HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #681  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2006, 2:05 AM
Kropotkin Kropotkin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 84
That video is high-rise condo porn. I like everything I see in it, but am skeptical of its claims in the extreme. The company has no office address and its development team information is scant, to say the least. Are they even architects? Everything about the presentation says it's a run for money in the condo mania- where's the meat?

The NewCenturyLiving website reminds me of the tech bubble, when there were so many phantom enterprises being created with "big ideas" that were nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Don't get me wrong- I want to believe.
__________________
Resident of West Campus neighborhood, Austin Texas
     
     
  #682  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2006, 2:38 PM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
NewCenturyLiving

Quote:
Originally Posted by crewer
Thanks for sharing that. Very interesting clip. I do agree that it's hard to believe.

As this is explained, pictures of the Milago and Plaza Lofts in Austin are shown as examples of poor quality exteriors which you discussed in this thread awhile ago. (Hey, LookingUp... do you work for New Century Living? LOL)

It's also interesting to hear about how they can keep costs down by shortening the construction process and making it more efficient. Sounds great in the clip. Not being in construction or design, I can't challenge their approach, but it sounds too good to be true. Any comments on it?
I'm an Investor. I know one of the architects in Dallas that has worked on their ideas. He said they have guaranteed pricing from one of the largest construction companies in the US and that it was real. He also said they are getting ready to announce procects in Dallas, Austin and Houston.

I'm not sure if they're intending to pass the savings on to the buyers. It seems they just want to build a better product, quicker. I sent an email as an interested investor so that I could learn more.

I just think the market for high-rise condos isn't going to slow down. Hoperfully, their prices will be affordable for younger buyers - that's a huge untapped market.

Looking Up.
     
     
  #683  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2006, 3:20 PM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
NewCenturyLiving

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsoto3
Fast-track construction might save the developer a few bucks, but it's a pain in the ass for architects and contractors. It is a process which carries a great deal of liability and many architects often lose money on such jobs.
They never mentioned "fast-trak construction" and I don't know what that is. I know from my travels that in Europe and Asia they're much more efficient with construction.

What intrigues me is they say they're not doing "cookie-cutter" or modular construction - I've seen enough "modular" it looks cheap. Many developers do cookie-cutter, like Novare with their 360 building. I think that's the same building in Atlanta, Tampa and Nashville. That's what McDonalds and WalMart do and from my experience it only saves a little $ in design and materials.

I got a short email back with a Non-Disclosure Agreement. They said they have a new "system" for construction and the "2nd largest contractor in the US has guaranteed their prices and schedule." They are working with "several architectural firms here and in the EU."

I'm going to find out more. They also said they have a site in Dallas and are considering Denver, San Diego, Houston and possibly Austin.
     
     
  #684  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2006, 11:21 PM
crewer crewer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Palm Springs, CA
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingUp
I just think the market for high-rise condos isn't going to slow down. Hopefully, their prices will be affordable for younger buyers - that's a huge untapped market.
I don't think I can agree with you on the condo market not slowing down. It already has here in DC and in other major cities around the country.

Here's an article from The Arizona Republic (Phoenix). Sorry for it's length, but I think it's worth reading. I just hope no one comes back with a, "But Austin is different kind of market" statement. It ain't.

Valley flooded with condo projects
High-rise units won't all be sold, analysts fear


Catherine Reagor
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 5, 2006 12:00 AM


On prime pieces of land across central Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe and recently even in the bedroom communities of Mesa and Ahwatukee, signs are going up promoting upscale condominium towers and lofts.

But at many sites, those signs will be the only things erected for a while. Maybe ever.

Almost 8,000 condos and lofts are planned or under construction across metropolitan Phoenix, more than what went up in the Valley in all of the past 10 years.

The projects include residential high-rises that could rival the state's tallest skyscraper (or at least transform suburban skylines), brownstone mini-mansions along busy streets and mid-rises beside lakes, canals or high-end shopping centers. There are also downtown offices poised to become high-rise homes and all types of urban housing developments along the light-rail line.

Early success of projects like Camelback Esplanade near the Biltmore area and Artisan Lofts on Central Avenue enticed more developers of high-rise projects to Phoenix. And as excitement over urban living, or urban-style living, grew, demand soared, right along with prices.

