AUSTIN | Third + Shoal | 389 FEET | 29 FLOORS | U/C | Complete - Page 2

paul78701 · #1 Posted **Jul 7, 2015, 10:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

If AMH was a success, then it would not be replaced by something else...bottom line!

It may have been a success if Direct Events hadn't botched things up with the renovation. This had an effect on more than just AMH. If you read the entire ABJ article, it sounds like the renovation ultimately caused them to declare bankruptcy. This also resulted in a trickle down affect that led to the sale of the other venues that they owned:

La Zona Rosa is no more, The Backyard is being transformed into some mega development, and now the AMH site is being turned into an office tower.

JACKinBeantown · #2 Posted **Jul 9, 2015, 12:08 PM**

What's this?

http://www.thesquarefoot.com/buildin...-nueces-street

The ATX · #3 Posted **Jul 9, 2015, 2:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

What's this?

http://www.thesquarefoot.com/buildin...-nueces-street

Nice find there. It looks stubby, but it appears to be about 25-stories which isn't too far off from the announced 28-stories.

tsm · #4 Posted **Jul 9, 2015, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Nice find there. It looks stubby, but it appears to be about 25-stories which isn't too far off from the announced 28-stories.

I don't believe that is it.

The ATX · #5 Posted **Jul 9, 2015, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsm

I don't believe that is it.

The address is correct, and the 2nd St. bridge over Shoal creek is where it should be. I just think it is an old rendering.

AusTxDevelopment · #6 Posted **Jul 9, 2015, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Nice find there. It looks stubby, but it appears to be about 25-stories which isn't too far off from the announced 28-stories.

It looks stubby because the picture is stretched - check out the white car at the bottom left. It probably looks a lot more like 500 West 2nd's rendering if it was sized correctly.

GoldenBoot · #7 Posted **Jul 9, 2015, 6:14 PM**

Correct me if I am wrong, should there be a required setback on the Shoal Creek side of this building? If so, the building would not be square (or cube-like) in design.

The rendering may be a place holder design.

I also do not see the three 28-foot floors described in the ABJ & AAS articles.

paul78701 · #8 Posted **Jul 9, 2015, 6:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Correct me if I am wrong, should there be a required setback on the Shoal Creek side of this building? If so, the building would not be square (or cube-like) in design.

The rendering may be a place holder design.

I also do not see the three 28-foot floors described in the ABJ & AAS articles.

They'll likely ask for a variance. I'm betting this was a very early rendering and that an update will be forthcoming.

HighGuy · #9 Posted **Aug 5, 2015, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Matt

Just to note: that rendering is just a massing of the property and isn't the likely build. There is a max height of 60 feet along the creek and so the building will likely have Proper-style cutbacks.

Source

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Correct me if I am wrong, should there be a required setback on the Shoal Creek side of this building?

Hope you're both right. I'm really curious to see how the design plays out.

_Matt · #10 Posted **Jul 9, 2015, 8:49 PM**

That's not even the correct location. The new bridge is the 2nd street bridge, but this building is on 3rd street (despite the address of 208, which yes, perhaps seems closer to 200 than 300).

Also I don't see the 28 foot floors mentioned in the press release.

Syndic · #11 Posted **Jul 10, 2015, 3:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Matt

The new bridge is the 2nd street bridge, but this building is on 3rd street.

It's probably the (eventual) bridge across 3rd Street.

One thing is for sure; it's scrunched up. Look at those cars.

The ATX · #12 Posted **Jul 10, 2015, 3:28 AM**

I stretched it to make it more in proportion to this reality:

AusTxDevelopment · #13 Posted **Jul 10, 2015, 3:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

I stretched it to make it more in proportion to this reality:

Thanks ATX!

Its such a strange looking building. I wonder if that brownish-orange part is metal or wood or what. I'm not a fan, but this is a preliminary rendering and buildings change drastically between the very first design and construction. It looks like the ground floor is two-stories tall and the penthouse is two-stories tall, but it's hard to tell. That would make it technically 28 stories tall, if that rendering is anywhere close to correct.

