Austin | River Park - 4700 Riverside (Formerly Project Catalyst) | Proposed

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

I'm with you. Hot garbage. I've toured them. The finish out is shit. Not 4 sides brick. Once the neighborhood fills in, it should look better, but it really needs to be in a mega-dense area.

Not a bad concept, but the execution sounds sloppy. I like that they are built to the street. I have not been by there. Is parking in the rear or what?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

The Domain is a terrible example to follow for urban planning. I'm really hoping this project builds actual city streets and incorporates with the rest of the city grid, instead of closing itself off like the Domain with only a few access points and parking garages galore.

The Domain has all the feeling of a place you go to just for the day, a bubble isolated, before you return to Austin. I'm hoping Catalyst is just a continuation of "Austin."

This property already has access to the extended street grid. You would really just want them to extend Wickersham which they would have to do anyway to give road access to buildings on the northern part of the lot. It would be nice to extend Lakeshore into the property and connect it to Wickersham but it would have to go on top of existing parkland.

We badly need a corridor study of Pleasant Valley from Riverside to 7th. That corridor is already badly congested and it's going to get worse. They need to acquire some ROW at the PV and Cesar intersection and enlarge it considerably. It's going to get worse once the 183 south highway is done and more people are going to be coming down Cesar to turn left.

I think there are enough improvements you can make at the intersections that you don't need to look at widening the actual road. For instance, starting the right lane turn onto Lakeshore WAY earlier and look into taking away some street parking so it can have its own acceleration lane which then merges into the main lane.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Yes, probably at least a decade. We are talking about:
4,709 apartment units
600 hotel rooms
3,987,300 square feet of office space
436,250 square feet of general retail space
60,000 square feet of medical/dental space

Hard to imagine a single lender or developer taking all that on at one time. There will eventually be a master plan or road map, if this thing progresses. Multiple developers will probably share in the building of this thing.

Again, it's smaller than the Domain, which is almost built out at this point (~10 years), and was (after a short while) basically just Endeavor.

It's a nice development, but you're acting like this is some new unprecedented thing.

It's also much smaller than Mueller, and I believe that's been all Catellus so far.


*And that's _if_ they get the max zoning they're asking for (no sure thing) and build out to the max of the traffic analysis they're doing (also not guaranteed).

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by freerover

This property already has access to the extended street grid. You would really just want them to extend Wickersham which they would have to do anyway to give road access to buildings on the northern part of the lot. It would be nice to extend Lakeshore into the property and connect it to Wickersham but it would have to go on top of existing parkland.

We badly need a corridor study of Pleasant Valley from Riverside to 7th. That corridor is already badly congested and it's going to get worse. They need to acquire some ROW at the PV and Cesar intersection and enlarge it considerably. It's going to get worse once the 183 south highway is done and more people are going to be coming down Cesar to turn left.

I think there are enough improvements you can make at the intersections that you don't need to look at widening the actual road. For instance, starting the right lane turn onto Lakeshore WAY earlier and look into taking away some street parking so it can have its own acceleration lane which then merges into the main lane.

The CV/PV intersection seems fixable. What do you think could be done to improve traffic flow between CV and 7th? Seems like that stretch would benefit from some kind of improvements, maybe a turn lane, but there does not seem to be any room there for improvements.

BTW, on the Austin Towers Facebook page there have been a lot of negative comments about Catylist. Most of the concern seems to be the impact of increased traffic on Pleasant Valley. Usually feedback on the Austin Towers Facebook page is quite positive. Pleasant Valley traffic seems to be a hot button issue.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Not a bad concept, but the execution sounds sloppy. I like that they are built to the street. I have not been by there. Is parking in the rear or what?

Here's the ones I'm talking about:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2695...7i13312!8i6656

Overall looks nice in the front. You can sorta see the awful fake stucco panels in the balconies. but...

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2694...7i13312!8i6656

You can somewhat see the awful white paneling job here. It looks just horrid in person. What's worse, they arbitrarily stopped the brick on the side of the building just before the back corner - to it makes the bricks look even more lick-and-stick. Finally, you can sorta see here, the rowhouses step down a hill, but the panels do not follow this stepping down. They just continue straight across.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by austlar1

The CV/PV intersection seems fixable. What do you think could be done to improve traffic flow between CV and 7th? Seems like that stretch would benefit from some kind of improvements, maybe a turn lane, but there does not seem to be any room there for improvements.

Really it's PC/PV that kills the traffic flow between CV and 7th.

How do you propose to fix the CV/PV intersection? I think you need to take some of that bank's parking lot and add a left turn lane outside the regular lanes like at William Cannon and 71 so you can get through more left turns from 183 but I don't know if you have the space and turning radius.

The PV/Riverside recommendation was to get rid of the crossing entirely but there is a new corridor study of PV from Riverside to South Austin that'll probably re-explore the issue.




Also as a reminder, preference (needs council approval) is for the section of Riverside is getting completely rebuilt. Every piece of median, road and sidewalk that you see from Southshore to Montopolis is being demoed and replaced so this really is the perfect place to put a project like this right now.