But real estate analysts say that despite the Valley's growth, forecasts call for at least 100,000 people to move to the Valley every year for the next several years, there just aren't enough people willing to pay ever more to live in all the planned high-rises.

"There's a lot of discussion about vertical living, but condos, or vertical living, will not become the dominant housing in the Valley," said RL Brown, publisher of the Phoenix Housing Market Letter.

He estimates that less than 20 percent of all the planned high-rise residential projects will be built.

Condo glut

The pricey residential high-rises going up now have more competition than just the more affordable tract homes on the edges of the Valley.

Many investors who bought units in the first wave of high-rises now are trying to sell. And last year, more than 10,000 apartments across metropolitan Phoenix were turned into condos or bought by investors, who plan to convert them into units that sell for far less than their new, high-rise siblings. That's at least three times as many conversions as in 2004.

Most of the high-rise condos start at $400,000 or higher. A converted unit could sell for less than $200,000. A typical three-bedroom, two-bathroom home in the suburbs sells for less than $300,000.

Like Valley home builders, many condo developers have tried to limit the number of investors. But it hasn't always worked.

At the end of February, 18 of the 90 condos in the Orpheum Lofts were on the market. The historic art deco tower in downtown Phoenix was transformed from an office building last year. It sold out, and now many of the original buyers are turning out to be investors trying to sell.

"Condo developers are now competing against speculators," said Jay Butler, director the Arizona Real Estate at Arizona State University's Polytechnic. "A lot of the early condo investors in the Valley can sell for less than what is being sold new and still make a profit."

Last fall, Taylor Hunt bought a studio in the 17-story Landmark, an older apartment high-rise on Phoenix's Central Avenue that was converted into condos.

"I like the urban lifestyle, and the price was pretty awesome compared to some other high-rises planned for the area," said Hunt, who sells shoes at Nordstrom in Scottsdale. "A lot of homes in Arizona are pretty generic. I wanted something different."

Hunt lined up with dozens of other buyers to buy his condo last summer. He paid less than $200,000. Because prices at Landmark were lower than most new towers and the building was ready for buyers to move in the midst of last year's frenzied housing market, Landmark is 75 percent sold out.

Housing market watchers say only about 1,500 new high-rise and mid-rise condos will likely sell this year in metropolitan Phoenix, partly because of conversions.

"Construction and land costs have gone up so much. We have the competitive advantage," said Chip Conk, president of Montecito Property Co., one of the biggest condo-conversion developers in the country.

Montecito built a 312-unit Montage conversion project last fall in northeast Phoenix that sold out in days. But it's now taking longer for conversions to sell. And prices are beginning to fall. The average cost of a converted condo in the Valley was $199,675 in January, compared with $210,000 in November, according to housing analyst Brown.

Robert Sheridan, a veteran national condo converter who is developing a project in Scottsdale and also leading a fund to buy failed condo-conversion projects on the East and West Coasts, said the conversion craze is over.

"Only the condos in the best locations will sell now," he said.

Though his company converted the Las Brisas apartments in north central Phoenix a few years ago, Sheridan said he wouldn't do another one in central Phoenix because there are too many in the area.

Problems elsewhere

Las Vegas, southern Florida and San Diego have seen the most new high-rise and condo development during the past two years, and now these markets are facing the biggest overbuilding problems, real estate analysts say.

Early projects sold out quickly, and prices jumped with each subsequent phase. Developers then rushed in with new designs, tied up prime pieces of land and began taking "presales" to test how deep the demand was for vertical living.

Investors looking to make big profits fast jumped in and bought preconstruction condos in these cities. But only the early speculators were able to sell for a substantial profit when the buildings were done.

As in metropolitan Phoenix, a record number of apartment buildings are being converted into condos in those cities.

In San Diego, condo prices are falling because of the number of resales put on the market by early speculators. Some developers also are putting new projects on hold. There are about 6,200 condos for sale, double from a year ago, according to the San Diego Association of Realtors.

Already in San Diego, some condo-conversion projects are falling through.

In Las Vegas, high-profile high-rise projects that are nearly sold out are being taken off the drawing board. Rising construction costs and tougher financing guidelines are making it harder for developers to make money on the buildings. The Icon Las Vegas tower is the latest casualty of the condo glut in Sin City.

Almost 100 condo projects with more 50,000 units are in the works in greater Las Vegas, according to a recent count. But real estate analysts say several of those will fall through as well.