AustinGoesVertical · #14 Posted **Jul 10, 2015, 4:36 AM**

Thanks for stretching the rendering! So what do people think? Will this one ultimately be taller than 3rd and Colorado and 500 West 2nd Street? The fact that three of the unique-office style floors will take up a combined 90 feet, this one looks like it could crack 400, especially if some sort of lit crown is added, a la 3rd and Colorado.

hereinaustin · #15 Posted **Jul 10, 2015, 2:54 PM**

Is there some sort of local ordinance, lending issue, construction cost issue, or something else that keeps so many of our buildings around 400'? In other words, why are developers finding it unprofitable to go taller in our market?

My guess is it has something do with land cost being relatively cheap, lenders and city ordinances requiring parking minimums and FAR ratios, and perhaps not enough demand for density from consumers.

paul78701 · #16 Posted **Jul 10, 2015, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Is there some sort of local ordinance, lending issue, construction cost issue, or something else that keeps so many of our buildings around 400'? In other words, why are developers finding it unprofitable to go taller in our market?

My guess is it has something do with land cost being relatively cheap, lenders and city ordinances requiring parking minimums and FAR ratios, and perhaps not enough demand for density from consumers.

I think the density bonus program is a bit backwards. Instead of making developers pay what seems like a penalty TO build taller, why they don't offer incentives FOR building taller?

Yes, the developers make more money that way, but the city does too. It would bring more of the density that the city wants/needs and surely more tax dollars. There would be more condos units to get property tax from, more hotel room stays to get tax money from, more office space to tax, etc. The buildings would just be worth more in general. Or maybe there's more to it than I understand?

AustinGoesVertical · #17 Posted **Jul 10, 2015, 4:39 PM**

In my opinion, they're not taking advantage of an opportunity to truly separate themselves from other spec buildings. 500 W. 2nd, 3rd and Colorado, and 5th and Colorado are all essentially the same in that they are glass boxes. I personally like glass buildings but I'd like to see more differentiation. If you were a firm would you pay a premium to headline a thin 700 ft tower rather than a 400 ft cube. Maybe? I just think that's the direction AMH should go with this one. With the required set backs on shoal creek, why not build the parking and new music venue along the creek in a midrise and then go 40-50 stories with a thin point tower, enabling views that won't be obstructed by Austin Proper and Greenwater Residential #2. You'd think tenants would pay a premium for a view as 500 W. 2nd won't have one on at least 2 faces of the tower. My hope is that Austin's first blockbuster office building will be the private portion of the civil courthouse project.

wwmiv · #18 Posted **Jul 10, 2015, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

If you were a firm would you pay a premium to headline a thin 700 ft tower rather than a 400 ft cube.

No. Smaller floor plates reduce a company's productivity because it increases average walking travel time between employees who thus have to be stationed on different levels. That's why office towers are usually squatter buildings, because companies really want as many employees as possible on as few levels as possible (to increase productivity and thus bang for buck).

dphogan · #19 Posted **Jul 10, 2015, 8:01 PM**

You have to have tenants for the tall office towers that Houston/Dallas etc build. I'm thinking that it's better to have a fully leased 35 story building then constantly trying to fill a 50 story building. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see them be built, but I think Houston and what not are not good comparisons for Austin. Houston is the 4th largest city in the country with plenty of fortune 500 companies to fill multiple floors.

hereinaustin · #20 Posted **Jul 11, 2015, 12:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul78701

I think the density bonus program is a bit backwards. Instead of making developers pay what seems like a penalty TO build taller, why they don't offer incentives FOR building taller?

Along with the fire code comments, I agree that the density bonus program is pretty whack. With all other things we incentivize what we want and penalize what we don't want: Ex: charge a higher rate for people who use more water to discourage excess water use, charge a toll to discourage road use, etc.

My hope is that the city will either 1) incentivize density, or 2) stop trying to prevent density. As Paul said, charging someone to build more density is the same as discouraging density. I know the city has been trying to force developers to pay into this or that fund, but it would be much better to grow the tax base instead.

Why do we obsess over density anyway? Because it makes our communities more diverse (more people!), it allows us to be healthier (i.e. walk/bike to work), and it makes it easier for city services, businesses, etc to know where to provide resources.