COTA Austin - construction and infrastructure

[Corporate666]

There's no indication that money is a problem. If someone are looking to claim they do, then every negotiation CotA can will be described as one. The roadwork is a negotiation.

There are plenty of indications that money is a problem.

1) It took them a long, long time to get started. Because they didn't have the funding

2) Bernie wasn't paid because of the funding

3) They have done at least one public offerings that failed to pull in the funding they were looking for. Maybe more.


There is concrete indisputable proof that funding has been a problem.

A guy like DeJoria, who's built not one, but two incredibly successful businesses from scratch, doesn't go into something like this on a whim. He's seen the books, he's seen the market analyses, he's done his homework. If he's willing to put his wallet on the line, it speaks volumes. And shouldn't facts like that carry more weight than the endless random rumors we have posted here day after day. Quality over quantity, gentlemen.

That is your opinion. The same was said when Red signed up and we now know that his interests were secured by the land iteself. Who knows that deal DeJoria was given. The only way to calculate his confidence in the project is to know the deal he got. If you know what that deal was, then please let us know. Otherwise, it's just a guess.

[hairy_scotsman]

Remember the buy-sell clause mentioned in the Statesman article a while back?

http://www.statesman.com/sports/formula ... 98638.html

San Antonio billionaire Red McCombs might have less than a week to decide whether he's willing to be bought out of the Circuit of the Americas racetrack or instead will purchase the shares of Full Throttle, the company of Tavo Hellmund, once the driving force behind the project.

That's the claim made in a letter sent Wednesday from Hellmund's lawyers to McCombs. The letter contends that, in accordance with a company agreement, a buy-sell procedure began on Jan. 11, and the 90-day period for a relevant response expired Wednesday. The letter also claims McCombs now has until next Wednesday to say he will purchase Full Throttle's shares or McCombs' shares will be considered sold, with the closing on May 25.

Buy-sell, or push-pull, agreements are meant to resolve extreme differences in companies. One party makes an offer to buy out the other with the knowledge that it also then opens up the possibility of a reverse buyout.

According to the letter, Full Throttle is offering to acquire McCombs' 20 percent share for $8 million while claiming that Full Throttle's slightly larger share would be valued at $8.2 million.

If Full Throttle is successful in obtaining McCombs' stake, it could change the dynamics of a $300 million project that has been marred by a rift between Hellmund and Bobby Epstein, who is believed to be the lead investor.

The letter states, "Upon the consummation of the McCombs Units ... Full Throttle expects to hold over 40 percent of the equity of the Company and have the power to appoint three of the Company's 5 managers."

[xpensive]

I wonder if some Hollywood-mogul will be interested in documenting this saga in the future?

[Richard]

Steel is expensive, but so is concrete when every part of the building needs new forms and tables.

Which is why I also shuddered to see all those downstand beams instead of flat slabs on the pit building. As I recall its not a high seiemic zone is it?

Obviously its down to local construction technologies and capacity. It'd be no good specifying a nice flat slab frame if the local gangers haven't a clue how to build it. Same goes for precast grandstand units.

However, I can't help thinking that if this is typical of construction in Texas then there's money to be made by bringing in some more modern methods.

[Pup]

As I mentioned before, they have a massive span in the main garage area and column offsets which would eliminate flat slab as an option. And fire code will require concrete construction. So they can be as modern as they want, but if it falls over and burns down, it's sort of a waste.

[Richard]

The new Silverstone pits are steel framed. It's a simple matter to analyse the fire load from the combustible contents, hence verify steel frames.

The garage spans aren't too great for flat slab either, but if that was a concern they could go for band beams on column lines (or post tensioned flat slabs). I guess it is the sheer depth and number of downstands that is puzzling me. It's as if they've replicated a steel composite frame with in-situ concrete, but getting the disadvantages of both methods.

At least steel downstand cellular beams give quicker construction and allow integrated services. Here they have slow in-situ construction and no services integration.



