[pato79]

I would love to see dirt start moving @ Greeen, but I don't see that happening. =(

Wasn't the city council supposed to vote on final design last month?

[the Genral]

Best "Little" city??... National Geographic Traveler quote... last time I checked a city of over 800K population isn't little. Cool vid Bevolj, thanks for posting it.

[Jdawgboy]

Best "Little" city??... National Geographic Traveler quote... last time I checked a city of over 800K population isn't little. Cool vid Bevolj, thanks for posting it.

:previous:
I agree, city pop wise we are definitely not little even Metro wise we are close to passing 2 million, while we are not a large metro, wouldn't call us a small metro either.

[Benhudd01]

Does anyone have any news concerning light rail? I read an article the other day showings a very extensive map of proposed routes through downtown/UT and the link below is an article I saw today with much different.

http://m.kutnews.org/#mobile/4269

[SecretAgentMan]

Does anyone have any news concerning light rail? I read an article the other day showings a very extensive map of proposed routes through downtown/UT and the link below is an article I saw today with much different.

http://m.kutnews.org/#mobile/4269

The more extensive system discussed last week is the full system at build-out. It is 16.5 miles (including to ABIA), and an additional 10 miles of possible extensions. The memo released yesterday outlines the recommended first investment, that may contain 2 or more phases, depending on funding commitments. If Council decides to commit $200 million in bond funds, and a 50% federal match is obtained, it will likely only be sufficient to build one phase of the first investment. The current recommendation for that first phase is Convention Center to Mueller. The maximum bonding capacity without significantly raising taxes is $600 million, and there are already $575 million in bond projects being recommended.

[SecretAgentMan]

The more extensive system discussed last week is the full system at build-out. It is 16.5 miles (including to ABIA), and an additional 10 miles of possible extensions. The memo released yesterday outlines the recommended first investment, that may contain 2 or more phases, depending on funding commitments. If Council decides to commit $200 million in bond funds, and a 50% federal match is obtained, it will likely only be sufficient to build one phase of the first investment. The current recommendation for that first phase is Convention Center to Mueller. The maximum bonding capacity without significantly raising taxes is $600 million, and there are already $575 million in bond projects being recommended.

More information is available here:

http://www.austinstrategicmobility.com/urban-rail

[GoldenBoot]

:previous:
I agree, city pop wise we are definitely not little even Metro wise we are close to passing 2 million, while we are not a large metro, wouldn't call us a small metro either.

Yes. The metro area will surpass the 2 million mark between 2014 and 2015. Almost exactly 20 years since it passed the 1 million mark. History is still repeating itself...Austin has doubled its population roughly every 20 years since its incorporation in 1839.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/business/city-in-talks-to-buy-joes-crab-shack-2362321.html

City in talks to buy Joe's Crab Shack land

By Shonda Novak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Published: 9:58 p.m. Thursday, May 17, 2012

The City of Austin is negotiating to buy about 2 acres of prime land along Lady Bird Lake that it has coveted for years and is now occupied by Joe's Crab Shack restaurant.

City officials said this week that a specific use has not been identified for the 1.8-acre tract. One potential use, among others, could be as a staging area during construction of the proposed Lady Bird Lake Boardwalk Trail project that is set to start this summer, city officials say.

The City Council is scheduled to vote next week on whether to authorize a purchase agreement with the property owner, Garwald Company Inc., for the tract at 600 E. Riverside Drive.

[Hill Country]

http://www.statesman.com/business/city-in-talks-to-buy-joes-crab-shack-2362321.html

I love Joe's Crab Shack, and not just for the downtown views. I know it's a chain, but I have liked it ever since I ate at one in Houston in the very early '90s. I think it was the original restaurant. A highrise can't be built there because a few rich folks will on the cliffs behind it will bitch incessantly.

[cvalkan]

I miss the Magic Time Machine.

[Hill Country]

I miss the Magic Time Machine.

Where else would Wonder Woman be your waitress while you helped yourself to some awesome brocolli-cheese soup off the hood of an old car?

[BevoLJ]

New apartment complex in works in West Campus
By Shonda Novak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Published: 7:58 p.m. Friday, May 18, 2012 (http://www.statesman.com/business/real-estate/new-apartment-complex-in-works-in-west-campus-2364052.html?cxtype=rss_business)

More student housing is on the way for the West Campus area, with the latest project a $26 million upscale apartment complex in the works at 21st and Pearl streets.

The company behind the project is Austin-based Land Development and Construction LLC, a commercial real estate development company specializing in multifamily and mixed-use projects. The firm has developed more than $75 million in commercial real estate projects in Central Texas.

Robert Lee, the firm's CEO and a University of Texas graduate, brought together several Chinese American investors to fund the West Campus project, which will be called 21 Pearl.

The complex, which is four blocks west of UT's campus, will have 134 units with average rents of $850 a month and the average-size unit having 761 square feet. Floor plans range from efficiencies to two-bedrooms. Units will have private patios, balconies and gourmet kitchens, among other amenities.

The project is scheduled to open in August 2013, with preleasing set to start this October.

The project will have some units for rent at below-market rates; it also will have units designed for residents with disabilities.

...

Read More : http://www.statesman.com/business/real-estate/new-apartment-complex-in-works-in-west-campus-2364052.html?cxtype=rss_business

...

http://www.statesman.com/multimedia/dynamic/01472/web051912Apts21Pea_1472215c.jpg
http://www.statesman.com/multimedia/dynamic/01472/051912_pearl_2_1472213c.jpg

[BevoLJ]

Postal Service completes sale of downtown Austin station
By Brian Gaar
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Published: 8:04 p.m. Friday, May 18, 2012 (http://www.statesman.com/business/postal-service-completes-sale-of-downtown-austin-station-2364037.html?cxtype=rss_business)

The U.S. Postal Service has completed the sale of its downtown station at West Sixth and Guadalupe streets to Atlanta-based Novare Group and its Austin partner, Andrews Urban, the development firms said Friday.

The Postal Service will continue to use the facility until early 2013, "pending a final determination of the new location of its retail operations serving downtown Austin" according to a news release.

In January, the Postal Service said its downtown carrier operations would be relocated to its station at 3903 S. Congress Ave.

Novare Group and Andrews Urban, which developed the 360 condominiums, a 44-story high-rise near the downtown post office site, haven't said what they plan to do with the property.

In December, Andrews Urban President Taylor Andrews had said the site would be redeveloped, with options including office, residential, retail and/or hotel uses. The firms partnered with an affiliate of Austin's Endeavor Real Estate Group on the purchase.

"This is a key block in Austin, and we and Novare are both very pleased to have completed the acquisition and to be working with Endeavor," Andrews said.

"We are very fortunate to have the opportunity to partner with Novare and Andrews Urban on what we believe is one of the finest pieces of real estate in the city," said Jamil Alam, managing principal of Endeavor Real Estate Group.

Terms of the deal weren't released, but the property has an appraised value of $17.1 million, according to the Travis County Central Appraisal District.

...

Read More : http://www.statesman.com/business/postal-service-completes-sale-of-downtown-austin-station-2364037.html?cxtype=rss_business

...

http://www.statesman.com/multimedia/dynamic/01472/web051912PostOffic_1472125c.jpg

[the Genral]

I noticed in today's AAS paper an article about the OMNI Hotel spending millions to renovate the top 5 floors of rooms in anticipation of the competition from the new hotels being built. They mentioned a few of them including the new Marriot at 2nd and Congress but not the Grand at Waller Creek. Should we read anything into this?

[ahealy]

I noticed in today's AAS paper an article about the OMNI Hotel spending millions to renovate the top 5 floors of rooms in anticipation of the competition from the new hotels being built. They mentioned a few of them including the new Marriot at 2nd and Congress but not the Grand at Waller Creek. Should we read anything into this?

You should. I believe that manchester will cancel at the last minute. I am not the only one who thinks this.

[Downtown_Austin]

You should. I believe that manchester will cancel at the last minute. I am not the only one who thinks this.

Progress on this seems to have derailed over their proposed "skywalk" over Red River connecting it directly to the convention center (part of the hotel would include convention space, too).

The urbanistas and Waller Creek Conservancy were not excited about taking people off of the street.

No doubt, Manchester has a lengthy entitlement period (perhaps a year after announcement) requiring site plan approval before closing the deal with the land owners, renegotiating, or walking. This could go on for a while.

[Jdawgboy]

Couldnt they simply remove the skybridge? I agree that it would be in the best interest of the city to have pedestrians on the street rather than a skybridge plus once Waller Creek is flowing constantly there will be nice shaded walkways. It does not take that long to walk across Cesar Chavez.

[Spaceman]

You should. I believe that manchester will cancel at the last minute. I am not the only one who thinks this.

