[priller]

Priller knows all!! Mwa ha ha ha!! :wizard:


Seriously, there is very little info on either of these two buildings. And for a while I was confused on which was which, also. All the info I had was the images from the video capture that everyone else has seen and whatever info Kevin and GoldenBoot and others here have gathered. Also I download any info I can find on the COA's web site, which at the very least will show how the building is to be situated on the block. But mainly I just looked at those images REALLY HARD to divine whatever details I could.

And I'm far from certain on the orientation and overall size of those buildings. Lots of guesswork there.

[paulsjv]

Here's a quick mock-up I did of both Ovation (the blue building on the left) and the Post Office tower (the darker blue building to the right, next to Republic Square).

Any idea when those two projects are going to start and be completed? I'm imagining that the new post office building will start first. Once it's done and the post office has moved then they will build the other building on the old post office location?

[GoldenBoot]

...And I'm far from certain on the orientation and overall size of those buildings. Lots of guesswork there.

The orientation of the towers look to be spot on, Priller! :tup:

[GoldenBoot]

Any idea when those two projects are going to start and be completed? I'm imagining that the new post office building will start first. Once it's done and the post office has moved then they will build the other building on the old post office location?


Yes, that's correct. Ovation (aka Block 51/Miller Blueprint site) is expected to break ground this fall and plans a fall 2009 delivery. The 37-story tower should be between 420' and 500' tall w/ 425 units, ~31,000 SF of retail, and including a new downtown post office.

Block 52's construction is slated to begin in 2008 (just after the opening of the new post office at the corner of 5th and San Antonio). This ~40-story tower is planned to include a 150-room boutique hotel and ~500 residential units. 25,000 SF of retail space is also planned.

[MichaelB]

Yep...This is a cool night club/lounge!! I've been to the one in NYC. It will be Pangaea's fifth location. The others are located in New York City (the original), London, Miami, and Marbella (Costa del Sol - Spain).

Isn;t this Hard Rocks lastest incarnation?

[NormalgeNyus]

they're building a circuit city downtown??


they are suppose to be but do not know if its one or two or three years down the road

[LoneStarMike]

Not exactly a downtown skyscraper, but it looks like we might have one of the first failed condo projects for the current boom:

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2007/08/27/story1.html

It appears there's a second failed condo project on S. Lamar. There was a project called The View at 3600 S. Lamar that was supposed to be 4 stories and 69 units. There had been a V-shaped billboard there for quite some time showing the rendering of the building on one side and the view to the west towards the Barton Creek Square Mall overlooking the greenbelt on the other side.

I walked past the site today on the way to 7-11 and the billboard has been taken down - it's lying in the dirt - and a new sign has been erected saying the 2 acre site is for sale. The new sign mentions the site having been approved for condos, but that office and retail were also allowed.

If you go to the website for the old project at http://www.theviewatlamar.com/ it still shows the logo but says the site is currently unavailable.

[JAM]

:previous: Failed is pretty strong wording. Just because a construction project does not break ground does not necessarily mean if failed. It may have been a prudent business decision, or they may have intended to flip the land all along. Personally, I feel this wording should be used judiciously. If plans were drawn up, the city approved the project, and then funding could not be obtained after an earnest attempt, then "maybe" it could be considered failed. If funding was approved, and then later taken away due to the construction climate, then maybe it failed. If funding was approved, they started construction, and then stopped midway, i.e. Intel, then failed would seem appropriate.

[nixcity]

The View was a project I was really looking forward to. It would of had a nice "view" overlooking the greenbelt to the west and possibly downtown to the north. These are the kind of infill/redevelopment type projects this city needs all over. Does the city offer any subsidizing for projects like this? If not, it seems that with our increased tax base that this would be the way to go to help refit strip malls and unused land.

[Mopacs]

The '21 Rio' apartment tower has officially broken ground. This building, at appox 220 ft, will really stand out from its West Campus location:
[/URL]

http://images27.fotki.com/v1024/photos/5/54967/2949615/21rio-vi.jpg (http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2007/09/17/daily25.html?jst=b_ln_hl)

From Austin Business Journal:

[URL]http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2007/09/17/daily25.html?jst=b_ln_hl


UT residential tower breaks ground

Austin Business Journal - 3:09 PM CDT Wednesday, September 19, 2007

A groundbreaking event was held today for 21 Rio, the 158-unit high-rise apartment development going up near the University of Texas campus.
At 21 stories, the project at Rio Grande and 21st Street will be the tallest in the West Campus area. The $44 million development will have one, two and three-bedroom units as well as about 4,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space. The developer, Cobalt Land Development Ltd., say the first occupants should be able to move in as early as spring 2009.

More than 100 people attended today's groundbreaking, including Austin Mayor Will Wynn, who lauded the project team for creating a dense, high-rise that will house a significant number of students.

"Whether the challenge is traffic or public safety or carbon emissions from vehicles and/or electricity generation that are causing global warming, the answer is to get a lot more people living a lot closer to where they work, shop, play, worship--and yes, go to school," says Wynn. "We need to replicate the 21 Rio model throughout West Campus and bring students back to the university area"

In 2004, the city of Austin approved the University Neighborhood Overlay, which allows for a total height of 175 feet in a limited part of West Campus. A variance was granted in February 2006 for 21 Rio to increase the height for this site to 220 feet. That enabled Cobalt to increase the number of units included in the plan.

Merriman Associates Architects designed the building.

[METALMiKE]

A Swimming Poo! Great! :D

[NormalgeNyus]

Isn;t this Hard Rocks lastest incarnation?

i wish that Austin had a planet Hollywood here i have been to the one in Vegas and i just love all the movie stuff in there. it was seem fit since Austin is a big movie town that it should have a planet Hollywood

[GoldenBoot]

i wish that Austin had a planet Hollywood here i have been to the one in Vegas and i just love all the movie stuff in there. it was seem fit since Austin is a big movie town that it should have a planet Hollywood

Planet Hollywood would not survive in Austin - even if they had a good location (unlike the Hard Rock). This is not a city which is conducive to large, chain, themed restaurants! Plus, their food is atrocious! And, I believe their parent company has had a couple of stints in bankruptcy court. Why would we want that?

Heck, as much as I am pro-Central Texas, I'd vote against a Planet Hollywood in Austin! Yuk...

[arbeiter]

Did the Hard Rock go under? We all laughed when it came to town.

[Jdawgboy]

Yep...This is a cool night club/lounge!! I've been to the one in NYC. It will be Pangaea's fifth location. The others are located in New York City (the original), London, Miami, and Marbella (Costa del Sol - Spain).

wow a very prestigious list that Austin has joined with this place...:banana:

[Dragonfire]

Did the Hard Rock go under? We all laughed when it came to town.

Yeah, it closed a year or two (or was it more?) ago. And if Hard Rock didn't survive here, than there's no way Planet Hollywood would. Plus there are very few locations left in the US, and quite a few Hard Rock Cafes have closed (including the one in Dallas, which was a shame because I loved that one). The food's alright IMO, but it's way overpriced. And big chain restaurants with overpriced food doesn't belong in Austin.

[Goothrey]

:haha: Poo_

Just thought I would point that out. What are the chances?

[priller]

This building really reminds me a lot of the old Westgate tower:

http://images27.fotki.com/v1024/photos/5/54967/2949615/21rio-vi.jpg

http://www.austinurbandigs.com/properties/33/33.jpg

[MichaelB]

Another crane went up today in west campus. It is just north of MLK on (I believe) Nueces. It is not 21 Rio.... that is a block away. Anyone have any info?

[KevinFromTexas]

New tower for West Avenue between 8th & 9th Streets in downtown. The tower would be "250 feet tall" as the article states.

