HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2014, 3:11 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
Cool AUSTIN | Austin Oaks PUD

Well, we might as well get a thread going on this now that it's on everyone's radar.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi....257263.735477
Quote:
Could planned project set off MoPac development boom?

Neighbors say dense project with proposed towers doesn’t fit with area, could worsen traffic problems.


Posted: 9:13 p.m. Monday, Sept. 1, 2014

By Lori Hawkins and Shonda Novak - American-Statesman Staff

Two towers that would be among the tallest buildings outside of downtown Austin are being proposed as part of project that envisions bringing 1.6 million square feet of development to MoPac Boulevard and Spicewood Springs Road.

Some area residents oppose the project, which they say could set a precedent for other tall buildings — both along MoPac and elsewhere throughout the city — that would encroach on surrounding neighborhoods.

Spire’s site is a 31-acre tract that now houses Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each and totaling 450,000 square feet. Spire is seeking a zoning change that would allow it to construct buildings of three to five stories on the parts of the site closest to residential areas, and, on the parts closer to MoPac, two office buildings that would tower 17 stories each. Height is currently limited to 60 feet on the site.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2014, 7:19 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
Well what else is new? It's not like people complaining about tall buildings is a new thing in this city, heck there's still people who are against building highrises in DT Lol. What I can't get about their argument is it goes against preserving anything let alone the environmental impact. Tall buildings with small footprints are way better for the environment than low level, large footprint buildings. I Guess they would rather see more of the hill country bulldozed and more cookie cutter subdivisions and crappy strip malls built ever farther out which actually causes more traffic not less. Their arguments are mute and totally baseless IMO and contradict their own stance. I find it hilarious but I don't take them lightly either. If we've learned anything about city politics over the last few decades, we know NIMBYs can be a powerful force within the political system and its about to get even more complicated and down right nasty.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2014, 1:30 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
NIMBY's keep overlooking the fact that their neighborhood, workplace, favorite shopping areas, etc. all impacted traffic and the environment when they were built.
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2014, 7:00 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
So far the issue seems to be that they're worried about school crowding. One guy on Facebook said the schools there don't have enough land to expand. I don't know if that's true or not, but seems unlikely. The other issue of course is traffic. Those are legit concerns.

I didn't really see anyone complaining about the height, though, they did seem shocked at the size comparing it to Barton Creek Mall - it's actually little bigger in square feet apparently.

Then there were some ridiculous claims about condos having a bigger carbon footprint, which is BS, and it's unlikely anyway that these will be condos. It's more likely they'll be apartments.

Since Northwest Austin is expensive, this may give more families an option to staying there - particularly young families who wish to stay close to their grandparents.

Another concern was that a lot of trees would be cut down to make room, but I pointed out that the old buildings should provide enough room for the new buildings. Of course I also mentioned the fines they would have to pay for cutting down any trees, and that it's possible to move them. And, because these buildings will be taller that they may even have enough room for more green space than is there now. That actually happened to us with the Oaks Treatment Center behind us. They tore down at least a half dozen or more buildings and built one single larger building. They cut down no trees and left the rest of the land as open space. We actually have better views through there now than we did before.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2014, 7:06 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
Well what else is new? It's not like people complaining about tall buildings is a new thing in this city, heck there's still people who are against building highrises in DT Lol. What I can't get about their argument is it goes against preserving anything let alone the environmental impact. Tall buildings with small footprints are way better for the environment than low level, large footprint buildings. I Guess they would rather see more of the hill country bulldozed and more cookie cutter subdivisions and crappy strip malls built ever farther out which actually causes more traffic not less. Their arguments are mute and totally baseless IMO and contradict their own stance. I find it hilarious but I don't take them lightly either. If we've learned anything about city politics over the last few decades, we know NIMBYs can be a powerful force within the political system and its about to get even more complicated and down right nasty.
Oh man, this one guy actually said that commercial properties aren't required to have green space on their property, which is true of course, and he said that's the reason why you don't see open space next to The Austonian and other condos in downtown.



