HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 2:43 AM
427MM's Avatar
427MM 427MM is offline
Love Austin
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,238
Wow, I really dig that tower. When I saw it in the paper, I know my heart skipped a beat. So, we are to have around 20,000+ living in DT by 2015. For this to happen, can we really afford create a boundary starting south of this location? The area bounded by Spring to the SW, Altavida to the SE, and X and Y both to the north, is amazing at the moment. To not allow this tower the zoning it requires would be on the verge of criminal. At the design meeting in question, a woman came before the commission and said that this tower should not be allowed because it emulates one of Dallas’ biggest problems “vertical sprawl”. This comment was immediately met with some scoffing – deservingly so IMO. I’m so glad that we have Will Wynn as the Mayor right now because he knows just how right towers like this are for the city. I will admit that this is the limit, and would not support anything this tall one or two blocks north, but this is perfect for this location. We cannot afford to fall off track right now. This area could very well be the liveliest in Texas within the decade; I’m knocking on some oak at the moment.
__________________
How long will Austinites tolerate NIMBY politicians?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 6:57 AM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg View Post
At the design meeting in question, a woman came before the commission and said that this tower should not be allowed because it emulates one of Dallas’ biggest problems “vertical sprawl”.
Wow. And all along I thought the Dallas problem was its proximity to the 33N Latitude and its ever expanding sprawl. I had no idea that Dallas was so vertically challenged.

Does anyone know how big of a suburb would fit into the DFW airport? It would be nice to relate this footprint to the size of footprint it would take to house the same number of people in multiple 40 story buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 7:21 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
According to Wikipedia.org, DFW Int'l Airport is 18,000 acres making it the largest airport in Texas and the 2nd largest in the US in terms of area. That equates to 28 square miles. About the same area as New Braunfels, Texas which is 29 square miles. Round Rock is a little bit smaller with 26 square miles, yet it has nearly 100,000 people living in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas-...tional_Airport
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 4:48 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
According to Wikipedia.org, DFW Int'l Airport is 18,000 acres making it the largest airport in Texas and the 2nd largest in the US in terms of area. That equates to 28 square miles. About the same area as New Braunfels, Texas which is 29 square miles. Round Rock is a little bit smaller with 26 square miles, yet it has nearly 100,000 people living in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas-...tional_Airport
Wow, and according to http://www.downtownaustin.com/business/demographics/

there are 90,000 employees within a one-mile radius of 6th Street and Congress Avenue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 6:22 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM View Post
I remember looking the tax break up at one point. I recollect (did I spell that right?) it knocking a bit off the appraised value - sorta like the homestead exemption. My friends personal experience was NOT a juicy tax break by any means.
If you live in a real historic house that's valued very high, it's a huge break. Speaking as a guy who lives in a neighborhood with quite a few of them. Knocks the taxable value down to essentially similar to the non-historic houses in the area, which in my neck of the woods are smaller and not as nice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 6:31 PM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,263
I watched the rebroadcast of the Planning Commission Meeting. What with the disscussion and all the speakers and the voting at the end, the whole thing took close to four hours. I tried to take notes and here's some of what I remember.

Groups supporting the project:
  • Downtown Commission
  • Design Commission
  • Downtown Austin Neighborhood Coalition
  • Downtown Austin Neighborhood Alliance
  • West End Austin Alliance
  • Old Austin Neighborhood
  • Caswell Heights Neighborhood Association
  • 5 Rivers Neighborhood Association
  • Central Austin Neighborhood Planning Area
  • University Partners
  • Shoal Creek Neighborhood
  • North University Neighborhood
  • Eastwoods Neighborhood
  • Hancock Neighborhood

Some of the businesses that supported the project included
  • Ranch 616
  • Sovereign Bank
  • ABC Bank
  • Star Bar
  • Hut's Hamburgers
  • Key Bar
  • Aquarelle Restaurant
  • Austin Wine Merchant
  • Book People
  • American Cleaners
  • Waterloo Ice House
  • Waterloo Records
  • Joe's Bar & Grill
  • Wahoo's
  • Little Woodrow
  • Pure Austin
  • GSD&M
  • Whole Foods
  • Frank & Angies
  • Forney's Furniture
  • Hoffbrau Restaurant
  • Comerica Bank

I think four property ownews opposed the project. Milkshake and the Austin Women's Club were two. I can't remember the other two.

The lead speaker in favor of the project (an attorney - can't remember his name) noted that most of the area, south, east and west of the project was zoned CBD, but Capitol View Corridors limited height and this was the one place where something tall could be built.

He said it represented good planning due to:
  • Providing proper density for the area

  • Adding owned residential units (158) to the area

  • Providing density on a transit corridor

  • Providing optimal traffic impact - (garage access for condos on Rio Grande and garage access for retail on 7th and gave Ranch 616 more parking than it has now.) An alley was to be used for service vehicles and dumpsters.

