Jump to content
Urbannizer

Australian Developer Planning Five High-Rises for Midtown

Recommended Posts

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2019/07/11/photos-australian-developers-first-us-apartment.html

 

The building’s first floor also features 13,000 square feet for retail, 80 percent of which has already been leased. The retail tenants that have already leased space in Drewery Place include Austin-based Black Swan Yoga, Houston-based Earthcraft Juicery and

Caydon’s future condo sales center.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ekdrm2d1 said:

Friend flew back into town last night.

vhJlMpU.jpg

so much available space to develop!

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Urbannizer said:

 

Oh hell yes, a juice place. Those kind of places are underrated, you always get a combo coffee shop, or some kind of lower effort food place (sandwiches) when transitioning to healthy stuff but juice places are kinda hard to come by. Its becoming a neighborhood! 

 

Also, you never realize how green Houston actually is until you fly in. 

Edited by X.R.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw on Emporis today that they list the construction cost of some, but not all, developments. 3300 Main comes in at $70M, The Driscoll is listed at $150M, and Drewery Place a whopping $200M!  Just by looking at it, it is easy to tell that Drewery Place is high-quality, but WOW!  Two questions to those who are well-versed on high-rise construction:  (1) How reliable are the numbers on Emporis? and (2) Is there really that much of a range in construction cost for similar-sized buildings?  If the answer is yes, I’m a little scared at what the final product at 3300 Main will look like!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MarathonMan said:

I saw on Emporis today that they list the construction cost of some, but not all, developments. 3300 Main comes in at $70M, The Driscoll is listed at $150M, and Drewery Place a whopping $200M!  Just by looking at it, it is easy to tell that Drewery Place is high-quality, but WOW!  Two questions to those who are well-versed on high-rise construction:  (1) How reliable are the numbers on Emporis? and (2) Is there really that much of a range in construction cost for similar-sized buildings?  If the answer is yes, I’m a little scared at what the final product at 3300 Main will look like!

 

Assuming it is accurate, it may have cost more because of the pace of construction. Remember the insane foundation pour?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MarathonMan said:

I saw on Emporis today that they list the construction cost of some, but not all, developments. 3300 Main comes in at $70M, The Driscoll is listed at $150M, and Drewery Place a whopping $200M!  Just by looking at it, it is easy to tell that Drewery Place is high-quality, but WOW!  Two questions to those who are well-versed on high-rise construction:  (1) How reliable are the numbers on Emporis? and (2) Is there really that much of a range in construction cost for similar-sized buildings?  If the answer is yes, I’m a little scared at what the final product at 3300 Main will look like!

 

I actually dont know how accurate Emporis. I'm not sure how they would have access to the contractors fees. 

 

for your second question. Yes. A lot of it can depend on interior and exterior finishes etc... a lot depends on finishes, difficulty of construction, and of course how fast the owner wants it. If the contractor has to throw a bunch of extra people on it to complete it quicker, then the owner is going to pay more. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Purdueenginerd said:

 

I actually dont know how accurate Emporis. I'm not sure how they would have access to the contractors fees. 

 

for your second question. Yes. A lot of it can depend on interior and exterior finishes etc... a lot depends on finishes, difficulty of construction, and of course how fast the owner wants it. If the contractor has to throw a bunch of extra people on it to complete it quicker, then the owner is going to pay more. 

 

I know that this is kind of a debate in the architectural community, but it really shouldn't. Do we measure the height of mountains by the highest base camp one can inhabit? That same logic gets put into the height of buildings where the argument is that the tallest should be the highest livable space. Kind of a weak argument. The tallest is to the very tallest point of the material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luminare said:

 

I know that this is kind of a debate in the architectural community, but it really shouldn't. Do we measure the height of mountains by the highest base camp one can inhabit? That same logic gets put into the height of buildings where the argument is that the tallest should be the highest livable space. Kind of a weak argument. The tallest is to the very tallest point of the material.

 

But occupancy by humans is more in the nature of a building than of a mountain. For instance, an office building is a building that allows people to office inside. So when the Petronas Towers were declared taller than the Sears Tower, it struck many as a sham, since the Sears had a higher office floor, while the Petronas relied on a spire. I think this may also affect 600 Travis' rank as tallest building in the South vs. the BoA building in Atlanta.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

 

Wow, retail is already 80% leased. Any idea how much of Mid Main is leased?

I thought that was just the ground floor retail. Units were about 10% leased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

But occupancy by humans is more in the nature of a building than of a mountain. For instance, an office building is a building that allows people to office inside. So when the Petronas Towers were declared taller than the Sears Tower, it struck many as a sham, since the Sears had a higher office floor, while the Petronas relied on a spire. I think this may also affect 600 Travis' rank as tallest building in the South vs. the BoA building in Atlanta.

 

 

I'll probably agree with @Luminare on this one. Consider me biased though. When you start getting that high, the stuctural engineering of items associated with wind loads get more and more challenging. A spire to me, is a structural member that has to be accounted for.

 

That being said, I understand the Pro-Sears tower/Willis Tower position on occupied floor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Purdueenginerd said:

 

I'll probably agree with @Luminare on this one. Consider me biased though. When you start getting that high, the stuctural engineering of items associated with wind loads get more and more challenging. A spire to me, is a structural member that has to be accounted for.

 

That being said, I understand the Pro-Sears tower/Willis Tower position on occupied floor. 

 

I should note that I am not firmly in the "highest floor" camp, just keeping the debate open. This also famously played out in the race between the Chrysler building and the Manhattan Co. building to be the tallest in the world, where a long spire was hidden secretly inside an elevator shaft of the Chrysler until the Manhattan Co. building was completed, then triumphantly raised up above the roof to steal the record back.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I should note that I am not firmly in the "highest floor" camp, just keeping the debate open. This also famously played out in the race between the Chrysler building and the Manhattan Co. building to be the tallest in the world, where a long spire was hidden secretly inside an elevator shaft of the Chrysler until the Manhattan Co. building was completed, then triumphantly raised up above the roof to steal the record back.

 

 

 

Was going to mention that in my original response! The argument for highest livable space in regards to height has a good argument when a buildings top is pretty flat and they just throw a spire on top. Thats pretty lazy. If the crown/spire is an integral part of the design then thats another. The Spire in London would be a good example of this. Its pyramidal form that gradually rises to a point and its clearly a design feature of the building and not just primarily to make it "tallest".

Edited by Luminare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...