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.
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out (we could use a thread on downtown occupancy rates, btw).
Do people really move to Austin to live in apartment towers? It seems like more of a place where a house would be expected, could be wrong though.
I assume you have never been to Austin? It's filled with a very large population (especially per-capita) of single young professionals that like to eat, drink, and go out. A downtown apartment is attractive for this lifestyle. Of course the vast majority of people live a more suburban lifestyle, which is true even in metros that are much more urban overall.
The shorter building might have the same square footage. Sometimes short buildings are the whole width all the way up, and taller ones often get skinny after a few floors. That might be comparing different cities however. A lot of Canadian construction historically has been skinny highrises with townhouses attached, meaning relatively few units per acre.
The map missed one in the Seattle area. We don't build many highrises outside Seattle and Bellevue, but there's a 14-story hotel addition going up at the Snoqualmie Casino (see https://www.snocasino.com/expansion/progress). It's on a reservation in unincorporated King County but is just outside Snoqualmie, WA.
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.
It's honestly hit or miss depending on the building. The only common denominator is the taller the building, the more space the elevator shafts are going occupy so it becomes a floor sq/ft vs. height vs. price = unit amount equation. Yes, shorter apartment buildings can decrease physical unit size and amenities space to help make the numbers work but rent prices are largely detached from unit sq/ft in today's market because location is the biggest factor.
Take some of Baltimore's skyscraper/high-rise apartments for example
1405 Harbor Point - 0.60 acres, 185'/17 stories - 289 units
Liberty Harbor Point - 1.2 acres, 285'/24 stories - 280 units
10 Light Street - 0.44 acres, 509'/44 stories - 445 units
414 Light Street - 1 acre, 508'/44 stories - 380 units
555 President Street - 0.80 acres, 266'/23 stories - 400 units
All have identical entry price points for studio & 1BR units.
Poor Houston and Dallas. They had their skyscraper boom during the dark ages of architecture & now they're being outshined by their little brother.
Lol, are those facts?
I think Houston put up just as many skyscrapers in the last 20 years as Austin did.
Austin is a much smaller city and is coming from much further behind.
With all the Boom, Only 6th and Guadeloupe would crack the top ten in Houston.
Houston just completed Texas Tower about two years ago. At the time of it's completion it would be the tallest building has it been in Austin.
The tallest building in Houston is occupiable building from street to roof. The waterline tower got a huge parking podium on high heels and then each section of the building got its own stilettos on, artificially boosting height. https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/20...en_2364_sq.jpg
Clearly this is 3 separate buildings on stilts.
Austin's towers were constantly in the news because before the next tallest was completed a new tallest was announced. That's pretty easy to do if you have a hot economy and your starting height isn't that tall.
Now that Austin is building a 1000 footer the days of new tallest every year are over.
Hopefully Austin's skyline isn't defined by that monstrosity just because it is the tallest. Austin has quite a few better looking buildings. Dunno what they were thinking with the Waterline.
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.
This is facts. Austin throws up 5/1s at the same rate as Houston. Every urban center outside of Downtown seems to be having a ton of those, especially if you head a little bit outside the historic core.
Austin one of only 3 or 4 cities in North America currently building a supertall. That's the one that sticks out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCity76
Not surprised at all. Toronto is the 5th largest city in North America so I would expect them to have supertalls.
Austin isn't even in the top 10 largest cities and it's putting them up too. That's the surprise here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Above So Below...
Its strange because Austin is struggling with occupancy rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whereiend
I assume you have never been to Austin? It's filled with a very large population (especially per-capita) of single young professionals that like to eat, drink, and go out. A downtown apartment is attractive for this lifestyle. Of course the vast majority of people live a more suburban lifestyle, which is true even in metros that are much more urban overall.
Yes every metro has both condo and house dwellers.
Yes Austin has been growing very quickly in population.
Its current population, and even future growth projections don't really seem commensurate with the building schedule they've committed to.
By next year, Austin will be firmly in the Dallas/Atlanta/Philadelphia skyscraper peer group with roughly 1/3rd the metro population of those.
