AUSTIN | Third + Shoal | 389 FEET | 29 FLOORS | U/C | Complete - Page 4

MichaelB · #61 Posted **Aug 28, 2015, 8:57 PM**

Looking at the plans... Looks like they are just truning a back wall to the creek.
if that's the case .....Wasted opportunity.
Between that and the bland design... hope this one stalls. .
I'd much rather wait for something better.
No more boing infill.

The ATX · #62 Posted **Aug 28, 2015, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Looking at the plans... Looks like they are just truning a back wall to the creek.
if that's the case .....Wasted opportunity.
Between that and the bland design... hope this one stalls. .
I'd much rather wait for something better.
No more boing infill.

It has financing, so it probably won't stall unless the economy suddenly tanks. I also don't see anything in the drawings to indicate that the creek side will be different than the other sides. But if the creek side comes across as an after thought it will be a missed opportunity. I also wonder if this will be blue.

EDIT: The rendering appears to show landscaped terraces facing the creek because of the setback requirements.

_Matt · #63 Posted **Aug 28, 2015, 9:30 PM**

Did anybody see--this has 13 floors of parking. I would hate to have a spot up there.

The ATX · #64 Posted **Aug 28, 2015, 9:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Matt

Did anybody see--this has 13 floors of parking. I would hate to have a spot up there.

That seems like a lot considering the square footage of the office space. But unless they plan on providing public parking, I suspect it's because of the building's relatively small footprint.

nixcity · #65 Posted **Aug 29, 2015, 12:14 AM**

This is what we get in a city with no viable transportation options, think traffic is bad now, just wait until these next buildings are done, especially these office ones. He'll, even our residential buildings have a lot of parking, this in a place where you shouldn't even need a car.

KevinFromTexas · #66 Posted **Aug 29, 2015, 1:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nixcity

This is what we get in a city with no viable transportation options, think traffic is bad now, just wait until these next buildings are done, especially these office ones. He'll, even our residential buildings have a lot of parking, this in a place where you shouldn't even need a car.

Shoosh. The conventional thinking has spoken already, and it has decided that the problem is too many people. So the obvious answer is they need to leave and take all their cars with them.

drummer · #67 Posted **Aug 29, 2015, 2:53 AM**

Then we have a bunch of empty parking garages.

Jdawgboy · #68 Posted **Aug 29, 2015, 5:27 PM**

That is a lot of parking, I don't see the point. You would think a big draw for these office buildings is because of all the residential. If workers live within a block or two why would they need a car?

Wishful thinking but maybe that ugly state parking garage will be torn down so they are adding more parking to compensate. I know its unlikely but that may be the only reason why I wouldn't mind in a scenario like that.

I also agree with MichaelB, this site has so much potential, indeed even a signature tower would look great. I also think of all the uses that could be combined with office towers, music venues would be at the top of the list. It would be nice to see some changes done to the design. I'm not sure what it is but it's as if we are in a rut with the recent taller office architecture. In fact as far as the design itself, its nearly a carbon copy of 5th @ Colorado. In turn 5th @ Colorado copies a bit off of 3rd @ Colorado. At least Shoal Creek Walk is just different enough that you can say it's more unique.

KevinFromTexas · #69 Posted **Aug 29, 2015, 6:39 PM**

The thing is, this building is 3 buildings back from the river, and also between 360, The Independent and 500 West 2nd and others. Unless it were around 200 feet taller it's not going to show up from a lot of angles. It may even have very subtle accent lighting, maybe even none. I'm still hoping something grand happens on the last GreenWater block as a sort of grand finale of the development.

drummer · #70 Posted **Aug 30, 2015, 6:17 AM**

Yeah, and that one has a front row seat to the river, so it needs to be something other than bland and boring, for sure.

H2O · #71 Posted **Aug 30, 2015, 1:12 PM**

There are so many parking levels because there are only 54 - 56 parking spaces per level. With a small, 1/4 block site, much of the footprint is core, not leasable (or parking) space. it is a very inefficient building, but we are going to see more and more like it because we have mostly run out of full and 1/2 blocks to develop into more efficient buildings.

Jdawgboy · #72 Posted **Aug 30, 2015, 8:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O

There are so many parking levels because there are only 54 - 56 parking spaces per level. With a small, 1/4 block site, much of the footprint is core, not leasable (or parking) space. it is a very inefficient building, but we are going to see more and more like it because we have mostly run out of full and 1/2 blocks to develop into more efficient buildings.

You can have efficient buildings on 1/4 blocks. They can utilize the space in a way that would maximize it's use but let's be real, it's about the lowest cost of building the tower. If they really put forth the effort and spend a little more this could be a nice tower.

drummer · #73 Posted **Aug 30, 2015, 10:53 PM**

You can put a fine building on a 1/4 block if parking wasn't an issue...

LoneStarMike · #74 Posted **Aug 31, 2015, 12:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

You would think a big draw for these office buildings is because of all the residential. If workers live within a block or two why would they need a car?

Just because someone works in an office tower downtown doesn't necessarily mean their salary is big enough for them to afford to actually live downtown.

The ATX · #75 Posted **Aug 31, 2015, 12:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

Just because someone works in an office tower downtown doesn't necessarily mean their salary is big enough for them to afford to actually live downtown.

Excellent point. I would take it one step further and say the vast majority of the people working in office towers Downtown cannot afford to live the residential buildings downtown.

drummer · #76 Posted **Aug 31, 2015, 7:03 AM**

...all the more reason for better transportation in Austin. I agree that not everyone can live downtown. I think better mass transit needs to be provided for those who can't. I also realize that not everyone will use it, but if a decent percentage does, that makes a big difference.

Tech House · #77 Posted **Aug 31, 2015, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Matt

Did anybody see--this has 13 floors of parking. I would hate to have a spot up there.

IKR?! "My commute is about 25 minutes, or 40 if you count the time it takes to get to my parking space."

Jdawgboy · #78 Posted **Aug 31, 2015, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Excellent point. I would take it one step further and say the vast majority of the people working in office towers Downtown cannot afford to live the residential buildings downtown.

Has there been any surveys done on this subject? It's true not everyone who works DT can live or even would choose to live DT but there are most definitely people who live there that also work there and one of the big draws is that they can simply walk or jump on a bus for a few blocks without having to sit in traffic for an hour. That in itself is a cost saver when you consider the amount of fuel that us used per year.

The ATX · #79 Posted **Aug 31, 2015, 8:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Has there been any surveys done on this subject? It's true not everyone who works DT can live or even would choose to live DT but there are most definitely people who live there that also work there and one of the big draws is that they can simply walk or jump on a bus for a few blocks without having to sit in traffic for an hour. That in itself is a cost saver when you consider the amount of fuel that us used per year.

Considering that the average condo price currently listed for sale is around $900,000 (per a recent ABJ article I think) and it's difficult to find anything for $400,000 or less, I don't think a survey is needed to tell all the state office workers and most private sector workers that they can't afford it.

jbssfelix · #80 Posted **Sep 1, 2015, 2:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Considering that the average condo price currently listed for sale is around $900,000 (per a recent ABJ article I think) and it's difficult to find anything for $400,000 or less, I don't think a survey is needed to tell all the state office workers and most private sector workers that they can't afford it.

There are plenty that are well below that price (although still not cheap).

For example, this is something I could probably afford. However, I have no idea where I'd put all my stuff. But for others, this is perfectly fine.