The Manny is as dead as Plato's aunt....And she is REAL dead!!!

[MichaelB]

Progress on this seems to have derailed over their proposed "skywalk" over Red River connecting it directly to the convention center (part of the hotel would include convention space, too).

The urbanistas and Waller Creek Conservancy were not excited about taking people off of the street.

No doubt, Manchester has a lengthy entitlement period (perhaps a year after announcement) requiring site plan approval before closing the deal with the land owners, renegotiating, or walking. This could go on for a while.

Why do you think something as seeminly minor would derail the project? Or do you think they are looking for bargaining chips or just excuses? Seems like small thing really to derail that large of a project. would love insight.

[KevinFromTexas]

The Manny is as dead as Plato's aunt....And she is REAL dead!!!

LOL.

It seems dumb to me anyway for them to be looking at a skywalk. I'm sure there will have to be pedestrian bridges, (similar to the ones in San Antonio), built across the creek anyway once the creek project is done. Couldn't they just build a "pretty bridge" near the building over the creek so that both hotel and creek visitors would benefit?

[MichaelB]

LOL.

It seems dumb to me anyway for them to be looking at a skywalk. I'm sure there will have to be pedestrian bridges, (similar to the ones in San Antonio), built across the creek anyway once the creek project is done. Couldn't they just build a "pretty bridge" near the building over the creek so that both hotel and creek visitors would benefit?

Agreed. Somethin don't smeel right.

[hookem]

LOL.

It seems dumb to me anyway for them to be looking at a skywalk. I'm sure there will have to be pedestrian bridges, (similar to the ones in San Antonio), built across the creek anyway once the creek project is done. Couldn't they just build a "pretty bridge" near the building over the creek so that both hotel and creek visitors would benefit?

I agree. They have a $4.7M city incentive on the table and they'd walk away because of a sidewalk? No way.

My guess, they don't have the money. It always seems the more dream-like the renderings are, the more likely they are to remain a dream. Not always, but most of the time...

They also probably are aware that the lot value is skyrocketing right now due to the Waller Creek Tunnel (and F1, etc). If they own the lot, they know they can flip it and come away with a profit regardless -- a safe play. If they have an agreement to buy the lot from an entity, chances are it market value is getting too expensive.

[ahealy]

I agree. They have a $4.7M city incentive on the table and they'd walk away because of a sidewalk? No way.

My guess, they don't have the money. It always seems the more dream-like the renderings are, the more likely they are to remain a dream. Not always, but most of the time...

They also probably are aware that the lot value is skyrocketing right now due to the Waller Creek Tunnel (and F1, etc). If they own the lot, they know they can flip it and come away with a profit regardless -- a safe play. If they have an agreement to buy the lot from an entity, chances are it market value is getting too expensive.

....and I've always felt that would add WAY too many hotel rooms. I'd rather see this become a new super tall mixed use building.

[hookem]

....and I've always felt that would add WAY too many hotel rooms. I'd rather see this become a new super tall mixed use building.

Well, a hotel with significant convention space would be a good addition IMO. Something like the W with a condo component and other uses (music venue) would be better. Would love to see that trend continue... honestly, if they overbuild the condos downtown, that would be fine with me. Then maybe I could pick one up for cheap!

An office building that close to the lake and convention center seems like a waste to me.

Of course, maybe an observation tower with a park at the bottom would be nice... :runaway:

[the Genral]

Well, a hotel with significant convention space would be a good addition IMO. Something like the W with a condo component and other uses (music venue) would be better. Would love to see that trend continue... honestly, if they overbuild the condos downtown, that would be fine with me. Then maybe I could pick one up for cheap!

An office building that close to the lake and convention center seems like a waste to me.

Of course, maybe an observation tower with a park at the bottom would be nice... :runaway:

I don't know if you were being serious about the observation tower and park, but I for one like that idea and location. However, from past discussions, I believe most of our beloved fellow forumers do not favor observation towers.

[hookem]

I don't know if you were being serious about the observation tower and park, but I for one like that idea and location. However, from past discussions, I believe most of our beloved fellow forumers do not favor observation towers.

I was being serious, but I know I'm in the very small minority. Most folks would consider it a waste of a prime location. I just have a soft spot for observation towers, they probably are the thing that got me interested in skyscrapers.

[migol24]

observation towers? suck!

manchester not getting built? double suck!

[Austin1971]

observation towers? suck!

manchester not getting built? double suck!

I bet they work out the details and they build it. If anything I could see them increasing the height and adding condos. The location is as good as you can get for a project like that. It's all about leverage......

[austlar1]

I bet they work out the details and they build it. If anything I could see them increasing the height and adding condos. The location is as good as you can get for a project like that. It's all about leverage......

I think it is all about timing. This project will probably get shelved for a few years until the market has absorbed the 1500 or so hotel rooms currently in the pipeline, The location is perfect for a convention hotel, and once the new amenities along Waller Creek materialize, I suspect we will see a hotel (maybe not this particular hotel) go up on that site. Maybe I am wrong about this. I'd love to see the thing go up now, but common sense tells me that funding for this puppy is not going to materialize just yet.

[BevoLJ]

I think the market could absorb that many rooms today. These hotels will take years to build, and I see no reason to believe the market would be worse then than today.

[Jdawgboy]

Iagree that Austin can absorbe these hotel rooms now. Austin currently is thousands of rooms behind where we should be and that is just with the events we have now. SXSW a perfect example this year when you have people going as far as camping because there were no hotel rooms anywhere in the Austin area. Add Formula 1 and Austin will be loosing money because a lot of visitors will be looking as far as San Antonio to get a room.

As far as Manchester goes I can't see it not going through. These people have actually worked with Formula 1 organizers to bring in certain elements to the project. So at this time Im not buying it until I hear official word its off.

[JAM]

Add Formula 1 and Austin will be loosing money because a lot of visitors will be looking as far as San Antonio to get a room.


The guys who are actually taking the risk and putting up the money really don't care about that....

[BevoLJ]

I don't think SXSW and F1 really have anything to do with being able to absorb it. Those weeks of course they could. But even on the slowest weekends in Austin the central hotels are sitting at 90-93% occupancy.

[austlar1]

I don't think SXSW and F1 really have anything to do with being able to absorb it. Those weeks of course they could. But even on the slowest weekends in Austin the central hotels are sitting at 90-93% occupancy.

The downtown Austin hotel occupancy rate for the year ending 12/31/2011 was 75.1% according to data published on the Downtown Austin Alliance web page. I doubt business has improved that substantially in the following 6 months to justify a boast of 90% to 93% occupancy rates. 75.1% is a very healthy figure for the hotel industry, but the 1,500 or more new rooms currently in the pipeline is close to a 25% increase in hotel rooms downtown. Lenders are very aware of these figures and probably have a pretty cautious attitude about where they want to place a $350 million dollar construction loan. I would be delighted to be wrong about this, but I suspect that this project is on hold.

http://www.downtownaustin.com/business/demographics/

[Downtown_Austin]

Why do you think something as seeminly minor would derail the project? Or do you think they are looking for bargaining chips or just excuses? Seems like small thing really to derail that large of a project. would love insight.

The skybridge would be physical conduit to the convention center - a valuable asset in a city with a competitive hotel sector. They can probably make it work without, but the discussion was contentious. All the while, the Marriott Marquis is getting real traction.

[BevoLJ]

The downtown Austin hotel occupancy rate for the year ending 12/31/2011 was 75.1% according to data published on the Downtown Austin Alliance web page. I doubt business has improved that substantially in the following 6 months to justify a boast of 90% to 93% occupancy rates. 75.1% is a very healthy figure for the hotel industry, but the 1,500 or more new rooms currently in the pipeline is close to a 25% increase in hotel rooms downtown. Lenders are very aware of these figures and probably have a pretty cautious attitude about where they want to place a $350 million dollar construction loan. I would be delighted to be wrong about this, but I suspect that this project is on hold.

http://www.downtownaustin.com/business/demographics/I was not talking about overall occupancy. I was talking about on the weekends.

[hookem]

The skybridge would be physical conduit to the convention center - a valuable asset in a city with a competitive hotel sector. They can probably make it work without, but the discussion was contentious. All the while, the Marriott Marquis is getting real traction.

I wonder if they could compromise on an elevated outdoor crossing, like what they do in Vegas. That way, they'd have the competitive advantage of a no-signal pedestrian crossing, but people would at least need to enter/exit the crossing via the sidewalk.

[BevoLJ]

Normally I am very much against these skybridges, and I think I have gone back and forth flip flopping on this one a few times too. But honestly it isn't like there is much street level retail between the hotel of and convention center. All there is, is Iron Works and a creek.