Besides a slowdown in demand for these pricey high-rise homes, higher construction costs have made them less attractive to developers.

Construction costs have shot up at least 30 percent in the past year.

In Miami, more than 15,000 condos are under construction and another 60,000 are planned. To attract buyers, some developers are offering freebies like plasma TVs.

"The Valley will never be as over hyped on vertical living as Las Vegas or Miami," said Reid Butler, a residential developer who is working on the 200-unit RO3 high-rise and historic housing project in central Phoenix. "But the projects with the best plans, financing and most signed contracts will do well."

Rethinking purchases

Demand for high-rise condos in metropolitan Phoenix is expected to continue, just not at the level that would fill all the projects on the drawing board right away. So owners of such condos likely won't see their values fall, but prices also likely won't make the same jumps they did in the past two years.

The condo-conversion market is untested in the Valley. Market watchers and owners of these former apartments are waiting to see if values climb enough to let them sell for a profit after a few years. That trend successfully played out on the east and west coasts in the late 1990s.

In the past few years, values of typical two- to three-story condos shot up in the Valley, and real estate analysts say such properties in the best locations will not only hold their value but also continue to steadily appreciate, as long as homeowners associations maintain them.

For those who don't yet own, though, the number of condos on the market may be disconcerting.

Real estate agents say some investors are now beginning to walk away, or are considering doing so, from small deposits on high-rise and condo-conversion projects in the Valley.

Some investors see the rising number of resale condos and realize they have more competition to flip properties for a profit.

Other potential buyers are concerned a glut of new condos will put pressure on prices and don't want to buy until the market stabilizes.

So far, none of the high- profile projects has fallen through, though some developers have been marketing planned projects with some pre-sales to other developers.

"I don't think we are in danger of condo projects going away and people losing down payments," said Keith Mishkin, a veteran high-rise and upscale condo broker with Cambridge Properties.

He said some developers are putting projects out there just to test the market, but they won't go if demand isn't there.

Real estate analysts say those are the projects without public reports, and where buyers are only putting down small amounts, like $5,000, and not signing full contracts.

SunCor is serious about its second residential tower at its Hayden Ferry Lakeside project next to Tempe Town Lake. The developer acquired a building permit for the 104-unit project last week and hired contractor McCarthy to build it. SunCor's public report with the Arizona Department of Real Estate is approved, and 35 buyers have signed contracts. Prices for the condos range from $400,000 to $5.5 million in the second tower, and it's planning two more towers.

Most projects without "real buyers" and government approvals aren't getting financing: Lenders are clamping down on condo deals because of the many speculative projects and gluts in some areas.

"Now most lenders are very cautious and want most of a development to be sold, really sold, before they will finance it," said Eric Brown, head of Artisan Homes, which built the first lofts in the Valley. He plans to break ground on the 80-unit second phase of his Artisan Lofts on Central this year.

"There's demand for urban housing projects in the Valley, but only a few projects really make sense," he said.
__________________
Crewer
     
     
  #685  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2006, 11:24 PM
Kropotkin Kropotkin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 84
LookingUp-

In taking another look at the video, the more I cannot help but think NCL is just a scam to get investor money for a phantom enterprise. What are the specifics that allow them to do what they claim? Who are the people behind it and what is their record?

Construction improvements are generally incremental over time. That someone can come along and make a "superior" building for 2/3 the cost is an astounding claim. This is not a field of pure science or research where there are huge breakthroughs. Unless they've invented or discovered some "ground-breaking" material sciences product that reduces their "hard" costs by nearly 50%, their claims just do not hold water. This "hard cost" reduction is the meat of their cost differential.

Just what is it that they know that dozens of other real, established builders don't? How do they know this and what is their background that can make their claims credible? If the normal profit margin is ~10% on a successful building- which is probably right- wouldn't other developers, such as Novare Group, want to know how to increase their margin to 40% (?). Whatever advantage there was wouldn't last anyway, because competitors would start emulating NCL's processes. There is no such thing as "pass the savings on". Walmart's profit margin on their revenues is about 2.5% in a typical quarter. Very, very few industries can have 40% margins- only those with monopolies or with massive entry barriers (e.g., Intel) can maintain such levels for any length of time.

