Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ATX tower is u/c, it will be 675' and is primarily apartments, and so is 415 Colorado which is 640' and mostly apartments. The Travis is 594' and is 100% apartments.
Hannover Brazos is 513' and 100% apartments. 700 River is 500' and 100% apartments.
Is that enough examples of 500' apartment buildings?
Both ATX & 415' (328 units) will have over +200' of office/parking components so take that how you want.
The Travis (428 units) is 100% apartments and doesn't sit on a parking podium, but it also has planned Phase II 61 story 220 unit condo sibling tower which isn't by coincidence.
Hannover Bravos (308 units) and 700 River (377 units) are over sights on my part but again, like ATX or 415 they both sit on +100' parking podiums so they are artificially taller than most equivalent unit apartment buildings other cities. In Austin, above-ground structured parking is incentivized because it doesn’t count against the bonus floor area provided to tower projects that participates in the Downtown Density Bonus Program for extra height. https://austin.towers.net/downtown-a...on-be-history/
No one is claiming Austin isn't building like absolute wild fire or it's not impressive, but there are a lot nuances on the "why's" that should be addressed for context.
Maybe by University of Texas, In downtown? Theres not.
6G and Waterline can foot apartments because they have massive office/hotel components that offset the capital loss of rentals vs. condos.
In today's economic climate, it's next to impossible to pencil out throwing up a +500' or 600' skyscraper on just rental apartments. Parking podiums aside the tallest residential buildings in Austin are almost exclusively condo or mixed use.
Mixed-Use
Waterline (1020') - 352 units
6G (875') - 349 units
Apartments
Hanover Republic Square (509') - 310 units
Northshore (454') - 439 units
The Ashton (412') - N/A
Condos
The Independent (694') - 370 units
The Austonian (683') - 163 units
360 Condominiums (581') - 430 units
44 East Ave (573') - 310 units
W Austin Residences (476') - 160 units
Fifth & West Residences (459') - 154 units
Spring Condominiums (434') - 246 units
70 Rainy (419') - 164 units
The Bowie (422') - 358 units
Total - 3,805 units.
Obviously Austin has way more U/C & planned and as the height threshold gets lower it becomes more blurry, but vanity condo projects are whats fueling Austin's skyscraper growth right now, not a mass influx of renters and I don't see that dynamic changing anytime soon.
Whereas Houston keeps on building 5 over 1 or 2 apartments with 300 to 400 units that can rent for far lower than anything in a highrise, and have lower running costs.
Whereas Houston keeps on building 5 over 1 or 2 apartments with 300 to 400 units that can rent for far lower than anything in a highrise, and have lower running costs.
While I'm all for skyscrapers/high-rises, the engineering behind them and what they symbolize. It really comes down to vanity of the developer on how they tall are built.
There is nothing objectively "better" about a 600' tall apartment building in Austin vs. a 280' tall apartment building in St. Louis vs. a 140' tall apartment building in DC if they all have a similar amount of units in the same geographic footprint.
What makes/breaks tall buildings imho is how they interact with the ground.
While I'm all for skyscrapers/high-rises, the engineering behind them and what they symbolize. It really comes down to vanity of the developer on how they tall are built.
There is nothing objectively "better" about a 600' tall apartment building in Austin vs. a 280' tall apartment building in St. Louis vs. a 140' tall apartment building in DC if they all have a similar amount of units in the same geographic footprint.
What makes/breaks high-rises imho is how they interact with the ground.
Absolutely. Bingo - it’s all about overall land use in the core and indeed how it interacts with the ground level. The height, etc doesn’t really matter other than to the pschye of the American soul that city = tall building.
In any event, and particularly regarding Austin. People have to think about Multifamily not from a local standpoint but from outside investors which is what our Multifamily sector has turned into.
Austin having a higher vacancy rate is a good thing. Developers are making money hands over fist - they’re receiving tax abatements (yes, even those “luxury” high rises marketed as such get tax abatements for “affordable housing” which is based on the sub market. In other words, for example, 80% AMI of the downtown Austin submarket isn’t all that affordable…). Now low income housing too… these developers are receiving guaranteed income streams for low income apartments and they’re just killing it. I mean a lot of these developers are getting Section 8 vouchers and making 3x+ per each dollar of debt service.
People think Section 8 is hand outs but they blame Tenants and poor folks. But the money is going to developers just totally getting huge windfalls from these subsidies.
I mention that, and Austin, because… what is happening is good in Austin. From 2010-2021, average rent growth has risen 5-7% on average each year. Does ANYONE make that much money a year? No. Now that supply is right sizing, it’s putting pressure on rents to not rise as fast… that is bad for *investors*.
Investors, they buy these securities, wanting their return to keep growing and growing at high rates per year. Now… for them, it’s a bad thing to focus on a market where they can’t squeeze every penny out of these properties. So they try to determine where… is it best to get the highest rent growth.
So what’s happening in Austin is good. It’s good policy. It’s good for the city. It’s good for the community. It’s only bad for investors in different regions. Cities. States.
In general. Cities have to make judgements what’s best for the city. Sometimes that’s choosing slower growth…. Because the free market just doesn’t care. They have zero interest. You have lender lawyers in Iowa, for a borrower in New Hampshire, with a construction lender in Charlotte, with a Perm Lender in Chicago who will sell the loan to Fannie or Freddie in DC with underwriters in Los Angeles and Asset Managers in Tampa… It’s incumbent on cities to force developers to build right. Better design standards. Unfortunately provide tax abatements. Change land use policies. For developers to do certain things they don’t like.
Austin is doing great. Good things are happening there. It’s just bad for outside investors. Is that the people we should be concerned with in our communities? No.
Both ATX & 415' (328 units) will have over +200' of office/parking components so take that how you want.
The Travis (428 units) is 100% apartments and doesn't sit on a parking podium, but it also has planned Phase II 61 story 220 unit condo sibling tower which isn't by coincidence.
Hannover Bravos (308 units) and 700 River (377 units) are over sights on my part but again, like ATX or 415 they both sit on +100' parking podiums so they are artificially taller than most equivalent unit apartment buildings other cities. In Austin, above-ground structured parking is incentivized because it doesn’t count against the bonus floor area provided to tower projects that participates in the Downtown Density Bonus Program for extra height. https://austin.towers.net/downtown-a...on-be-history/
No one is claiming Austin isn't building like absolute wild fire or it's not impressive, but there are a lot nuances on the "why's" that should be addressed for context.
I don't get your point. Every skyscraper built in Texas has associated parking as residents want to be able to own a car and office workers want the ability to drive to work. Your claim was that very few of the towers going up in Austin are apartments, and that's just not true. A good chunk of the buildings are primarily apartments including the two especially tall ones (6G and Waterline).
While I'm all for skyscrapers/high-rises, the engineering behind them and what they symbolize. It really comes down to vanity of the developer on how they tall are built.
There is nothing objectively "better" about a 600' tall apartment building in Austin vs. a 280' tall apartment building in St. Louis vs. a 140' tall apartment building in DC if they all have a similar amount of units in the same geographic footprint.
What makes/breaks tall buildings imho is how they interact with the ground.
Lol I'm curious about the physics involved in fitting the same number of apartments in a 140' building that can be fit into a 600'. I mean obviously you can build smaller apartments and/or have less amenities, but that limits the type of tenants you can attract and the rent you can demand. Or you can take up more land (we call that "less dense").
And there are tons of 5/1s being built throughout Austin in places where the land value isn't as high as downtown. In downtown a 5/1 does not make economic sense because the land is too expensive. Hence building taller, higher density structures.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