[Jdawgboy]

The guys who are actually taking the risk and putting up the money really don't care about that....

From what I heard F1 organizers went to them to talk about adding a helipad.

[Austin1971]

With the addition of both convention center hotels it would create a new market for much larger conventions that simply cannot use Austin now due to the lack of large blocks of rooms. You have to have the rooms in order to attract the big fish....They don't like being spread out over multiple hotels. It's the conventions and everything else after that is gravy....F1, ACL, SXSW, ROT Rally, UT home football games and so on....

[ahealy]

With the addition of both convention center hotels it would create a new market for much larger conventions that simply cannot use Austin now due to the lack of large blocks of rooms. You have to have the rooms in order to attract the big fish....They don't like being spread out over multiple hotels. It's the conventions and everything else after that is gravy....F1, ACL, SXSW, ROT Rally, UT home football games and so on....

I really think the JW + everything else will accomodate for those.

[Austin1971]

I really think the JW + everything else will accomodate for those.

I think you missed my point. Having to use multiple hotels to accommodate large conventions is exactly the reason why Austin is unable to attract them. That's why they call them convention center hotels.....Without them Austin will continue to be passed over. If you build them they will come....

[MichaelB]

File this under "reliable but un-credited".
Re: Lot that went at state Auction 2ish weekago at Colorado and MKL.
Looks like it's going to be "High end Student housing". Bummer. Was informed today their plan is to go down with parking and up with housing. Hoping that the city will force them to street level retail. They can only go up 47' from the highest grade.... due to being in the most protected CVC. That;s at most 4 commercail floors. They have alrady begun core samples are suppose to start late summer. Which means it is some crap generic design I'll bet cha. We'll see........

[BevoLJ]

Wow that will need to be some super crazy high end student housing to be able to afford that lot with only 4 stories. The rents will have to be absurd.

[KevinFromTexas]

I was watching Betty White's Off Their Rocker show tonight on NBC. The show is a sketch comedy where they play pranks on people in public. Anyway, they've been coming to Austin on several episodes. Today they pranked two guys at Gueros on South Congress and two girls at the San Jose Motel on South Congress. They've also had some nice skyline shots and views of the Capitol and city hall. It airs on Wednesdays at 7 pm.

[MichaelB]

Wow that will need to be some super crazy high end student housing to be able to afford that lot with only 4 stories. The rents will have to be absurd.

Thats what I thought too! And it's in the CBD which makes taxes higher. I questioned it,... it's a pretty good darn source. i will tell you the market is there for grad students in particular. That location would be quite. It's not in west campus.

[Austin1971]

Good to see this thing finally moving forward.


Austin Business Journal by Vicky Garza, Staff Writer

Six food trucks parked at Congress Avenue and Second Street in downtown Austin have been told it’s time to unhitch and move out as construction for a JW Marriott hotel is set to begin this summer.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/retail/2012/05/food-trucks-on-future-hotel-site-told.html

[Syndic]

It looks like the Belo Center for New Media is just about finished. It's at the intersection of Dean Keaton and Guadalupe. It will be the (long-awaited) new home of KUT. Seems like it has taken a very long time to build it. You can see a webcam of the construction site here:

http://communication.utexas.edu/support/new-building/belo-center-new-media-construction-images-and-videos

Looks like they're just finishing up with the landscaping and such.

[BevoLJ]

That is going to be great once its finished.

Also worth noting is the Bill Gates and Dell Computer Science Complex should be done by Spring semester.

That will be really big for UT and Austin. UT has the top ranked computer science school in the country that hasn't had a home. It puts in around $10 billion into the Austin economy each year. That new computer science center will be great for it.

[KevinFromTexas]

I could see another restaurant opening there later on, (or maybe Joe's Crab Shack could stay?) - and also have the property be an entry point for the boardwalk.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/theticker/entries/2012/05/24/city_to_proceed_with_pending_p.html

City to proceed with purchase of Joe’s Crab Shack site

By Shonda Novak | Thursday, May 24, 2012, 11:09 AM

The Austin City Council today gave the go-ahead for city real estate officials to negotiate a contract to buy the 1.8-acre site that is currently home to Joe’s Crab Shack restaurant on East Riverside Drive.

“The city of Austin has many needs that this property could fulfill,” Lauraine Rizer, in the city’s Real Estate Services department, said in an e-mail Wednesday. “The city hopes to determine the best uses for this property in the near future.”

[Jdawgboy]

There is a huge adgenda today for the city council to deal with including several major issues. Be glad we have all the incumbents back or we would see the begining of the end for a true urban Austin.

[KevinFromTexas]

Cool idea, but I still won't eat anything out of Lady Bird Lake.

http://downtownaustinblog.org/2012/05/23/fishing-pier-coming-to-lady-bird-lake-in-rainey-street-downtown-austin/#more-15143

Fishing Pier Coming to Lady Bird Lake in Rainey Street, Downtown Austin

BY AMBER GUGINO | MAY 23, 2012 |

The focus is on inclusion. That’s what Nicole Harmon of Core Health Foundation, a non-profit spin-off of Core Health (a for-profit facility focusing on rehabilitation of those suffering with brain injuries), tells me. The project is a fishing pier, located on the northern shore of Lady Bird Lake, just south of the Holiday Inn off I-35 in the Rainey Street District.

[ahealy]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/retail/2012/05/live-music-venue-okd-for-city-hall.html

:D:D:D:D:D

[East7thStreet]

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/new-tower-could-rise-in-capitol-complex


"AUSTIN (KXAN) - A new 47-story tower that would rival Austin's tallest building could go up on a piece of state-owned land in a handful of years if the Texas Facilities Commission approves the project.

Hessel has presented what he calls the first proposal for just such a development: a large scale residential tower with a ground-floor science museum and a much-desired 1,000 underground parking spaces."

I think KevinFromTexas will nut in his pants when he sees this.

[MichaelB]

Great news about planetarium! Happy to see how striking the design is!

[austlar1]

I am not sure I would like to see a 600 foot tower at that location. It would interfere with the visual dynamic between the UT Tower and the Capitol. I think that is a pretty "iconic" arrangement that does not need to be altered with a huge tower, even if it is slightly off to the side, in between the two older buildings. OK, SSP skyscraper fanatics, fire away!

[BevoLJ]

I am not sure I would like to see a 600 foot tower at that location. It would interfere with the visual dynamic between the UT Tower and the Capitol. I think that is a pretty "iconic" arrangement that does not need to be altered with a huge tower, even if it is slightly off to the side, in between the two older buildings. OK, SSP skyscraper fanatics, fire away!We have to do something to make up for having Jester the tallest building in that area. :D

Jester must be the ugliest building ever built in the entire US.

[migol24]

I am not sure I would like to see a 600 foot tower at that location. It would interfere with the visual dynamic between the UT Tower and the Capitol. I think that is a pretty "iconic" arrangement that does not need to be altered with a huge tower, even if it is slightly off to the side, in between the two older buildings. OK, SSP skyscraper fanatics, fire away!

you are right only because it would be the only tall building in that area.... but give it another 20 or 30 years when that area gets more densely built and the tower would look right in the correct spot. in the long run, it will be cool to see like a long continuous scheme of skyscrapers from downtown to UT. if you think that the way it looks now is better than what it may look in that long run, you are kidding yourself. it would be like a mini-manhattan texas version, or the way SOMA here in San Francisco connects to Financial District but on a smaller scale.

[austlar1]

We have to do something to make up for having Jester the tallest building in that area. :D

Jester must be the ugliest building ever built in the entire US.

Jester is butt ugly, but it does not loom over the UT Tower or detract from the view between the Capitol and the campus. A 600 footer would be a huge visual distraction and would be a lone sentinel at that height in an area of much shorter buildings.

What ever happened to the other proposal for this space with the really far out architecture? Is this the latest incarnation of that project?

[BevoLJ]

It is the same proposal, only it has added the residential tower. But the base of it is almost an exact replica of one of the very early proposed designs.

It will definitely be eye catching, but I don't think it will be blocking any views. From campus you really can't see the capitol from anywhere because it is so wooded and hilly. The best places to see the capitol from campus is on the west side of campus on the South Mall which this would not effect its view at all. On the east side of campus between the hills, trees and all the buildings there aren't many places you can see the capitol. I know there is no where on Speedway and can't think of any anywhere east of Speadway except from high up on Jester or the the top of the stadium and LBJ Library but it will not effect those views. Maybe from the top of the Jester Garage, but I haven't been up there in years and can't remember. This would defiantly block its view, but it is a parking garage. lol.

