AUSTIN | Waterloo Park Central (HealthSouth site) | 37 Floors x2 | Cancelled - Page 4

Jdawgboy · #61 Posted **Feb 15, 2017, 5:07 PM**

I have a solution! Instead of 40 story buildings have 2 towers one 70 stories and the other 80 stories...

Sure we have CVCs but let's take advantage of that like other developers have such as 360, Independent and others. Build up up up. We keep getting buildings capped between 30 and 40 floors on sites that have no height limit. Its a waste imo. If we are going to push density then we need to push 50 floors or more and if a CVC lies over a lot then all the more reason to build taller. Now I know there are other economical and expense factors for doing that but we seriously need to break through those barriers if we are to get to the next level.

wwmiv · #62 Posted **Feb 15, 2017, 5:10 PM**

Well, the request for unlimited height was ironically prescient of them...

Jdawgboy · #63 Posted **Feb 15, 2017, 5:28 PM**

Okay just got into the main update thread and if this is a proposed cvc, I'd so no way, not over this tract.

JoninATX · #64 Posted **Feb 15, 2017, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I have a solution! Instead of 40 story buildings have 2 towers one 70 stories and the other 80 stories...

Sure we have CVCs but let's take advantage of that like other developers have such as 360, Independent and others. Build up up up. We keep getting buildings capped between 30 and 40 floors on sites that have no height limit. Its a waste imo. If we are going to push density then we need to push 50 floors or more and if a CVC lies over a lot then all the more reason to build taller. Now I know there are other economical and expense factors for doing that but we seriously need to break through those barriers if we are to get to the next level.

Thank you! It's mind boogling why developers don't push the height limit to the max in some of these areas that are not under the CVC. For instance the parking lot behind AMLI, a tower could rise 1,000ft+ in that particular spot.

jbssfelix · #65 Posted **Feb 16, 2017, 1:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoninATX

Thank you! It's mind boogling why developers don't push the height limit to the max in some of these areas that are not under the CVC. For instance the parking lot behind AMLI, a tower could rise 1,000ft+ in that particular spot.

I believe that parking lot is being looked at by TravCo for a govt building.

GoldenBoot · #66 Posted **Feb 16, 2017, 5:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

I believe that parking lot is being looked at by TravCo for a govt building.

No. They are selling it to a developer. Negotiations have already commenced.

jbssfelix · #67 Posted **Feb 16, 2017, 6:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

No. They are selling it to a developer. Negotiations have already commenced.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Glad to know it still has potential.

wwmiv · #68 Posted **Feb 16, 2017, 10:08 PM**

There's no such thing as unlimited height in Austin, because we use FAR restrictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoninATX

Thank you! It's mind boogling why developers don't push the height limit to the max in some of these areas that are not under the CVC. For instance the parking lot behind AMLI, a tower could rise 1,000ft+ in that particular spot.

Urbannizer · #69 Posted **Feb 17, 2017, 10:50 PM**

Plan advances to create more Capitol View Corridors in Austin — with major exception

Quote:

Controversial plans to create new Capitol View Corridors, which would significantly shape development in East Austin, are moving ahead — with one major exception. The corridor that would affect the redevelopment of the Brackenridge hospital site is on hold for now at Austin City Council City's direction.

Council voted Thursday evening to direct staff to study creating four corridors that slice east of the Texas Capitol, while delaying action on the Brackenridge corridor. The Capitol View Corridors are invisible lines drawn years ago that restrict building heights in order to preserve views of the Capitol building from various parts of town.

The vote to move ahead with four corridors was unanimous while the amendment excluding the Brackenridge corridor was approved 8-3. The corridor affecting Brackenridge will be considered again by Council on March 2.

wwmiv · #70 Posted **Feb 17, 2017, 10:57 PM**

That's a positive sign.

That's my map they linked, to btw.

drummer · #71 Posted **Feb 18, 2017, 5:30 AM**

That is positive, all things considered.

GoldenBoot · #72 Posted **Feb 18, 2017, 9:35 PM**

Positive...possibly. However, they should have just killed that specific CVC proposal. This now will more than likely delay Central Health's ability to move forward with their RFPs. They were going to begin that process late this month/early next month.

