AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by jowens

Great shots Lone Star!!

Thanks, and btw did y'all notice that in the last photo from the Mopac pedestrian bridge that 100 Congress is lit again? It's been dark for several months now.

[jowens]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

Thanks, and btw did y'all notice that in the last photo from the Mopac pedestrian bridge that 100 Congress is lit again? It's been dark for several months now.

I think it was lit for SXSW. I don't remember it being lit since last years SXSW. I've been out of town this week. Has anyone noticed it being lit this Week?

[wwmiv]

Here are my guesses, based on rate of growth and economic recovery data:

2013: Austin passes Indianapolis
2015: Austin passes Jacksonville
2015: Austin passes San Francisco
2018: Austin stabilizes in population, most future growth occurs in suburbs.
2018: Detroit falls below Austin, Austin peaks at number 11.
2020: Fort Worth rises above Austin.

That Fort Worth will eventually surpass Austin probably seems surprising to some here, but it shouldn't. Fort Worth added almost 200,000 residents in the eight years between 2000 and 2008, Austin only added around half of that. If I really wanted to be fair to Fort Worth, it could pass Austin before Detroit falls below us. Thereby preventing Austin's rise to 11th place (making this wonderful city have a peak position of 12th).

[KevinFromTexas]

I really wish they'd leave the lights on on 100 Congress. It's one of our oldest and best lighting designs. San Jacinto Center and 301 Congress have been dark for a long time too. San Jacinto Center does have some lighting, but it's very subtle. And 301 Congress has been dark for a while since one of the lights caught fire. The building has had two lighting designs before. The older one was flood lights on the setbacks that shined upward, which I always liked. And the most recent one was when they had white tube lighting around the setback parapets. Since one of those caught fire though on the 20th floor, they haven't had the lights on since. 301 Congress not being lit is one thing, since it's hardly noticeable from north, south, and west. 100 Congress though is still very prominent on our skyline, even though it's less than half the height of The Austonian right behind it. It still faces the river and creates the "face" of Austin's skyline. I've always liked the building too. San Jacinto Center also is prominent along the waterfront. I wish they'd turn the lights back on.

[gardensoul]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Here are my guesses, based on rate of growth and economic recovery data:

2013: Austin passes Indianapolis
2015: Austin passes Jacksonville
2015: Austin passes San Francisco
2018: Austin stabilizes in population, most future growth occurs in suburbs.
2018: Detroit falls below Austin, Austin peaks at number 11.
2020: Fort Worth rises above Austin.

That Fort Worth will eventually surpass Austin probably seems surprising to some here, but it shouldn't. Fort Worth added almost 200,000 residents in the eight years between 2000 and 2008, Austin only added around half of that. If I really wanted to be fair to Fort Worth, it could pass Austin before Detroit falls below us. Thereby preventing Austin's rise to 11th place (making this wonderful city have a peak position of 12th).

I think this looks reasonable except for the part about Austin stabilizing in 2018. The state demographer's projections show solid continuing growth in Austin through 2040 and I believe a significant percentage of that will occur in the city limits. (Though, you are right, the majority of the growth will happen in the 'burbs.) Right now, we are not a dense city - at all. Most of the central area is still covered in single family residences with yards. Inevitably this will change as smart in-fill projects get built along major corridors and the city loosens restrictions on things like garage apartments.

[AustinSkyscrapers]

About the lights thing--yea. I really wish 100 Congress' lights would stay on. I remember one time when it was lighted red white and blue. It was really cool to have one of our famous buildings on the face of the skyline stand out a lot. 301 Congress I think should have it's lighting fixed and show up. It is visible from part of Mopac though, and downtown too.

One Congress Plaza, one of the 3 riverfront skyscrapers, should have its lighting back on too. It used to have a blue lighting outline, kind of like the green of the Bank of America Center in Dallas. Bring the lighting back!!!

[Strayone]

Is there as chance the lighting of some buildings has been turned off or minimalized for simply conservation or actual monetary savings on electricity. I have always marveled at how buildings are lit up and Tx seems to like to outline buildings more than other places.

Lately I have been thinking a twin (in height) to The Austonian would sure be nice especially if it plugged one of the gaps in the SL. Thanks for the pics and keep em coming!

[WAustinResident]

Originally Posted by Strayone

Lately I have been thinking a twin (in height) to The Austonian would sure be nice especially if it plugged one of the gaps in the SL. Thanks for the pics and keep em coming!

It would look good, but it would sit empty...

On a more serious note, why aren't developers thinking of building lower to middle income high rises. Thats where the demand will be.

Its not like its not possible, its done all the time in New York and other cities. Instead of doing 11 foot ceilings you reduce it to 8 or 9 thus allowing more floor plates. Less expensive finishes and minimal amenities.