[the Genral]

I'm all for a Museum District and a Planetarium next to the Bullock. I know a lot of visitors to Austin could plan and enjoy an entire day around the Cap complex with multiple adjacent activities and museums and maybe an aquarium. I'm not sure I like the idea of a 47 story highrise there. Not because of any views issues, but because I think it would seem disjointed and out of place. Austin's Planetarium located at the base of one of the city's tallest buildings which blocks most of the view of the sky, from the planetarium, which is why we need the planetarium, so we can see the sky.

[migol24]

I'm all for a Museum District and a Planetarium next to the Bullock. I know a lot of visitors to Austin could plan and enjoy an entire day around the Cap complex with multiple adjacent activities and museums and maybe an aquarium. I'm not sure I like the idea of a 47 story highrise there. Not because of any views issues, but because I think it would seem disjointed and out of place. Austin's Planetarium located at the base of one of the city's tallest buildings which blocks most of the view of the sky, from the planetarium, which is why we need the planetarium, so we can see the sky.
i like it. it gives it a european touch in some sense. at least it's not like miles and miles off like houston. plus, if you'd take a skyline shot, it would be awesome to see it all combined from that angle.

[austlar1]

you are right only because it would be the only tall building in that area.... but give it another 20 or 30 years when that area gets more densely built and the tower would look right in the correct spot. in the long run, it will be cool to see like a long continuous scheme of skyscrapers from downtown to UT. if you think that the way it looks now is better than what it may look in that long run, you are kidding yourself. it would be like a mini-manhattan texas version, or the way SOMA here in San Francisco connects to Financial District but on a smaller scale.

The area is not going to become a mini Manhattan because there are height restrictions on most of the available parcels between the Capitol complex and UT. I really believe that a Washington DC kind of density in that area is the way to proceed. I love tall buildings, but I don't like to see something that big sitting all by itself and taking attention away from existing street architecture. Have you ever seen the Montparnesse Tower in Paris up in the 14th across from the train station. It is an eyesore and a distraction. Now Austin is certainly not Paris (or DC), but that area is going to be developed over time with mostly 8 to 15 story buildings. This thing (and I think the rendering is pretty scary personally) will stick out like a sore thumb to all but the most rabid skyscraper fans.

[BevoLJ]

That is very different. That is 7 or 8 miles away from the main skyline. In Austin the Planetarium is like half a mile away.

[Jdawgboy]

The area is not going to become a mini Manhattan because there are height restrictions on most of the available parcels between the Capitol complex and UT. I really believe that a Washington DC kind of density in that area is the way to proceed. I love tall buildings, but I don't like to see something that big sitting all by itself and taking attention away from existing street architecture. Have you ever seen the Montparnesse Tower in Paris up in the 14th across from the train station. It is an eyesore and a distraction. Now Austin is certainly not Paris (or DC), but that area is going to be developed over time with mostly 8 to 15 story buildings. This thing (and I think the rendering is pretty scary personally) will stick out like a sore thumb to all but the most rabid skyscraper fans.

I don't have a problem with the location at all. Don't forget the State of Texas owns all of that land throughout the Capital Complex and there is a plan in the works to put high density towers and that block is one of the high density locations. If the State government desides to allow towers like that, there is nothing the city of Austin can do so IMO there is no point fussing over it because it is going to happen sooner or later if the state government wishes it.

[austlar1]

I don't have a problem with the location at all. Don't forget the State of Texas owns all of that land throughout the Capital Complex and there is a plan in the works to put high density towers and that block is one of the high density locations. If the State government desides to allow towers like that, there is nothing the city of Austin can do so IMO there is no point fussing over it because it is going to happen sooner or later if the state government wishes it.

You can pack a lot of square footage into a 12-15 story building, especially if you build government style on an entire block or a half block, and you can do it with street level retail and other amenities. I doubt the state envisions multiple 40 plus story towers in that area, assuming they can ever figure out how to pay for them. Don't underestimate the density that can be achieved with midrise buildings. Do a google tour of DC (K St, Conn Ave NW, Pennsylvania Ave NW) to see what I mean. For a real horror show regarding what a state government can do when it decides to go highrise, check out the urban planning nightmare known as the Empire Plaza in Albany, NY. Big ugly brutalist skyscrapers spread thin on a mall in the direct vicinity of one of the best state capitol buildings in the country. I hope we never see anything like that in Austin.

[BevoLJ]

The state plan has highrises on both sides of Congers between 16th and 17th, plus some other areas that aren't CVC they marked as tall buildings. The rest where there are garages and parking lots and other smaller buildings to be developed like you mentioned. The goal is to consolidate several million sq feet of State office space that they have been renting all over the city for 50 years now into one centrally located area near the capitol building. And to do all that that on their state owned land but with public/private partnerships to get that some tax revenue out of that land. Austin has tons of prime real estate that is not on the tax rolls due to the State government and the University. And it is spending many many millions of dollars renting office space all over the city pretty much everywhere but on all of the tons of land they own downtown. lol.

What is interesting to me is there is no office in this planetarium design. So that means they still need to get that space on some other lots that is underdeveloped in that area. Which means we have much more to come. =)

Edit: there is also talk of a new startup incubator to be built in that area between the capitol and UT.

[the Genral]

The area is not going to become a mini Manhattan because there are height restrictions on most of the available parcels between the Capitol complex and UT. I really believe that a Washington DC kind of density in that area is the way to proceed. I love tall buildings, but I don't like to see something that big sitting all by itself and taking attention away from existing street architecture. Have you ever seen the Montparnesse Tower in Paris up in the 14th across from the train station. It is an eyesore and a distraction. Now Austin is certainly not Paris (or DC), but that area is going to be developed over time with mostly 8 to 15 story buildings. This thing (and I think the rendering is pretty scary personally) will stick out like a sore thumb to all but the most rabid skyscraper fans.

I totally agree.

[austlar1]

The state plan has highrises on both sides of Congers between 16th and 17th, plus some other areas that aren't CVC they marked as tall buildings. The rest where there are garages and parking lots and other smaller buildings to be developed like you mentioned. The goal is to consolidate several million sq feet of State office space that they have been renting all over the city for 50 years now into one centrally located area near the capitol building. And to do all that that on their state owned land but with public/private partnerships to get that some tax revenue out of that land. Austin has tons of prime real estate that is not on the tax rolls due to the State government and the University. And it is spending many many millions of dollars renting office space all over the city pretty much everywhere but on all of the tons of land they own downtown. lol.

What is interesting to me is there is no office in this planetarium design. So that means they still need to get that space on some other lots that is underdeveloped in that area. Which means we have much more to come. =)

Edit: there is also talk of a new startup incubator to be built in that area between the capitol and UT.

How tall are these buildings supposed to be? I recall only vague proposals discussed by some planning office in state govt. It will be interesting to see the fight that develops over relocating all these offices into a complex downtown. There are so many issues that would need to be resolved in terms of parking and increased traffic congestion. All the more reason to build a subway in this town, but that is supposed to be a pipe dream only. I think the govt. complex expansion is kind of a pipe dream too. I am trying to imagine moving an agency like DFPS including the call centers and other acitivities into downtown. The big corporate business park operators (Lincoln Properties, Trammell Crow) are going to scream bloody murder and they contribute big bucks to get what they want. More will be revealed. I guess I could get used to a huge highrise (with 1000 underground parking places!!!) at that location. It should create quite a bit of windy weather down at street level for the Blanton and Bullock museum goers.

[Jdawgboy]

How tall are these buildings supposed to be? I recall only vague proposals discussed by some planning office in state govt. It will be interesting to see the fight that develops over relocating all these offices into a complex downtown. There are so many issues that would need to be resolved in terms of parking and increased traffic congestion. All the more reason to build a subway in this town, but that is supposed to be a pipe dream only. I think the govt. complex expansion is kind of a pipe dream too. I am trying to imagine moving an agency like DFPS including the call centers and other acitivities into downtown. The big corporate business park operators (Lincoln Properties, Trammell Crow) are going to scream bloody murder and they contribute big bucks to get what they want. More will be revealed. I guess I could get used to a huge highrise (with 1000 underground parking places!!!) at that location. It should create quite a bit of windy weather down at street level for the Blanton and Bullock museum goers.

Thr state has Zoned a few blocks unlimited height as far as Ive heard which is why you are seeing this proposal. The state does plan towers of at least 500 feet or more in the complex in certain areas with lower 15 floors or less in others. This is not a pipe dream, this is the plan the state gov wants to achieve.