I'd like to believe what NCL claims is possible- we'd see a high rise building explosion world-wide like never before if their cost and quality claims were true. However, many things just do not add up.
__________________
Resident of West Campus neighborhood, Austin Texas
     
     
  #686  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2006, 3:16 AM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
NewCenturyLiving

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kropotkin
LookingUp-

I'd like to believe what NCL claims is possible- we'd see a high rise building explosion world-wide like never before if their cost and quality claims were true. However, many things just do not add up.
Kropotkin-

I have been involved in re development for 20 years. Every architect and every builder I've ever done business with acknowledges the waste and inefficiency in design and construction. Nobody argues that fact. I'm not sure what they have - I have only received two emails. I have been told they have several patents (unusual in construction) and that their reduced construction cost and schedule is "guaranteed" by one of the largest contractors in the US.

I believe it must be a new way of producing high-rise buildings. I've seen the presentation a few times - if what they have is indeed true, I wouldn't share "how" it's done. That would be for serious interested parties only - with $ to invest.

It seems to me they have been willing to shake up an industry that has shown very little progress in decades. I think it makes sense to question why it still takes two years to build a high-rise. I owned a parts-supplier for the automotive industry during the 90s - our productivity increased almost 50% in just 5 years. If we didn't, we would have been out of business. There isn't this kind of pressure on the construction industry - it remains unchanged and I agree with their premise that it doesn't make sense. Why have other industries figured out better delivery models?

I don't know how they protect their innovations - it does appear that the construction industry is in no hurry to improve. Michael Dell proved to the world that the "direct model" was a more efficient way to produce computers - they're still the only one doing it that way - 26 years later. IBM quit and HP/Compaq continues to lose market share. Dell continues to win.

I too hope they've found a way to improve the delivery of high-rise buildings - I'd like more people to live in the sky. It's nice up here, if not a bit lonely at times.
     
     
  #687  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2006, 3:44 AM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by crewer
I don't think I can agree with you on the condo market not slowing down. It already has here in DC and in other major cities around the country.

Here's an article from The Arizona Republic (Phoenix). Sorry for it's length, but I think it's worth reading. I just hope no one comes back with a, "But Austin is different kind of market" statement. It ain't.
Crewer-

If you re-read the lenghty, but somewhat informative article you'll notice a lot about the prices - something you leave out of your brief analysis.

People will always need a place to live. The costs vary from city to city - significantly. The "demand" for high-rise living is not being met with $400,000- $700,000 condos. Surely you see this in DC. A friend of mine was part of the development team in Austin a few years ago for a "luxury high-rise." I think they had 115 units. They had more than 2,500 visitors to their marketing center and the number one reason for not buying was they "couldn't afford it."

Many young people are literally "stuck" in luxury rental communities. Their rents in Austin $1500-2000 a month would equate to purchase prices of $200,000 to $300,000, but there is nothing available except conversions of cheap apartments built in the 80s and 90s. I read the market study (two years ago) that there are more than 20,000 of these people in Austin alone. How many of them would buy - if they could?

This scenario is repeated in cities throughout the US. Just imagine living in San Diego and paying $3,000 a month in rent. Or even more in Boston.

I have not done enough due-diligence on NewCenturyLiving to determine whether or not that have some breakthrough technology and new systems for construction, but I really hope they do. Many people want the active urban lifestyle - it's just too expensive.

If someone doesn't figure out a way to make urban living more "obtainable" our cities will not be reborn with the thousands of people necessary to make them vibrant and safe.

Here's hoping they do have a solution - i'd like our cities to thrive. The suburbs are boring and inconvenient.

Let me know when thousands of young people can afford to live in DC - and please, tell me how you did it - it would be a breakthrough. I'd invest.

In the meantime I'll chase the potential of some new, creative solution to high-rise construction. I'm not impressed with the construction industry and its lack of progress. I actually think they're lazy and have no incentive to change the way they do business. Soon, the costs will exceed the buyers ability to pay. Study California - without 50-year mortgages (coming soon) thay can't afford to build more homes. Well, you could live in a desert two hours away - but, that gets old quickly.

- LookingUp (again and again)
     
     
  #688  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2006, 4:15 AM
msutton msutton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 28
Yeah, it's not that Austin or Dallas or any other market is "different" except that 1) fewer units have been delivered, so there is more pent up demand and 2) in none of the sun belt cities have high rise projects targeted towards middle income buyers been constructed. That's where so much potential for growth lies, and if this company is legit and can tap into that, they'll see great success.

