AUSTIN | Loren Hotel & Condos (211 S. Lamar) | 104 FEET | 8 FLOORS | U/C

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

OK.... can;t take this any more.

The Sunlight Argument is silly and distorts other issues. I hate it when folks give forums like this fodder for un-empathetic analysis of real issues for living in an urban setting. (Well, somewhat Urban. Bridges is not downtown, but a near neigborhood that we are hoping will develope in a more urban way.)

Underdstand I fully feel folks have to do thier due diligence about what can be built around them. Then I feel there is a reasonable expectation to rely on that zoning for a reasonable amount of time. Speaking of which , they should be thankful to ZACH for fighting the zoning battle in that area. BTW... the plans for the ZACH building were well in place before bridges was build. If not for Zach fighting that battle years before, Bridges and the apparment accross the street would have had a harder time being built. So there is a double standard at play there. Why should they complain about a building that was planned long before Bridges? Funny how opions change when someone does not like the aesthetic of something.

My bigger concern is what this is doing to Paggi house. I hate seeing that rare setting along the lake go away. The folks at Bridges are probably trying to save the stmosphere around the building. I don't blame them, Paggi house and the view of the lake is one of the best aminities around them. But the argument they are using is absurd.

I will also say, everyone there knew that there was a phase 2 to the building. Dose 2 floors make that much difference? Probaly not. It depends on proximity. I think there is just a misguided group leading the fight. I know when we had a construction battle near our building I wanted to tape many a mouth shut of people who were making stupid arguments and costing us support.

So the question for me is...where is any sense of empathy? .. would you do the same if someone changed what could be built next to your house? If you are a homeowner you bet your ass you would if you though it would change your property value. Folks downtown have the same set of issues and should not be blown off because it is "down town". Do you want an urban setting or not? if so, then resepect that there are real issues that come with that, and it is not just a free for all of development. Does this one fit into this category? I'm not sure, but we really have to not become the same predictable un-empathectic commnity that is the opposite but equally quilty one of the NA's "we" so love to blast.

I will say again, due diligence is needed. I knew exactly what could and could not be built around me when I bought. You wnat to try and change those rules and affect my property value, then you can bet you will not only have a fight on your hands, but I have every right to do so. Vertical communities have the same rights as horizontal ones. Address the real issues of urban development and not just a simple battle cry of "MORE>>>>> TALLER>>!!!!!!

Rant over.

I see your point, and even occasionally side with an NA here and there, but many of them - Zilker, Bouldin, and South River City in particular. have earned my ire. Jeff Jack, the power behind Zilker for years, is one of the most destructive forces in Austin, IMHO. He's basically against any density or VMU anywhere, ever. The hypocrisy and elitism of Bouldin NA is mind-boggling. Not to mention, if they had fought for light rail, we might have it now. The second I disagreed with any bit of Bouldin orthodoxy, I was personally attacked - my character, my motivations, etc., anything but the substance of my argument. So, yeah, I did lose my empathy for them...

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by tildahat

I see your point, and even occasionally side with an NA here and there, but many of them - Zilker, Bouldin, and South River City in particular. have earned my ire. Jeff Jack, the power behind Zilker for years, is one of the most destructive forces in Austin, IMHO. He's basically against any density or VMU anywhere, ever. The hypocrisy and elitism of Bouldin NA is mind-boggling. Not to mention, if they had fought for light rail, we might have it now. The second I disagreed with any bit of Bouldin orthodoxy, I was personally attacked - my character, my motivations, etc., anything but the substance of my argument. So, yeah, I did lose my empathy for them...

yup, Jeff Jack is a total Nut Job. He almost single handed stopped Zach from being built. The thing is, there is good and bad in each. Just as there is good and bad growth and development. It's about finding "reasonable".
Also, I have just found on here that too many times the folks that think they want "dense downtown development" don't live here and don't really face the issues and just blurt our very un-empathtic responses. The same issues apply everywhere .... vertical or horizontal !!! LOL!