[migol24]

The area is not going to become a mini Manhattan because there are height restrictions on most of the available parcels between the Capitol complex and UT. I really believe that a Washington DC kind of density in that area is the way to proceed. I love tall buildings, but I don't like to see something that big sitting all by itself and taking attention away from existing street architecture. Have you ever seen the Montparnesse Tower in Paris up in the 14th across from the train station. It is an eyesore and a distraction. Now Austin is certainly not Paris (or DC), but that area is going to be developed over time with mostly 8 to 15 story buildings. This thing (and I think the rendering is pretty scary personally) will stick out like a sore thumb to all but the most rabid skyscraper fans.

i don't necessarily disagree with you... and to be perfectly honest i don't like the building that much. but it's probably in its early stages... so we'll see. but if more density will get built in that area as has been speculated, this is really not going to be an issue and having this building start this changing process isn't entirely bad. so what i mean about "mini-manhattan" is that i picture like two continuous skylines going from UT to downtown which is what is envisioned like this right here.
http://www.transwestern.net/public/Austin/austin-2039-dap.jpg

i think it would be awesome if it ever comes to fruition. it may be a pipe dream, but shit man, at least austin's got this awesome proposal. so it makes you wonder, that this "pipe dream" may actually come to life!

[austlar1]

The proposed expansion of state offices downtown is mostly just a concept being put forth by a state planning commission (or to be more precise the planning commissioner). It was presented to the planning board as a proposal only. It has never been approved by the planning commission much less the state legislature. It calls for 1,000,000 square feet of office space in three state owned office buildings. The plan also appears to envision private construction of an additional 2 million square feet of space. The plan would supposedly adhere to existing capitol view corridor restrictions. One 500 footer, if one got built, would probably have 70% of that 1,000,000 sq. feet. There are so many competing interests at play in this kind of proposal. RIght now there is no movement on this thing. The museum and condo proposal is not even part of the commission's plan as far as I can tell. My guess is that the area in question will slowly fill up with new state office buildings and other more commercial office structures over the next 25 years. I imagine it will look a lot more DC-like than NY-like. I would not mind seeing that happen. I just want all those damn parking structures to disappear. They make the area seem completely lacking in soul. Hey, you guys dream about your skyscrapers while I pine away for underground rail that would allow this city to become truly urban in a more traditional sense. Unless a plan emerges to get very large numbers of people into the central city by rail, there is no way that downtown Austin's daytime population can accomodate the additional state workers and other new employers without creating an absolute traffic nightmare. Downtown housing won't solve the problem. State workers can't afford to live downtown or even in the vicinity of downtown.

http://www.statesman.com/business/new-vision-for-capitol-complex-more-room-for-678225.html

Here is the Statesman article regarding the museum condo proposal.

http://www.statesman.com/business/real-estate/planetarium-proposal-calls-for-240-million-47-story-2378684.html

[Jdawgboy]

The proposed expansion of state offices downtown is mostly just a concept being put forth by a state planning commission (or to be more precise the planning commissioner). It was presented to the planning board as a proposal only. It has never been approved by the planning commission much less the state legislature. It calls for 1,000,000 square feet of office space in three state owned office buildings. The plan also appears to envision private construction of an additional 2 million square feet of space. The plan would supposedly adhere to existing capitol view corridor restrictions. One 500 footer, if one got built, would probably have 70% of that 1,000,000 sq. feet. There are so many competing interests at play in this kind of proposal. RIght now there is no movement on this thing. The museum and condo proposal is not even part of the commission's plan as far as I can tell. My guess is that the area in question will slowly fill up with new state office buildings and other more commercial office structures over the next 25 years. I imagine it will look a lot more DC-like than NY-like. I would not mind seeing that happen. I just want all those damn parking structures to disappear. They make the area seem completely lacking in soul. Hey, you guys dream about your skyscrapers while I pine away for underground rail that would allow this city to become truly urban in a more traditional sense. Unless a plan emerges to get very large numbers of people into the central city by rail, there is no way that downtown Austin's daytime population can acomodate the additional state workers and other new employers without creating an absolute traffic nightmare. Downtown housing won't solve the problem. State workers can't afford to live downtown or even in the vicinity of downtown.

http://www.statesman.com/business/new-vision-for-capitol-complex-more-room-for-678225.html


http://www.statesman.com/business/real-estate/planetarium-proposal-calls-for-240-million-47-story-2378684.html

Either way if the state sells the land to these people, there will be a 47 floor tower. I for one dont mind one bit, I think there should be a lot of tall towers in that area, I could care less about the Capital view Corridor from the north because you can't see the Capital let a lone Downtown from the north very well except from a few locations. Its the Southside as well as west and East that you see Downtown the best.

They would not even propose a tower of that size if they did not think they could do it. They know where the lot is, they know exactly what they are doing and if they thought they could not build a tower of that size and height, they would have never have proposed it.

[SeanB]

Either way if the state sells the land to these people, there will be a 47 floor tower. I for one dont mind one bit, I think there should be a lot of tall towers in that area, I could care less about the Capital view Corridor from the north because you can't see the Capital let a lone Downtown from the north very well except from a few locations. Its the Southside as well as west and East that you see Downtown the best.



Totally agree with you here, this point is not emphasized often enough.

Also, for all it's "ugliness" it is a 47-story tower that will bring much-needed residents, foot traffic, and street life to the area, which is currently dead on weekends and in evenings. I live in the direct vicinity and am super-excited about this, even if in the future it looks a bit out of proportion with future 8-15 story buildings.

Regarding the "Montparnasse Tower" problem mentioned, I would say the perfect is the enemy of the good and even a vanilla 47-story tower is 100x better for the area than the current parking lot. Remember this location is very well-served by buses and easy to walk or bike to from apartments, hotels and some neighborhoods. Plus, it makes total sense for the planetarium to be located next to the Bullock Museum. There are already hotels nearby (Doubletree, Days Inn, AT&T) and plenty of space to build more in the future.

Seems like a win/win/win here for the State, City of Austin, and the downtown/University area (and of course the developers and Planetarium guys who will be funding it!).

[SeanB]

Hey, you guys dream about your skyscrapers while I pine away for underground rail that would allow this city to become truly urban in a more traditional sense. Unless a plan emerges to get very large numbers of people into the central city by rail, there is no way that downtown Austin's daytime population can accomodate the additional state workers and other new employers without creating an absolute traffic nightmare. Downtown housing won't solve the problem. State workers can't afford to live downtown or even in the vicinity of downtown.

There is a lot of easily-buildable land in East Austin relatively close to downtown (potential for new apartments). Judges Hill south of West Campus, where I live, is filled with unoccupied and barely-occupied single-family homes, many essentially waiting for redevelopment when land is expensive enough. There are also new, decent apartments under construction in places like Riverside and South Lamar. Really in the long-term I think affordability is a red herring unless the aforementioned workers just need to live in Clarksville, downtown, or Zilker. The scope to add apartment inventory is just massive, and the areas are close enough that these people could ride the bus, bike, or take the future rail system to work.

Also, I wish just as much as you that Austin had a good subway system - I have lived in Seoul and spent time in places like Tokyo, Osaka, NYC, etc. Hell I would even love a reserved-guideway rail like many German cities or a true reserved-lane true BRT system like Bogota or Curitiba (Capital Metro RapidBus is totally fake). However these systems are all very expensive to build and expensive to run as well, if you want good frequency. To do this we need more potential riders - Seoul and Tokyo subways are able to operate at break even due to high ridership which also allows the, to collect rents on in-station convenience stores, vending machines, department stores, etc.

For good urban transit to be successful here we need at least another few hundred thousand more middle to upper income worker-citizens on the city tax rolls to fund buildout (bonds) and subsidize initial operating losses of high frequencies as it will take 15-20 years to get to good ridership levels (and a low operating loss per rider). Every tower like this is not only a great potential source of riders, it also is a small step toward getting to the tax base necessary for a good transit system.

[BevoLJ]

There is a lot of easily-buildable land in East Austin relatively close to downtown (potential for new apartments). Judges Hill south of West Campus, where I live, is filled with unoccupied and barely-occupied single-family homes, many essentially waiting for redevelopment when land is expensive enough. There are also new, decent apartments under construction in places like Riverside and South Lamar. Really in the long-term I think affordability is a red herring unless the aforementioned workers just need to live in Clarksville, downtown, or Zilker. The scope to add apartment inventory is just massive, and the areas are close enough that these people could ride the bus, bike, or take the future rail system to work.

Also, I wish just as much as you that Austin had a good subway system - I have lived in Seoul and spent time in places like Tokyo, Osaka, NYC, etc. Hell I would even love a reserved-guideway rail like many German cities or a true reserved-lane true BRT system like Bogota or Curitiba (Capital Metro RapidBus is totally fake). However these systems are all very expensive to build and expensive to run as well, if you want good frequency. To do this we need more potential riders - Seoul and Tokyo subways are able to operate at break even due to high ridership which also allows the, to collect rents on in-station convenience stores, vending machines, department stores, etc.