I just read that article on the Austin commuter rail line. Great news. I've always been amazed that both Dallas and Houston were able to get public rail transit before Austin... so even if they are 10 years after DART, it's great that they are finally getting on board. Hopefully the cities can start working together eventually and expanding/connecting rail systems.
     
     
  #689  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2006, 2:41 AM
redirector redirector is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12
"I've always been amazed that both Dallas and Houston were able to get public rail transit before Austin... "

It doesn't surprise me. Dallas and Houston aren't nearly as liberal as Austin is, and despite transit's appeal, NIMBY's are big in Austin. Rail was voted down in 2000 by Austinites.

It seems reminiscent of what happened years ago, when federal highway dollars became available, and San Antonio jumped on the funding, and built Loop 410, and expanded other freeways. Austin decided the best way to cope with growth was to discourage it from coming, and they didn't expand as much. That didn't work, of course. It's the prettiest, most convenient place to live in Texas. Bring the rail -- better late than never.
     
     
  #690  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2006, 4:00 AM
jsoto3 jsoto3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingUp
I have been involved in re development for 20 years.
How can you have been involved in development for the last 20 years and not know what fast-track construction is? Fast-track construction is simply the delivery of a building at an extremely accelerated schedule, requiring that construction begins well before the design is even developed. Unfortunately, it is now becoming a standard construction delivery method and is what NCL must do to even come close to what they claim they can do. It is a very risky way to construct a building.

Last edited by jsoto3; Mar 10, 2006 at 4:10 AM.
     
     
  #691  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2006, 4:52 PM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
NCL is NOT "Fast-Trak" Construction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsoto3
Fast-track construction[/URL] is simply the delivery of a building at an extremely accelerated schedule, requiring that construction begins well before the design is even developed. Unfortunately, it is now becoming a standard construction delivery method and is what NCL must do to even come close to what they claim they can do. It is a very risky way to construct a building.
The Company says it is not fast-trak or design-build. I am trying to learn more. They did say their buildings were "already designed" to comply with codes across the country and that they were not "cookie-cutter" designs. From this, I think they have a whole "new" way of completing construction documents AND buildings.

I'm learning more.
     
     
  #692  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2006, 7:04 AM
Kropotkin Kropotkin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingUp
Kropotkin-

...

I'm not sure what they have - I have only received two emails. I have been told they have several patents (unusual in construction) and that their reduced construction cost and schedule is "guaranteed" by one of the largest contractors in the US.

...
The claim of patents is yet another red flag . Again, this has scam written all over it. If they have patents, this should be public information and viewable by anyone online. If they refuse to give you reference numbers to read these patents yourself online, walk- no, run. Patents are public information. Further, you're right that patents in construction are not heard of. While there are patents for specific, discrete breakthroughs of something that goes into a building, I don't see how someone could get a patent for a building process, as there are too many works of prior art with which it'll conflict.

During the tech bubble there were scammers doing the "patent claim" thing regularly. They'd rake in large amounts of money from angel investors and basically dissipate all the money on themselves through bogus consulting fees.
__________________
Resident of West Campus neighborhood, Austin Texas

Last edited by Kropotkin; Mar 11, 2006 at 8:41 AM.
     
     
  #693  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2006, 3:32 PM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
Kroptkin - Patents in Construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kropotkin
The claim of patents is yet another red flag . Again, this has scam written all over it. If they have patents, this should be public information and viewable by anyone online. If they refuse to give you reference numbers to read these patents yourself online, walk- no, run. Patents are public information. Further, you're right that patents in construction are not heard of. While there are patents for specific, discrete breakthroughs of something that goes into a building, I don't see how someone could get a patent for a building process, as there are too many works of prior art with which it'll conflict.

During the tech bubble there were scammers doing the "patent claim" thing regularly. They'd rake in large amounts of money from angel investors and basically dissipate all the money on themselves through bogus consulting fees.
Not sure if you're a frustrated architect or what the problem is - maybe your just the cynical type. There are many patents in the construction industry for assemblies and processes. They have several provisional patents - I saw three of them. They won't be public for at least another year. In addition, they claim to have more than two dozen "trade secrets" which I don't find unusual. Even CocaCola is still a trade secret.