[KevinFromTexas]

So exactly what is wrong with the development then? If it's an argument about light then they don't have one. I pretty much proved that the new building won't block the light, and might even reflect more of it back, which would be a whole other issue of glare.

Anyway, I'm sure these downtown/urban residences still get way more sunlight than most of the apartment complexes around town do. Most of the old apartment complexes in Austin have only a couple of windows. I remember the first apartment my brother moved into only had two windows.

I just wish people didn't go at it like a rabid dog. They should study the developments more closely and actually think about exactly how a new development will affect an area. Look into the sunlight angle and shadow studies the developer is doing, request that information. And in this day and age it's easy to do a little homework of your own with programs like Google Maps and Google Earth. You can measure building heights, topography elevations, sunlight angles and areas of shadow and also sight lines. Let's say you're wanting a unit in a complex that faces the hills. It's easy to draw a line connecting those two points. You could then go along that line to see if anything would block the view. There's even a feature that allows you to see the view from near the ground level so that you could see if anything will block the view. I've used the feature many times when I was scouting out a place to take skyline photos. I've used it many times when I had found a photo of a view I liked and wanted to go see the view myself and photograph it, but I wasn't sure where it was taken. I used it just recently to take some photos of the skyline from a place that I'd been wanting to see for a longtime.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

OK.... can;t take this any more.

The Sunlight Argument is silly and distorts other issues. I hate it when folks give forums like this fodder for un-empathetic analysis of real issues for living in an urban setting. (Well, somewhat Urban. Bridges is not downtown, but a near neigborhood that we are hoping will develope in a more urban way.)

Underdstand I fully feel folks have to do thier due diligence about what can be built around them. Then I feel there is a reasonable expectation to rely on that zoning for a reasonable amount of time. Speaking of which , they should be thankful to ZACH for fighting the zoning battle in that area. BTW... the plans for the ZACH building were well in place before bridges was build. If not for Zach fighting that battle years before, Bridges and the apparment accross the street would have had a harder time being built. So there is a double standard at play there. Why should they complain about a building that was planned long before Bridges? Funny how opions change when someone does not like the aesthetic of something.

My bigger concern is what this is doing to Paggi house. I hate seeing that rare setting along the lake go away. The folks at Bridges are probably trying to save the stmosphere around the building. I don't blame them, Paggi house and the view of the lake is one of the best aminities around them. But the argument they are using is absurd.

I will also say, everyone there knew that there was a phase 2 to the building. Dose 2 floors make that much difference? Probaly not. It depends on proximity. I think there is just a misguided group leading the fight. I know when we had a construction battle near our building I wanted to tape many a mouth shut of people who were making stupid arguments and costing us support.

So the question for me is...where is any sense of empathy? .. would you do the same if someone changed what could be built next to your house? If you are a homeowner you bet your ass you would if you though it would change your property value. Folks downtown have the same set of issues and should not be blown off because it is "down town". Do you want an urban setting or not? if so, then resepect that there are real issues that come with that, and it is not just a free for all of development. Does this one fit into this category? I'm not sure, but we really have to not become the same predictable un-empathectic commnity that is the opposite but equally quilty one of the NA's "we" so love to blast.

I will say again, due diligence is needed. I knew exactly what could and could not be built around me when I bought. You wnat to try and change those rules and affect my property value, then you can bet you will not only have a fight on your hands, but I have every right to do so. Vertical communities have the same rights as horizontal ones. Address the real issues of urban development and not just a simple battle cry of "MORE>>>>> TALLER>>!!!!!!

Rant over.

I'll just say that cities aren't museums (or at least shouldn't be until they've reached their zenith). Zoning can't be so static that it prevents a city from evolving to the point it can be great. If there is no mechanism for adjusting zoning over the years then it becomes a parcel by parcel ad hoc procedure and leads to battle after battle after battle.