Poor Houston and Dallas. They had their skyscraper boom during the dark ages of architecture & now they're being outshined by their little brother.
LOL. Houston skyline is far more impressive and I to me austin is the distant cousin to the Texas cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whereiend
I assume you have never been to Austin? It's filled with a very large population (especially per-capita) of single young professionals that like to eat, drink, and go out. A downtown apartment is attractive for this lifestyle. Of course the vast majority of people live a more suburban lifestyle, which is true even in metros that are much more urban overall.
Lol, are those facts?
I think Houston put up just as many skyscrapers in the last 20 years as Austin did.
Austin is a much smaller city and is coming from much further behind.
With all the Boom, Only 6th and Guadeloupe would crack the top ten in Houston.
Houston just completed Texas Tower about two years ago. At the time of it's completion it would be the tallest building has it been in Austin.
The tallest building in Houston is occupiable building from street to roof. The waterline tower got a huge parking podium on high heels and then each section of the building got its own stilettos on, artificially boosting height. https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/20...en_2364_sq.jpg
Clearly this is 3 separate buildings on stilts.
Austin's towers were constantly in the news because before the next tallest was completed a new tallest was announced. That's pretty easy to do if you have a hot economy and your starting height isn't that tall.
Now that Austin is building a 1000 footer the days of new tallest every year are over.
Hopefully Austin's skyline isn't defined by that monstrosity just because it is the tallest. Austin has quite a few better looking buildings. Dunno what they were thinking with the Waterline.
I was mostly referring to the fact that Austin is developing a newer and IMO more attractive skyline, but I do think it's saying something that the fourth largest metro in the state is the only one with 500+ footer under construction.
I know Houston and Dallas already have "supertalls", but they look very dated along with the bulk of their skylines.
I was mostly referring to the fact that Austin is developing a newer and IMO more attractive skyline, but I do think it's saying something that the fourth largest metro in the state is the only one with 500+ footer under construction.
I know Houston and Dallas already have "supertalls", but they look very dated along with the bulk of their skylines.
Cities don't have to have a 500footer under construction all the time.
Houston is wrapping up Discovery West/1550 on the Green which I believe is 504 feet.
I think High Street Residential is about the same height. That one either is almost completed or recently completed.
Memorial is buill. Houston Methodist tower is under construction and slated to be between 511-651 feet. https://i.imgur.com/guNOMxa.png
With all the construction these would be upper tier in building height for Austin but isn't even on the radar for Houston.
If you are going off of the list on Wikipedia, that page doesn't look like it has been updated in a while.
Austin is definitely not the only one building 500ft+ buildings. Like I said before, Houston has been keeping up with Austin's building boom these last 20 years. The only difference is Houston is not getting a new super tall.but Houston already has two, almost 3 supertalls already. I like the infill downtown Houston is getting, especially in the convention district. A new super tall would probably slow other development there so I'm more in favor of the increased street activity the infill is bringing overall super tall for bragging rights
Cities don't have to have a 500footer under construction all the time.
Houston is wrapping up Discovery West/1550 on the Green which I believe is 504 feet.
I think High Street Residential is about the same height. That one either is almost completed or recently completed.
Memorial is buill. Houston Methodist tower is under construction and slated to be between 511-651 feet. https://i.imgur.com/guNOMxa.png
With all the construction these would be upper tier in building height for Austin but isn't even on the radar for Houston.
If you are going off of the list on Wikipedia, that page doesn't look like it has been updated in a while.
Austin is definitely not the only one building 500ft+ buildings. Like I said before, Houston has been keeping up with Austin's building boom these last 20 years. The only difference is Houston is not getting a new super tall.but Houston already has two, almost 3 supertalls already. I like the infill downtown Houston is getting, especially in the convention district. A new super tall would probably slow other development there so I'm more in favor of the increased street activity the infill is bringing overall super tall for bragging rights
Who says they don't? NYC has hundreds already and they keep going up. The largest city in the country is still transforming its skyline, not simply doing infill.
Houston and Dallas shouldn't be merely "keeping up" with Austin, is the point I'm making.
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.
