AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

tru dat

There's also Moxy, Autograph, and AC in West Campus, all by Marriott:

http://austin.towers.net/marriotts-m...e-millennials/

[KevinFromTexas]

The American-Statesman had an article that talked about the Marriott "Moxy Hotel" on the Drag. This says it'll open in 2019.

http://www.mystatesman.com/business/...EX5yOO7XxVN9M/

[lzppjb]

The Goodnight development in SE Austin will contain the new SE high school. AISD is purchasing land there for the future school. Years of arguing finally leads to a decision.

A 64.9-acre tract of land within the Goodnight development will be purchased by Austin ISD for the construction of a new high school in Southeast Austin. The cost of the land is $13,068,000 and is available through funds acquired during a December 2008 bond election.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/e...t-high-school/


https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/cho...ightmaster.jpg

[lzppjb]

Bowie HS in SW Austin is being expanded with the purchase of 2 neighboring tracts as well. It'll go from 60 acres to roughly 113 acres. Much of it must remain pervious cover, though. It will allow them to expand impervious cover and maintain their ratio.

[The ATX]

Austin Towers has and update about Snow Land:

http://austin.towers.net/austins-ind...job-after-all/http://austin.towers.net/austins-ind...job-after-all/

[drummer]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Austin Towers has and update about Snow Land:

http://austin.towers.net/austins-ind...job-after-all/http://austin.towers.net/austins-ind...job-after-all/

That kind of thing is simply crazy to me. It will certainly do well if the product is well designed and delivers well, of course. People love this weird stuff, haha. That said, skiing in Central Texas, much less Dubai, is a pretty cool thing to brag about, I guess.

[We vs us]

Those proposed new CVCs just became a touch more inconvenient.

The Hotel Mirabeau, however, just started to look like a MUCH better investment.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...in-for-it.html

[wwmiv]

From the Independent thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...205357&page=63

Originally Posted by paul78701

Upon further thought about supertalls. The first two buildings on this page are listed as supertall at 57 and 61 stories respectively. So a 72 story tower in Austin could very well be built as a supertall.

Any office building that is 65+ stories with a small crown is likely going to be a supertall.

Let's consider Oracle's campus, currently under construction at 560k sq. ft (larger than Frost's 525k) and is expected to house some of the current local workforce (~1100) and all of the increase (~500). Translate this to Merck's announcement of a ~600 person workforce: this is HUGE for prospective office buildings in that area. Because of the CVCs, whatever building they occupy is likely going to go tall. 40 stories at least. However, they'd be a single tenant and there's no reason that a developer wouldn't build additional office space for other tenants. If this ends up being part of the Brackenridge development, I expect they'll simply get one of the parcels to themselves and the other office buildings take up the additional built space over time. If this ends up NOT being part of that series of developments, I expect that the office space will be even larger to accommodate other firms in the same building (maybe 50, 60 stories). Either of these fits their stated strategy to locate near collaborative institutions, I'd argue.

Of course, using the number of workers to estimate the size of a building is going to be imprecise. That being said, whatever we see come of this is going to be fun to watch.

[We vs us]

You make a good point -- that Merck's building(s) might be part of the Brackenridge redevelopment, not something apart or standalone. That said, this Merck announcement seems really major to me -- it's a massive commitment to in its own right, but also a demonstration of the potential of what's being done with Brackendridge/Dell. Good sign that there's going to be more like this as time goes on.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

From the Independent thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...205357&page=63



Any office building that is 65+ stories with a small crown is likely going to be a supertall.

Not quite true...



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.

[gardensoul]

I

Interesting: http://www.mystatesman.com/business/...g9CC6T7DEJnGN/

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Not quite true...



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.

likely is the key here -- if we don't know how tall a building is, but happen to know the floor count, that provides us very useful information that we can use to guess a plausible range of heights for a potential building.

[GoldenBoot]

Semantics. Yes, you stated that at 65+ stories that the tower would "likely" be a supertall tower. All I was saying is that that is not quite true. A tower would have to rise above 984' to be considered supertall. For it to be "likely" there would have to be a greater than average chance for that specific tower to surpass 984' in height. And, I do not believe that there would be a greater than average chance of that occurring.