For good urban transit to be successful here we need at least another few hundred thousand more middle to upper income worker-citizens on the city tax rolls to fund buildout (bonds) and subsidize initial operating losses of high frequencies as it will take 15-20 years to get to good ridership levels (and a low operating loss per rider). Every tower like this is not only a great potential source of riders, it also is a small step toward getting to the tax base necessary for a good transit system.Well said.

Austin has shown that there is a very high desire to live downtown. I think that is great! DAB recently has a blog on how all the new condo towers will likely be out of new inventory before anything new is built. They seems to have sold very well. But one of the biggest problems building a amazing transit system like you and austlar1 are discussing I worry will be workers.

Austin to me seems backwards from many cities. I could not possibly count the numbers of great friends of mine who live either downtown are adjacent to DT and work out in the suburbs. Either way up north or down south. No kidding, I have one friend who lives at Gables on Lamar and she works near Georgetown! That to me is crazy but she was born and raised in GT and doesn't mind the commute and loves living DT.

We need more Cirrus Logics. lol. Companies to relocate to DT. And the state would be the biggest of them all if they did go and consolidate to the state owned land downtown. No one could bring more workers and create the ridership for a good transit system as well as the State. UT is already doing a fair job, and West Campus is an area that is already perfect for it and still continuing to get better.

[austlar1]

There is a lot of easily-buildable land in East Austin relatively close to downtown (potential for new apartments). Judges Hill south of West Campus, where I live, is filled with unoccupied and barely-occupied single-family homes, many essentially waiting for redevelopment when land is expensive enough. There are also new, decent apartments under construction in places like Riverside and South Lamar. Really in the long-term I think affordability is a red herring unless the aforementioned workers just need to live in Clarksville, downtown, or Zilker. The scope to add apartment inventory is just massive, and the areas are close enough that these people could ride the bus, bike, or take the future rail system to work.

Also, I wish just as much as you that Austin had a good subway system - I have lived in Seoul and spent time in places like Tokyo, Osaka, NYC, etc. Hell I would even love a reserved-guideway rail like many German cities or a true reserved-lane true BRT system like Bogota or Curitiba (Capital Metro RapidBus is totally fake). However these systems are all very expensive to build and expensive to run as well, if you want good frequency. To do this we need more potential riders - Seoul and Tokyo subways are able to operate at break even due to high ridership which also allows the, to collect rents on in-station convenience stores, vending machines, department stores, etc.

For good urban transit to be successful here we need at least another few hundred thousand more middle to upper income worker-citizens on the city tax rolls to fund buildout (bonds) and subsidize initial operating losses of high frequencies as it will take 15-20 years to get to good ridership levels (and a low operating loss per rider). Every tower like this is not only a great potential source of riders, it also is a small step toward getting to the tax base necessary for a good transit system.

Tell it to the developers. When they start to build family housing in the 150K to 200K price range downtown, then housing worker bees in the central city begins to make sense. Until then, it is something else altogether. I am all for more state offices downtown. I am all for more appropriate highrises. I am all for a planeterium. I kind of liked the original proposal minus the monolith on top. Unlike a lot of folks on this sight, I have met a few skyscrapers that I did not like. Maybe this one will grow on me. Meanwhile with all that parking and no nearby amenities, I imagine all the residents of this new tower are going to spend most of their time in their cars going about their business rather than soaking up the street life in that part of town. Tall residential towers do not always make for a busy streetscape. Check out Brickell Ave in Miami or Turtle Creek in Dallas. In Dallas it is the more low rise (four to eight stories) State/Thomas area and nearby Mckinney Ave that has the street life and vitality. In Miami, it is South Beach with its low rise architecture or Coconut Grove which is also mostly low to mid rise that has truly vibrant street life and a good urban vibe.

Meanwhile at least one city managed to get a good start on urban rail when it was just about the same size that Austin is today. That city is Atlanta. MARTA rail is a good city system that unfortunately lacks extensions into the far flung suburbs. It got built in the late 1970s at the same time the DC Metro and BART were being built. It was the last time the Feds went on a real spending spree, and the regions in question had the political muscle and the vision to build something useful. Those days are long gone I guess unless Austin is able to wrestle the right to create a local transportation tax that could fund a versatile and high capacity transit system. We only need three or four miles of underground to tame downtown and the UT area. The rest could be above ground or even running on the street. I know this is a topic for the transportation forum, but the congestion squeeze downtown is a huge festering long term problem that ultimately will impact on the pace of development downtown. Big employers, including the state governent, make decisions about where to locate workers based on this issue.

Don't forget that Part II of the as yet unapproved and unfunded State Facilities Planning Commission proposal for housing state workers is a significant expansion of the current state office campus to the north and east of the Triangle up where Lamar and Guadalupe come together. That is the part of this proposal, which is not very sexy, that did not get much publicity. It is all there in the two year old Statesman article I posted above. Not much, except for this planeterium plan, has changed since that article was written. The planning commision proposals would have to be approved by a very conservative and anti-Austin legislature filled with greedy rascals who will work for the highest dollar in terms of campaign contributions and other perks. That is how this development issue regarding state owned property will ultimately be determined.

Finally (and I will admit that I am being especially long-winded and irritating to some), JDawg, you are right that the proposed museum tower will get built, if the state sells or leases the land and the developers actually have financing to build the thing. I am always leery about this last item, and usually don't believe in a project until I see dirt turning and cranes going up. I have just seen so many announcements for projects that never materialize in their announced form. This announcement reads like a press release and as usual does not really spell out what cards the developers of the tower are actually holding. Sometimes they are just holding balloons filled with hot air. Your favorite non-builder Mr. T. Stacy comes to mind, but you and Goldenboot continue to believe. Your enthusiasm is admirable.

[BevoLJ]

But to fund projects like that you need to collect taxes. Your issues isn't with the planetarium but with the residential mix use of the project. With out that residential there will be no taxes collected from that block. As it sits right now it is just a state owned parking lot, doing nothing for anyone. Certainly not contributing to any streetscape. The planetarium will be great, but with this tower Austin will also be able to collect property tax. Atlanta is also as the dominant city of not only its state, but the entire SE region of the US it has much more support than Austin as the 4th or even 5th city in line for state support in Texas would ever have, and the federal support for such things is not near what it was in the 70's.

[austlar1]

But to fund projects like that you need to collect taxes. Your issues isn't with the planetarium but with the residential mix use of the project. With out that residential there will be no taxes collected from that block. As it sits right now it is just a state owned parking lot, doing nothing for anyone. Certainly not contributing to any streetscape. The planetarium will be great, but with this tower Austin will also be able to collect property tax. Atlanta is also as the dominant city of not only its state, but the entire SE region of the US it has much more support than Austin as the 4th or even 5th city in line for state support in Texas would ever have, and the federal support for such things is not near what it was in the 70's.

RE taxes in Texas are not used to fund transportation projects. This notion of converting state property to tax rolls is really just another conservative ploy to divest the state of significant assets. i guess in some instances, like up at the Triangle, it does end up enhancing municipal coffers. It sure as hell does not fund transit.

Residents of this 47 story tower will find themselves surrounded by museum plazas, state office buildings, and mega parking structures. Not a very cozy environment and not likely to become one over time unless a great deal of additional housing finds its way into the mix. I guess that is an alternative outcome for the area, but I suspect that the state will eventually find a way to use this space for their own needs. I sure as hell would not want to live in such a sterile setting.

I agree that Atlanta had political muscle in more expansive times that Austin certainly lacks. They even had Jimmy Carter in office during the last phase of funding for the project. It should be noted that a big chunk of MARTA was funded by a special sales tax levied in Fulton County for the purpose of building MARTA. The reason it has not been extended into suburban areas is because of opposition to a similar tax in suburban counties. Well, that is part of the equation. The other is a very strong anti-Atlanta bias among suburban voters.

[SeanB]

Tell it to the developers. When they start to build family housing in the 150K to 200K price range downtown, then housing worker bees in the central city begins to make sense. Until then, it is something else altogether. I am all for more state offices downtown. I am all for more appropriate highrises. I am all for a planeterium. I kind of liked the original proposal minus the monolith on top. Unlike a lot of folks on this sight, I have met a few skyscrapers that I did not like. Maybe this one will grow on me. Meanwhile with all that parking and no nearby amenities, I imagine all the residents of this new tower are going to spend most of their time in their cars going about their business rather than soaking up the street life in that part of town. Tall residential towers do not always make for a busy streetscape. Check out Brickell Ave in Miami or Turtle Creek in Dallas. In Dallas it is the more low rise (four to eight stories) State/Thomas area and nearby Mckinney Ave that has the street life and vitality. In Miami, it is South Beach with its low rise architecture or Coconut Grove which is also mostly low to mid rise that has truly vibrant street life and a good urban vibe.