When Austin is Rome or Paris, I'll through my hat in with the lot who say want to preserve it. Until then - that project looks like a substantial upgrade over the drive in Taco Cabana w/ surface parking lot steps from the shores of Town Lake, the pedestrian bridge and the hike and bike.

[KevinFromTexas]

I actually really could go for a couple of tacos right about now. I just wish these businesses could be included with the new developments that are replacing them.

[ivanwolf]

KVUE had an interview with a resident last night on the show. The resident complained that the light blocked would be from the north facing windows of the hallway corridor and that it would be dark in the hallway. She also stated that the east facing residents that have some north views would loose a percentage of their view north that they paid more for (likely from balconies).

http://www.kvue.com/video?id=197241301&sec=551077

http://www.kvue.com/home/Battle-ove-197241301.html

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

KVUE had an interview with a resident last night on the show. The resident complained that the light blocked would be from the north facing windows of the hallway corridor and that it would be dark in the hallway. She also stated that the east facing residents that have some north views would loose a percentage of their view north that they paid more for (likely from balconies).

http://www.kvue.com/video?id=197241301&sec=551077

http://www.kvue.com/home/Battle-ove-197241301.html

It seems clear to me that a nice condo development on the Taco Cabana corner is going to be good for property values in the adjacent condo building because the increased density will lead to more amenities and a nicer pedestrian atmosphere in the area. A darkened hallway near the elevators is a small price to pay for the overall improvement that will take place just outside the building.

[KevinFromTexas]

"Darkened hallway" Does Bridges on the Park not have electricity? That hallway didn't even have to have windows. A lot of hotels don't. Most of the time those windows are only placed near elevator banks to give you something to at (out) while you're waiting for the elevator to come up.

As for the light being blocked from the east residences, it'll be no worse than the light being blocked on the north residences wall on the right side of the building since the building itself creates some shade and shadow by blocking the sun.

Like I said, if anything the south wall of the new building will probably reflect a lot of sunlight back at Bridges on the Park and will actually make some of those units brighter inside. And anyway, those units in Bridges on the Park on the east side of the building in that little notch where the building turns are really dark.

I hope the developer does some models to put forth their plan to show the residences how little it'll block the views/light.

[The ATX]

No empathy from me whatsoever. I wish my next door neighbor would give a shit about her yard - it detracts from my property. But it's her yard. Oh well.

[MichaelB]

well, so much for community.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

well, so much for community.

I take it from your response that your idea of community is everybody acquiescing to the loudest neighbors.

[alwaysmiling]

Re-tarded

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by alwaysmiling

Re-tarded

Can you expand on that there post #1 of yours?

[alwaysmiling]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Can you expand on that there post #1 of yours?

sure thing HIll Country!. I watched the news link and the chick complaining about the light obstruction in the hallway, the one who actually showed her face on the news to complain about it, when she said herself that anyone that buys downtown is risking having their view built over, yeah that girl... she is upset and perhaps I can understand why slightly (nah maybe not), well anywa,y she is, or at least her arguement is, RE-TARDED.

(and for the record I've been an avid reader for years of the Skyscraper forum, and I'm in Costa Rica because we're renting out our house for sxsw, and have no TV in our cabina by the beach, so the forum has been a major source of fending off the home sickness and keeping up with all the developments and goings-on) I decided I had to finally had to join because waiting around for one of y'all to post was making myself feel RE-TARDED.. and apologies if that is not a PC word these days...

...to yourself and all the people who have always posted pics and made me laugh, think, and conversate

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by alwaysmiling

sure thing HIll Country!. I watched the news link and the chick complaining about the light obstruction in the hallway, the one who actually showed her face on the news to complain about it, when she said herself that anyone that buys downtown is risking having their view built over, yeah that girl... she is upset and perhaps I can understand why slightly (nah maybe not), well anywa,y she is, or at least her arguement is, RE-TARDED.

