AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[drummer]

I love the way your brain works wwmiv. Cracks me up. Helpful and interesting also. Thanks for that!

[MichaelB]

I do like the idea of some areas of town staying visually connected.
Like the State Cemetery. There is a story that relates those locations.
Others are debatable for me. But that resonates.
It is really cool to be in that Cemetery ... see who was memorialized there... and
see the Capitol. A lot of depth and history there. If you've not done it, perhaps you should before you speak about it.
I agree some coridors are overkill. ( reread that before you attack)
But I don't advocate dismissing the entire concept.
We do live in the Capitol of Texas. It's kinda an important place... and maintaining a sense of "place" is important as well.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Ooooooo. This is a big opportunity, actually, if played right by supporters of density. If I were a smart councilperson, I would help to broker a compromise where we increase height allowance significantly outside of these new CVCs within certain "districts", including the industrial area out by 183. The one that blocks the Brackenridge site, however, can promptly get trashed.

I'd like to see a color gradient map of land use inside all CVCs showing the degree to which each legal parcel is vertically maxed given the CVC(s) each is under. From black (one story) to red (maxed out). I'd also include two opacity levels, where the darker opacity is where the legal parcel's height restriction is governed by the CVC(s) it is under (I.E. that the height restriction from that ordinance is the lowest) and a lighter opacity where the legal parcel's height restriction is governed by some other regulation (I.E. some other regulation has a lower height on that parcel).

I'd also then like to see a map of all land outside of CVCs which would be equivalent to the lighter opacity under the CVCs. In other words, how much is that land currently vertically maxed given whatever height restriction currently exists either directly or indirectly by substantive effect of a statute (for instance, the ratio system Austin uses).

Then, I'd add one other detail to both maps: I'd have thick borders around any legal parcel which has been redeveloped over the last 10 years, because those parcels aren't likely to see any improvements over the near and medium terms.

This would be incredibly useful in actually assessing the development impact of CVCs. If generally we're maxed out under our current height restrictions (I.E. mostly red parcels or parcels outlined in black), regardless whether the operating restriction is from a CVC or not (I.E. across both maps), then I'd oppose new CVCs generally. If we're maxed out underneath the CVCs but not everywhere else downtown generally, then work for a good compromise by calling your city councilperson. But if we're maxing out elsewhere, but NOT underneath the CVCs, this suggests the policy is altogether unwise because it would suggest that the underlying relationship between the CVCs and development is one where CVCs discourage development underneath the CVC altogether because it creates conditions where business perceives uncertainty in government policy on that land.

Let's not kid ourselves. Ora Houston has one real goal: to preserve the low density, single family homes in Austin.

That being said, uncapped heights outside the CVCs is the only thing that will make this suck less.

Does anyone know the actual corridors she's proposing? We should add them to wwmiv's map.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Let's not kid ourselves. Ora Houston has one real goal: to preserve the low density, single family homes in Austin.

That being said, uncapped heights outside the CVCs is the only thing that will make this suck less.

Does anyone know the actual corridors she's proposing? We should add them to wwmiv's map.

"Under Houston’s plan, the new view corridors would slice outward from the Capitol, radiating toward Rosewood Park and onward to Thompson Street; Lott Park; the intersection of Juniper and Navasota streets; a Texas State Cemetery hillside; and the Jackson Moody Building at Huston-Tillotson University."

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...YzDxGPgDQSUbK/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Ooooooo. This is a big opportunity, actually, if played right by supporters of density. If I were a smart councilperson, I would help to broker a compromise where we increase height allowance significantly outside of these new CVCs within certain "districts", including the industrial area out by 183.

Or even simpler, we can add these 5 (or 4, I agree Breckenridge one should FOAD) only if we _remove_ 4 of the existing ones.

After all, if we're doing this in the name of equality, we need to reduce the # of view corridors to the west until they're equal.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Or even simpler, we can add these 5 (or 4, I agree Breckenridge one should FOAD) only if we _remove_ 4 of the existing ones.

After all, if we're doing this in the name of equality, we need to reduce the # of view corridors to the west until they're equal.

Honestly, I'd be fine with keeping just the 360 bridge, Zilker Clubhouse, Lamar Bridge, and Congress CVCs and literally scrapping every other one.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Or even simpler, we can add these 5 (or 4, I agree Breckenridge one should FOAD) only if we _remove_ 4 of the existing ones.

After all, if we're doing this in the name of equality, we need to reduce the # of view corridors to the west until they're equal.