I'm not sure what "family" housing means. Does this imply that families can't live in apartments? There is also a difference between affordable apartments/duplexes within a few miles of downtown and a $175k 2500ft2 house on 6th and Lamar.

For every example of cities with good "street life" and "vibe" with low rise architecture, there are many that feature tall buildings as well. Many, many Asian cities achieve this (Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai, etc.) as well as in Rio de Janeiro, Santiago de Chile, etc. In every city mentioned there are many more midrise buildings that intermingle with the high-rises. And, for the most part, they do a good job limiting the depth of setbacks from the sidewalk which goes a long way toward enabling first/second-story retail and food.

And of course I could fill an entire thread with lowrise cities that aren't very walkable/bikable, like most of LA, Jacksonville, etc. Heck even the aforementioned Portland and Miami have much lower levels of public transit usage (http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2012/05/density-and-transit-some-numbers.html) than the two "tower cities" of NYC and Chicago.

The main keys to vibrant streetlife are dealing with the lower few stories of the buildings and making sure that the setback from the sidewalk is not very deep - this is a big problem for Dallas IMO. Also helpful are areas alloted to food stands, sidewalk cafes, and even sidewalk retail (clothing racks, newsstands, bookshelves). The mix of uses is important too - the Boston Harbor area feels deserted on weekends, because like many American downtowns it has zero residential, which also means a LOT less retail and "interesting" food locations. The key common denominator is that MOST vibrant streetscapes need a very high level of "organic" pedestrian traffic to be successful and sustainable. There can be one or two per city though that attract enough car traffic to replicate this vibrancy.

South Beach is an area that most locals drive to, park in the garage (http://miami.about.com/od/transportation/a/beach_parking.htm), spend the day, and leave. To me this is a "destination" area that is a point of congregation for tourists and people from all over the Miami Sprawl - similarly, the Wailea mall and beach in Maui is quite "vibrant" though it's hardly a triumph of urbanism or a replicable model.

Austin can have multiple destination areas as well: Lady Bird Lake, eventually the Domain. These areas can and should have a lot of 4-7 story apartments and offices nearby, which is finally happening today on South Lamar and Riverside near the Lake. But we can still build a ton of towers downtown, especially since this will actually supply people and $ to "feed" the kinds of streetscapes that you're so fond of, austlar. As cities like New York, Boston, Toronto and San Francisco - to name a few in our continent alone - show, it's not an either/or proposition.


BevoLJ, I totally agree that keeping/attracting jobs to the urban core is key to creating a good ecosystem long term. The Cirrus Building is a decent example, though it and other area office buildings - I work in one nearby - go way overboard on the amount of built-in parking IMO. If the perceived need for built-in parking goes down, the square footage yield per $ of building cost will (hopefully) increase over time.

[SeanB]

Residents of this 47 story tower will find themselves surrounded by museum plazas, state office buildings, and mega parking structures. Not a very cozy environment and not likely to become one over time unless a great deal of additional housing finds its way into the mix. I guess that is an alternative outcome for the area, but I suspect that the state will eventually find a way to use this space for their own needs. I sure as hell would not want to live in such a sterile setting.


Could have easily said this about the Towers of Town Lake or the Railyard downtown. At the end of the day, it will be up to the city with some help from the state to allow more development in this vicinity.

By the way the 8-story Greenwood condo building is only two blocks away, so it's not like it's a literal island of isolation. I agree with your implication that the city and state will have to be active in increasing the number of residents in this neighborhood though (i.e. make it easy to build more condos and apartments). Given the current land uses though this is surely reasonable.

[wwmiv]

This building is close enough to the drag to be viable from a "would people live in this area" perspective.

[BevoLJ]

RE taxes in Texas are not used to fund transportation projects. This notion of converting state property to tax rolls is really just another conservative ploy to divest the state of significant assets. i guess in some instances, like up at the Triangle, it does end up enhancing municipal coffers. It sure as hell does not fund transit.The current urban rail plan requires huge bonds to fund the project and those bonds are payed for by property taxes. No property taxes no rail. The state and county are not going to build urban rail in Austin. That will never ever happen. The city has to do it, itself. And property taxes do pay for that.

And why would you not want this block to collect tax? I don't get that. This block has huge tax potential. Those taxes can go to many things, and in the case of the taxes collect in Austin much of it would go to pay for the bonds needed for any sort of mass transit system built in Austin.

[austlar1]

Here is the latest in the Statesman about the planeterium project. It has a long way to go.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/groups-propose-planetarium-complex-in-austin-2378957.html

[austlar1]

The current urban rail plan requires huge bonds to fund the project and those bonds are payed for by property taxes. No property taxes no rail. The state and county are not going to build urban rail in Austin. That will never ever happen. The city has to do it, itself. And property taxes do pay for that.

And why would you not want this block to collect tax? I don't get that. This block has huge tax potential. Those taxes can go to many things, and in the case of the taxes collect in Austin much of it would go to pay for the bonds needed for any sort of mass transit system built in Austin.

I don't care whether this block pays taxes. I just dont want a frigging 47 story building sitting over there all by itself messing with my iconic Austin. I am allowed to express my opinions even if they offend you or others.

According to the Texas Transportation Institute - "Sales taxes are the most common source of funding for local and regional transit services. They generally provide the greatest revenue yield and stability and are broadly accepted as a source of revenue for public transportation." I believe that this his how Cap Metro receives most of its government funding currently

"Property taxes are assessed on the value of land and buildings and are the principle source of revenue for local governments. Portions of local property tax revenues may be authorized for use by special districts and authorities such as transit authorities." I guess the proposed streetcar line would receive funds from property taxes, but I have not seen the specifics on how they propose to retire the bonds needed to build the system.


http://utcm.tamu.edu/tfo/transit/summary.stm

[austlar1]

I'm not sure what "family" housing means. Does this imply that families can't live in apartments? There is also a difference between affordable apartments/duplexes within a few miles of downtown and a $175k 2500ft2 house on 6th and Lamar.

For every example of cities with good "street life" and "vibe" with low rise architecture, there are many that feature tall buildings as well. Many, many Asian cities achieve this (Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai, etc.) as well as in Rio de Janeiro, Santiago de Chile, etc. In every city mentioned there are many more midrise buildings that intermingle with the high-rises. And, for the most part, they do a good job limiting the depth of setbacks from the sidewalk which goes a long way toward enabling first/second-story retail and food.

And of course I could fill an entire thread with lowrise cities that aren't very walkable/bikable, like most of LA, Jacksonville, etc. Heck even the aforementioned Portland and Miami have much lower levels of public transit usage (http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2012/05/density-and-transit-some-numbers.html) than the two "tower cities" of NYC and Chicago.

The main keys to vibrant streetlife are dealing with the lower few stories of the buildings and making sure that the setback from the sidewalk is not very deep - this is a big problem for Dallas IMO. Also helpful are areas alloted to food stands, sidewalk cafes, and even sidewalk retail (clothing racks, newsstands, bookshelves). The mix of uses is important too - the Boston Harbor area feels deserted on weekends, because like many American downtowns it has zero residential, which also means a LOT less retail and "interesting" food locations. The key common denominator is that MOST vibrant streetscapes need a very high level of "organic" pedestrian traffic to be successful and sustainable. There can be one or two per city though that attract enough car traffic to replicate this vibrancy.

South Beach is an area that most locals drive to, park in the garage (http://miami.about.com/od/transportation/a/beach_parking.htm), spend the day, and leave. To me this is a "destination" area that is a point of congregation for tourists and people from all over the Miami Sprawl - similarly, the Wailea mall and beach in Maui is quite "vibrant" though it's hardly a triumph of urbanism or a replicable model.

Austin can have multiple destination areas as well: Lady Bird Lake, eventually the Domain. These areas can and should have a lot of 4-7 story apartments and offices nearby, which is finally happening today on South Lamar and Riverside near the Lake. But we can still build a ton of towers downtown, especially since this will actually supply people and $ to "feed" the kinds of streetscapes that you're so fond of, austlar. As cities like New York, Boston, Toronto and San Francisco - to name a few in our continent alone - show, it's not an either/or proposition.


BevoLJ, I totally agree that keeping/attracting jobs to the urban core is key to creating a good ecosystem long term. The Cirrus Building is a decent example, though it and other area office buildings - I work in one nearby - go way overboard on the amount of built-in parking IMO. If the perceived need for built-in parking goes down, the square footage yield per $ of building cost will (hopefully) increase over time.