I'm sure these buildings will fill up quickly. They need to redesign the Seaholm and Powerplant condo and apartment designs and make them more affordable, if not, they will not get off the ground anytime soon.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Strayone

Is there as chance the lighting of some buildings has been turned off or minimalized for simply conservation or actual monetary savings on electricity. I have always marveled at how buildings are lit up and Tx seems to like to outline buildings more than other places.

Lately I have been thinking a twin (in height) to The Austonian would sure be nice especially if it plugged one of the gaps in the SL. Thanks for the pics and keep em coming!

If the tallest building proposed for the Green Water Treatment Plant is built as tall as proposed, it will effectively be a twin of the Austonian. The T Stacy tower would be even a little taller.

[wwmiv]

The Stacy building would be taller by the same difference that the Austonian is taller than the Frost... I wouldn't call that a little taller.

[AustinSkyscrapers]

Agreed. The tallest of the Green towers should be effective enough to be the Austonian's twin, as it is 650 feet high (?) and has about the same cylindrical shape as the Austonian.

T.Stacy would not be an effective twin of the Austonian. It is 147 feet taller than that of the Austonian. Frost is 168 feet shorter, so anything 75+ difference from Austonian should not be considered a twin.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by AustinSkyscrapers

Agreed. The tallest of the Green towers should be effective enough to be the Austonian's twin, as it is 650 feet high (?) and has about the same cylindrical shape as the Austonian.

Actually, that cylindrical tower you mentioned at the Green site was the proposal put up by Stratus. I believe the Trammel Crow proposal at one point mentioned a building up to 725 feet.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by WAustinResident

It would look good, but it would sit empty...

On a more serious note, why aren't developers thinking of building lower to middle income high rises. Thats where the demand will be.

Its not like its not possible, its done all the time in New York and other cities. Instead of doing 11 foot ceilings you reduce it to 8 or 9 thus allowing more floor plates. Less expensive finishes and minimal amenities.

I'm sure these buildings will fill up quickly. They need to redesign the Seaholm and Powerplant condo and apartment designs and make them more affordable, if not, they will not get off the ground anytime soon.

I don't think they wll be empty. If the market suddenly disappears, they will not get built. I think it is well established that the current 400 or so unsold new units will be absorbed long before the next condo project is completed.

As for affordable housing, I'd prefer not to see cheaply constructed high rises. They are too conspicuous and tend to have a blighting influence. I'd rather see affordable houisng in the form of mid-rise stick built construction under Capitol View Corridors. Such construction can be far more affordable than even cheapest high-rise construction.

[AustinSkyscrapers]

...Well, one of these of the Green proposal buildings is probably an effective twin of the Austonian:

[wwmiv]

Judging by that photo (which I've always found interesting, design-wise), it looks as if the building heights (if they build exactly that) will be 725, 700, 600, 540, and 400.

The more I see the designs, the more I appreciate them really. The wiggling in the tallest building is really quite endearing.

[AustinSkyscrapers]

Yea, I like the Trammel Crow proposal. It looks pretty cool IMO.

Now, the building to the left of the tallest one (the one with exterior bracing) just really looks like a toy (?) to me.

[wwmiv]

If the proposal is built as is, it will effectively double our skyline. That said, I wish that there was more variation in the design of the buildings. I really don't like when buildings look the same. They should mix it up with the exteriors of the buildings. The back two (on the control center lot) should be something completely different and NOT look like they are part of the same development. The building you think looks like a toy should get a different color glass than the rest of them. The tallest building should get a crown of some sort... Etc. Etc. Etc.

[Downtown_Austin]

Originally Posted by WAustinResident

On a more serious note, why aren't developers thinking of building lower to middle income high rises. Thats where the demand will be.

Its not like its not possible, its done all the time in New York and other cities. Instead of doing 11 foot ceilings you reduce it to 8 or 9 thus allowing more floor plates. Less expensive finishes and minimal amenities.

I've heard from a couple of downtown developers that it costs at least $300 per foot [all-in: land through finish out] to come out of the ground for a high rise. Obviously there are many variables that affect this number, but this is supposedly the rough "minimum" once you decide to build higher than mid-rise (which can still use stick and brick).

[jeremyz]

At a downtown plan meeting about 2 years ago, they talked about affordable downtown housing. They said it cost $200/ft^2 to bulid the empty floors for a highrise. Throw in some cheap finish out and don't have any parking and it would probably cost at least $250/ft^2 for a finished apartment. That makes affordable housing difficult unless you have Hong Kong style 400 ft^2 condos. The city's conclusion was that you should build 4 to 5 story wood structures that are much cheaper to build. This basically agrees with what Downtown_Austin was saying.

[WAustinResident]

At 250-300 a ft minimum, It seems unlikely anything new is going up anytime soon.

I would expect a major hotel before another condo project.