The main reason I'm interested in this group is I know - in fact, everyone in design and construction knows, there is significant waste in the delivery of buildings. Google it. Estimates range from 20-50% - they claim to have reduced it to almost zero. If it's true, and I am still learning, then it is very valuable. Not only for high-rise condos, but other high-rise buildings.

I have completed reservations for two new condo projects in Austin. I believe in the market. But, it will be 3 years or more before these buildings are complete. That's just too long. I hope these guys or someone else figures out a better delivery method for buildings. The construction industry has been doing the same thing forever - while other industries have made a lot of progress. This is obvious to anyone who looks.

Maybe you're not a frustrated architect but one of the lazy construction guys that just keeps doing things the "old way" and you're unable to recognize the problem, or do anything about it.

In any event, I don't trash other peoples ideas - I try to understand them and then make conclusions. I hope they have what they say they do - if so, it will be an important warning to you and the many others in the industry that just keep sitting on your hands. Comfortable, huh?

Last edited by LookingUp; Mar 12, 2006 at 2:00 AM.
     
     
  #694  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2006, 5:59 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin<--->Birmingham<--->Atlanta
Posts: 55,831
6-story residential project south of Town Lake moving forward at Barton Springs Road & Sterzing Street. The developer had originally asked for a zoning change to allow for a building up to 120 feet tall.

From the Austin American-Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/realestate/03/11wooley.html


Project near Zilker moves forward

Ex-Schlotzsky's chief plans mixed-use development just south of Town Lake.


By Shonda Novak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, March 11, 2006

John Wooley, Schlotzsky's Inc.'s former CEO, is proceeding with plans for a mixed-use project with shops and housing on the fringes of Zilker Park.

It is one of a growing number of such developments spreading south of Town Lake as city leaders push for density in the downtown area.

The City Council on Thursday gave preliminary approval to a zoning change for three separately owned parcels, including one owned by Wooley, that total about 2 acres on the northwest side of Barton Springs Road and Sterzing Street.

The zoning change will provide consistent development standards on all three tracts and facilitate a mixed-use project there, said Robert Heil, a senior planner with the city Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Department.

Some of the land is undeveloped, while other tracts house a bicycle repair shop and a parking lot. The sites are adjacent to parkland that abuts the hike-and-bike trail and Zilker Park. A host of popular restaurants line Barton Springs Road east of the site.

Nearby, other mixed-use projects are planned on both sides of South Lamar Boulevard south of Town Lake.

Although Wooley won't comment on his plans, he has told neighborhood groups that he is considering building a project with five levels of housing above ground-floor retail, plus two levels of underground parking, said Jeff Jack, president of the Zilker Neighborhood Association, which represents about 200 nearby households.

Jack said Wooley originally planned to seek a zoning change that would allow him to build up to 120 feet, but the current zoning change would cap building height at 60 feet, which the Zilker neighborhood group and park advocates prefer.

The neighborhood group supports a mixed-use project at the site, as long as it meets zoning requirements and addresses any neighborhood concerns, Jack said.

Wooley did not give the group a timetable for the project and might still be trying to acquire more land to allow a larger project, Jack said.

Wooley has not discussed specifics with the city, other than to say he plans a mixed-use development, Heil said.

Wooley did not return phone calls or e-mails seeking comment.
__________________
My girlfriend has a poodle named Kevin.
     
     
  #695  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2006, 3:37 AM
crewer crewer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Palm Springs, CA
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas
6-story residential project south of Town Lake moving forward at Barton Springs Road & Sterzing Street. The developer had originally asked for a zoning change to allow for a building up to 120 feet tall.
Speaking of projects south of Town Lake, have you heard anymore about the project located near the Hyatt? I know I had read about it on here sometime ago, but haven't heard much since.
__________________
Crewer
     
     
  #696  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2006, 12:53 PM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
Construction costs too high?

Quote:
Originally Posted by crewer
Speaking of projects south of Town Lake, have you heard anymore about the project located near the Hyatt? I know I had read about it on here sometime ago, but haven't heard much since.
I heard they couldn't make the numbers work. Construction costs too high? This may be true for Zom's project across from Austin City Lofts, too. Spring and Novare's 360 have the same problem.

