AUSTIN | Waterloo Park Central (HealthSouth site) | 37 Floors x2 | Cancelled

[KevinFromTexas]

The 4 finalists. This says the proposals are due August 25th.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...1xwaakyLmuwiI/

• Catellus Development Corp.

• Brandywine Realty Trust

• Howard Hughes Corp. / Cambridge Holdings

• Wexford Science and Technology

[The ATX]

Another ABJ paywall alert. One of the four finalists dropped out. Based on the readable blip, it would be the proposal involving the Howard Hughes company.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...al-health.html

[paul78701]

With $6 million grant from state, Merck announces tech hub in Austin:
http://www.statesman.com/business/br...6Zrbj3tsHVaXJ/

[The ATX]

The big announcement is coming up on the 25th. I hope building info and the build out time frame along with some renderings are part of the announcement. The Courthouse block announcement turned out to be pretty anti-climatic with no project details. But we now know that Lincoln was busy at the time with another imminent big announcement. Anyway, the three finalists are:

• Catellus Development Corp.

• Brandywine Realty Trust

• Wexford Science and Technology

I really can't pick a favorite out of that group. All the usual big names in local development are busy with other Austin projects. Brandywine has a lot on their plate with buying up existing developments, and they can't get their one downtown project through the approval process. The other two choices don't impress me much either.

[KevinFromTexas]

Brandywine is probably the most exciting of those if you look into what they're planning in Philadelphia. Catullus was one of the original bidders on the Green Water redevelopment. They weren't my favorite, but they weren't the worst one either. I don't know a thing about Wexford.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Brandywine is probably the most exciting of those if you look into what they're planning in Philadelphia.

Their Philly project is absolutely incredible. But that is such a big undertaking that I can't help but think anything else they have planned is a back burner project to them.

[The ATX]

The developer selection announcement was scheduled for yesterday. As far as I can tell, that didn't happen. Maybe they didn't want their big news getting buried by the weather news.

[We vs us]

Wexford selected to develop Brackenridge tract.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...ite-to-be.html

Redevelopment of the Brackenridge tract — a 14.3-acre parcel in downtown Austin that could be transformed into a thriving medical and commercial district — will be in the hands of Wexford Science & Technology LLC, a Baltimore-based company that specializes in medical and research development.

The Central Health Board of Managers voted Wednesday to proceed with negotiations with Wexford as the master developer of the site near 15th Street and I-35, currently home to University Medical Center Brackenridge. The hospital was replaced earlier this year by the nearby Dell Seton Medical Center.

Wexford beat out Brandywine Realty Trust (NYSE: BDN) for the assignment after what Central Health called “an intensive review process.” The vote by the organization’s procurement committee was unanimous. Go here for more info on all the original respondents.

Central Health envisions the redevelopment of the six-block Brackenridge campus containing up to 3.7 million square feet of offices, medical facilities, shops, residences and more spread across multiple buildings. Go here to download its master plan.

The Brackenridge site is “an unprecedented redevelopment opportunity for Central Health with the potential to greatly benefit all of the residents of Travis County in the years to come,” according to a website put up by the organization.

Demolition of Brackenridge is still six months to a year off and construction won’t begin for two to three years, according to the announcement.

“Selecting a preferred master developer is an important first step to move this project forward,” Mike Geeslin, president and CEO of Central Health, said in a statement.

Gensler has been tapped as the executive campus planner for the redevelopment of Brackenridge and McCann Adams Studio has the lead on urban designing and planning.

This would be the first development in Texas for Wexford, which has been active on the East Coast handling projects for the University of Maryland, Yale School of Medicine and Wake Forest University. The company currently is building the $300 million Cortex 3.0 mixed-use project in St. Louis.

[The ATX]

I'm sure this site is in that top tier of 12 sites in Austin's HQ2 proposal. But it doesn't sound like it based on the article.

[futures]

Disappointed that Gensler is the architect on this project. While Gensler obviously has world-class designs across the globe, their Austin buildings are always uninspired glass boxes.

Their Seaholm buildings (google and third & shoal), Fairmont, and proposed courthouse building are all yawn inducing. Even 600 Guadalupe is bland save for the height.

[The ATX]

Here's a no paywall version from the Statesman:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...2nCxuXe5uBo8J/

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by futures

Disappointed that Gensler is the architect on this project. While Gensler obviously has world-class designs across the globe, their Austin buildings are always uninspired glass boxes.