Anyway, my genuine professional curiosity about the construction methods is in danger of becoming "I wouldn't do it like that if I were you", so I'll not mention it again if there is nothing new to say.

[FW17]

richard_leeds

Problem with flat slab construction is that it has 2 issues;

1) low rigidity, hence will not be able take too much of vibrations. For higher rigidity beam slab structures or waffle slab structure are a lot better

2) the live load on the structure is limited; for an assembly building of this sought were density is lot higher than typical office buildings (where flat slabs are used) flat slab design will not be suitable

[Richard]

The garages are on the ground. The upper floors are usually offices and hospitality boxes, so loading wouldn't be a problem. Vibration might possibly be an issue for the hospitality areas.

Even assuming the need for a framed solution, I'm puzzled by the depth and number of downstands. I've never seen a structure like that.

[Pup]

The new Silverstone pits are steel framed. It's a simple matter to analyse the fire load from the combustible contents, hence verify steel frames.

Our codes may be more strict. I'm pretty sure that the garages would be classified as H-2 occupancy due to the amount of fuel stored during an event, and that would limit the building's area to 33,000 s.f./floor with protected steel (assuming they're taking advantage of all the allowed area increases).

I don't have a handle on the scale of this building, but in comparison, the pits at Singapore are 1150' long. So if this building is a similar length and even just 40' deep, then they're well over the limit at 46,000 s.f. I suspect this building is much deeper than 40'.

*edit - the Silverstone pits are also 1150' long, and just the team garage area is over 66k s.f. The roof spans over 100k s.f. I don't think that would be allowed here in type 1b construction.

1a construction, on the other hand, gives them unlimited area and height.

And a happy fire marshal - ask HS if he'd rather fight a fuel fire in a concrete or steel building.

Also, the upper floors will be considered assembly occupancy, with a live load of 100lb/s.f. - double that of a parking garage, apartment flat or hotel, where you'd usually see flab slab construction used.

[Pup]

Even assuming the need for a framed solution, I'm puzzled by the depth and number of downstands. I've never seen a structure like that.

The deeper beams at the edge are supporting the cantilevered grandstands, and you can tell by looking at the L-shaped duct in the photo that they have some unusual column offsets that are effing with the beam layout; i.e., that photo should have two more columns in it than it does.

[Richard]

Good points about the codes. If the authorities have rules like that then analysis of reality and actual fire loading can't change their minds.

Regarding downstands, its the ribs and opening trimmers that puzzle me. Its as if they've determined the deepest beam for a transfer or cantilever then made everything else the same depth.

Edit to add link to Silverstone article http://www.steelconstruction.org/compon ... file=73373

[Pup]

That's true - it could be for formwork convenience. The proportions of the primary beams bothers me, too. They seem far too fat.

[hairy_scotsman]

And a happy fire marshal - ask HS if he'd rather fight a fuel fire in a concrete or steel building.

My personal preference for firefighting would generally be concrete over steel, fwiw. That said, given the planned fuel load of the structure, I'm sure either could be suitably designed to be fire rated for an appropriate amount of time in direct fire impingement. I'm not a fire code guy, though, so I don't know how long that would be.

There are other factors, too. Concrete relies on steel for a portion of its strength, and all-steel members can be treated with insulative coverings giving them greatly enhanced heat resistance capability. Either could also have design deficiencies making them more likely to collapse in a fire.

Also, some of the differences you all are seeing between these buildings may simply stem from preferences of their different designers. The GS is designed by Miro-Rivera, while (I believe) the pit building is designed by HKS. Could be one of the others, but I'm pretty sure this is correct. HKS designed Cowboys Stadium. Not sure why they had them do the pit building and brought in a local firm to do the stadium.

But then again, who knows?

[Pup]

Tree's up. Let's race.

[hairy_scotsman]

Tree's up. Let's race.

Heh...yeah. It's funny. They put up a different tree last week when they had topped the building.