Furthermore, I do not see Austin getting a 65+ story "office tower" anytime soon. If we do get a tower of 65 stories or more it will probably be all residential or some sort of mixed-use.

Having said all that, I would agree with you that knowing a floor count could give one an idea of how tall a tower might end up being. Heck, a 800' tower in Austin would be supertall for us.

[wwmiv]

No, it isn't semantics. It is fact: floor count correlates strongly with height. Period. End of story.

We get it, there's a height definition to a supertall. Nobody is claiming otherwise. What we're saying is that, well, there's the possibility that a tower that is 65 stories tall COULD BE POSSIBLY A SUPERTALL. As in, 65 floors is sufficient to achieve 1000' in many circumstances. That doesn't mean it WILL. It just means it COULD.

Do you understand now?

Oh wait, you already do:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Having said all that, I would agree with you that knowing a floor count could give one an idea of how tall a tower might end up being. Heck, a 800' tower in Austin would be supertall for us.

all that being an argumentative response to a complete misreading of what I said. All you had to say was:

I would agree with you that knowing a floor count could give one an idea of how tall a tower might end up being.

Because that's what I was saying. So why spend time needlessly arguing against a point I never made? And you know that's what I meant, considering you picked the same argument to the same point I made in another thread, except there you contradict yourself:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...205357&page=64

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."

[Speculator]

Apologies. I have no idea where these should be posted. This is the latest from the 'pedestrianization' of Speedway on UT. Photos from yesterday.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

No, it isn't semantics. It is fact: floor count correlates strongly with height. Period. End of story.

We get it, there's a height definition to a supertall. Nobody is claiming otherwise. What we're saying is that, well, there's the possibility that a tower that is 65 stories tall COULD BE POSSIBLY A SUPERTALL. As in, 65 floors is sufficient to achieve 1000' in many circumstances. That doesn't mean it WILL. It just means it COULD.

Do you understand now?

Oh wait, you already do:



all that being an argumentative response to a complete misreading of what I said. All you had to say was:



Because that's what I was saying. So why spend time needlessly arguing against a point I never made? And you know that's what I meant, considering you picked the same argument to the same point I made in another thread, except there you contradict yourself:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...205357&page=64

Wow dude, get laid. Loosen up.

Nobody is fighting you. In fact, I was simply trying to diffuse the situation by somewhat being in agreement with an opinion of yours. Whether I was truly in agreement or not is of no matter. I'm not in a court of law. Again, I was trying to diffuse a situation I saw getting out of hand.

You must have some really deep wounds (about something) if this little topic gets you this bent out of shape. And if this is the case, I am sorry.

[the Genral]

**UPDATE**
Spent some time with my friend today loaded with questions. (Caution) I'm just a messenger. Grain 'O salt. First of all, he is a UH grad not UT. Oops, some people are sensitive about that. The "up to" 72 story highrise will be residential with perhaps a mixed use component. It is in the final design phase and will soon be open to bidding. I now know the hotel brand he was refering to but I'm going to hold off mentioning it for now. It may or may not have been mentioned here before, I want to research it further before I say more. My neck is sticking out far enough. He described the design as "very unique". It is currently in the bidding phase. He said he would try to get a rendering emailed to me. Can't wait to see it. I asked about the bidding phase, he said as with the 72 story project, once the design phase is complete, the bidding is on the materials needed to construct once determined and also for the labor and equipment used, as an example, there may be several companies bidding on the steel, glass and cement needed ect, then the construction companies, tower construction, electrical, plumbing, ect...Once all the bidding is awarded, then the projects will be announced, unlike other dipshits that prematurely announce projects before any of this is completed.
So now I find that my source also has connections with Flintco LLC who has several projects going on DT, including 70 Rainey. He called a buddy associated with that and even though to us it seems not enough is happening there, it is most definately moving forward. Regarding the Waller Creek fiasco, there is nothing going on there that anyone knows about, so we might as well consider it DRT (dead right there). He would not rule out that location for the Res Tower, but as he said, that's not up to him. HA! He does not know where its going.

[The ATX]

[futures]

Did your source give you the address???

[drummer]

theGeneral, we salute you!