on the side where the tower is at ~319'. Not much difference though.

[The ATX]

Gensler is not the architect for the current Block 185 project according to George Blume.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Gensler is not the architect for the current Block 185 project according to George Blume.

Good. We need some fresh design aesthetics in this town.

[KevinFromTexas]

Actually, most of the blocks in downtown are 276 by 276 feet. Only the ones facing Congress are longer going east to west. Those are around 335 feet I believe. All of the street widths are 80 feet, except for Congress Avenue, which is 120 feet wide.

The sidewalk widths are not part of the property lines on each block. The sidewalks are part of the City of Austin right-of-way (same as the street).

If you look at the old Waller maps of Austin, the block widths and street widths are listed. Even some of the original lots were listed.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by The ATX

You are correct about Block 71 being larger. According to Google, Block 185 is ~314' wide on the side where the tower will be built, and Block 71 is 5' wider on the side where the tower is at ~319'. Not much difference though.

You misinterpreted my statement. Block 71 is larger because it is a full block. Block 185 is smaller due to the creek. However, the tower on Block 71 covers only about half of the block. The tower on Block 185 covers the entire block, which is closer to 3/4 of a full block.

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't see how the tower on Block 185 could cover all of it. Maybe the podium would cover all of the block, but because of the river and creek overlays, the tower would have to setback from those boundaries. I still just don't see how they could squeeze 700,000+ square feet into such a small area without going tall.

[Jdawgboy]

I agree. There is no way 711K square feet of office will fit in Block 185 without it going higher than Block 71. They cannot use the entire footprint of the lot. They won't even be able to use half the block for the tower portion due to the setbacks. Any way you slice it, this tower cannot be only 400-500 feet.

Right about now would be a great time for renderings to pop up so we can put the mystery to rest. How about a massing estimation in accordance to the setbacks and limitations of the site?

[AustinGoesVertical]

If this indeed has 700,000+ sf, there is no way it will only be 400 ft. Even with gradual setbacks, it will be predominately thin in the back right corner of the building. Surprised Gensler isn’t the architect for this one. As we saw though, they had two really good designs for it - the 900 ft one and then that Proper-esque rendering with all the decks.

[The ATX]

This is from the site plan and describes the setback requirements. The base (parking podium in this case) can be 45' tall and the top of the tower has to be set back 70 degrees from the base on the South and West sides.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

If this indeed has 700,000+ sf, there is no way it will only be 400 ft. Even with gradual setbacks, it will be predominately thin in the back right corner of the building. Surprised Gensler isn’t the architect for this one. As we saw though, they had two really good designs for it - the 900 ft one and then that Proper-esque rendering with all the decks.

I wouldn't say the 900-footer was a really good design - it was still pretty much a basic rectangle that was just really tall.

The one with with the Proper-esque angles and such was pretty cool though. As we've seen with other Gensler designs that started out that cool, i'd bet it that design would be VE'd out if it was built.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by The ATX

This is from the site plan and describes the setback requirements. The base (parking podium in this case) can be 45' tall and the top of the tower has to be set back 70 degrees from the base on the South and West sides.

If that's the case, according to a quick google sketchup model I made, the maximum height of the building can be somewhere around ~500 feet?? Is there a certain distance from the property line where this 70-degree angle doesn't apply?

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

If that's the case, according to a quick google sketchup model I made, the maximum height of the building can be somewhere around ~500 feet?? Is there a certain distance from the property line where this 70-degree angle doesn't apply?

Actually, look at the Austin Proper as a model. They pretty much maxed out the height with the same set backs requirements, if I'm not mistaken. Having said that, why does Third & Shoal not seem to adhere to the same requirements?

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Actually, look at the Austin Proper as a model. They pretty much maxed out the height with the same set backs requirements, if I'm not mistaken. Having said that, why does Third & Shoal not seem to adhere to the same requirements?

Not sure about that but considering what they built, it's a shame they didn't setback from the creek.

A visual representation would work wonders but estimating 711K square feet I would assume could be tricky, I'm starting to get a vague idea about how it sounds like it will be laid out. It would be on some level disappointing if it ended up only around 500 feet. If it's going to be taller than the surrounding buildings, they might as well go taller than 360 despite how nice it is to see the spire mainly because if it's around 500 feet it will create a plateau with the 360, it will end up blocking the top for all intents and purposes. At least a taller building would break up the plateau of all those buildings and give some height variation between it and the Independent.

That 900 footer may have not been more than rectangles but the color would have looked gorgeous and would have complemented Austin Proper. If the facade looked anything like the renderings, it would have made a great iconic tower addition to our skyline.

[The ATX]

A line drawn from the front of the podium to the edge of the tower roof doesn't look too far off of 70 degrees in the 900' render. If the tower were only 700', it appears relatively easy to meet the 70 degree setback. But the allowable FAR would seem to complicate this further, and I don't know exactly where the 70 degree line starts and stops. This is where an experienced architect's knowledge would be quite useful.

[loonytoony]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Actually, look at the Austin Proper as a model. They pretty much maxed out the height with the same set backs requirements, if I'm not mistaken. Having said that, why does Third & Shoal not seem to adhere to the same requirements?

These only apply to sites in Greenwater (Northshore, 185, Proper, 500 w 2nd). 3rd & Shoal was never part of that redevelopment.

[Jdawgboy]

Just to wallow in what could have been, I attempted to count the floors and ended up around 67-68?... Someone needs to take the design and build it somewhere else in DT..

[Geckos_Rule]

My inside sources tell me that a big company just signed on to pre-lease 300k square foot in this building.

So seems like it's going to get going pretty quickly.