Sometimes I think people should go bask to elementary school.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2014, 8:21 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
The other issue of course is traffic. Those are legit concerns.

The entirety of the site is under .5 miles from a potential rail station at Anderson Lane. About half the site is within the _.25_ mile catchment area of the potential rail station. If you can't put density there, where can you put it?

(granted it wouldn't be a super pretty walk across Mopac, but it would be short).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2014, 8:23 PM
jngreenlee jngreenlee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
Oh man, this one guy actually said that commercial properties aren't required to have green space on their property, which is true of course, and he said that's the reason why you don't see open space next to The Austonian and other condos in downtown.
Time to call in the Open Spaces Coalition? Maybe Mark Wahlberg will show up...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2014, 9:22 PM
AusTxDevelopment AusTxDevelopment is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 808
Stumbled across this on another thread. Website called "Hey Austin! No More PUDs!" http://nopud.weebly.com/ These people really really don't want this development to happen, with quotes like "Austin Oaks PUD is a bloated nightmare" and "...kill the rezoning of AustinOaks to a PUD. Kill it dead." Interesting reading.

At any rate, one of the items they have posted on their website is a more detailed site plan that also has a longitudinal cross section showing how the buildings will look. It's a small jpg so it's a little hard to read, but I've linked to it below.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2014, 9:25 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
"Keep Austin Suburban" or "Keep on Sprawling" should be the official NIMBY slogans.
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2014, 6:56 PM
AusTxDevelopment AusTxDevelopment is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 808
News article today in Community Impact Newspaper about the Austin Oaks PUD request.

Community Impact
Developer proposes dense housing, retail, office on Spicewood Springs
http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/n...ewood-springs/

Images from the article:


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2014, 4:29 PM
AusTxDevelopment AusTxDevelopment is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 808
As expected, Spire is scaling back it's plans for the Austin Oaks redevelopment to show that it's cooperating with the neighborhoods. Half as many apartments and shorter towers - limited to 200' max. Plus more green space and $160K to Doss Elementary School, which is nearby.

The Austin Monitor
Neighbors Organize Against Planned Northwest PUD
http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...northwest-pud/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2014, 5:30 PM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 768
That sounds like a reasonable compromise, although I kind of wish they would have planned this for Riverside, Mueller, ACC Highland (could have helped me vote yes for prop 1), or the Domain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2014, 7:13 PM
texboy texboy is offline
constructor extrodinaire!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,614
Why does there have to be any compromise at all? Even in zoned cities, folks who live near tracts of land that have the potential to be developed as high density commercial should not be allowed to hijack the process. Y'all's (relatively) small downtown is rapidly filling up. Its tracts of land like this that are going to become the only way that high density development can continue in Austin in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2014, 8:16 PM
hookem hookem is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by texboy View Post
Why does there have to be any compromise at all? Even in zoned cities, folks who live near tracts of land that have the potential to be developed as high density commercial should not be allowed to hijack the process. Y'all's (relatively) small downtown is rapidly filling up. Its tracts of land like this that are going to become the only way that high density development can continue in Austin in the future.
It's part of the current zoning process right now. If the developer wants to change the zoning of some land, and it's within a certain distance of a neighborhood, the neighbors of the land get a say (by law). So the developer has to win over their neighbors. They know the song and dance, however, and their initial plans often include huge # of apartments and a height well beyond what they expect to build. This is so they can show they "negotiated" with the neighbors to scale back the due to their concerns.

With a PUD, there is even more required to get the zoning change, since the developers are requesting a PUD to get variances for things like impervious cover and height restrictions. To get those variances, they also need to show that the project is somehow providing superior benefit to what could be built there with existing zoning laws. The current city council has been mostly receptive to allowing that in exchange for money or extra land donated to the city... but I suspect that will not be the case with the new council.

Bottom line, the zoning laws need to be fixed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2014, 8:30 PM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
I'm very surprised that people in this thread think it's a good idea to take highrise urban density west of Mopac. I think it's a terrible location for the development as originally proposed. It just makes no sense, it's not an urban area at all. Even the amended proposal sounds potentially too intensive to me.