"Family housing" means to me that most families with limited means will continue to buy a little house in the suburbs with a yard and reliable schools before they will live in a smaller apartment in the center city with indifferent or terrible schools. The schools won't improve until there are more stable families in the community demanding and supporting better schools. There is no tradition for middle class families in this area to crowd into apartments. It does not happen often in most other US cities either. The housing currently being built in the center of the city is overwhelmingly oriented towards singles and empty nesters, usually affluent empty nesters. The true family housing that is being built in the center (north south east and west) is mostly priced for the relatively affluent. I am not inventing these facts. Developers (who receive an inordinate amount of respect from some on this site) have chosen to ignore family housing needs probably because they don't perceive a market for affordable 1200 sq. foot plus 3 bedroom housing in the center of Austin. Actually they just can't figure out how to make money building it.

I would love to see a mix of real high rise apartments and lower buildings in areas like Rainey St.,Riverside, Burnett Road, Highland Mall, Congress/Oltorf, South Lamar, etc.. If I thought there was a chance of a lot of additional housing around the museum project, I might be more in favor of this building. I just don't see that happening. This is a fast growing state that is going to need this land to build state facilities (or mixed use but don't count on much housing) to accomodate the bureaucracy and other outfits that do business with the state.

Using examples like Sao Paolo or Seoul or Santiago does not realistically reflect housing preferences or priorities for the typical Austin resident. Those high rise and mid rise buildings are often built on the cheap with sparse amenities and little square footage. They look good from afar, and they appeal to a middle class used to living with much less than the typical US citizen and also to new arrivals from the rural hinterlands. I am not sure that describes the local housing market just yet. It could be getting there if current demographic trends continue for another fifty or 100 years, but not yet.

BTW, South Beach in Miami has a population density of about 15,000 persons per square mile, about the same density as San Francisco. Sorry if I sound like a jerk. I enjoy responding to you. You make some intelligent observations.

[ahealy]

Could have easily said this about the Towers of Town Lake or the Railyard downtown. At the end of the day, it will be up to the city with some help from the state to allow more development in this vicinity.

By the way the 8-story Greenwood condo building is only two blocks away, so it's not like it's a literal island of isolation. I agree with your implication that the city and state will have to be active in increasing the number of residents in this neighborhood though (i.e. make it easy to build more condos and apartments). Given the current land uses though this is surely reasonable.
Agreed. You could have also said the exact same thing about 2nd street, and look how far that's come along (and is still rapidly growing).
This is a good thing... I see this only improving the livability of OUR "iconic Austin"....not only that, but creating new districts within the core

[SeanB]

Sorry, you're right, I was confusing South Beach with the entirety of Miami Beach. The lion's share of parking is outside of South Beach as you imply. I'm not sure how replicable South Beach is but the idea of infill in general is a good one and there are tons of open spaces of land in/near downtown to build midrise. Seems to be happening (e.g. The new Gables) albeit slowly. Plenty of speculators (including the state) are holding onto their land at near-zero carrying costs (http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2008/10/height-limits.html) and delaying infill.

I disagree that high rises in Brazil, Chile, and South Korea are low in quality. The E&C companies there have gotten so much experience in building high rises that most East Asian newbuilds are probably comparable with, say, The Monarch here in terms of soundproofing. (The aesthetics aren't as good though unless they are luxury class).

I agree that most middle class Americans would feel squeezed in a 1000 ft2 condo. They don't have to live in prime-location condos. I know a middle class family in Chicago that lives in an affordable 1300 ft2 condo a few miles south of The Loop. It's a safe area with decent schools that would never be affordable unless there was a LOT of high-quality housing in/near The Loop itself; see all those condo towers on this site. It's this kind of filtering effect that means that middle-class housing will improve at the same time high-priced towers are erected (with some lag).

I agree that schools - and safety - are a MAJOR sticking point here and something Austin will need to address. I have heard that Central Austin schools like Travis have been improving though this is just hearsay. Also, as you pointed out both these issues are somewhat chicken-and-egg. However the bottom line is I don't think we need 10 new Muellers for the middle class to thrive in Central Austin and it can be done through a combination of high and midrise (with some duplexes and lowrise apartments thrown in, if possible).

By the way there are plenty of easy knockdowns (http://austinist.com/2009/04/27/travis_house_historic_landmark_or_i.php) within a few blocks of the planetarium that aren't on State land.

Don't worry you're not a jerk. I don't think that a highrise there will really screw up your Austin though or make it any less iconic. If the Intel building couldn't do that, this won't either.

[austlar1]

I kind of miss the Intel shell. What I mean is that I miss the Intel shell where there was a sound and light bungee jumping spectacle available for free to interested spectators on a random Thursday night. That was a very "Austin Weird" experience. The new federal court house may be the ugliest new building in Austin hands down. I sure hope they plan to screen all that air conditioning equipment up on the roof top. it looks a bit like the cooling plant on top of the state parking structure located just down the block right now. I thought we were done with brutalism. I guess this would qualify as neo-brutalism.

RE the tear down link- I drove by the Travis House site the other day. I thought I noticed that it was torn down finally. is that correct? I was barely paying attention. The buildings across the street could disappear too and be replaced by some housing or mixed use. I never understood why this area has been so slow to develop. I wish the proposed 47 story tower was going to be built up there closer to the Drag and the existing condos in that area.

[BevoLJ]

Now if the 47 story tower was being build by the Drag then I would have a HUGE problem with it! lol. I'd rather it be downtown like it is planned than in west campus. One of my biggest fears is that eventually something huge will be built in W/C that will block my view of the UT Tower in Westlake. :(

[DougRockstead]

Did anyone notice the depiction of the I-35 in the 7 step plan. It looks similar to I-75 running through Dallas. With the sunken highway and traffic crossing over head. I know it's a pipe dream , but that would be awesome. I-75 is so much easier to drive on than I -35 is when travelling through downtown Austin/Dallas

[austlar1]

Now if the 47 story tower was being build by the Drag then I would have a HUGE problem with it! lol. I'd rather it be downtown like it is planned than in west campus. One of my biggest fears is that eventually something huge will be built in W/C that will block my view of the UT Tower in Westlake. :(

I am gratified to learn that you do care for the UT Tower, or at least your view of the tower! I drove by the proposed site last night. It should look pretty imposing at ground level for sure. The building, if built, would not look as tall as it actually is because the site is at the bottom of a hill, especially coming down from the Drag. It won't show up as prominantly on the skyline as you would expect, but it will still be up there. I think the Monarch apartment building also suffers from being in a low location in terms of visibility from afar.

[austlar1]

Did anyone notice the depiction of the I-35 in the 7 step plan. It looks similar to I-75 running through Dallas. With the sunken highway and traffic crossing over head. I know it's a pipe dream , but that would be awesome. I-75 is so much easier to drive on than I -35 is when travelling through downtown Austin/Dallas

Unfortunately Austin lacks the political muscle to get the several billion bucks that an IH35 re do would cost. Austin also probably lacks a population willing to put up with 10 years of hassle to build something similar to Highway 75 in Big D. That project took about a decade to complete and was a huge bottleneck. I think the finished product was worth the wait and the hassle.

[Austin1971]

By Shonda Novak
American-Statesman


Luxury management company Fairmont Hotels & Resorts will be the operator for a $350 million convention hotel planned for downtown, making Austin only the second Texas city to feature the famed brand, the company told the American-Statesman on Tuesday.

http://www.statesman.com/business/real-estate/luxury-brand-fairmont-to-operate-2nd-downtown-convention-2382129.html

[ahealy]

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb250/austintexs/053012_fairmont_1485017c.jpg

[MichaelB]

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb250/austintexs/053012_fairmont_1485017c.jpg

Well maybe this puppy ain;t dead?!!!?!!!! I like the sprucing up to the rendering. Looks like details are getting more specific.

Great brand to Add to Austin. That's a big plus!

[GoldenBoot]

...Your favorite non-builder Mr. T. Stacy comes to mind, but you and Goldenboot continue to believe...

How in the hell did I get involved with this, austlar1? Please keep me out of your rants.

[MichaelB]

Agreed. You could have also said the exact same thing about 2nd street, and look how far that's come along (and is still rapidly growing).
This is a good thing... I see this only improving the livability of OUR "iconic Austin"....not only that, but creating new districts within the core

I have also come to enjoy the fact that our taller building are spread out. That's not a "traditional" downtown and I kinda like it. You get to see each building better for what it is. That is a great spot for housiing actually. Especially with the Medical center looming. You have Cambrigde and Greenwood in the area. That would help bring more non-campus orineted business to the area. Which we could use.

[migol24]

I have also come to enjoy the fact that our taller building are spread out.
The Capitol View Corridor is perhaps the primary reason for this.

[austlar1]

How in the hell did I get involved with this, austlar1? Please keep me out of your rants.

Cause you recently posted your belief that the T. Stacey project was still in the works. I promise not to mention your name any more. My bad.