Austin's Next Wave of High-Rises

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

It's crazy to think Austin could have a supertall, two 800'ers, five 700'ers, two 600'ers, and several more over 400' tall - all under construction at the same time.

To me this is the amazing part. The city has undergone such amazing change in such a short time . . . and yet the most change is arguably still to come.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by We vs us

To me this is the amazing part. The city has undergone such amazing change in such a short time . . . and yet the most change is arguably still to come.

Its the upcoming taller projects, the number of them, and in such a short period of time that will define our skyline as one of the best in the country in only the next 5 years if all goes to fruition. Easily in the top 10.

[enragedcamel]

The other day I got curious about what goes into determining optimal skyscraper height, and went down a rabbit hole. Apparently, most of our understanding of skyscraper economics is based on a book written in 1930 by W. C. Clark and J. L. Kingston (CK), an economist and architect, respectively. Titled The Skyscraper: A Study in the Economic Height of a Modern Office Buildings, the book aims to figure out the height of a given skyscraper that would maximize returns, given rents, cost of land and construction costs. They refer to this as the "Economic Height".

The authors mostly examined Manhattan, but their methodology has since been applied all over the world and has been found to hold true. The gist of it is that the main driver of skyscraper height is economic growth and urbanization. There's a feedback loop in play: the number of tall buildings in a city, as well as their collective heights, tends to be the greatest predictor of the number and height of future skyscrapers. This is good news for us here in Austin because it means there are more supertalls in our future.

The other interesting thing I found was a comparison of cost-per-floor numbers across Asia vs. the United States. The Burj Kalifa, which is the world's tallest building at 163 floors, cost only $1.5 billion, which comes down to $9 million per floor. In contrast, the 58-story Bank of America building in New York cost $1.76 billion, i.e. $37 million per floor. Apparently the difference can almost entirely be attributed to labor and material costs between the two locations. Indeed, this appears to be one of the reasons Asia has built so many supertalls over the past 100 years:



The other interesting bit I found was a breakdown of materials used in the construction of skyscrapers over time:



Not sure what "composite" stands for — I can only assume it's reinforced concrete or something similar?

[ATX2030]

No telling what's in the pipeline we haven't heard about yet. It will be interesting to see what get's built on the post office site.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

Not sure what "composite" stands for — I can only assume it's reinforced concrete or something similar?

All structural concrete is reinforced. Concrete has very high compressive strength (ability to resist a load) but zero tensile strength (ability to resist being pulled apart). The steel reinforcing gives it tensile strength as well.

My guess is that the chart is referring to 'mixed' as steel frame on top of a concrete base. 'Composite' may be the sort of super-reinforced concrete you sometimes see used in supertalls like: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...216072&page=24 The steel is more than just a rebar cage within the concrete. It is really a self-supporting steel frame that is encased in concrete for fireproofing and added compressive strength (steel has high compressive and tensile strength but melts under high heat).

[drummer]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

The other day I got curious about what goes into determining optimal skyscraper height, and went down a rabbit hole. Apparently, most of our understanding of skyscraper economics is based on a book written in 1930 by W. C. Clark and J. L. Kingston (CK), an economist and architect, respectively. Titled The Skyscraper: A Study in the Economic Height of a Modern Office Buildings, the book aims to figure out the height of a given skyscraper that would maximize returns, given rents, cost of land and construction costs. They refer to this as the "Economic Height".

The authors mostly examined Manhattan, but their methodology has since been applied all over the world and has been found to hold true. The gist of it is that the main driver of skyscraper height is economic growth and urbanization. There's a feedback loop in play: the number of tall buildings in a city, as well as their collective heights, tends to be the greatest predictor of the number and height of future skyscrapers. This is good news for us here in Austin because it means there are more supertalls in our future.