From the Austin American-Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/realestate/09/20/0920downtown.html

REAL ESTATE
New condo highrise planned but faces opposition
Developer seeks to build tower of 250 feet, higher than zoning allows

By Shonda Novak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Thursday, September 20, 2007

A new condo high-rise is being proposed on West Avenue between Eighth and Ninth streets, but residents in the neighborhood on the western edge of downtown have registered their opposition.

David Cox, president of Austin-based Fortis Development, is seeking a zoning change to build a tower of up to 250 feet, or about 20 stories, in an area where office zoning now caps height at 60 feet. The project would have about 200 condominiums plus retail space.

The zoning request is scheduled to go before the city's Planning Commission on Tuesday, and the City Council would have the final say.

If all goes as planned, the project would break ground in the fourth quarter of 2008, said Cox, who also is a vice president with Cypress Real Estate Advisors Inc., which has provided some financing for Fortis, his new development venture.

Cox's proposed project would be within the boundaries of the Old West Austin Neighborhood Association, which represents about 400 households. Ted Siff, president of the group, said many residents think a tower that high wouldn't fit with the residential and historic character of the area, which includes a number of single-family homes that have been converted to offices.

The proposed site has three office buildings on it. The nearest single-family home is about three blocks away, Siff said.

Although residents are in favor of more residential development in the area, they're concerned that if market conditions were to change, Cox might switch the project to offices, for example. Siff says offices would generate much more traffic than a residential project.

Siff said no other sites in the area have the requested central business district zoning, which would allow tall buildings like those elsewhere downtown. Siff has written a letter to the city stating his group's opposition. Representatives of the group are scheduled to meet today with the developer's attorney, Richard Suttle Jr., to learn more about Cox's plans.

Cox said he has not seen the letter and preferred not to comment.

Siff said that in his meetings with neighbors, the most intense zoning they said they would support would be a category that limits height to 120 feet.

Cox's project is the latest among more than a dozen planned or being built in a residential building boom downtown. Mayor Will Wynn says he would like to see 25,000 people living downtown by 2015, up from about 5,800 now.

Because of ordinances that protect Capitol views and other building restrictions, Suttle said, only a limited number of sites allow for high-rise development.

"If we want more residential units downtown, we need to let those properties that are not impacted by view corridors to develop at a greater height," he said.

Cox's project is not related to a residential and retail development that Cypress plans at West Sixth Street and West Avenue. In 2005, Cypress envisioned the Lofts on Shoal Creek as a seven- or eight-story condo project, plus retail, but Cypress officials could not be reached for comment about whether their plans have changed.

More than 1,400 luxury condos are under construction downtown, and about 3,200 are planned in the next few years.

Developers say condos are selling well, and most don't think the downtown residential market is at risk of being overbuilt.

"Downtown Austin is the fastest-growing master-planned community that I know of," said Bobby Nail, a partner in the Austin office of Dallas-based CLB Partners. "About 1,000 people a week are moving to Austin."

CLB developed the Austin City Lofts and is about to open its second project, the 104-unit Bridges on the Park on South Lamar Boulevard.

In late October, CLB plans to break ground on a 33-story condo tower with 160 units at Seventh and Rio Grande streets, near Cox's proposed project. Units are expected to be priced from the low $300,000s, with the four penthouses of almost 5,000 square feet costing more than $3 million.

CLB anticipates a June 2009 opening for the $99 million project.

[M1EK]

Cox's proposed project would be within the boundaries of the Old West Austin Neighborhood Association, which represents about 400 households. Ted Siff, president of the group, said many residents think a tower that high wouldn't fit with the residential and historic character of the area, which includes a number of single-family homes that have been converted to offices.


Although I'm sure OWANA will oppose this project, thanks to Laura Morrison's "leadership", the neighborhood association directly at play here and the one they actually got a quote from is the Old Austin Neighborhood (covers roughly Guadalupe to Lamar). DANA also covers this ground.

[bigdogc]

I'm sorry, I'm young and all, but give me a break...its a 20 story tower downtown! How can these people have such opposition? It seems to me that they should be happy something bigger isn't going there. The mayor wants 20k+ people to move downtown...There's going to be some zoning changes if we want to accomplish this goal.

[Mopacs]

:haha: Poo_

Just thought I would point that out. What are the chances?

OOPS, I just noticed that :D That was a screen capture of t he flash animation on their main page (the bullet points appear one by one, letter by letter). I guess I captured it at just the wrong (or right?) time. Pretty funny

[KevinFromTexas]

I'm sorry, I'm young and all, but give me a break...its a 20 story tower downtown! How can these people have such opposition? It seems to me that they should be happy something bigger isn't going there. The mayor wants 20k+ people to move downtown...There's going to be some zoning changes if we want to accomplish this goal.

Well the area is officially within the boundary lines of downtown. It's mostly single family style homes mixed with office (converted residential). It is officially downtown though. It's also not a total stranger to some sizable buildings already. The Travis County Criminal Justice Center is just 2 blocks away. That building is 204 feet tall with 11 floors. So it's less than 50 feet shorter than this one. The Nokonah (126 feet 11 floors) is 3 blocks to the west. The post office towers which are both near or above 500 feet tall will be just 3 and 4 blocks to the southeast.

[rad707]

Old west austin is in a pickle. many years ago the city chose to designate a ton of old houses as historicaly, thereby yanking them off the grid for redevelopment. given this historical status, as well as the demand for urban infill on lots that are not historical, will one day look awkward...20 story building next to 19th century home next to 10 story tower next to 19th centery home...you get the idea.

i'm for the tower - build it if you think you can - but the bigger issue here is what to do with all the historical housing that turns this critical part of downtown into a lifeless hole. i say "lifeless hole" because not many people live in these old houses. the are all reconfigured for offices, and biking through this neighborhood on weekends is like biking through a ghost town.

eventually (not during this boom cycle), austin is going to have to figure out what to do with these houses. every city suffers this delimma, so will ours.

examples are the houses that flanked central park. a less dramatic, closer-to-home example are the old houses on lower mckinney in Dallas. when i was growing up, most were intact. today, many have been raised for MU developement.

that's the breaks. OWANA needs to accept that change is inevitable. they should be spending their time figuring out where to move the historical homes rather than fight a proposed tower that is going into a plot of land that is largely a paved parking lot.

[KevinFromTexas]

Actually where this tower is slated for is not just a parking lot. Infact most of that area is quite dense, as far as for having a lack of parking lots. The tower looks like it'll be replacing a full block of old houses. Although it probably won't cover the entire block, that's not very likely. Personally, I would have picked a different location since there are other blocks with much more sparse development on them, including plenty of parking lots.

Also forget to mention the CLB Tower they spoke of in the article at 7th & Rio Grande. That one will be just 2 blocks to the southeast of this building and that one is proposed to be at least 400 feet tall.

[MichaelB]

Re: new tower at 8th and west. I think there is a balance to be had in this area. I walk that area 3 to 4 times a week. There are some beautiful old homes in there. Most are no longer homes. I am personally very happy they were saved from demo. I find it interesting that being used as offices has been what has preserved them. We....our city, is richer for their texture. I think we are very lucky that our development was slow enough that areas like this have had some of the beautiful structures survive. Many a sad city has lost too many in the name of cheap development. I will at this point fall on the side where presevation and new development can coexist in areas where there is room for both. I think it adds to a beautiful urban texture. I do think the area in question is a perfect area to be returned to a great mixed use residental area. I always have. There are plenty of bad office buildings and cheap apartments that both could go. I feel the truly historical homes need to be preserved..... it will just become a generic area without them. It can, on the other hand, be a beautiful area with lots of contrast and street interest. Quality not Quantity.

[OfCourse]

Wasn't Holiday Inn Town Lake supposed to have its exterior renovated/remodeled?

I remember reading something about that a while back.

[M1EK]

Yes, the old homes are really nice to look at, but as indicated correctly by MOST here, hardly any of them are being used as residential, so ignore the "BBBBUT it's near SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING!" complaints from OAN.

