HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 8:29 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
Cool AUSTIN: Green Water Treatment Plant & Seaholm Power Plant Redevelopment Update Thread

Consultants suggest direct subsidies, mid-rise buildings.

By Kate Miller Morton
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Austin needs to change its approach to affordable housing if it hopes to achieve meaningful results downtown, according to city consultants charged with shaping the future of the area.

Low- to moderate-priced downtown housing will require public subsidies, and even then it is not likely to come in the form of high-rise towers that have dominated the downtown development boom, Roma Design Group and HR&A Advisors Inc. concluded in their report, released last week.

The Roma report recommends that the city concentrate its affordable housing efforts and dollars on less expensive mid-rise buildings (less than six stories) and that it help pay for them with fees paid by developers who want extra height and density for their projects.

The city has relied on developers to voluntarily include units to be sold at below market rates in their downtown projects or make a donation to the city to be used for affordable housing in exchange for density and height bonuses that allow them to build more units than zoning and city regulations allow.

Currently, 176 units downtown qualify as affordable, and 164 of those are set aside for low-income senior citizens in a city-owned building.

The main reason the city's approach isn't working, according to Roma, is that the gap is simply too large between the cost of building one-bedroom condominiums in high-rises and what a household making below the area's median family income can afford.

The typical price of a one-bedroom condo approaches $500,000. A one- or two-person household making 80 percent of the area's median family income, or $41,760, can afford a condo priced at no more than $87,930.

"What Roma has created is a cost-effective way to get more affordable housing for less money," City Council Member Brewster McCracken said.

Few mid-rise buildings have been built downtown, but Roma expects that to change because many downtown sites available for redevelopment fall in Capitol view corridors, where building heights are restricted.

"The Capitol view corridors now become a great opportunity for where we could locate in a cost-effective way affordable housing downtown," McCracken said.

Council Member Jennifer Kim said she supports the recommendations and hopes the consultants can quickly produce a list of likely mid-rise development sites so the city can begin working with owners.

"The difference in construction costs are substantial enough that I think we could help more families downtown with mid-rise" buildings, Kim said. "I'd like to see what properties they are talking about."

Developer Brett Denton warns that unrealistically high prices for height-restricted land could make mid-rise development a challenge.

"One would assume that (land under a Capitol view corridor) would trade at a lower price, but at the same time, land sellers aren't always rational," Denton said. "If their land is under a Capitol view corridor and the tracts across the street aren't, and (those tracts) are selling at a much higher price, that's what they think their land should sell for, too. Some land sellers aren't rational, and therefore that's a component of the market that can't be controlled."

That wouldn't be a problem on city-owned land. Kim would also like the city to consider having mid-rise buildings integrated around a taller building at the Green Water Treatment Plant, which the city plans to sell to developers.

"I don't know how practical that is to tie the two types of constructions together, but if it is, I think that's great because we could do more affordable housing on Green," Kim said.

McCracken said the city could use some of the $55 million in voter-approved bond money and federal money already available for lower-cost housing.

Denton, who represented the Real Estate Council of Austin on the city's affordable housing task force earlier this year, said he didn't know how much developers would be willing to pay in exchange for added height and density.

He added that any fee would have to be accompanied by an incentive.

"Roma and their affordable housing consultants were very vocal about the fact that affordable housing is a public funding issue," Denton said. "It's not up to the development community to (pay for) affordable housing. ... But if the citizens of Austin truly want affordable housing, then just like roads and other infrastructure, police, fire and things citizens of Austin want, it will require that they pay for that."

Bo McCarver, chairman of Blackland Community Development Corp., represented the Austin Neighborhoods Council on the task force.

He supports the higher fees that Roma recommended but questions whether that money would be put to best use downtown.

"I really think we need to take a hard look at the cost-effectiveness of putting any kind of affordable housing downtown, and really I'm not sure it's the best use of our money," McCarver said. "It's a great idea, but I don't know how you instill that in a downtown area where the real estate is just so expensive. I just don't think it can be done."

McCarver said he is concerned that Roma's report focused on one- and two-person households and didn't address ways to make downtown living more affordable to families. He notes that the report also said little about providing more housing to the homeless.

