HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8081  
Old Posted: May 28, 2012, 9:22 PM
SeanB SeanB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8082  
Old Posted: May 28, 2012, 9:24 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin, San Antonio
Posts: 1,397
This building is close enough to the drag to be viable from a "would people live in this area" perspective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8083  
Old Posted: May 28, 2012, 9:38 PM
BevoLJ's Avatar
BevoLJ BevoLJ is offline
~Hook'em~
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Austin, TX/London, UK
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
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.
__________________
Austin, Texas
London, United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8084  
Old Posted: May 28, 2012, 10:10 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 915
Here is the latest in the Statesman about the planeterium project. It has a long way to go.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/...n-2378957.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8085  
Old Posted: May 28, 2012, 10:12 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by BevoLJ View Post
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

Last edited by austlar1; May 28, 2012 at 10:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8086  
Old Posted: May 28, 2012, 11:17 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanB View Post
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 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, 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.

Last edited by austlar1; May 28, 2012 at 11:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8087  
Old Posted: May 29, 2012, 12:24 AM
ahealy's Avatar
ahealy ahealy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanB View Post
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8088  
Old Posted: May 29, 2012, 12:40 AM
SeanB SeanB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15
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 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 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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8089  
Old Posted: May 29, 2012, 1:08 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 915
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.

Last edited by austlar1; May 29, 2012 at 1:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8090  
Old Posted: May 29, 2012, 1:56 AM
BevoLJ's Avatar
BevoLJ BevoLJ is offline
~Hook'em~
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Austin, TX/London, UK
Posts: 1,680
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.
__________________
Austin, Texas
London, United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8091  
Old Posted: May 29, 2012, 2:30 AM
DougRockstead's Avatar
DougRockstead DougRockstead is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 173
7 step plan

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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8092  
Old Posted: May 30, 2012, 2:26 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by BevoLJ View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8093  
Old Posted: May 30, 2012, 2:32 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougRockstead View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8094  
Old Posted: May 30, 2012, 1:09 PM
Austin1971 Austin1971 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 132
Luxury brand Fairmont to operate 2nd downtown convention hotel

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/re...n-2382129.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8095  
Old Posted: May 30, 2012, 3:56 PM
ahealy's Avatar
ahealy ahealy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 694
Fairmont Austin

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8096  
Old Posted: May 30, 2012, 4:00 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahealy View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8097  
Old Posted: May 30, 2012, 5:52 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
...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.
__________________
Austin (City): 842,592 +6.65% from 2010 Census | Austin-Round Rock MSA (5 counties): 1,834,303 +6.88% from 2010 Census
San Antonio (City): 1,382,951 +4.18% from 2010 Census | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,234,003 +4.27% from 2010 Census
--Source: U.S. Census Bureau-July 1, 2012--
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8098  
Old Posted: May 30, 2012, 7:14 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahealy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8099  
Old Posted: May 30, 2012, 7:35 PM
migol24 migol24 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8100  
Old Posted: May 30, 2012, 9:01 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoot View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:58 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.