Also, please stop confusing OWANA with OAN. They're not the same thing. OWANA is west of Lamar, and has plenty of historic houses, but they're actually being lived in. OAN is between Lamar and Guadalupe, and incorporates only a few holdouts, a bunch of people in the older apartments, and that's it. (As far as I can tell, none of the residents of Nokonah have gotten involved - because DANA overlaps here, there's probably little interest in OAN).

[southsideatx04]

Re: new tower at 8th and west. I think there is a balance to be had in this area. I walk that area 3 to 4 times a week. There are some beautiful old homes in there. Most are no longer homes. I am personally very happy they were saved from demo. I find it interesting that being used as offices has been what has preserved them. We....our city, is richer for their texture. I think we are very lucky that our development was slow enough that areas like this have had some of the beautiful structures survive. Many a sad city has lost too many in the name of cheap development. I will at this point fall on the side where presevation and new development can coexist in areas where there is room for both. I think it adds to a beautiful urban texture. I do think the area in question is a perfect area to be returned to a great mixed use residental area. I always have. There are plenty of bad office buildings and cheap apartments that both could go. I feel the truly historical homes need to be preserved..... it will just become a generic area without them. It can, on the other hand, be a beautiful area with lots of contrast and street interest. Quality not Quantity.

The property taxes on those homes must be ridiculous. Is that why there is more offices then actual homes?

[ATXboom]

My opinion... time to grow up as a city. We all know these homes are all business. There are no families or residential... well very very few - mainly garage apartments behind the homes.

It is "downtown". We want infill as a city vision.

If its historically designated structure [notice I would not use the term "home" as they are not lived in] then keep it... otherwise build up!

Could be a nice mix of structures... would remind of of Lakewood outside of Clevelend where you have an active neighborhood with large homes and mid to small high rises.

OWANA should have no voice in this per M1.

[southsideatx04]

The only way to get anything done in this town is to do-away with the zoning laws. Imagine the world without zoning we would all hold hands. :cheers:
No but seriously how much effort,time, and money spent on fighting the zoning laws. Your time is one of the most important things in life and I don't feel like driving 30 minutes to the commercial zone then drive another 30 min. to get back home to the residential zone and again drive another 5,10,20 min. to go to some entertainment zone its pointless and Austin cannot sustain this type excessive sprawl. Anyways I really hate driving in Austin :hell: I lived in other cities and Austin by far the worst just my opinion. VMU and TOD is the future.

[DTAustin]

Let's raze paradise and put up a parking lot.

I'm pro development, but I think some things in this town have to be off limits. Otherwise, we will end up looking like Houston or Dallas.

The northwest corner of downtown adds a lot of character to the city. I really hope that the developers retain the character of existing neighborhood. As to the question about residential vs. businesses occupying those houses, closer to Lamar the houses are residential. Closer to Guadalupe, you will find more businesses.

I've lived downtown for 7 years, and have watched older and smaller buildings slowly disappear in the name of progress. Sure, some should go, but others need to stay.

For example, the building housing the Ginger Man is under attack by the Gables. That is a very cool building. We don't have many left like that. We are going to lose a few buildings on Congress to the Marriott. Stand a few blocks away from those buildings and look at them for a while. There aren't many left like that. When we are done with this building boom, we may end up with only concrete and steal structures and none of the character that makes downtown Austin cool.

[MichaelB]

My opinion... time to grow up as a city. We all know these homes are all business. There are no families or residential... well very very few - mainly garage apartments behind the homes.

It is "downtown". We want infill as a city vision.

If its historically designated structure [notice I would not use the term "home" as they are not lived in] then keep it... otherwise build up!

Could be a nice mix of structures... would remind of of Lakewood outside of Clevelend where you have an active neighborhood with large homes and mid to small high rises.

OWANA should have no voice in this per M1.

I'll buy that. And yes, that neighborhood of Cleveland is a good example.
I find the mix important. I think it helps it maintain I better character and not become a generic McNeigborhood.

[MichaelB]

Let's raze paradise and put up a parking lot.

I'm pro development, but I think some things in this town have to be off limits. Otherwise, we will end up looking like Houston or Dallas.

The northwest corner of downtown adds a lot of character to the city. I really hope that the developers retain the character of existing neighborhood. As to the question about residential vs. businesses occupying those houses, closer to Lamar the houses are residential. Closer to Guadalupe, you will find more businesses.

I've lived downtown for 7 years, and have watched older and smaller buildings slowly disappear in the name of progress. Sure, some should go, but others need to stay.

For example, the building housing the Ginger Man is under attack by the Gables. That is a very cool building. We don't have many left like that. We are going to lose a few buildings on Congress to the Marriott. Stand a few blocks away from those buildings and look at them for a while. There aren't many left like that. When we are done with this building boom, we may end up with only concrete and steal structures and none of the character that makes downtown Austin cool.

Glad to hear more of these voices speak up. There is a balance to be had!

[M1EK]

Let's raze paradise and put up a parking lot.
As to the question about residential vs. businesses occupying those houses, closer to Lamar the houses are residential. Closer to Guadalupe, you will find more businesses.

Nonsense. Even close to Lamar, the vast majority of those old historic homes are being used as offices (bail bondsmen, lawyers, etc.). The residential component is, as others have indicated, largely limited to garage apartments and the like.

I like preserving historic structures as much as the next guy - but they can be preserved among high-rises just as easily as they can among bail-bondsmens' offices. There's vanishingly little "single-family residential" here, period, not that I buy into the tripe that you can't put apartments next to houses (I live next to a large duplex and in front of an apartment complex). Don't give the forces of evil in the ANC any more ammunition here than they already have.

[arbeiter]

Ideally, this new building would be a bit smaller but oh well. That part of downtown is autarkic anyway, it has no relation to the rest of downtown and is kind of a dead-zone. I for one don't believe for a minute that those houses would have all been razed had they remained residential.

I don't think that having high-rises next to houses is actually that bad of a thing if they are businesses - it's kind of common in richer cities in Brazil and Mexico, I've noticed.

[DTAustin]

Nonsense. Even close to Lamar, the vast majority of those old historic homes are being used as offices (bail bondsmen, lawyers, etc.). The residential component is, as others have indicated, largely limited to garage apartments and the like.

I like preserving historic structures as much as the next guy - but they can be preserved among high-rises just as easily as they can among bail-bondsmens' offices. There's vanishingly little "single-family residential" here, period, not that I buy into the tripe that you can't put apartments next to houses (I live next to a large duplex and in front of an apartment complex). Don't give the forces of evil in the ANC any more ammunition here than they already have.

They can't be preserved if the builder knocks down an entire block of houses for a high rise. I know it will happen in some cases, but the people of Austin need to think carefully about how much of this we will allow. If Austin is left without an character, it will no longer be Austin. It will be Dallas Jr.

[ATXboom]

Even if that entire cluster of house/businesses is razed and VMU goes in... or high rises Austin will not become Dallas or Houston. IMO that is a superficial perspective that highrises = Dallas, etc... If you mean the architecture of the home/business - same applies. Austin has never been considered a hot bed of architectural statement... however some of the modern green homes are grabbing world attention.

What will always make Austin special is the street life, dense/vibrant downtown, open culture and integration of water and parks which Dallas or Houston do not have. This area is dead to pedestrians... just like downtown Dallas after 5.

I would consider another view point that the right development here separates Austin from Dallas, Houston, etc even more so.

[arbeiter]

If Austin is left without an character, it will no longer be Austin. It will be Dallas Jr.

Darling, Austin already is Dallas Jr. Austin has lost a lot of its charm over the past 10 years, but it's not because of high rises like this, it's because of the proliferation of places like Pflugerville or Cedar Park.

Dallas actually has way more old houses and streetcar suburb neighborhoods than Austin, so the statement doesn't really make sense to me.