KevinFromTexas · #73 Posted **Feb 18, 2017, 10:59 PM**

Would this affect the Trump Hotel? Man, I'd love to see that showdown.

EDIT: It will. Two of the proposed corridors would go right over the site. I wonder how that would play out. Serious question, of course.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...185864487&z=18

The ATX · #74 Posted **Feb 18, 2017, 11:10 PM**

Whatever the Trump/Scion/Waterloo Park hotel tower project turns out to be, it seems like it would be grandfathered in since the site plan application was filed a long time ago. But that would make the proposed CVC pointless because the view would be blocked. But it has been clear from the beginning that the purpose of the new CVCs is only to block new construction east of I-35 and the Scion project is on the west side.

GoldenBoot · #75 Posted **Feb 18, 2017, 11:10 PM**

Question (and I know this is the wrong place): After reviewing the CVC map, how will current CVCs affect the location of the new UT basketball arena?

GoldenBoot · #76 Posted **Feb 18, 2017, 11:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Whatever the Trump/Scion/Waterloo Park hotel tower project turns out to be, it seems like it would be grandfathered in since the site plan application was filed a long time ago. But that would make the proposed CVC pointless because the view would be blocked.

Very true. I also think there will be huge political pressure to squash the one cutting through Central Health's Brack campus.

wwmiv · #77 Posted **Feb 18, 2017, 11:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Whatever the Trump/Scion/Waterloo Park hotel tower project turns out to be, it seems like it would be grandfathered in since the site plan application was filed a long time ago.

I don't think this would be the case.

ATXPhil · #78 Posted **Feb 19, 2017, 2:59 AM**

This is yet another loss for dense high-rise development efforts in this city (delayed CodeNext drafts was a blow that probably kept at least a few taller towers from getting approved during this cycle due to the current FAR restrictions). I'm beyond fed up with our meddling city council. They are such idiots.

If the Scion hotel proposed at 32-33 stories gets blocked (and any other towers that have been proposed or could have been built in these proposed CVCs) that is a loss. If the site plan was already approved then I hope the city gets sued. City council never stops talking about affordability but then ties up proposals that would give much needed supply to keep rents & home prices closer to equilibrium in permitting review for over a year in most cases (NO other major city in Texas does this). Oh, that's right, now as a developer you can pay a large fee to have permitting review expidited. On top of having to contribute to various politically-interests (like Parks & Rec or Aff Housing) if you're not developing Apartments, in which case now you have to include at least 10% of units at less than market rate or you won't even get approved. It is basically bribery and extortion....just to accomplish what is set out in the city's master plan anyway. Ridiculous!!!

The ATX · #79 Posted **Feb 19, 2017, 3:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATXPhil

This is yet another loss for dense high-rise development efforts in this city (delayed CodeNext drafts was a blow that probably kept at least a few taller towers from getting approved during this cycle due to the current FAR restrictions). I'm beyond fed up with our meddling city council. They are such idiots.

If the Scion hotel proposed at 32-33 stories gets blocked (and any other towers that have been proposed or could have been built in these proposed CVCs) that is a loss. If the site plan was already approved then I hope the city gets sued. City council never stops talking about affordability but then ties up proposals that would give much needed supply to keep rents & home prices closer to equilibrium in permitting review for over a year in most cases (NO other major city in Texas does this). Oh, that's right, now as a developer you can pay a large fee to have permitting review expidited. On top of having to contribute to various politically-interests (like Parks & Rec or Aff Housing) if you're not developing Apartments, in which case now you have to include at least 10% of units at less than market rate or you won't even get approved. It is basically bribery and extortion....just to accomplish what is set out in the city's master plan anyway. Ridiculous!!!

ATXPhil · #80 Posted **Feb 19, 2017, 3:41 AM**

For those of you wondering:

There are already over 30 defined CVCs, only 4 of which were put in place by the State of Texas, all others by the City of Austin.

Related story demonstrating the truly unbelievable incompetence of our council members:

Some of you may remember that the water intake facility constructed for the Waller Creek Tunnel near Waterloo Park/12th Street was approved by council, then well into construction it was later determined that the height of the facility would block a CVC so they delayed the project by over a year and spent a bunch of taxpayer money fixing their own mistake.

WHY DO WE KEEP RE-ELECTING THESE F****** MORONS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?