This project moving forward only makes the issue of the rebuild of the riverside overpass at 35 that much more important. It was originally suppose to start construction this year, then it got pushed into capital express construction scheduled which then got scrapped. That is going to be one of the biggest issues facing transit in this corridor. The overpass project would allow for longer E/W crossing times by reducing the number of N/S cars at the light by building frontage bypass lanes that travel under the bridge in both directions and a North to South U-Turn lane. The bridge would also add median space for transit bus/rail lanes.

[Jdawgboy]

I think the townhomes near Riverside are being confused with the other ones being mentioned. These don't look like they were built sloppily. Whoever is building them is taking their time and taking steps to preserve existing trees (probably due to city ordinances but still) real brick on the sides. I can't say how they look inside.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I think the townhomes near Riverside are being confused with the other ones being mentioned. These don't look like they were built sloppily. Whoever is building them is taking their time and taking steps to preserve existing trees (probably due to city ordinances but still) real brick on the sides. I can't say how they look inside.

I believe those are the Intown Condos. They are a legit builder.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I think the townhomes near Riverside are being confused with the other ones being mentioned. These don't look like they were built sloppily. Whoever is building them is taking their time and taking steps to preserve existing trees (probably due to city ordinances but still) real brick on the sides. I can't say how they look inside.

Nope. It's definitely the same crappy materials being used on both projects. You can see the same kinds of panels here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2414...7i13312!8i6656

[sammyk]

Same builder, same type of building so same materials.

[78701]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

I'm with you. Hot garbage. I've toured them. The finish out is shit. Not 4 sides brick. Once the neighborhood fills in, it should look better, but it really needs to be in a mega-dense area.

It's a shame - could have been a piece of Portland, ME in Austin (subtract the snow):

[Sigaven]

It's the same story with lots of new construction these days - built to *look* historic, but cheaping out makes it look blatantly and obviously NOT historic, and tacky instead.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

It's the same story with lots of new construction these days - built to *look* historic, but cheaping out makes it look blatantly and obviously NOT historic, and tacky instead.

Probably because most historic stuff was built one-by-one, like that picture in Maine. Whereas this is built to look historic, but at the end it's still just a dozen identical buildings lined up against one another.

[78701]

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

Probably because most historic stuff was built one-by-one, like that picture in Maine. Whereas this is built to look historic, but at the end it's still just a dozen identical buildings lined up against one another.

Yes, that. But it's fiendishly hard to compose varied historic-looking buildings without making them look tacky. in the end, maybe identical-looking is a safer choice.
None of which justifies crappy materials.

[corvairkeith]

The apartment across the street from Fifth and West do a decent job of making a varied faux-historic streetscape.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

The apartment across the street from Fifth and West do a decent job of making a varied faux-historic streetscape.

I'm all for varied-looking streetscapes on buildings but I just think this attempt at faux-historicism is sloppy. Proportions all wonky on classical details, really ruins the look of the building.

I think some of the new development in Mueller is doing a nice job at varied street facades. The construction near the HEB is a good example:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3032...7i13312!8i6656

If you're gonna go for historic look, hire some real stonemasons and spend some money to give it an authentic look, or else it'll have all the charm of a strip mall. Otherwise, keep it clean, simple and modern.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

I'm all for varied-looking streetscapes on buildings but I just think this attempt at faux-historicism is sloppy. Proportions all wonky on classical details, really ruins the look of the building.

I think some of the new development in Mueller is doing a nice job at varied street facades. The construction near the HEB is a good example:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3032...7i13312!8i6656

If you're gonna go for historic look, hire some real stonemasons and spend some money to give it an authentic look, or else it'll have all the charm of a strip mall. Otherwise, keep it clean, simple and modern.

I pretty much agree. This one looked awkward from the get- go. It has more or less disappeared into the streetscape by now, especially since it has gotten kind of grimy and the trees have grown so much. If you don't look too closely, you might think this structure has been around since maybe the 1920s.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

The apartment across the street from Fifth and West do a decent job of making a varied faux-historic streetscape.

I'm hopeful now that this part of town is much hotter and interconnected that these apartments are not long for this world.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I'm hopeful now that this part of town is much hotter and interconnected that these apartments are not long for this world.

I wouldn't expect redevelopment of this property to occur anytime soon, given the Capitol View Corridor, but it might be possible. The area outside the CVC is actually larger than 5th and West, and mostly covers the parking garage. If they were to tear down the garage to construct a tower, the rest of the property would probably need to be vacant during construction. I've heard that Gables is considering redeveloping the portion of West Avenue Lofts that sits on the opposite side of the same CVC. That is the wing west of the parking garage, next to the Bowie.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by sammyk

Same builder, same type of building so same materials.

Thanks for clarifying. I did not know it was by the same developer.

It will be really cool once the area between Riverside and Lake Shore Blvd. is completely filled in. Looks like they are keeping an area open for park space too.