Their Seaholm buildings (google and third & shoal), Fairmont, and proposed courthouse building are all yawn inducing. Even 600 Guadalupe is bland save for the height.

Agreed. Boring glass boxes seems to be their schtick.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by futures

Disappointed that Gensler is the architect on this project. While Gensler obviously has world-class designs across the globe, their Austin buildings are always uninspired glass boxes.

Their Seaholm buildings (google and third & shoal), Fairmont, and proposed courthouse building are all yawn inducing. Even 600 Guadalupe is bland save for the height.

Even though I agree with your opinion...in all fairness to Gensler (or any other architect group), the final design is up to the developer and their overall architectural and construction budgets. Some of the "coolest" designs in the world are just simply too expensive to build - at least in today's Austin.

Complain about the developer...not the architect. For the most part, it's their fault we have "boring" skyscrapers.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by The ATX

I'm sure this site is in that top tier of 12 sites in Austin's HQ2 proposal. But it doesn't sound like it based on the article.

Interesting, I never considered the Brackenridge site as a contender for Amazon. It seems mainly geared for medical and going by who they picked, I guess that is what they will be focusing on. Nonetheless, would be cool to hear about another major company other than Merk making plans to move there. Assuming Merk will pick the Innovation District and I think we all expect that to be the case.

[myBrain]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Agreed. Boring glass boxes seems to be their schtick.

Yeah I've wondered about this before. I mean this is the architecture house that did the Shanghai Tower as well as some awesome smaller projects like the Columbia University Medical Center. I appreciate their Austin work -- they're handsome modern buildings that definitely add to the skyline and look like buildings I'd love to go to work in every day -- but they stop short of trying to be iconic or push any boundaries. That's fine for 500 w 2nd and Third and Shoal and the domain towers and even the Fairmount (IMO it actually turned out fine), but it's not ok for skyline-stealing 600 Guad, which is great for its height but feels like a missed opportunity to steal the show from the Austonian or the Independent or even the much-shorter Frost, which are all more interesting buildings. And it's also not ok for an entirely-new cluster, which from the renderings so far looks like it's going to blend together into a clump of undifferentiated blocks.

IMO the only exception is Block 87 - that's a building that's trying to stand out. And the new Velocity tower, that one's more interesting too.

Do we think Gensler's work here is the result of

1) limited budgets in the Austin market allowing for fewer design flourishes
2) their Austin office's own design tastes (they do seem to have a distinct design language vs. other Gensler work)
3) the Austin market's taste
4) some combination of all of the above?

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by mybrain

do we think gensler's work here is the result of

1) limited budgets in the austin market allowing for fewer design flourishes
2) their austin office's own design tastes (they do seem to have a distinct design language vs. Other gensler work)
3) the austin market's taste
4) some combination of all of the above?

1

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by myBrain

Yeah I've wondered about this before. I mean this is the architecture house that did the Shanghai Tower as well as some awesome smaller projects like the Columbia University Medical Center. I appreciate their Austin work -- they're handsome modern buildings that definitely add to the skyline and look like buildings I'd love to go to work in every day -- but they stop short of trying to be iconic or push any boundaries. That's fine for 500 w 2nd and Third and Shoal and the domain towers and even the Fairmount (IMO it actually turned out fine), but it's not ok for skyline-stealing 600 Guad, which is great for its height but feels like a missed opportunity to steal the show from the Austonian or the Independent or even the much-shorter Frost, which are all more interesting buildings. And it's also not ok for an entirely-new cluster, which from the renderings so far looks like it's going to blend together into a clump of undifferentiated blocks.

IMO the only exception is Block 87 - that's a building that's trying to stand out. And the new Velocity tower, that one's more interesting too.

Do we think Gensler's work here is the result of

1) limited budgets in the Austin market allowing for fewer design flourishes
2) their Austin office's own design tastes (they do seem to have a distinct design language vs. other Gensler work)
3) the Austin market's taste
4) some combination of all of the above?

I think limited budgets. Look at the original design of the Fairmont. Hard-core value-engineered to the plain box we see today.

[futures]

Originally Posted by myBrain

Yeah I've wondered about this before. I mean this is the architecture house that did the Shanghai Tower as well as some awesome smaller projects like the Columbia University Medical Center. I appreciate their Austin work -- they're handsome modern buildings that definitely add to the skyline and look like buildings I'd love to go to work in every day -- but they stop short of trying to be iconic or push any boundaries. That's fine for 500 w 2nd and Third and Shoal and the domain towers and even the Fairmount (IMO it actually turned out fine), but it's not ok for skyline-stealing 600 Guad, which is great for its height but feels like a missed opportunity to steal the show from the Austonian or the Independent or even the much-shorter Frost, which are all more interesting buildings. And it's also not ok for an entirely-new cluster, which from the renderings so far looks like it's going to blend together into a clump of undifferentiated blocks.

