UT System Headquarters | 270 FEET | 19 FLOORS | COMPLETE

[Austinite101]

[MichaelB]

Thank you!!!!
Nicely scaled to the size of buiding it is.
Looks like a nice modern aesthetic. I hope/would assume that from PSP...
Would love to understand if the vertical graphic is a treatment of glass or a dimensional application.... ILike how the sinage Lifts off the facade.

Just happy the Board supported the look.
For a very conservative board,
It's far better than I had hoped.!

[Jdawgboy]

I still don't get these odd floor counts, why not just make it 20 floors. I mean 19??? Come on.

Heck cut the footprint in half and make it 40 floors. This is supposed to be the UT System HQ afterall, i'm surprised they wouldn't want it an iconic and tall tower (barring CVC issues).

but it is what it is and in that respect i'm pleasantly surprised with the design and I like the coloration.

[JoninATX]

Thanks Austinite 101. The building itself looks good.

[Austinite101]

UT System took great issue with the fact that the administration currently has no buildings definitively identifying it to the public (CTJ, Smith, etc), which is why they didn't name it after anyone.

I've also heard they might want to additionally brand the building (burnt orange uplighting, flying system flags).

[wwmiv]

I absolutely hate it.

It's a suburban design plopped into downtown, with no subtle reminders of the UT historic vernacular, nothing reminiscent of Austin, horrible cladding, distracting shapes and setbacks that serve both no purpose and distract from other parts of the design.

It's awful.

[Austinite101]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I absolutely hate it.

It's a suburban design plopped into downtown, with no subtle reminders of the UT historic vernacular, nothing reminiscent of Austin, horrible cladding, distracting shapes and setbacks that serve both no purpose and distract from other parts of the design.

It's awful.

The setbacks are actually areas where you can walk out onto.

While I'm not jumping up and down about the design either, I honestly don't think it's as terrible as you're making it out to be.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Austinite101

The setbacks are actually areas where you can walk out onto.

While I'm not jumping up and down about the design either, I honestly don't think it's as terrible as you're making it out to be.

I know what the setbacks are for. They're awful.

[Jdawgboy]

Why do they need to use the entire length of the block? They should use half IMO. It is going to be very bulky.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Why do they need to use the entire length of the block? They should use half IMO. It is going to be very bulky.

The more I look at it and the more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to agree with wwmiv. I actually like the current existing building. Not sure when it was built but it represents a past era that I think should be preserved. I don't see why they can't leave the original building there and build the new tower next to it on the southwest corner of the block. Seems to me that part of the cost has to go to demolition of the existing building so instead why not add that cost to a taller tower. I really can't see it being that much more expensive than the current proposal.

Can someone verify it's proximity to a cvc?

[ahealy]

It looks like the William P. Hobby building and 816 Congress had a baby on Colorado Street.

[texboy]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I absolutely hate it.

It's a suburban design plopped into downtown, with no subtle reminders of the UT historic vernacular, nothing reminiscent of Austin, horrible cladding, distracting shapes and setbacks that serve both no purpose and distract from other parts of the design.

It's awful.

Agreed. This is a bad 2014 version of a 1980's era brutalist style building. Pretty sure UT with all its money can do better than this.

[wwmiv]

Well, it's not brutalist (brutalism is a particular type of concrete construction style), but it is godawful in its own special way.

My first thought was the William P. Hobby building as well, but 816 Congress works as well. All three are in the same vein of completely uninspired architecture.

[resansom]

Agreed. It reminds me of when I was growing up in Austin in the 1970s and was always anxiously awaiting the next new building in the downtown area. Almost invariably, I was disappointed with what was eventually built as I felt that most of the buildings were lacking, in terms of aesthetic qualities. This one might not be so bad if there weren't already another ugly, squat, uninspired building a couple of blocks to the west (700 Lavaca St).

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I absolutely hate it.