Condo prices in Austin are only $300-350 PSF. Construction costs are $175-200 PSF. It's too difficult to make a decent profit. Dallas product sells for +$400 with similar costs.
     
     
  #697  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2006, 5:29 PM
jmanh jmanh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingUp
I heard they couldn't make the numbers work. Construction costs too high? This may be true for Zom's project across from Austin City Lofts, too. Spring and Novare's 360 have the same problem.
I find it hard to believe that a developer wouldn't have made the basic "bottom-line" calculations prior to announcing the project and going through the hassle of getting city approval. Maybe construction costs have increased rapidly since the projects were announced? I don't know.

Another possibility is that property taxes are projected by some to increase a good deal this year. Even if these taxes can be passed on to the condo owners, the increase effectively lowers the unit pricing and reduces net profit.

But, what is still confusing to me is that several new condos and apt. complexes are being built currently outside of downtown, e.g., in West Campus. One would think that rising construction costs and property taxes would effect these as well. It seems that just the high-rise projects have been delayed.

Perhaps the developers don't have much experience with high-rise construction. There could be design issues with cost implications that they're trying to work out. I read in the paper a quote from a developer that was something like you can't make any changes to a high-rise once the construction has started.
     
     
  #698  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2006, 6:17 PM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
Like "Spring?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmanh
I find it hard to believe that a developer wouldn't have made the basic "bottom-line" calculations prior to announcing the project and going through the hassle of getting city approval. Maybe construction costs have increased rapidly since the projects were announced? I don't know.

Perhaps the developers don't have much experience with high-rise construction. There could be design issues with cost implications that they're trying to work out. I read in the paper a quote from a developer that was something like you can't make any changes to a high-rise once the construction has started.
Apparently "Spring" (www.SpringAustin.com) announced their project without any construction documents - so, they don't have any idea what the construction costs are. That's very risky. But, they have a strategy to keep their costs down: no amentities. To paraphrase from the Spring website "we won't have amenities because of our location, no pool because we're near Barton Springs and no business center because we're next door to Office Max." I suppose they could just skip the finishes too... there is a Home Depot nearby.

At least Novare is copying a building they've already built a few times (Atlanta, Tampa and Nashville), so they know the costs or will at least be close. I'd bet on them before Spring ever happening.

We'll have to see what happens.

LookingUp
     
     
  #699  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2006, 7:40 PM
jmanh jmanh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 53
That seems strange

Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingUp
Apparently "Spring" (www.SpringAustin.com) announced their project without any construction documents - so, they don't have any idea what the construction costs are. That's very risky.
LookingUp
I hate to be suspicious, but something doesn't seem right here. Wouldn't it make sense before purchasing the land to have a good sense for what the project is going to cost, so one can make a rational decision about the ROI?

So, I am suspicious that the developers are simply trying to "flip" the land. In a scheme I am imagining, they increase the value of the land by removing two sources of risk pertaining to development: (a) the City of Austin's zoning reg.'s and (b) uncertain demand. So, they get the city's approval to build a high-rise of 40 stories or so (despite strong neighborhood assn' protests), and then they put up a website to market the proposed building and count how many people register. And voila, the land is now worth a good deal more.

I'm probably wrong, but then again, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for construction to start anytime soon.
     
     
  #700  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2006, 8:43 PM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
Project Cost

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmanh
I hate to be suspicious, but something doesn't seem right here. Wouldn't it make sense before purchasing the land to have a good sense for what the project is going to cost, so one can make a rational decision about the ROI?

So, I am suspicious that the developers are simply trying to "flip" the land.
I agree with you, except the "land" in question isn't that valuable. The "Spring" site is small and difficult to build. There are many more attractive sites downtown.

The only way to get a reliable estimate of construction costs is to actually complete construction documents. Spring hasn't made that investment. They don't even have a "rendering," just a picture of a building they like in Vancouver - Pomaria. I haven't met anyone in Austin that thinks Spring is real. (I wish that wasn't the case because Vancouver has done a great job with high-rise residential and Spring is trying to copy their style). They could have spent some money on a nice package, but who knows... maybe they simply hope to sell the site to someone with $.

I just wish somebody would get something started soon - Dallas is having a ball going up - 17 proposed projects, and Austin can't get one real one.

I hear the Museum site (on Republic Square) is about to announce a deal with Tom Stacy and HKS. That would be a positive sign.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:20 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.