Roma principal Jana McCann said that the report was not intended to limit the debate and that decisions on which groups and income levels to target would be addressed in the next phase of the plan, for which the city has allocated $600,000.

"The community may say we need to subsidize families downtown," McCann said. "We haven't made that decision. That's part of what the next phase of work is answering: Who are we trying to subsidize with affordable housing? Is it families, seniors, musicians, artists, government workers, the homeless, service sector workers — who is it?"

kmorton@statesman.com; 445-3641



Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...ffordable.html

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 8:33 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
I watched part of this discussion the other night. The part that really seems to go unanswered is when the developer subsidizes a unit for someone, who picks up the tab. Of course, everyone in the room knew it will be other people who purchase units in same building, but no one will speak that during the planning sessions. The other part that went unanswered was how will these people pay their HOA fees and taxes if they can't even afford to purchase in the first place? Again, this subject was brought up and dodged by everyone in the room.

One discussion that seemed to make sense was that affordable housing should not be sought directly downtown, but rather, in "close-in", more affordable areas where public transit could be utilized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 10:07 PM
hookem hookem is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,563
I'm not against the concept of less expensive midrises in certain areas, but I think the areas where they would best fit in with the height (areas where neighbors would be against a high rise disproportionate to the surrounding character) will also be the areas that won't want housing like that. So the midrises will end up wasting some prime CBD lots, like the CSC building did...

Seems to me while buying is well out of the reach of the median income, renting is still within reach, and many more rentals might be available soon. So you can still have a diversity of incomes living downtown, without encouraging cheaper construction. I don't think we have to artificially facilitate homeownership; renting is not the end of the world. And there are plenty of affordable ownership options outside downtown.

They should stick to the ideas of bringing character back to the squares, and making some progress on public transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 10:19 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookem View Post
Seems to me while buying is well out of the reach of the median income, renting is still within reach, and many more rentals might be available soon. So you can still have a diversity of incomes living downtown, without encouraging cheaper construction. I don't think we have to artificially facilitate homeownership; renting is not the end of the world.
Seems logical. They did mention a building in San Diego that I assumed was a rental building. The building looked nice from the outside. Inside, it had small studio's. Enough to cook a meal, sleep and hang your hat. Seems like a nice stepping stone allowing one to live downtown until they can start making more money.

Another thing that is often mentioned that seems totally illogical, is the often mentioned trade-off with builders "affordable housing in exchange for density and height bonuses". Why would the city want to limit density and height if a builder will not commit to setting affordable housing aside? It seems limiting these would reduce the tax base, increase sprawl and force the construction of new city amenities to follow the sprawl.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 10:26 PM
hookem hookem is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,563
Yeah, it seems that the idea of "everyone must be able to afford TO BUY a nice property in any neighborhood" is a relatively new one... and maybe not a good one! I can't help but think of the utopia of urban density, Manhattan, with it's rent control and renters of all income ranges (not so much recently, but for most of its past)...

My quick calculation tells me a household making 50,400 could afford a $1400 apartment at the Monarch. That's a good quality high-rise. And others might be cheaper, plus some of the new condos will be renting at far below the carrying cost while the owners hope for appreciation long term.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 5:22 AM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 3,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM View Post
Another thing that is often mentioned that seems totally illogical, is the often mentioned trade-off with builders "affordable housing in exchange for density and height bonuses". Why would the city want to limit density and height if a builder will not commit to setting affordable housing aside? It seems limiting these would reduce the tax base, increase sprawl and force the construction of new city amenities to follow the sprawl.
I have always taken these artificial height restricitons as way to raise funds by the city. I would guess all these set asides and contributions come out of the pockets of the folks who buy at full price in the development. Doubt the developer is really giving anything up!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 3:48 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Doubt the developer is really giving anything up!
I don't see it happening if they don't have to.

The article asks a really good question : Roma principal Jana McCann said that the report was not intended to limit the debate and that decisions on which groups and income levels to target would be addressed in the next phase of the plan, for which the city has allocated $600,000. "The community may say we need to subsidize families downtown," McCann said. "We haven't made that decision. That's part of what the next phase of work is answering: Who are we trying to subsidize with affordable housing? Is it families, seniors, musicians, artists, government workers, the homeless, service sector workers — who is it?"