[shilli]

Nonsense. Even close to Lamar, the vast majority of those old historic homes are being used as offices (bail bondsmen, lawyers, etc.). The residential component is, as others have indicated, largely limited to garage apartments and the like.

I like preserving historic structures as much as the next guy - but they can be preserved among high-rises just as easily as they can among bail-bondsmens' offices. There's vanishingly little "single-family residential" here, period, not that I buy into the tripe that you can't put apartments next to houses (I live next to a large duplex and in front of an apartment complex). Don't give the forces of evil in the ANC any more ammunition here than they already have.

If this is the area I think it is, I'm not sure any historic structures would be moved or destroyed - there are some historic structures on the SW corner of 9th and West (806 and 808 West), but just south of that are three big lots (running back to Shoal Creek south of the dirt bike park) that are mainly parking lot with some 70's office buildings (800, 802 and 804). Montwalk Holdings/Powell Interests owns 800-806. Someone else owns 808. I'd like to see the historic structures preserved, but I'm fine with skyscrapers next to 2 story houses.

[ATXboom]

Arbeiter... RR, Pflugerville, etc can do what they want and need to exist. They exist in Seattle and the Bay area as well... take a drive through Silicon Valley... I was in Seattle last weekend... no different 15 miles to the north. No american city is exempt from suburbia/generica.

Ideally the "character" of any place is consilidated/identified in its urban core... and I think that is what is/was being discussed.

Good point though... Dallas has many more "urban neighborhoods" than Austin... not having any housing structures in that part of downtown Austin has no impact on the character of Austin. I can still conclude development in that area would only enhance Austin's character.

[ATXboom]

Here is a different twist on that neighborhood...

1. Its not a neighborhood.
2. It is all businesses located in housig structures mixed with low rise multi-family [exlcuding the few garage apartments]
3. After 5 the area is dead like downtown proper Dallas.

...why not mix use it so it is a lively, ahemm... area.

[MichaelB]

This area is indeed prime to be returned to a mix of residential and business. I think it is an incrdible location. I love contrast and think the old and the new next to each other always makes interesting areas (many noted here already) We just need to make sure that those who would ignor the long term interest in keeping interesting neighborhoods will be forced to. If, in this case that means protecting historical properties AND TREES to keep the unique quality of the area.... then so be it. It would make a wonderful neigborhood.

I walked thru the area being discussed today. I do many times, but I wanted to see the property in question. I do not pretend to think I am the person to decide which older properties are worth saving.... but I will pretend to for this moment. The property ( I think) in question has an office/house and apt building on it. The house that is on the corner (being used as a business) has long lost its' apparent historical character... It is actually a good block to consider development. The home to the south of 9th on the west side of west is incredible and I would certainly join in a fight if it were to be considered for demo.

My other "hope" is that bringing residents back into this area might bring more residents back to the historical homes. This has happened already to a few homes in the area.... returning offices to residential. ( It is interesting to me that being offices my indeed have saved the structures.)I would love to see that trend continue. And I do know 5 people who live in that area and they all love it. It truly feels like an oais near downtown. Smart area to invest in.

[ATXboom]

Awesome Michael... now you are talking about preserving Austin's character... the trees and few historical structures, etc.. make that area special.

Oddly enough it could be an inverted mixed use neighborhood... with residences in mid/high rises and businesses in house structures. Odd - but hey that's funky Austin right?

[bigdogc]

I don't buy the argument that we might turn into Dallas/Houston if we tear down part of the west end.
The mayor has a master plan of how the downtown city is to be built. If getting rid of a few, very few, old office/residential houses can create a vibrant downtown then I'm for it.

[brandon]

Growth in Austin is inevitable. They key is to control the growth and keep Austin’s character in tact. The only reason there is a condo boom downtown is because there is so many amenities for residence to utilize. Areas such as the 6th street, the market district (west end), Congress Avenue, and the warehouse district create the demand for downtown living. With all of the potential financial opportunities for investors, there comes temptation to abuse downtown to their advantage. Yes, leaders in the city want to increase the downtown population, but the growth needs to be closely monitored so there will still be reasons to live downtown. More than likely, it would be more profitable for the Gingerman location to be a mid-rise condo project than a bar, but what is better for the residential market in the long run? If this becomes a trend, then the city will loose its character and the condo market will eventually collapse because the attractiveness to live downtown will diminish. City leaders need to aggressively protect areas such as the warehouse district and congress avenue so there will remain a demand for downtown living. It is hard to blame developers wanting to get rich. The control needs to remain in the hands of the city government when it comes to downtown development.

[MichaelB]

Awesome Michael... now you are talking about preserving Austin's character... the trees and few historical structures, etc.. make that area special.

Oddly enough it could be an inverted mixed use neighborhood... with residences in mid/high rises and businesses in house structures. Odd - but hey that's funky Austin right?

Yup.... Love that.

[hookem]

Awesome Michael... now you are talking about preserving Austin's character... the trees and few historical structures, etc.. make that area special.

Oddly enough it could be an inverted mixed use neighborhood... with residences in mid/high rises and businesses in house structures. Odd - but hey that's funky Austin right?

I would be very much in favor of that, too. I am strongly for preserving the old residences, as business locations or homes. There is sooooo much crappy low-rise office already in dowtown (from the 70's and 80's), I'd rather see that crap get demolished than the 20s/30s homes. Let it be "inverted" MU...

[JAM]

There is sooooo much crappy low-rise office already in dowtown (from the 70's and 80's), I'd rather see that crap get demolished than the 20s/30s homes.

Problem with that is these developers seem to want to build tall, and a lot of these low-rise are in the corridor views.

[bigdogc]

How are the developers going to be able to make a new proposed 20 story tower here? Do they really own all those small homes in the area?
http://austintowers.net/Austin_Downtown/files/fortis_development_west_8th_9th_condo.png

[Kropotkin]

21 Rio (2101 Rio Grande) is 18 stories and is being fit into just about 17,000 square feet of land.

[priller]

How are the developers going to be able to make a new proposed 20 story tower here? Do they really own all those small homes in the area?

The building will probably only take up a quarter of the block, much like their tower on 7th and Rio.

[atx001]

Here is the link to Rhode partners website, they apparently have a hand in many of our upcoming projects.

http://www.rhodepartners.com/FINALSITE_7_27_07.swf

Once you've reached the site, click on portfolio. In the portfolio you will see many interesting things including: 7th and Rio Grande, Hyatt masterplan, Aquaterra, East avenue masterplan (Concordia), Gables project (adjacent to Seaholm), and etc.

On another note, has anyone seen the advertisement in the Saturday Statesman regarding Spring? It has the rendering for the Spring on one side and the UT tower on the other.

[Strayone]

This is a fringe area of the CBD, and some businesses will be displaced obviously. This would seem like a very nice address for people (residents) to seek. It is a very slow moving, narrow street area and easily will energize a very sleepy area. I would say the retail end of this project would sure hope to attract customers from very near by, not shoppers just happening by, or choosing to drive there to shop since it is a small retail area. This s the most surprising project in the pipeline of all the proposals.

[KevinFromTexas]

Altavida has almost one level completed above street level (tower portion).

[AustinGuy]

Does anyone have updates on the tower to be built at 7th & Rio Grande? Groundbreaking is supposed to be in 2007... is any work happening there yet?

[bigdogc]

http://dynamicnitroussystems.com/images/330633019206_0_BG.jpg
http://dynamicnitroussystems.com/images/434513019206_0_BG.jpg
http://dynamicnitroussystems.com/images/554423019206_0_BG.jpg

these are all views from the 25th floor.

more pictures in this album here (http://www.kodakgallery.com/Slideshow.jsp?mode=fromshare&Uc=bjyim5m.3v1n3sp2&Uy=-7c17aa&Ux=1&conn_speed=1&refer=digreg&UV=590706312554_828701074111&Uc=bjyim5m.3v1n3sp2&Uy=-7c17aa&Ux=1)

[Strayone]

^Jeez that looks high!