IMO the only exception is Block 87 - that's a building that's trying to stand out. And the new Velocity tower, that one's more interesting too.

Do we think Gensler's work here is the result of

1) limited budgets in the Austin market allowing for fewer design flourishes
2) their Austin office's own design tastes (they do seem to have a distinct design language vs. other Gensler work)
3) the Austin market's taste
4) some combination of all of the above?

It's probably a combo of 1 and 2.
Everyone else seems so sure to simply blame the developers/budget, but it's also the taste/design language of the Austin Gensler office. They are all VERY similar.

Trammell Crow is handling the whole Seaholm development, right? If so, there are probably similar budgets all around, and the Austin Proper and Northshore are infinitely more interesting to me than Third & Shoal and Google.

I bet Rhode Partners is working with similar or smaller budgets, and I find their work more interesing. (The Independent, Seven Apartments, RISE, etc.)

[ATXPhil]

It's because of Austin's restrictive FARs. The cost of land downtown is insanely expensive, and then developers can only build so many floors on top of the land tract. Add in some demo costs in most cases, millions in "fees-in-lieu" for the city Affordable Housing Fund (or having to add 10% or more AH units in residential projects which have rent caps), insanely high property taxes, a crazy long permitting process (during which time the developer is still paying all those property taxes on the land, and lengthens the "hold period" of the initial equity used to purchase said land), and "Whallah!" - you get a boxy, rectangular building to max out the square footage of the project within the FAR to achieve a market return after incurring so many costs and a lengthy development timeframe.

Unfortunately, there is only so much differentiation you can do to a big rectangular box. Many Austin developers ARE trying in case y'all haven't noticed. Most efforts result in subtle differentiators but you can see those subtle design efforts in the Fairmont (cut outs and jagged top with spire), Seaholm ("untraditional" horizontal line patterns from the balconies), 500 W. 2nd (crown at the top) and several new proposals. Most of the buildings that look really different from a design perspective are due to CVC encumbrances like 5th & West and the Block 87 proposal, and most of which is simply due to a different base shape with more triangular angles. All of these factors lead to "budget constraints" but the Austin market has all of the fundamentals needed to support much larger capitalization of projects than can be built under the current FAR restrictions.

FARs make sense in areas of town where development is intentionally capped to manage neighborhood density but not in the CBD. Developers should be able to build as high up as they want downtown, and if they could, I'd be willing to bet you would see many projects beefing up their design budgets and delivering more striking projects. Most developers are egotistical after all, hahaha.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by ATXPhil

It's because of Austin's restrictive FARs. The cost of land downtown is insanely expensive, and then developers can only build so many floors on top of the land tract. Add in some demo costs in most cases, millions in "fees-in-lieu" for the city Affordable Housing Fund (or having to add 10% or more AH units in residential projects which have rent caps), insanely high property taxes, a crazy long permitting process (during which time the developer is still paying all those property taxes on the land, and lengthens the "hold period" of the initial equity used to purchase said land), and "Whallah!" - you get a boxy, rectangular building to max out the square footage of the project within the FAR to achieve a market return after incurring so many costs and a lengthy development timeframe.

Unfortunately, there is only so much differentiation you can do to a big rectangular box. Many Austin developers ARE trying in case y'all haven't noticed. Most efforts result in subtle differentiators but you can see those subtle design efforts in the Fairmont (cut outs and jagged top with spire), Seaholm ("untraditional" horizontal line patterns from the balconies), 500 W. 2nd (crown at the top) and several new proposals. Most of the buildings that look really different from a design perspective are due to CVC encumbrances like 5th & West and the Block 87 proposal, and most of which is simply due to a different base shape with more triangular angles. All of these factors lead to "budget constraints" but the Austin market has all of the fundamentals needed to support much larger capitalization of projects than can be built under the current FAR restrictions.

FARs make sense in areas of town where development is intentionally capped to manage neighborhood density but not in the CBD. Developers should be able to build as high up as they want downtown, and if they could, I'd be willing to bet you would see many projects beefing up their design budgets and delivering more striking projects. Most developers are egotistical after all, hahaha.

Well said