Note that there isn't must a normative claim to equality being made, but a normative claim to the views as well. Thus, of course she's going to want parity at the level currently afforded to certain other areas of town. Ergo, I don't think anybody would want to actually remove corridors that protect emotionally resonant viewpoints and ones that help to define our cityscape, and I generally think we should add more where appropriate. Some of these, though, aren't appropriate.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Let's not kid ourselves. Ora Houston has one real goal: to preserve the low density, single family homes in Austin.

Therefore, making it far more difficult to develop affordable housing. Limiting the development potential of a piece of land in a desired area is only going to drive up the value of surrounding property not encumbered by said restrictions.

The proposed CVC which would run-through the Breckenridge tract is just ludicrous!

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

That being said, uncapped heights outside the CVCs is the only thing that will make this suck less.

"Uncapped heights" is not the problem. It's FAR restrictions. It does not matter that you can build a tower as tall as you want it when the city limits you to a maximum of let's say 500,000 SF, as an example.

FAR limits are what really place a "cap" on height in an "uncapped" area.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

"Uncapped heights" is not the problem. It's FAR restrictions. It does not matter that you can build a tower as tall as you want it when the city limits you to a maximum of let's say 500,000 SF, as an example.

FAR limits are what really place a "cap" on height in an "uncapped" area.

Exactly.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Novacek

"Under Houston’s plan, the new view corridors would slice outward from the Capitol, radiating toward Rosewood Park and onward to Thompson Street; Lott Park; the intersection of Juniper and Navasota streets; a Texas State Cemetery hillside; and the Jackson Moody Building at Huston-Tillotson University."

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...YzDxGPgDQSUbK/

Do we have any real sense about whether this proposal has legs on Council, or if they think it's just as idiotic as we do?

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Let's not kid ourselves. Ora Houston has one real goal: to preserve the low density, single family homes in Austin.

That being said, uncapped heights outside the CVCs is the only thing that will make this suck less.

Does anyone know the actual corridors she's proposing? We should add them to wwmiv's map.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Note that there isn't must a normative claim to equality being made, but a normative claim to the views as well. Thus, of course she's going to want parity at the level currently afforded to certain other areas of town. Ergo, I don't think anybody would want to actually remove corridors that protect emotionally resonant viewpoints and ones that help to define our cityscape, and I generally think we should add more where appropriate. Some of these, though, aren't appropriate.

Preserving capital views from the state cemetery or other iconic locations makes sense to most everyone. It doesn't make sense (IMHO) to preserve views from I-35 or other nondescript locations that don't tie into local/state history, culture or whatnot. They need to be removed. They are doing more harm than good.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Preserving capital views from the state cemetery or other iconic locations makes sense to most everyone. It doesn't make sense (IMHO) to preserve views from I-35 or other nondescript locations that don't tie into local/state history, culture or whatnot. They need to be removed. They are doing more harm than good.

Actually, I disagree about the I-35 views because these views help to define the city as the state capitol for thru-travelers.

[The ATX]

The site plan is out for the extensive redevelopment of the RBJ Center site!

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...reet_PLANS.pdf

[Maximusx1]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The site plan is out for the extensive redevelopment of the RBJ Center site!

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...reet_PLANS.pdf

Thanks for the update. Any idea the unit/resident number increase with this project?

If I were HEB I'd be scrambling to put a store at Waller and Holly to get all these old people plus the new Rainey residents.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Actually, I disagree about the I-35 views because these views help to define the city as the state capitol for thru-travelers.

Fair enough, but it's not like the view would be completely blocked. Passers through would still get glimpses of it. I just think that the huge swath of land that the I-35 view puts into the CVCs is a bit much.

At any rate, if TXDOT goes through with the plan to put I-35 underground, this will pretty much become a moot point.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Fair enough, but it's not like the view would be completely blocked. Passers through would still get glimpses of it. I just think that the huge swath of land that the I-35 view puts into the CVCs is a bit much.

At any rate, if TXDOT goes through with the plan to put I-35 underground, this will pretty much become a moot point.

Agreed. We don't need several blocks of views. Even just a glimpse down the street is fine.
This little sliver in Indy was always sufficient enough to give you the nostalgia feels when driving by the Soldiers and Sailors Monument.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Fair enough, but it's not like the view would be completely blocked. Passers through would still get glimpses of it. I just think that the huge swath of land that the I-35 view puts into the CVCs is a bit much.

At any rate, if TXDOT goes through with the plan to put I-35 underground, this will pretty much become a moot point.

This... 35 will be underground lol.

[wwmiv]

Well, when I-35 is put underground, perhaps it would be wise to create a CVC to some particular vantage of the capped park so that there is a preserved view?

[The ATX]

There is a little more info attached to the 425 Riverside site plan. This is the "Hooters PUD". The project has a total of 305,000 sq ft., and they are looking for a 190' height limit. That height appears to be for a 14-story office building.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=664784