[bigdogc]

imagine views from floors in the 40s

[KevinFromTexas]

360 has now topped off the 38th floor and is starting on the 39th floor. We're now officially tied with San Antonio for highest floor count. The Marriott Rivercenter in San Antonio also has 38 floors. Once 360 hits the 40th floor, probably in 2 weeks, Austin will tie Fort Worth to become the 4th Texas city with a building with 40 floors or more. Once it's topped out with 44 floors, only Houston and Dallas will have buildings with more floors.

Pic from today, 9/23.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b234/KevinFromTexas/Austin%20pics/P1120778EDIT.jpg

[priller]

I managed to squeeze in an hour or so this morning to take some photos before going into the office. Yes I worked today. And yesterday. They're killing me at the new job! :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip:

I was in a wide-angle mood today, so most photos were made with my Sigma 10-20mm ultra-wide lens.

Site prep at the Spring is well under way:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1372/1431066022_d023bd0365_o.jpg

Even have some of the crane parts ready to go:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1418/1430194427_2bb4238488_o.jpg

At the Goodwill site:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1314/1430193479_81100d3df9_o.jpg

Some graffiti from the building just west of the Goodwill site:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1345/1430194203_da394d03ab_o.jpg

The Gables site:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1191/1431067334_d40c91387d_o.jpg

The Gables site, from a different angle. The air coming out of the pipe really stank!
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1099/1430192483_e95c2a9bd2_o.jpg

Equipment at the Gables site:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1012/1430193019_288b95d83a_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1337/1431066928_78f47d3ec3_o.jpg

Starting to work on the garage/retail portion of the Monarch:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1178/1431068726_6bb58177b5_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1100/1430194999_9cfbfe5c88_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1157/1431069164_9153e28298_o.jpg

Altavida finally pokes its head above ground:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1074/1430195449_16562a4868_o.jpg

On the way home I noticed the moon was out looking quite large, so I stopped by Zilker Park and took a few quick shots:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1373/1430195771_747ac0fa24_o.jpg

[Complex01]

:previous:

That bottom pic is really good. Austin, is looking very nice...

:cool:

[DTAustin]

I don't buy the argument that we might turn into Dallas/Houston if we tear down part of the west end.
The mayor has a master plan of how the downtown city is to be built. If getting rid of a few, very few, old office/residential houses can create a vibrant downtown then I'm for it.

The mayor may have a plan, but the city doesn't have a official modern downtown plan, which is why they hired the ROMA consulting to come up with one. Go to the following website to take the survey which will help guide this plan. http://www.downtownaustinplan.org/

Historically, and in the present, Austin hasn't done much planning. This is why we don't have a lot of roads. In the 80's the attitude was if we don't build it, they won't come. Obviously that didn't work.

It's really been up to developers to do as they wish within the zoning rules, which primarily cover the size and usage of a building. However, unless you are trying to build within 200 feet of Town Lake, variances are handed out like candy at a parade. I'm not arguing that letting developers build what the market will bare is a bad idea, but I do think the city as a whole needs to be aware of the damage that can be done when the old is replaced with the new. Once a building is gone, or a business is closed, it is almost impossible to get it back.

What I said about Austin becoming Dallas Jr. has nothing to do with suburbs, and has been talked about by other people in recent posts. Losing trees, losing the few remaining older buildings, and losing existing life-style businesses such as the Ginger Man or Las Manitas is going to permanently change the face of Austin, probably for the worse.

Like I said, I'm pro development. I live in an older condo downtown and will be moving to a new condo downtown when it is completed. However, I've dealt with a lot of these developers before. Many of them are only concerned with profits, not with keeping Austin as cool as Austin has been or still is.

I'm arguing that the city and the people of Austin have to keep in mind that Austin has been and continues to be a very unique place in this world, but it could easily become just another big city if we don't retain it's character and style.

[M1EK]

In the 80's the attitude was if we don't build it, they won't come. Obviously that didn't work.

That's a complete myth. The city tried not to "build it", but TXDOT built it anyways, and the state legislature wrote unconstitutional laws preventing Austin from implementing growth management (later overturned by the courts, but too late), and the powers of counties to control growth are non-existent.

So, yes, Austin did what it could, was stopped by the state, and then they came. But it wasn't just a stupid "der, don't build roads" plan - as is often alleged by the forces of suburban sprawl.

[totheskies]

Rail!!!!! Rail!!!!! Rail!!!!!

[bigdogc]

hey guys, im on my break at school. decided to check up on the forums.
has anyone heard anything about amli? is it really going to be ready in the upcoming months? i went to their website and the prices for rental are ridiculous!

[arbeiter]

Regardless of who wanted to or didn't want to build them, highways were largely not being built from 90-01, and lots of people came anyway, a banner decade for Austin's population growth. The decade of 2000-2010 will also be high growth, combined with extensive highway construction, yet I don't think the difference is enough to suggest that roads are the reason.

[arbeiter]

I just wish there were some way to get at least develop some kind of regional planning. You can just look at other cities' and see where a more proactive technique was taken. Look at Toronto - you can see that all of the suburban development clusters heavily around existing freeways in long, narrow bands emerging from central Toronto. Outside of those corridors, it's just farmland and very little suburban development.

[Jdawgboy]

The mayor may have a plan, but the city doesn't have a official modern downtown plan, which is why they hired the ROMA consulting to come up with one. Go to the following website to take the survey which will help guide this plan. http://www.downtownaustinplan.org/

Historically, and in the present, Austin hasn't done much planning. This is why we don't have a lot of roads. In the 80's the attitude was if we don't build it, they won't come. Obviously that didn't work.

It's really been up to developers to do as they wish within the zoning rules, which primarily cover the size and usage of a building. However, unless you are trying to build within 200 feet of Town Lake, variances are handed out like candy at a parade. I'm not arguing that letting developers build what the market will bare is a bad idea, but I do think the city as a whole needs to be aware of the damage that can be done when the old is replaced with the new. Once a building is gone, or a business is closed, it is almost impossible to get it back.

What I said about Austin becoming Dallas Jr. has nothing to do with suburbs, and has been talked about by other people in recent posts. Losing trees, losing the few remaining older buildings, and losing existing life-style businesses such as the Ginger Man or Las Manitas is going to permanently change the face of Austin, probably for the worse.

Like I said, I'm pro development. I live in an older condo downtown and will be moving to a new condo downtown when it is completed. However, I've dealt with a lot of these developers before. Many of them are only concerned with profits, not with keeping Austin as cool as Austin has been or still is.

I'm arguing that the city and the people of Austin have to keep in mind that Austin has been and continues to be a very unique place in this world, but it could easily become just another big city if we don't retain it's character and style.

For one thing Ginger Man is still going to stay in downtown its just moving to another location. Im sick and tired of people saying they are destroying it. The business is not closing down just moving. Second of All Las Manitas is not that big of an Icon. Ive lived in Austin all of my life and honestly never heard of that restaraunt until the whole issue with Marriott came up. Just about all of these new buildings going up in downtown Austin have been either on empty lots, parking lots or old delapitated buildings that were not even used in the first place. What has been lost??? Tell me that? it seems to me we are gaining more than loosing. Go downtown on a weekend and its even more vibrant than it was 5 years ago. Downtown Austin has gained way more than it has lost other than parking wich the city does need to address.

[arbeiter]

Las Manitas is one of those places I always knew because it was referenced a lot, but very few people seemed to go there. I have only been a few times, and it's a great place, very good food, but then again, there are so many great little hole-in-the-wall eateries in Austin. I am more sad that the building itself will be destroyed, because Austin is seriously lacking in older prewar storefront architecture.

