fernz

I read somewhere that the Energy Corridor wants to develop their portion of the bayou (Terry Hershey park) into a "waterfront park".

Does anyone have any info on this?

I bet their lender is not a bank. Probably some wealthy individual.

They're in the capital markets right now with their post oak project - apt/hotel which will have a flag

From what I understand, getting equity is the hardest challenge for MF right now.

Some buildings don't age that well, the 75 story JP Morgan Chase tower looks much worse than the 71 story tower Wells Fargo in for more examples.

 

I couldn't disagree more 

Think he means this. The panels don't match up with the railing. Every balcony, they are a different distance.

 

new-24D0F9A0FEC7_zpsk1emgq20.jpg

Exactly, that is what I meant, thank you! It's just bad detailing and it looks cheap.

However, I do like the original design so far, but still a lot of important details remaining - hoping for the better.

Alright, here is what patrons would see if there was retail where the port cochere is, facing the dog park:

Milam.PNG

Here is what they will see from the proposed retail space on Preston:

Preston.PNG

Here is what they will see from the existing retail space on Congress:

Congress.PNG

And here is what they will see from the existing retail space on Louisiana:

Louisiana.PNG

And the winner is... the dog park.

Thanks H-Town; that just illustrates how beautiful Downton is.

SXSW would or Austin would?

I meant SXSW, but it does go both ways.

Excellent job of completely missing what I said.

Builders build what makes them the most profit, because that's the definition of capitalism. Generally they DO follow "what people want", or at least what some subset of people want, but they tend to take a very short term view of things.

Builders do not like risk, so if they've been doing something that's made them money in the past, then they're pretty likely to continue doing it until it stops making them money, regardless of what people "want".

This doesn't make sense. If people don't want it, then it won't make money for the developer.

If SXSW leaves Austin it would loose all the appeal it has left.

Maybe I'm the only one but I think three Randall Davis buildings in such close proximity are two too many.

I was sad to hear this and had hoped he was selling this tract to someone who might do something stunning.

I don't like his style and think they have a real cheap poorly designed look. I don't like his choice of

materials, details or the colors of his exteriors. I don't think they will age very gracefully.

I know its all about infill and high rises for the most part, but there has to be a point

where we begin to think about aesthetics.

I don't think Randall has any.

Thats just my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

I agree with most of this, except I would say that three Randall Davis buildings in such close proximity are three too many.

Metro national built a 13-story MF building sometime before the recession. I think it's called the fountains at memorial city.

Does anyone know who owns all that land?

It's hard to see on the picture,but the railings look really cheap in person, very flimsy.

The vertical supports don't even line up with joints in the panels...

The sure did this entirely piecemeal. Just for grins, what do you think would happen if the city only permitted Floors 2,3,5,7,10,12,16 and 19?

It's a risk, although small since most floors are probably alike, but this makes it easier to get partial certificates of occupancy and thus move in people early.

The incentive is paid out over 15 years in the form of tax abatements, if you build a rental building and own it and rent out the units, you get the abatements. If you build a condo and sell them all, the HOA for which you are no longer a member (once all the units are sold) or the individual condo owners get the abatement. You don't.

There is a argument that you, as the developer, can charge a higher price for the condo unit because folks are getting the abatement over 15 years. The argument is that people will pay a tad more for their units because of the abatement. Perhaps. But that is really hard to determine.

Thanks!

In some cases you pay that much just in condo fees alone...

I don't think anyone would plan their construction schedule based on what they happen to have next door....

I keep reading in some of these posts that the incentives favor rentals vs condos. I don't think that's the case. I thought the incentives give a set amount ($15,000) per residential unit, regardless of ownership type. Can someone explain?

Maybe.... but how will anyone get there when 45 is choked w/ traffic all day and all night?

No need to get there, they will live there.

Money.

Taxpayer money vs. Developer money.

I am concerned that if the incentive (tax abatements over 15 years) continue, downtown will be little more that a bunch of apartments. A mix of apartments and condos are needed. Homeownership puts a bit of a stake in the ground where rental units don't. I think that the incentive is leading folks to develop rental units over condos. And that concerns me for the long term.

Makes me think of the lawsuit between the Robinhood residents and the bar below.

You can download it from CompuServe.

Is it just me, or is this project going up rather slowly?

I was told that project is over budget due to construction costs going up. Sounded like design and/or scope might need to change.

I can understand the slim pickings in labor and materials, but land???

There are so many undeveloped or underdeveloped land all over the place.

I can understand that speculators sit on land for ages, but this is the time to build. If they still don't sell when prices are so strong they are never going to sell

I agree, there is plenty of land, from downtown to the inner loop an beyond, undeveloped land is everywhere.