  • Adhering to the city's Great Streets Program (along 7th and Rio Grande.) I think the Great Streets program calls for sidewalks at least 15' wide, (8' for trees and furniture placement like benches, bike racks, etc and a 7' clear zone.) I seem to remember something about this project having sidewalks wider than that. 18' feet at least

  • Preserving Ranch 616

One of the commissioners questioned whether the project was really along a transit corridor because it faced 7th St and not 6th. The attorney said something along the lines of he considered that whole square block along a transit corridor because of 6th street.

He also said they could have the building face 6th and the garage stuck in the back along 7th, but he felt that wouldn't be respectful to the historic neighborhood north of 7th St. He felt it would be better to have a good pedestrian streetscape facing the historic area.

Some commissioners questioned the affordable housing component of the project. The attorney said there probably wouldn't be any affordable housing within the project itself, but they would instead, make a financial contribution towards affordable housing elsewhere.

One of the other commissioners pointed out that the city couldn't legally require a developer to provide affordable housing within their projects and that's why the city had the option to make a contribution towards affordable housing elsewhere. The money could also be used to provide housing vouchers.

There was some question by one of the commissioners as to whether or not the excavation for the underground parking could possibly damage some of the nearby historic structures due to vibration or other factors. The attorney said he didn't think so and they'd done other simialr projects in the same general area such as the Carr-America Bldg.and Austin City Lofts.

He also said if any property owner was concerned that they would do an inspection both before the excavation for the underground parking and after the project was completed to make sure there would be no problems.

The building is supposed to have 2 floors of underground parking, ground floor retail ranging from 18' to 22' in height, 5 floors of above-ground parking and 26 floors of condos. The tower part would be set back at least 15 feet from the base along 7th and Rio Grande..

I think he said 75% of the building front along 7th and also Rio Grande would be pedestrian oriented (retail stores and restaurants and building entrances) and the other 25% would be the 2 entrances to the garage - one for retail and one for condo owners.

There were lots of speakers signed up, mostly in support of the project. One of the commissioners said she couldn't remember another project where they had gotten so many e-mails.

Some of the points the speakers brought up were that
  • The project would reverse a negative trend in that area by bringing people back to the streets. With residents in the tower there would be more "eyes on the street" and the area would be safer. There would be different retail besides the bars and clubs on E. 6th and hopefully not "a lot of drunks."

  • One Austin City Lofts resident said she enjoyed downtown living, but that there was no vitality in the area where this project was being proposed and no real reason to go there, especially at night.

  • The project would redirect growth away from the Barton Creek watershed and improve air and water quality. Suburbanites generate more daily car trips and they're longer car trips to boot.

  • It would add to the tax base downtown. Downtown is the economic engine for the city and the money generated there helps to pay for other projects and services throughout the city. It would add density in a location that already had infrastructure in place.

  • It would be a point tower so it wouldn't obstruct views like a shorter wider tower. As far as neighborhood compatablility, many felt that "hard edges" (tall buildings) across from the hisoric homes was ok. It wasn't so much the height of the building that matter, especially since it's a point tower. It was the street-level experience that mattered.

  • The owner of Austin Wine Merchants said that it would bring more foot traffic to businesses in the area and in his opinion a pedestrian customer was generally a "happier" customer.

Everyone (even those opposing the project) seemed to admire the property owner, Mike McGuiness. One lady said he looked for ways to add to green space and trails, not just in the downtown area, but throughout all areas of the city.

Two ladies from the Austin Womens Club also spoke in favor of the project and one mentioned that there was an official vote but not all members got to vote due to notification problems with many of the members. One lady also mentioned that homeless people slept in their dumpster and sometimes on their front porch and she felt the proposed project would make the area safer and alleviate some of these types of problems.

The side that opposed the project basically felt that it was a good project but just in the wrong place and many of them wanted the Planning Commssion to hold off until the design study being conducted by ROMA was complete, but that's not going to be for another year or so and things like demand and construction costs could change by then.

Their argument for waiting until the ROMA study was complete was that until then, the Planning Commission would be approving projects piecemeal and you'd wind up with a lot of hodge-podge.

The lead speaker (from Milkshake) for the opposing side even had a Lego model of the area (not as good as Kevin's, though ) showing how tall the tower would be in relation to nearby buildings. She seemed to mainly be worried about her view, but if the project were only 120' feet tall, it would still change her view.

In the end, the Commission voted on the project as the developer wanted it, but that proposal failed 5 to 3. What they did pass (DMU with a height limit of 120') passed 6 to 2.

You could tell Commissioner Gallindo (sp?) was really pulling for the taller version of the project. He said that if the developer even chose to go with the shorter version, the street level part probably wouldn't be as nice and Ranch 616 probably wouldn't get to stay. He felt tha by opposing the project, Austin was losing a good opportunity to achieve the sort of project that downtown is hoping for.