(and for the record I've been an avid reader for years of the Skyscraper forum, and I'm in Costa Rica because we're renting out our house for sxsw, and have no TV in our cabina by the beach, so the forum has been a major source of fending off the home sickness and keeping up with all the developments and goings-on) I decided I had to finally had to join because waiting around for one of y'all to post was making myself feel RE-TARDED.. and apologies if that is not a PC word these days...

...to yourself and all the people who have always posted pics and made me laugh, think, and conversate

OK. "Retarded" isn't hyphenated by the way.

[ivanwolf]

One thing I noticed is that I was assuming that the Paggi House was staying and so was its parking. These renders that are horrible by the way because the don't really show the Bridges project correctly. If this project only took over the Taco Cabana things would be ok but with taking the entire space I could see those that are at the north end a little upset even thought they knew it was possible.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

well, so much for community.

Here's and example of why I simply can't take the ANC types seriously. One of the things they are complaining about is that the developer is apparently claiming the balconies as "open space". Now that does seem like BS on the face of it. But then why does every parcel need to have an open space requirement? That doesn't really make any sense. Good open green space is a larger space available to people from multiple residences. In some cases maybe a pocket park, or in this case freakin' Town Lake park. The open space requirement for a specific small parcel really only makes sense if your goal is to block any and all density and yet sound "green" while doing it. Which is exactly what these people are up to.

For me it's like in politics. If someone says, well, I generally believe in small government, and here's how that translates into policy, I can have a rational respectful conversation with them even though I'm much more at the social democrat end of the spectrum. But if they've just spent 20 minutes ranting and raving about how Obama is a Kenyan Muslim communist who wants to destroy America and thrown some racially inflammatory remarks in there to boot, I'm not even going to try. And that's basically how I feel about the neighborhood groups in Austin at this point. They have to show me that they've become rational, good faith actors again before I bother with them.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by tildahat

I'm much more at the social democrat end of the spectrum

As a political scientist, just a note for those who don't know what this means:

A social democrat is a culturally conservative version of moderate socialism that is prevalent in western and northern European countries. Adherent parties typically advocate for straight redistributionism, combined with religious and traditional cultural values. Preference for redistributionist policies is usually couched in these same religious iconography and language.

Social democrats are significantly to the left of Democrats (who are liberals, not socialists) on economic policy, yet usually to the right of Democrats on social policy.

I bring this up only because I don't think you meant this at all, given the context of your previous comments and this comment itself. I.E. you probably aren't a social democrat at all. Feel free to message me privately to discuss your views further and locate a more appropriate classifier.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

As a political scientist, just a note for those who don't know what this means:

A social democrat is a culturally conservative version of moderate socialism that is prevalent in western and northern European countries. Adherent parties typically advocate for straight redistributionism, combined with religious and traditional cultural values. Preference for redistributionist policies is usually couched in these same religious iconography and language.

Social democrats are significantly to the left of Democrats (who are liberals, not socialists) on economic policy, yet usually to the right of Democrats on social policy.

I bring this up only because I don't think you meant this at all, given the context of your previous comments and this comment itself. I.E. you probably aren't a social democrat at all. Feel free to message me privately to discuss your views further and locate a more appropriate classifier.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of *Christian Democrat*? I simply don't agree that social conservatism is a necessary part of being a social democrat. I'd define social democrat as someone who philosophically comes from the socialist tradition but in practice accepts a regulated marked economy with a generous welfare state.

But, for purposes of this discussion I should have just said liberal or progressive. (And for that matter my point probably could have been made with an example from the other end of the spectrum anyway...)

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by tildahat

Are you sure you aren't thinking of *Christian Democrat*? I simply don't agree that social conservatism is a necessary part of being a social democrat. I'd define social democrat as someone who philosophically comes from the socialist tradition but in practice accepts a regulated marked economy with a generous welfare state.

But, for purposes of this discussion I should have just said liberal or progressive. (And for that matter my point probably could have been made with an example from the other end of the spectrum anyway...)

Christian democrats are a subset of social democrats, which emphasize the cultural and religious more than other social democratic ideologies.