AUSTIN | The Independent | 690 FEET | 58 FLOORS | Complete - Page 64

wwmiv · #**1261** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 1:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Not quite (and it depends on your definition of "large"). More than likely, if Merck does choose Austin, they would try to be as near to the medical school as possible (i.e., in a new tower in the Brackenridge "Innovation District").

That's downtown? And there's nothing stopping them from being tall in that area?

wwmiv · #**1262** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

That Merck article that was posted did mention they're looking at sites between Lavaca and I-35 and 9th and MLK. That would include the Block 71 site where we already know something tall is being considered.

Merck also has the capability to self-finance, so they may not necessarily be looking to partner with a current in-the-pipeline development and ink a deal with that office space (or existing office space).

KevinFromTexas · #**1263** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 1:16 AM**

Actually, I guess that wouldn't include that site since it's at 7th & Lavaca. So nevermind.

The ATX · #**1264** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 1:21 AM**

I don't know why Merck would care if an IT hub was near the Med Center. Leasing space at the Domain or anywhere else would suit their needs. Maybe they are planning for something beyond IT in the future?

wwmiv · #**1265** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 1:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

I don't know why Merck would care if an IT hub was near the Med Center. Leasing space at the Domain or anywhere else would suit their needs. Maybe they are planning for something beyond IT in the future?

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2...l-giant-merck-selects-austin-for-it.html

Quote:

Merck said the presence of such a facility in Austin should attract other innovative health companies to the area.

Merck is in the third year of a revamped IT strategy, which involves creating tech centers around the world where workers can collaborate. Austin would be the fourth such location, following facilities established in New Jersey, the Czech Republic and Singapore.

This sounds like to me to involve health centered collaborative work space.

http://www.statesman.com/business/merck-...-city-incentives/l5TYEvRK1JVpGGBDjpIriL/

Quote:

According to a draft economic development proposal, the company also would invest almost $29 million in facilities and equipment by 2023.

Sounds like partial self-funding to me, or the last funding puzzle piece of some current development.

Quote:

Merck, the global pharmaceutical and health care firm, is considering Austin for a new technology center that could create up to 600 jobs and serve as a major anchor for the innovation district emerging around the Dell Medical School.

The area they're considering is substantially larger than what the Innovation District is, and includes a bunch of stuff they won't be able to get and a bunch of stuff obstructed by CVCs, so I wouldn't necessarily discount Block 71. There's also the Episcopal Church Archives project, which is also just outside the area they're considering and the closest non-CVC-obstructed lot that isn't currently spoken for as a non-office-project, as part of the UT Medical School proper, or as part of the Brackenridge master plan. We'll know more soon, I'm sure.

The ATX · #**1266** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 2:12 AM**

This project could end up being a much bigger deal than the initial 600 jobs. It could be the first big payoff for building the med center. I hope the city doesn't doesn't blow it with the incentives. But I've lost faith in the current city leadership.

corvairkeith · #**1267** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 2:19 AM**

For what it's worth, I was at the grand opening of the new Bioscience Incubator at the old Highland mall last month and there were quite a few Merck executives checking out the wet-lab space there.

The ATX · #**1268** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 2:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

For what it's worth, I was at the grand opening of the new Bioscience Incubator at the old Highland mall last month and there were quite a few Merck executives checking out the wet-lab space there.

That's definitely worth something and is a hopeful harbinger for bioscience jobs in the future.

GoldenBoot · #**1269** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 6:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

That's downtown? And there's nothing stopping them from being tall in that area?

Yes. I guess, technically, that tract is located at the far northeast corner of "downtown."

I'm pretty confident that they will not build taller than 35 stories in that area (should the new CVC request be killed).

GoldenBoot · #**1270** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 6:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaven

I thought supertalls were generally defined as over 1000', not necessarily by floor count.

That is pretty much correct. Being defined as "supernal" has nothing to do with floor count. It is defined by a building's overall architectural height.

As a note: The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat defines Supertall and Megatall buildings as:

The CTBUH defines “supertall” as a building over 300 meters (984 feet) in height, and a “megatall” as a building over 600 meters (1,968 feet) in height. As of June 2015 there were 91 supertall and 2 megatall buildings fully completed and occupied globally.

wwmiv · #**1271** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 8:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

That is pretty much correct. Being defined as "supernal" has nothing to do with floor count. It is defined by a building's overall architectural height.

As a note: The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat defines Supertall and Megatall buildings as:

The CTBUH defines “supertall” as a building over 300 meters (984 feet) in height, and a “megatall” as a building over 600 meters (1,968 feet) in height. As of June 2015 there were 91 supertall and 2 megatall buildings fully completed and occupied globally.

Yes... but there's VERY clearly a high correlation between floor count and height, which was the point. If we don't know height, but know a floor count, that still provides us with some useful information about height.

GoldenBoot · #**1272** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yes... but there's VERY clearly a high correlation between floor count and height, which was the point.

No. I do not believe there is a "VERY" high correlation. The range in potential overall heights is too great to be considered "very."

wwmiv · #**1273** Posted **Apr 1, 2017, 11:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

No. I do not believe there is a "VERY" high correlation. The range in potential overall heights is too great to be considered "very."

I bet if you ran a regression with necessary confounding covariates, floor count would explain 90% of the variation in building height. Want to go collect all that data and try? I certainly won't, because I think the idea speaks so strongly for itself that it would be an exercise in proving common sense.