Austin needs to adapt and change. If Austin can't make the transition to a larger city without keeping its spirit intact, then it means that the spirit was gone. Think of New York - all of the cool independent stores, the low rents and the artist types were in Greenwich Village in the 1950's and 60's, then they moved to Soho in the 70's, and the East Village in the 80's and early 90's. Then, the Lower East Side/Chinatown, then Williamsburg by 2000. Now, Williamsburg is pricey and people have moved onto Bushwick. The place and venue has changed but the spirit is still there. A city's hipness, uniqueness, culture, whatever, needs to be transportable.

[DTAustin]

For one thing Ginger Man is still going to stay in downtown its just moving to another location. Im sick and tired of people saying they are destroying it. The business is not closing down just moving. Second of All Las Manitas is not that big of an Icon. Ive lived in Austin all of my life and honestly never heard of that restaraunt until the whole issue with Marriott came up. Just about all of these new buildings going up in downtown Austin have been either on empty lots, parking lots or old delapitated buildings that were not even used in the first place. What has been lost??? Tell me that? it seems to me we are gaining more than loosing. Go downtown on a weekend and its even more vibrant than it was 5 years ago. Downtown Austin has gained way more than it has lost other than parking wich the city does need to address.

I totally agree that downtown is much more vibrant. I've lived there since 2001. When I first moved downtown, there wasn't a soul to be found on a Sunday afternoon. Now you finding street parking is impossible. I don't necessarily think it is because of more people living downtown. I think it is because more events happen downtown. We still have less than 5000 people living downtown. That will be different when a few more of the condos are completed. For example, 360 and the Monarch will add over 1000 people to the downtown population. Spring, the new apartments, and the other smaller projects will probably get us close to 8000-9000 downtown residents within the next 12-24 months. Like I said, I'm pro-development, as long as the developers respect what Austin is and has to offer.

Up until now, your statement about most of the new buildings going up on empty parking lots is mostly true. (There are a few exceptions. Example: Whitley will be replaced by 21C.) I don't dispute that. However, there are not many lots left. I'm not even sure there are any more empty lots that aren't slated for development. Can anyone chime in with the availability of empty parking lots? Regardless, when the empty lots are gone, more of the architecturally significant low rise buildings will be replaced by tall buildings. What I am concerned about is that none of these buildings will be left.

The Ginger Man has stated that they would like to move to a new location. I am not holding my breath. Rent is very expensive. The new location may not be as good as the old, and they may not survive if they move. We will have to see. Hopefully, the Gables will do what they did with the Mean Eyed Cat, and not force the Ginger Man to move.

Maybe you didn't hear about Las Manitas until the controversy, but the fact that it was there and that the other restaurants like it exist in Austin help make Austin what it is today. If we let these businesses slip away one by one, pretty soon all we'll have are chain restaurants like Houston (by the way, most of the 2nd Street District restaurants are chains - and not that good, in my opinion). It's not easy to succeed as a small business. We should at least not try to ruin the ones that do.

Even if the businesses move, and survive, the existing buildings will probably be destroyed. We don't have many warehouse type buildings or beautiful older buildings left in the core part of downtown. We have to be careful so that one day we don't wake up to find all of these older buildings gone. This is my primary concern.

[arbeiter]

I hate to defend Houston but I will: it's a huge city with lots of chain restaurants but also lots of independent restaurants. It is a great city for an epicurean - you can get any cuisine, authentically prepared, well priced.

In fact, I think Houston is remarkable in the sense that it actually has lots of ethnic restaurants stuck in the middle of suburbia, in places where you think chains would normally be. I recall eating at an Indonesian restaurant on Dairy-Ashford, some 20 miles west of downtown Houston, in a strip mall. In Austin, the equivalent strip mall would probably have nothing of the sort.

[GoldenBoot]

...The Ginger Man has stated that they would like to move to a new location. I am not holding my breath. Rent is very expensive. The new location may not be as good as the old, and they may not survive if they move. We will have to see. Hopefully, the Gables will do what they did with the Mean Eyed Cat, and not force the Ginger Man to move...

I hate to be a beacon of reality here, but what do you think the Ginger Man is? It's a chain! Other than the one in Austin, it's got locations in Houston, Dallas, Ft. Worth and two in New York City. It didn’t even start in Austin. Don’t get me wrong…I love the place. I’m there almost every Thursday or Friday for happy hour.

Furthermore, I think any business which cannot sustain itself should be allowed to go out of business. It is not the responsibility, nor burden, of the city, taxpayer or developer to keep a failing business open just because a few slap the word "icon" on it! Therefore, in the case of the Ginger Man, if they move to a new downtown location – I would expect their loyal patrons to follow. And if they fail to find a new location, or if the new location falls short in producing enough working capital, then it was meant to be.

Who knows, if the Ginger Man actually owned the piece of property they currently occupy, I would assume, as a business, that they would have entertained the idea of a buy-out from Gables. But, in this case, they did not have that option…

As a property owner…I would not want Joe Schmoe to tell me what I can or cannot do with my property. The state and local restrictions are already tight enough as it is!

[GoldenBoot]

...In fact, I think Houston is remarkable in the sense that it actually has lots of ethnic restaurants stuck in the middle of suburbia, in places where you think chains would normally be. I recall eating at an Indonesian restaurant on Dairy-Ashford, some 20 miles west of downtown Houston, in a strip mall. In Austin, the equivalent strip mall would probably have nothing of the sort.

It depends on where you're looking!! Plus, I wouldn't expect to find a raw number equivalent in Austin when compared to Houston. H-Town is 3.75 times the size of Austin! For a more accurate representation, one needs to compare the two on a per capita basis. And, I will concede that Houston would still come out on top when doing so…

Another thing to think about...Houston is, and has been considered for generations, one of the most internationally diverse cities in the U.S.!

[ATXboom]

GoldenBoot... spot on!

Gman is a chain... however if we can implement a good downtown plan for once that addresses:

1. Architecturally significant areas: warehouse district, 6th st... maybe WANA, etc to protect the look and feel while offering incentives for businesses/biz development and investment in these areas. Gman's building is pretty cool... but they are a renter. Does something protect the building while promoting air right development?? ...catch my drift?

2. Parking in conjuntion with transportation plans... circulator,etc

3. Revisit the Waterfront overlay

4. Revisit height constraints and what truly is "downtown" vs West Austin neighborhood, etc.

5. Strengthen tree ordinance downtown.


etc

[southsideatx04]

GoldenBoot... spot on!

Gman is a chain... however if we can implement a good downtown plan for once that addresses:

1. Architecturally significant areas: warehouse district, 6th st... maybe WANA, etc to protect the look and feel while offering incentives for businesses/biz development and investment in these areas. Gman's building is pretty cool... but they are a renter. Does something protect the building while promoting air right development?? ...catch my drift?

2. Parking in conjuntion with transportation plans... circulator,etc

3. Revisit the Waterfront overlay

4. Revisit height constraints and what truly is "downtown" vs West Austin neighborhood, etc.

5. Strengthen tree ordinance downtown.


etc

6. affordable housing downtown (which is never going to happen)also downtown will not hit their 25000 pop. goal by 2015 or is it 2025 or is it 2035.

[DTAustin]

GoldenBoot... spot on!

Gman is a chain... however if we can implement a good downtown plan for once that addresses:

1. Architecturally significant areas: warehouse district, 6th st... maybe WANA, etc to protect the look and feel while offering incentives for businesses/biz development and investment in these areas. Gman's building is pretty cool... but they are a renter. Does something protect the building while promoting air right development?? ...catch my drift?

2. Parking in conjuntion with transportation plans... circulator,etc

3. Revisit the Waterfront overlay

4. Revisit height constraints and what truly is "downtown" vs West Austin neighborhood, etc.

5. Strengthen tree ordinance downtown.


etc

I think you hit the nail on the head with your posting. If the city can put together a plan that protects certain aspects of Downtown, we will all be better off.