I'm not being a NIMBY, I don't live near there. I'd be happy to see more urbanization where I live, along the 183 corridor between Lamar and Burnet. 183 is much more of an urban freeway along much of its Austin traverse, but Mopac is a commuter freeway that bisects residential areas. Urban centers should exist in areas where urban activity is focused, not dotting residential areas.

Also, I think the aesthetics for the city as a whole would be tweaked in a negative way if highrises started creeping up the northwest hills. It's just awkward. Keep the urban centers in the flatlands. It's too bad Cedar Park doesn't embrace this type of development, or that developers don't choose to create something resembling a city amidst that soulless diffuse expanse of auto-necessitating generic subtopia.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2014, 8:58 PM
AusTxDevelopment AusTxDevelopment is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech House View Post
I'm very surprised that people in this thread think it's a good idea to take highrise urban density west of Mopac. I think it's a terrible location for the development as originally proposed. It just makes no sense, it's not an urban area at all. Even the amended proposal sounds potentially too intensive to me.
I don't know that 200' buildings (or 225' as originally proposed) are considered 'highrise' in the absolute sense of the word, and they certainly don't challenge the CBD buildings, but that may just be a personal interpretation. The site is close enough to the urban core to be considered infill and therefore extremely desirable for multifamily development. Thanks to Austin's wonderful traffic, infill is where people want to live unless they work in the far-flung 'burbs. Land prices for developable infill locations are off the charts. Areas like South Lamar have more dense multifamily development than this and yes, it has made traffic worse but South Lamar is a much different thoroughfare than MoPac Expressway. The large office component does seem a little strange since all of the office buildings along North MoPac are filled with smaller tenants, not the big full-floor users that lease in the CBD and the southwest/northwest 'burbs buildings. I think it's a shame that we don't have more dense urban centers like Domain and Mueller around town, near the central core. It would make for a more vibrant city.

Edited to add: Yes, I know Mueller and Domain aren't really considered 'dense' but they are more dense and structured and 'urban' than most Austin suburban neighborhoods. It's all we got, folks. So far anyway.

Last edited by AusTxDevelopment; Dec 9, 2014 at 10:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 2:14 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech House View Post
I think it's a terrible location for the development as originally proposed.
It's possibly the best location in the city, transportation wise, for development. Access to the new Mopac toll lanes, and walking distance to one of the lone star rail station locations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 6:30 PM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
With the fresh perspective of a new day, I read the responses and now I'm feeling like, "OK, not such a bad idea." I still think going too tall (say, more than 8-10 floors?) would look odd in that context. I need to go poke around there and visualize it. Also, I'm just spouting off on aesthetics and am fully aware that it's purely subjective. I wish the city would ban, or at least put a moratorium on, "wall buildings" such as the Marriott, Fairmont, 5th and Brazos, and others. I'd take a quintet of Austonians at Mopac and Spicewood if it would prevent any more of those massive view-obscuring vertical card decks from being built in the CBD. We need more classic skyscrapers, which I guess are what you call point towers. If Frost Bank qualifies as a point tower then that's what I mean, but taller. Again, just spewing my preferences all up in this place. And yes, the Marriott looks great in spite of being a wall, but I still wish we could avoid that effect of obliterating all variety of features over the expanse of entire blocks. Walking by the Marriott on the blank side is creepy, almost dehumanizing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 6:59 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
JW and Fairmont are both giant convention hotels that had to take up an entire block. I don't see that happening too much anymore (at least I hope not).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 5:56 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
The tallest suburban buildings we have now are Pinnacle Campus and Tower of the Hills, which are each around 160 feet. 200 feet is taller than anything outside of downtown, UT and West Campus, plus the Catherine just south of the river. Still, 200 feet versus 225 feet is almost not worth mentioning. It's only about the height of two floors. Size-wise, though, it's probably about 50,000 less square feet since office floors typically have 20 to 25,000 square feet each. I would be less concerned with the height, and more concerned about how squatty the buildings become by having larger footprints to make up for the lost vertical space. This means more impervious coverage.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 9:48 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.