The other interesting thing I found was a comparison of cost-per-floor numbers across Asia vs. the United States. The Burj Kalifa, which is the world's tallest building at 163 floors, cost only $1.5 billion, which comes down to $9 million per floor. In contrast, the 58-story Bank of America building in New York cost $1.76 billion, i.e. $37 million per floor. Apparently the difference can almost entirely be attributed to labor and material costs between the two locations. Indeed, this appears to be one of the reasons Asia has built so many supertalls over the past 100 years:



The other interesting bit I found was a breakdown of materials used in the construction of skyscrapers over time:



Not sure what "composite" stands for — I can only assume it's reinforced concrete or something similar?

A bit off-topic from Austin, but as we're going down these rabbit holes, I also read this article recently and found it interesting:

China limits construction of 'super high-rise buildings'
China has restricted smaller cities in the country from building "super high-rise buildings", as part of a larger bid to crack down on vanity projects.

The country is home to some of the world's highest buildings, including Shanghai Tower, which has 128 floors.

Local reports also questioned the need for low-density cities to build skyscrapers, suggesting they were built for vanity and not practicality.

There is already an existing ban on buildings taller than 500 metres.

The announcement was mostly met with approval on Chinese social media site Weibo, with many stating that the super-high skyscrapers were "not needed... they're just gimmicky".

Earlier this year the country issued a ban on "ugly architecture".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59046480

I suppose the relevance to us as we consider the economic value/impact of skyscrapers (and, one could argue, environmental, social, etc., impact as well), we also do well to consider vanity projects. I don't think we have that issue here as much as the opposite due to price cuts, haha, but it's still worth considering.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by drummer

I suppose the relevance to us as we consider the economic value/impact of skyscrapers (and, one could argue, environmental, social, etc., impact as well), we also do well to consider vanity projects. I don't think we have that issue here as much as the opposite due to price cuts, haha, but it's still worth considering.

I think that Skyscrapers generally are beneficial to the environment as they are creating dense living and work spaces that cut back on sprawl and lead to people living closer to where they work which allows for more mass transit which is also a massive boon to the planet.

What China is talking about are massive boondoggles of unfinished buildings. Shanghai Tower is basically an empty shell. The hotel that is supposed to be inside of it has never opened (but you can call and they will tell you that it is "fully booked". There was supposed to be a super fancy restaurant at the top of the tower and instead the observation deck is basically unfinished with a little cafe.

I go to Shanghai for work about ever 3-4 years - the tower is clearly mostly unoccupied at night. the mall in its basement is mostly empty. its a weird ghost town.

The Chinese government had to pay to finish the construction of the building as the operator went bankrupt in the process of finishing it.

What they are cutting down on are these weird megatall vainity projects that don't make sense financially that are popping up all over chinese cities (and the middle east).

Chengdu Greenland Tower is another to google as just a building that makes zero sense. Its in a weird part of Chengdu - a city that has plenty of space for more moderate high-rises in the 700 to 800 foot range and now just has a building twice the height of anything else in the city being constructed that has clearly not been economically sound as its halted construction more than once.

I think the US is unlikely at this stage to get true vanity projects. I think before the great depression we certainly had some (the empty state building) that didn't make much financial sense. But most of our towers have to prove out as economically beneficial or they wouldn't get construction financing. Its much more likely a thing to pop up in more controlled economies.

[myBrain]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

What China is talking about are massive boondoggles of unfinished buildings. Shanghai Tower is basically an empty shell. The hotel that is supposed to be inside of it has never opened (but you can call and they will tell you that it is "fully booked". There was supposed to be a super fancy restaurant at the top of the tower and instead the observation deck is basically unfinished with a little cafe.

I go to Shanghai for work about ever 3-4 years - the tower is clearly mostly unoccupied at night. the mall in its basement is mostly empty. its a weird ghost town.

The Chinese government had to pay to finish the construction of the building as the operator went bankrupt in the process of finishing it.

What they are cutting down on are these weird megatall vainity projects that don't make sense financially that are popping up all over chinese cities (and the middle east).

The Goldin Finance building in Tianjin is another example, still unfinished. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLzJpCd5X9g

[SproutingTowers]

Originally Posted by myBrain

The Goldin Finance building in Tianjin is another example, still unfinished. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLzJpCd5X9g

Add Jeddah Tower to the list.