[DTAustin]

I hate to be a beacon of reality here, but what do you think the Ginger Man is? It's a chain! Other than the one in Austin, it's got locations in Houston, Dallas, Ft. Worth and two in New York City. It didn’t even start in Austin. Don’t get me wrong…I love the place. I’m there almost every Thursday or Friday for happy hour.

Furthermore, I think any business which cannot sustain itself should be allowed to go out of business. It is not the responsibility, nor burden, of the city, taxpayer or developer to keep a failing business open just because a few slap the word "icon" on it! Therefore, in the case of the Ginger Man, if they move to a new downtown location – I would expect their loyal patrons to follow. And if they fail to find a new location, or if the new location falls short in producing enough working capital, then it was meant to be.

Who knows, if the Ginger Man actually owned the piece of property they currently occupy, I would assume, as a business, that they would have entertained the idea of a buy-out from Gables. But, in this case, they did not have that option…

As a property owner…I would not want Joe Schmoe to tell me what I can or cannot do with my property. The state and local restrictions are already tight enough as it is!

Your right, Ginger Man is a chain. I stand corrected.

All I'm saying (or trying to say) is that Austin needs to be very careful over the next few years as to what happens with development. We have the chance to make this city even better, but we also run the risk of destroying its unique character.

[G Lee]

Does anyone have updates on the tower to be built at 7th & Rio Grande? Groundbreaking is supposed to be in 2007... is any work happening there yet?

The existing building is vacant and they doing asbestos abatement for the demolition. They are saying late October for groundbreaking.

[ATXboom]

Vision statements are never meant to be an accurate measuring stick... usually they are just beyond realistic and tend to deal with generalizations.

My company's vision statement is a joke...

That being said we should have 10K downtown after about 3-4 of these projects get moved in... Should everything being proposed be built [I haven't looked at the unit numbers in a while] I think it puts downtown proper population around 17K ...and that is by 2011. Factor in all the "near" downtown development... riverside, near east side, soco, sola, etc and I don't doubt we are getting 25K new residents in downtown proper + within 1 mile of DT by 2015 - which is the vision.

Who knows what developments pop up between now and 2011... 25K is a good bar for a vision statment... and I actully think we'll come very close.

[southsideatx04]

Vision statements are never meant to be an accurate measuring stick... usually they are just beyond realistic and tend to deal with generalizations.

My company's vision statement is a joke...

That being said we should have 10K downtown after about 3-4 of these projects get moved in... Should everything being proposed be built [I haven't looked at the unit numbers in a while] I think it puts downtown proper population around 17K ...and that is by 2011. Factor in all the "near" downtown development... riverside, near east side, soco, sola, etc and I don't doubt we are getting 25K new residents in downtown proper + within 1 mile of DT by 2015 - which is the vision.

Who knows what developments pop up between now and 2011... 25K is a good bar for a vision statment... and I actully think we'll come very close.

Where are the affordable downtown condos going to be. When I talk about affordable Im not talking about condos starting at $250000 (thats only for a 1 bedroom maybe a two)that is still alot of money since the median household income in Austin is Households:47,212
Families:58,241
Married-couple families: 72,602
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4805000&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S1901&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_

In my honest opinion I think Downtown Austin is not going to be livable for everyone (obviously). If affordable housing kicks in its going to be very sparse which obviously contradicts what pro developer Mayor Will Wynn said a few years back by saying he wanted a diverse downtown.
Its fun to watch the building getting built but then reality sets in after that.
I remember (pretty sure it was Austin American Statesman) an article saying teachers, families, firefighters could able to afford living downtown what a joke. Look at the census facts and see who is able to afford those places. Sometimes these anounced VMU's and TOD's are more exciting then some of these high-rises as I want to see more diversity in people and income these projects (thinking of East Austin).
Unless Austin bumps up there income only a select people are able to afford downtown.

[brandon]

What are the chances that the state or the city will make the buildings that currently make up the warehouse district historic? What goes into the process? It seems that this would be the only way to truly preserve the entertainment districts that we have.

[KevinFromTexas]

Great pictures, priller. I meant to tell you that, but I got busy and had to go before I could.

More on the old building issues. Since we do have so few of them, Austin really lacks a lot of the grand old homes and other buildings (big and small) that the other Texas cities have. Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Fort Worth all have us beat in that area for sure. A few of those had a jump start on us since they're older than us, and some grew much faster than us so they have a larger number than us. For that reason, I think we should be preserving the truly historic buildings. Whether that's for historical reasons, or even just architectural ones. And that can be for a number of reasons. Let's say an old building was designed by a famous architect, or has some special architectural quality about it or of course is historic. That would be a building worth keeping even in an area of downtown with high demand. Let the other buildings go. The ones that have no historical significance, or any architectural significance. Let's let the other buildings go before those. Get rid of the ratty buildings that are falling apart or else not worth sinking more money into. The ones that not only have no historical value or unique architectural style, but wouldn't even be useful if they were renovated or restored. That ugo state office building at 6th & Colorado is a prime candidate for that.

I'm not just talking about halting growth or development or killing off a single project based on where it's planned. I'd rather see parking lots be developed. Even smaller ones that don't cover an entire block. Also redevelop the ugly buildings that have no value. Leave the ones that are nice.

I love 2nd Street with all the new buildings and the activity there. I really do, I was just down there on Saturday night and it was fairly busy even as late as 11 pm there were people out and about. Pretty amazing considering the area before 2000 would have been off limits to pedestrians at that hour. Can you imagine? I love that, and I really do, whenever I'm downtown I always head to 2nd Street. And if I'm on my bike and plan on walking around then I'll lock it up there and walk around for a while. However, while I love that with the new, cool, hip buildings, I also want to see some of the older buildings stick around. I think in neighborhoods like the 8th & West Avenue area where that new tower is planned, could really benefit from more point towers. Small footprints, take up very little land and aren't giant hulking towers, but would pack in the space they're looking for without it being overly bulky there.

I'm actually a bit shocked at how long The Monarch is from north to south. I almost think it looks too long/wide and wished it were taller instead.

[JAM]

I'm actually a bit shocked at how long The Monarch is from north to south.

Yes, it is mammoth isn't it!

[jsoto3]

I'm actually a bit shocked at how long The Monarch is from north to south. I almost think it looks too long/wide and wished it were taller instead.
Unfortunately, the long and skinny double-loaded corridor tower is the most efficient/economical layout for residential towers. We'll probably see more of them in the future where the economics and site constraints dictate it. In the case of the Monarch, the Lamar Street Bridge Capital View Corridor across the southeast corner of the site really forced ZOM's/RTKL's hand in designing the tower the way it is.

[KevinFromTexas]

Unfortunately, the long and skinny double-loaded corridor tower is the most efficient/economical layout for residential towers. We'll probably see more of them in the future where the economics and site constraints dictate it. In the case of the Monarch, the Lamar Street Bridge Capital View Corridor across the southeast corner of the site really forced ZOM's/RTKL's hand in designing the tower the way it is.

I still like it very much though. That roof is great.

[tildahat]

Where are the affordable downtown condos going to be. When I talk about affordable Im not talking about condos starting at $250000 (thats only for a 1 bedroom maybe a two)that is still alot of money since the median household income in Austin is Households:47,212
Families:58,241
Married-couple families: 72,602
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4805000&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S1901&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_

In my honest opinion I think Downtown Austin is not going to be livable for everyone (obviously). If affordable housing kicks in its going to be very sparse which obviously contradicts what pro developer Mayor Will Wynn said a few years back by saying he wanted a diverse downtown.
Its fun to watch the building getting built but then reality sets in after that.
I remember (pretty sure it was Austin American Statesman) an article saying teachers, families, firefighters could able to afford living downtown what a joke. Look at the census facts and see who is able to afford those places. Sometimes these anounced VMU's and TOD's are more exciting then some of these high-rises as I want to see more diversity in people and income these projects (thinking of East Austin).
Unless Austin bumps up there income only a select people are able to afford downtown.