It's a suburban design plopped into downtown, with no subtle reminders of the UT historic vernacular, nothing reminiscent of Austin, horrible cladding, distracting shapes and setbacks that serve both no purpose and distract from other parts of the design.

It's awful.

I find myself agreeing with wwmiv here. It's pretty blah. Just a lazy attempt. Another bland office building in a neighborhood full of bland office buildings.

[JoninATX]

Lets see out it turns out. I would wager $100 that the building itself would look better than the rendering.

[KevinFromTexas]

This lot does not sit within a CVC, but it is on the edge of one. There is a CVC across the street that cuts through the 700 Lavaca building block, which is why that building is rhombus shaped.

This building's ok, but I'm not crazy about it. It really does look like 80s suburban architecture to me; like something you'd see along the highways in Houston and Dallas. It actually reminds me of the IBC Bank Plaza a bit because of the color, which oddly enough I was thinking looks like an academic building.

I would estimate the height is somewhere between 275 and 290 feet.

If they were wanting to have balconies that required the setbacks, I really don't get why they didn't just slim up the tower (making it taller) and put it on the west side of the block and have a podium on the east side of the block with a rooftop deck. That would also protect the view for residents of the Brown Building.

[GoldenBoot]

Something nobody is talking about...why is this squat, aesthetically depressing building going to cost in excess of $133 million? Are they going to erect a golden crane to construct it; install platinum toilets; façade made of pure silver?

Obviously I am being facetious...But, at the same time, I had absolutely no expectation that UT would construct an architecturally pleasing building (even though UT Austin hosts one of the best architecture schools in the U.S.). It's just another overly expensive, unimpressive government building in Austin.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Something nobody is talking about...why is this squat, aesthetically depressing building going to cost in excess of $133 million? Are they going to erect a golden crane to construct it; install platinum toilets; façade made of pure silver?

Obviously I am being facetious...But, at the same time, I had absolutely no expectation that UT would construct an architecturally pleasing building (even though UT Austin hosts one of the best architecture schools in the U.S.). It's just another overly expensive, unimpressive government building in Austin.

Yeah, good question. The whole uneven lines thing is so so so played out and uninspiring....makes me cringe when I STILL see it being used. It's like "hey, we need to add a dash of something edgy to this big glass box"

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

If they were wanting to have balconies that required the setbacks, I really don't get why they didn't just slim up the tower (making it taller) and put it on the west side of the block and have a podium on the east side of the block with a rooftop deck. That would also protect the view for residents of the Brown Building.

Probably because that is a logical and aesthetically superior choice, and this is a development by a public institution. They are mutually exclusive.

All kidding aside, at $133.1M for 342,200 square feet, that building is costing $389 per square foot. That is a little high. Traditional, aka non-governmental developers spend between $250 and $300 per square foot to build a mid-rise or high-rise office building including the land and soft costs. That number is inching up with materials and labor getting more expensive, but UT is closing in on $400 a foot for a 19 story building. However, the higher cost for UT may be because they are including the demolition of the existing structures in their all-in number. I'm not privy to that info so I can't say why the number is high. It is interesting, however, that any time a government or institution decides to build a building, the cost is always so much higher than what it would cost for the private sector to build.

The problem with going taller is that the higher you go, the more expensive the building becomes to construct. UT added 4 floors to their design and the cost to build it increased by $30M. If you are a developer who is planning on selling their building in the future, you have to consider your exit and look at sales prices. Highrise office buildings in Austin sell for $300 to $400 per square foot. That number has gone up and down over the past 10-15 years with the economy, but the average has not topped $400. If you put that much into the building, you won't make your money back unless you hold the property for a long time and collect the FFO. It's also hard to get financing if the cost of the building exceeds average sales prices for similar product.

It's one of the reasons you see really tall condos more often than office buildings. Condos sell individually and at a higher price per square foot than an office building. Developers can invest more money in condos because they make more money on the exit. You just have to be careful to time it with the economy and the housing market. You don't want to be caught in a down-cycle with a $450+ per square foot construction project full of unsold condos.