Another commissioner stressed that this was only their recommendation and that the final decision was up to the City Council. I think, but am not sure, that the earliest this could go before the City Council is January 25.

That's pretty much all I remember. It's still going to be rebroadcast one more time Mon. morning at 6:00 a.m. if anyone wants to watch/tape it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 6:59 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post
...Another commissioner stressed that this was only their recommendation and that the final decision was up to the City Council. I think, but am not sure, that the earliest this could go before the City Council is January 25....
Thanks for doing that Mike!

Yes, PC Chairperson Sullivan was the one who stressed that this was only a recommendation. He actually was the last one to vote against the CBD-CURE-CO zoning request. Funny... I was rather surprised that he did. He usually is one of the three who are almost always in favor of dense developments in downtown. The others are Riley & Galindo.

Also, you are correct...this case is slated to go before City Council on Jan. 25. I would be surprised if the developer (CLB Partners) does not fight the DMU recommendation. In most cases, developers ask for more than they need. However, it's usually not more than 10% or 15% lower than what they were originally asking.

In this case, to make this project viable (and without actual financial statements to go by), the project would need to have at least 134-142 units (down from the original 158) to remain viable.

And to give you all an idea; The Austin City Lofts is almost a city block long, one-fourth of a block wide, 176 ft. tall and contains 84 units. Additionally, The Nokonah is also a city block long, half a block wide, 126 ft. tall and contains 99 units.

Both projects are smaller in total number of units, taller than DMU zoning would allow and have larger footprints than the proposed project at 7th & Rio Grande.
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 974,447 +1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,421,115 +6.03% - '20-'22
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909 +2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,655,342 +3.80% - '20-'22
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,076,457 +4.85% - '20-'22 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2009, 12:11 AM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 346
Back on Track?

This project has submitted (re-submitted?) for site plan. I take that as a good sign. I think once the credit markets open up, there will be a mad rush of previously proposed projects trying to break ground first. According to our former Mayor, there are only 400 unsold condo units Downtown, and no more likely to make it to the market for the next 5 years!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2009, 3:08 AM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 3,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
This project has submitted (re-submitted?) for site plan. I take that as a good sign. I think once the credit markets open up, there will be a mad rush of previously proposed projects trying to break ground first. According to our former Mayor, there are only 400 unsold condo units Downtown, and no more likely to make it to the market for the next 5 years!
that is good news
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2009, 3:21 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
That's funny. I was just thinking of this tower the other day and wondering if it would be built. I still have my Lego model of it that I built for one of the developers.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2009, 3:03 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
This project has submitted (re-submitted?) for site plan. I take that as a good sign. I think once the credit markets open up, there will be a mad rush of previously proposed projects trying to break ground first. According to our former Mayor, there are only 400 unsold condo units Downtown, and no more likely to make it to the market for the next 5 years!
It is difficult to imagine this project making it back through the gauntlet now that the area near Lamar is proposed for much lower heights, and you-know-who is on the council and you-know-who-else is on the BoA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2009, 9:37 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
According to our former Mayor, there are only 400 unsold condo units Downtown, and no more likely to make it to the market for the next 5 years!
I heard that too. I might buy that stat, but I'm not buying the rumors that the condo market is dead. That is simply short term thinking. This is one of the most awesome cities in the U.S. and is only getting better. There are tons of people who continue to come in from Houston and Dallas and once they hang out here a while figure out that D.T. Austin is second to not too many other places in the U.S.


BTW - Awesome news on the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2009, 12:27 AM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
It is difficult to imagine this project making it back through the gauntlet now that the area near Lamar is proposed for much lower heights, and you-know-who is on the council and you-know-who-else is on the BoA.
Sorry, but I feel compelled to respond to this to correct several inaccuracies. My intention is not to attack anybody's credibility, I merely wish to foster greater understanding of the issues.

1. This project already has a site and project specific zoning ordinance under the CURE overlay. I am fairly certain that is considered an entitlement under State grandfathering laws and would trump any potential changes to zoning through the Downtown Plan. Perhaps the Lorax could provide a better legal analysis?

2. The site is in a district of the proposed Density Bonus Program that would allow 15:1 FAR and 400' maximum height. That is greater than the 11:1 FAR and 400' height of the current zoning.

3. If the developers chose to enter the Density Bonus Program (to say, increase the FAR to 15:1), it would be administratively approved (that means by City staff - like a site plan) and would never even be seen by the you-know-who twins.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2009, 1:59 AM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O View Post
Sorry, but I feel compelled to respond to this to correct several inaccuracies. My intention is not to attack anybody's credibility, I merely wish to foster greater understanding of the issues.