What about tech workers now that Silicon Labs is moving downtown? They are making less than cops these days, not much more than teachers. What about those poor secretaries slaving away for all those lawyers? Man, this is got to be a tough question to answer. I think the study is going to require more than another .6M to complete this answer, and possibly some subsidized housing downtown so they can feel the downtown vibe and really understand it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 9:48 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,819
[Austin] Seaholm East - What is the future for Green?

www.auschron.com

HOME: JANUARY 25, 2008: NEWS
Seaholm East
What future for Green?
BY KATHERINE GREGOR




In anticipation of issuing requests for proposals from development teams in February, City Council has drafted a resolution establishing its "guiding vision and policy principles" for two large city-owned tracts of land in the Seaholm east redevelopment district: 1) the 4.5-acre site of the decommissioned Green Water Treatment Plant and 2) neighboring parcels that house Austin Energy structures. The resolution officially reserves the south substation site, which faces Lady Bird Lake, for a new central public library.

The resolution reiterates relevant council policy and goals, including: Downtown revitalization, the Downtown master plan, completing the Second Street retail corridor, and connecting to Seaholm proper. For the library site, the resolution specifies a stand-alone building, an analysis of best-practice design and construction methods, and "the inclusion of a public process in the city's selection of the best design." All proposals should include integrated parking structures – preferably owned by the public, with net parking revenues earmarked to fund transit and trails. A key goal, of course: growing the city's tax base by selling the land for redevelopment in a manner that "achieves other community values."

Some activists question whether a sell-off of citizen-owned land isn't innately antithetical to protecting community values, and advocates have been begging council members to require affordable housing at Green. Most sympathetic has been Council Member Jennifer Kim. "Personally, I would like to see designs that preserve green space," she said recently, "as well as provide homes and a quality day care that are affordable to Austin families."

The resolution does explicitly establish that 40% of property-tax proceeds "go [to] the Austin Housing Trust Fund to be spent to provide affordable housing in the urban core," which in theory could mean as much as $1 million annually. Projected future revenues could also be bonded to create a larger pot of money for affordable housing now. Housing advocate Heather Way recently expressed the hope that, if affordable housing is not required on-site at Green, council would dedicate a portion of its sale proceeds upfront for the purchase of other Downtown tracts.

Instead, council proposes that Green sale proceeds would cover direct project costs. The multimillion-dollar infrastructure costs anticipated include decommissioning and removing the Green plant, reconfiguring the sites, building new streets and a bridge over Shoal Creek, and financing new parking structures. If there's anything left over, it would be spent on "additional public amenities, to be identified" on-site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2008, 3:18 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,819
largest redevelopment opportunity ever for downtown Austin

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 7:12 AM CST
Austin seeks firm for Green redevelopment
Austin Business Journal


In the largest redevelopment opportunity ever for downtown Austin, the city has issued a request for proposals for the purchase and redevelopment of the Thomas C. Green Water Treatment Plant and the adjoining Austin Energy Control Center. The two properties total about 6.1 acres or 5 city blocks.

The Green and Austin Energy sites are being heralded by city and business leaders as the missing anchor between the Second Street Retail District and the future activity of the Seaholm District redevelopment. The properties could bring the most significant retail to downtown to date, city leaders say. The city also plans to direct 40 percent of the property tax proceeds from the redevelopment to an Austin Housing Trust Fund towards creating affordable housing in the urban core.

The minimum purchase price will be based on the final appraised value of the properties. The preliminary appraised value is $41 million, but a final appraised value should be determined before March 31.

Interested parties can obtain the RFP through the city of Austin's purchasing department website, www.ci.austin.tx.us/vss/Advantage. A link is also available on the city's Seaholm District website, www.ci.austin.tx.us/seaholm/green.htm.

According to the city, the decommissioning and deconstruction of the Green Water Treatment Plant is expected to be finished by February 2010, with construction beginning shortly after.