[drummer]

To be clear, I'm for density and the environmental impact is crystal clear to those who are paying attention. The social impact, I believe, is also beneficial as we're meant to live in community. The economic impact is contingent on a lot of factors, I suppose, based on density, price of land, demand, use, etc., but I think it's interesting to consider the vanity aspect.

I lived in China for nearly a decade and have traveled all over Asia for many years in my work. I've seen some great examples of density, quality urban design, and improved quality of life. I've also seen examples of compound and elitist design that just went tall but didn't actually improve anything in the neighborhood or city as a whole. Oh, and they had big parking garages (usually underground) as well. Despite pretty amazing infrastructure for mass transit in much of China, most people are still pushing to get their own vehicle to avoid the crowds, and the roads are beyond clogged. Still a fan of their transit in a big way, though.

That being said, China also has a ridiculous amount of vanity projects, and, as many have stated here before, it's been somewhat of a playground for architects to experiment with new ideas and weird designs.

My point with all of this: We can learn a lot about what to do and what not to do from Asia and elsewhere as we think about what Austin should become.

[The ATX]

Not necessarily the best thread for this. But I think we could still get some good development news before the end of the year. Things tend to slow down around Thanksgiving until January. But here are some potential updates with a good chance of happening IMO before 12/31:

1. 98 Red River site plan revision is approved
2. 321 West breaks ground
3. Renderings for 307 E. 2nd St. are released - possibly at 12/13 DC meeting

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Not necessarily the best thread for this. But I think we could still get some good development news before the end of the year. Things tend to slow down around Thanksgiving until January. But here are some potential updates with a good chance of happening IMO before 12/31:

1. 98 Red River site plan revision is approved
2. 321 West breaks ground
3. Renderings for 307 E. 2nd St. are released - possibly at 12/13 DC meeting

It's really funny --- I just scoped this thread earlier today, thinking a lot of the same things about the same buildings. This year is going to be out of control if ALL of the buildings that are popping continue to pop.

[enragedcamel]

The Roaring 20s (version 2.0) will transform Austin like no other decade!

[The ATX]

Five of Austin's tallest projects look good for breaking ground in Q1. That's based on at least two of them being financed (Modern Austin & 415 Colorado) and permitting/site progress as well as the developers behind them:

98RR - 1,022'
307 W. 2nd - 786'
321 West - 675'
Modern Austin - 658'
415 Colorado - 640'

Plus we have an 875 footer half way up. 2022 looks like a good year for height.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Five of Austin's tallest projects look good for breaking ground in Q1. That's based on at least two of them being financed (Modern Austin & 415 Colorado) and permitting/site progress as well as the developers behind them:

98RR - 1,022'
307 W. 2nd - 786'
321 West - 675'
Modern Austin - 658'
415 Colorado - 640'

Plus we have an 875 footer half way up. 2022 looks like a good year for height.

Wow!

[enragedcamel]

Need more IMO. One supertall and five regulars isn't that great.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

Need more IMO. One supertall and five regulars isn't that great.

This roster of construction starts is more impressive than for any single prior year in Austin, ever.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Five of Austin's tallest projects look good for breaking ground in Q1. That's based on at least two of them being financed (Modern Austin & 415 Colorado) and permitting/site progress as well as the developers behind them:

98RR - 1,022'
307 W. 2nd - 786'
321 West - 675'
Modern Austin - 658'
415 Colorado - 640'

Plus we have an 875 footer half way up. 2022 looks like a good year for height.

I hope the Republic will make it on the start list this year.

[Dariusb]

It's so cool witnessing a city change architecturally right before your eyes! On top of all the other projects citywide and the airport expansion, this city will be unrecognizable. Downtown alone will be a monster!

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This roster of construction starts is more impressive than for any single prior year in Austin, ever.

And probably better than any other city in Texas, ever, as well. I have a hard time imagining that Dallas and Houston have had more announced in a single year, rather than spread out over a much longer time....