1. This project already has a site and project specific zoning ordinance under the CURE overlay. I am fairly certain that is considered an entitlement under State grandfathering laws and would trump any potential changes to zoning through the Downtown Plan. Perhaps the Lorax could provide a better legal analysis?

2. The site is in a district of the proposed Density Bonus Program that would allow 15:1 FAR and 400' maximum height. That is greater than the 11:1 FAR and 400' height of the current zoning.

3. If the developers chose to enter the Density Bonus Program (to say, increase the FAR to 15:1), it would be administratively approved (that means by City staff - like a site plan) and would never even be seen by the you-know-who twins.
Awesome facts H20 - Thanks for the technical analysis.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2009, 6:46 PM
The Lorax The Lorax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 67
I don't know all the facts regarding this project, but grandfathering is only triggered by the filing of a permit on a project that remains in progress (there's a whole body of law on what constitutes a "permit", a "project" and "progress")-- don't know if this has happened on this project. Also, zoning itself is not protected by grandfathering (this is considered a legislative power by a municipality, and they retain the right to downzone or upzone at any time, in conformance with other regulations), but some regulations that are granted with zoning may be subject to grandfathering -- regulations impacting open space, lot size, lot dimensions, lot coverage or building size. Clear as mud?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2009, 7:58 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O View Post
Sorry, but I feel compelled to respond to this to correct several inaccuracies. My intention is not to attack anybody's credibility, I merely wish to foster greater understanding of the issues.

1. This project already has a site and project specific zoning ordinance under the CURE overlay. I am fairly certain that is considered an entitlement under State grandfathering laws and would trump any potential changes to zoning through the Downtown Plan. Perhaps the Lorax could provide a better legal analysis?

2. The site is in a district of the proposed Density Bonus Program that would allow 15:1 FAR and 400' maximum height. That is greater than the 11:1 FAR and 400' height of the current zoning.

3. If the developers chose to enter the Density Bonus Program (to say, increase the FAR to 15:1), it would be administratively approved (that means by City staff - like a site plan) and would never even be seen by the you-know-who twins.
4. Among other problems with your blithe dismissal, Laura Morrison will not let even a valid site plan or zoning entitlements stand in the way of an attempt to stop this building. She was for the RG4N idiots, remember.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2009, 9:21 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
4. Among other problems with your blithe dismissal, Laura Morrison will not let even a valid site plan or zoning entitlements stand in the way of an attempt to stop this building. She was for the RG4N idiots, remember.
I wouldn't say it was blithe dismissal. au contraire, I thought it was respectful and well thought. H20 provides information that some of us may not thought of or been aware, and it gives hope that this project could proceed. Frankly, I need that right now, because as a citizen of Austin, I'm really tired of these knee-jerk mindless reactions of "no-height here" chanting. The Lorax indicates that there may be merit to what H2O said. Lets hope there is, because that area is nothing but business and pavement, and could use some life other than cars moving by at 55 mph. Not to mention the jobs that would be created by such a project.

Is this what Laura Morrison has become? A job killer? I guess that's ok, because she has one, for now.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2009, 10:17 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
Morrison is so annoying. Every time I send a letter about anything she never bothers to reply especially when it comes to supporting density but I do get letters from other council members. Not all the time but I guess when they have the time to do so.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2009, 10:21 PM
The Lorax The Lorax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 67
Let's keep this in perspective -- if they are submitting a site plan that conforms with the existing zoning and any covenants with the City, it gets approved administratively. There's no review by BOA, a land use commission, or Council.

CM Morrison (prior to election to Council) supported a lawsuit brought by the RG4N group which challenged the conformity of the site plan with the zoning granted for a Wal-Mart on Burnet and Anderson. The group lost on summary judgment, if I remember correctly.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding how CM Morrison could have any impact on this project . . . unless the applicant needs to modify their zoning and/or their site plan such to go beyond the allowed 'replacement site plan' amendments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2009, 11:10 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
"The Lorax", Morrison and her ilk at the ANC and RG4N wanted the city council to deny the site plan for the Wal-Mart project, mainly because they didn't like the tenant, even though the zoning entitlements were crystal clear. You don't need to educate me on that matter; I was here posting on it voluminously at the time, among other places. She ran for, and won a seat on, the city council on a platform of stopping projects like 7Rio (her campaign ads used a bad rendering of the Green redevelopment to try to scare the old hippies into thinking the condo monster was devouring their city). Morrison was heavily, heavily endorsed by RG4N.

I see no evidence since then that she has become more mature, less reactionary, or more reasonable. Have you?

As for "how could she have any impact on this project" - are you kidding me? She could stop the project dead in its tracks if she got a couple more councilmembers on her side. Yes, the city would lose, eventually, in court, since, just like Wal-Mart's project, the law would be clear (assuming what H20 says is the actual complete truth; I doubt it's anywhere near that cut-and-dry). But, still, you don't think she'd do it? Really?
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 12:51 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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