I've long since given up on the middle class being able to live downtown. I used to have hope for other parts of Austin if enough infill goes in, but I'm pretty much giving up on that too. Look at Mueller. Yes, a lucky few will get in under the affordable housing, but that cuts off at 80% MFI. The gap up to the market housing is huge. And even then most of the builders offered very few (in one case literally TWO) of the "cheapest" market houses and there was another huge jump in price. Middle class families need not apply. (Unless they are "low income" - "low income" middle class may sound like an oxymoron, but it's actually not in Austin's distorted economy.) It's only extended-family reasons that are keeping my immediate family here. Austin has made the decision that it doesn't give a #$% about middle class families.

[priller]

Yes, it is mammoth isn't it!

I noticed that, too, when I was looking at this photo I took. "Wow, the Monarch looks wide from this angle." That's probably why it looks so massive as you're driving up 5th Street, too.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1373/1430195771_747ac0fa24_o.jpg


This one is from 2 months ago:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1091/603936769_a2ae830818_o.jpg

[JAM]

I've long since given up on the middle class being able to live downtown. I used to have hope for other parts of Austin if enough infill goes in, but I'm pretty much giving up on that too. Look at Mueller. Yes, a lucky few will get in under the affordable housing, but that cuts off at 80% MFI. The gap up to the market housing is huge. And even then most of the builders offered very few (in one case literally TWO) of the "cheapest" market houses and there was another huge jump in price. Middle class families need not apply. (Unless they are "low income" - "low income" middle class may sound like an oxymoron, but it's actually not in Austin's distorted economy.) It's only extended-family reasons that are keeping my immediate family here. Austin has made the decision that it doesn't give a #$% about middle class families.

Gentleman. Welcome to America.

[ATXboom]

Sure... everyone wants to see teachers and firemen have the abilty to afford downtown living... healthy economy and a popular place... forget about it.

I really hope no one bought off on this in their own head!

NY, Chicago, Boston, SF, Seattle, Portland... unaffordable for those folks as well in downtown proper.

Someone mentioned there will always be moving niches... IE manhattan - follow the artists. Where is the affordable niche now? ...was due east Austin which may not be the case now but you can still get cheap rent off of Riverside... there will be another area after that once it is developed.

[arbeiter]

Sure... everyone wants to see teachers and firemen have the abilty to afford downtown living... healthy economy and a popular place... forget about it.

I really hope no one bought off on this in their own head!

NY, Chicago, Boston, SF, Seattle, Portland... unaffordable for those folks as well in downtown proper.

Someone mentioned there will always be moving niches... IE manhattan - follow the artists. Where is the affordable niche now? ...was due east Austin which may not be the case now but you can still get cheap rent off of Riverside... there will be another area after that once it is developed.

Seattle and Portland actually can be quite affordable downtown, I live downtown and pay $800 a month for a 2 bedroom. There are dozens of income-restricted apartments all over the city, including downtown, some of which are in mixed buildings (part market rate, part affordable). Some of them require as little as 40% of the median income, some are 60-80%. Some are 120% to buy. In fact, there's a 60 unit building on Denny Way being built that'll be 90+% for people making 80% of the median (which is something in the $45K range).

http://www.borealisapartments.com/

take a look at how nice it is, too. and it's one of about 8 buildings going up along Denny Way (which is not downtown btw, but is effectively close enough and urban enough.) Seattle, even though I rag on it all the time, has gotten it right - high rise apartments get built without much fanfare here. They're going up everywhere. Walking past a construction site is just part of life here. They range from 4-story jobs (probably 20 of these) to 30-story jobs (a half dozen of these.) It is that kind of critical mass that will need to take place for Austin to reach its 25K goal.

Consider that Seattle's construction costs are bound to be much higher than Austin's, given higher wages and more difficult lots/soil requirements.

[arbeiter]

oh my god, i love it! of all the pictures, this one is the most shocking to a former austinite who hasn't been back in a while. that looks huge, and there was never anything to look at from that angle! I like how big it is; it'll look great when it has a half dozen sister apartments hanging around it.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1091/603936769_a2ae830818_o.jpg

[ATXboom]

http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=192520&SecID=2


25-story condo tower planned for 8th and West Avenue
9/25/2007 11:58 AM
By: Tracey Panek

The latest proposed condominium development calls for a 200-unit, 25-story high rise near downtown Austin.


Architect's rendering of the tower
Developers and the building's architect presented their plans for 800 West to the city's Design Commission on Monday. Fortis Development wants a zoning change to build up in the Old West Austin neighborhood. Right now 60 feet is the limit.

Architect Jorge Munoz presented four options to the Design Commission. The tower would be set back from West Avenue with either a public park or houses in front of it. All four designs had public parks in the back – which faces Shoal Creek. In the front, two designs also had public parks. The other two had houses.

800 West will have a five-level parking garage and a bridge connecting it to a soon-to-be-built trail along Shoal Creek.



WATCH THE VIDEO



800 West

The 200-unit, 25-story tower would stretch from West Avenue to Shoal Creek and include a public park.







"I believe that because of the historic nature of the area that this particular project is in the wrong place," neighbor Ben Proctor said.

While not everyone likes the idea of a 25-story development coming to the historic neighborhood, it's not the first project outside of downtown in Austin's condo boom.

The nearby Nokonah Lofts on Eighth and Lamar were built in 2002 and has 11 stories. The 34-story 7 Rio – on Seventh and Rio Grande – is still in the design phase but developers plan to have the first units available in spring 2009.


Site plans for their neighborhood
Chris Riley, the former planning commissioner for the city of Austin, has lived west of Lamar Boulevard for 17 years. He thinks this is an opportunity not to be missed.

"A lot of us in the neighborhood would be glad to have more neighbors living around there. On the other hand, the neighborhood does have a distinct character and we would like to see any project respect that character," he said.

Austin-based Fortis Development hasn't bought the land yet. It will be up to the Austin City Council to approve the project.

[bigdogc]

this would get us a little bit closer to the 25k goal. http://images.news8austin.com/media/2007/9/25/images/01____towe5r.jpg

[Jdawgboy]

I think as more projects go up and there is more supply for the demand that we will start seeing more affordible housing downtown. I mean right now there are not alot of choices yet and a good chunk of these buildings going up now wont be ready to move in till next year sometime. Give it some time in the next 5 years or so Im sure there will be more competitive prices and more affordible apartments, lofts, condos than there are now because there will be alot more competition and more places to live downtown.

[deerhoof]

in the littlefield building on sixth and congress. i believe 21c is renovating the bottom floor for their sales office, possibly? they put up two signs and each sign has the 21c symbol on one side and some penguins on the other. i just noticed this today; i work in the bank of america building across the street. i went look to see if i could go in but it had a sign on the door saying construction in progress or something along those lines and i could see a few contractor guys as i was looking through the window.

[arbeiter]

hey, does anyone know which online mapping site has the most up to date map of austin? as well as most up to date aerial shots?

[priller]

hey, does anyone know which online mapping site has the most up to date map of austin? as well as most up to date aerial shots?

Probably Microsoft's Virtual Earth has the latest satelite data. Google Earth's are quite old for Austin (eg, City Hall is under construction, big Hilton under construction, no Milago, etc). VE shows the downtown Courtyard Marriott under construction -- not too long ago.

Another key difference for me, when building models, is that VE overhead images don't seem to have any parallax offset, which is caused by the camera not being exactly overhead. Causes some issues when trying to determine the building's size. Google's images do have that.

Too bad we can't add our own buildings to VE.

[arbeiter]

is Virtual Earth different than Windows Live?