$1.4B in Data Center Filings Reaches Planned Start Date Near Austin
EDCAUS31 and EDCAUS32 each carry a $700 million estimate and an October 5 start date. The filings establish scheduled work, not independent confirmation of mobilization.
Two data-center registrations at Cedar Creek have reached their filed October 5 construction-start date, bringing $1.4 billion of proposed work into the current delivery window. EDCAUS31 and EDCAUS32 each list a $700 million estimate and a single-story data-center building with supporting offices and site improvements.
The projects have been linked to EdgeConneX’s Austin-area expansion. The state records name Uppingham Adams Holdings LLC as owner and leave the tenant unassigned. They do not establish that crews mobilized today, and a scheduled start should not be reported as a verified groundbreaking.
Project at a Glance
- Address:
- 6543 FM 535
- Combined filed estimate:
- $1.4 billion
- Scope area:
- 576,777 SF per building; approximately 1.15 million SF combined
- Filed start:
- October 5, 2026
- Filed completion:
- EDCAUS31: December 29, 2028; EDCAUS32: December 25, 2028
Checking your membership…
Two distinct buildings at the same address
Both registrations locate the work at 6543 FM 535 in Bastrop County. Their scope descriptions identify 576,777 square feet per building, giving 1,153,554 square feet when combined. The records also use a rounded 577,000-square-foot area field, which explains small differences between summaries of the projects.
EDCAUS31 targets December 29, 2028 completion; EDCAUS32 lists December 25, 2028. Those four days are not evidence of a different commercial opening strategy. They are the dates supplied in two registrations and may be revised as the owner develops the construction program.
What the registration tells construction readers
The filed scope includes offices and associated site improvements as well as data-center accommodation. Both descriptions specify a fully sprinklered building. This points to more than an empty warehouse envelope, although the records do not provide a package-by-package division of equipment, fit-out and shared infrastructure.
The $1.4 billion headline is the sum of these two building estimates. It is not a confirmed construction award and should not be combined casually with other Cedar Creek registrations. Nearby projects can have similar naming, shared addresses or related ownership without representing identical scopes.
A wider Austin platform, with building-specific questions
EdgeConneX publicly markets an Austin campus with planned expansion capacity and a phased delivery approach. That establishes the company’s regional presence. It does not, by itself, identify the customer, power allocation or procurement schedule of every numbered building in the Cedar Creek filings.
The distinction is commercially important. A supplier assessing EDCAUS31 or EDCAUS32 needs the specifications and delivery requirements for those buildings, rather than the headline capacity of a separate campus phase. The reviewed registrations do not identify an end-user tenant.
From scheduled start to measurable progress
TCH’s assessment is that the next useful evidence would be a dated site update, an owner statement confirming mobilization or a building-specific construction award. Subsequent milestones should distinguish civil preparation, structural completion, systems installation and energization.
Power distribution, cooling, fire protection and commissioning are likely to shape delivery for buildings of this type, but their precise contracts and award status remain unconfirmed. Today’s news is that two large packages have reached their filed start window. Whether that window corresponds to actual field activity still requires confirmation.