The city has begun the process of rezoning the properties to Central Business District-Central Urban Redevelopment, potentially eliminating floor-to-area ratio restrictions. The sites, however, are subject to Waterfront Overlay and Capitol View Corridor setback and height restrictions.

The city will conduct a pre-proposal meeting to answer questions and concerns about the RFP on March 17. Proposals are due by April 30.

Public presentations of proposals will begin May 14 and the City Council will choose the successful bidder in June.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2008, 7:05 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,249
Keep a keen eye on this one...Dallas-based Hillwood (Ross Perot, Jr.'s company), the developer of Victory Park, was very interested in redeveloping the Green site - at least they were back in 2006.
__________________
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
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2008, 7:45 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
Cant wait to hear who will get the bid for this...
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2008, 8:49 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,819
Downtown living demand is strong, study shows

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 11:37 AM CST
Downtown living demand is strong, study shows
Austin Business Journal

The steel and glass residential towers set to reshape the downtown Austin skyline aren't a pipedream. They're coming--and they're going to be filled, a new study shows.

The analysis from Texas economist Ray Perryman suggests that while the nation battles a housing correction, Austin's residential market remains relatively healthy. Moreover, says Perryman, there is clear demand among Austinites to live in the city's vibrant downtown.

There are currently about 6,000 people living downtown. And with about 4,000 residential units under construction or planned around downtown, that population is expected to double over the next two years. Perryman says with the Austin area adding more than 40,000 new residents annually, the local housing market will continue to fair well, and rising energy costs and traffic woes will drive a growing interest in urban living.

"This housing market will fundamentally support the type of housing being developed downtown," Perryman said at a morning press conference at City Hall organized to discuss the report. "There is an amble population to absorb these units."

Asked whether those who desire to live downtown could actually afford to purchase units, most of which are over $500,000, Perryman says the market is there, particularly among young professionals coming to the area making good money in expanding fields like technology. He pointed out that if less than 1 percent of the entire area population chose to live downtown, they would fill up all of the existing units as well as those being planned downtown.

"We are seeing a remarkable resurgence in downtown Austin," says Mayor Will Wynn, who has been a staunch supporter of drawing more residents to downtown. Wynn calls the blend of condo projects such as 360 and The Austonian and rentals like The Monarch and AMLI 2nd Street a healthy mix. He also points out that projects like the redevelopment of the Green Water Treatment Plant site will include a strong affordable housing component, allowing residents who cannot afford high-priced units a chance to enjoy downtown living.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2013, 12:18 PM
MTM-ATX MTM-ATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 45
3D fly by of 2011 plans

Fly-by Animations for the 2011 plan for Green Water. Click the first left most box in the Fly-by and Drive-by Animations section to download the visual. Pretty cool. Other Austin developments can be found on this page.

http://www.dsiaustin.com/Samples.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2008, 4:15 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
From the Austin American-Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/business/co...reenwater.html

REAL ESTATE

Developers lining up for Green project
City is speeding up timeline for downtown redevelopment site

By Shonda Novak

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Developers, start your clocks.

The city is adhering to a speedier-than-usual timeline for bidders competing for a choice downtown real estate opportunity — the redevelopment of the Thomas C. Green Water Treatment Plant at West Cesar Chavez and San Antonio streets.

In addition to local interest, the project is expected to attract national attention.

Proposals to transform the plant, which is being decommissioned, are due April 30. Developers would make presentations to the City Council starting May 14, with the council expected to select a winning bidder June 19.

"It's beyond fast track... but we fully intend to keep this pace," Byron Johnson, the city's purchasing officer, said after a meeting Monday in which city officials outlined the vision for the project.

And in a first for the city, the conference was videostreamed. Johnson said the city received more than 20 calls from interested viewers in such places as California and New York.

"We anticipate significant national interest, just based on overtures we've received over the past couple of years as the national and international development community heard we were considering redeveloping that property," said Fred Evins, project manager for the Green redevelopment in the city's Economic Growth and Redevelopment Services Office. "I think it's a reflection of our overall economic health and the vitality of our downtown," which is experiencing a retail and residential resurgence.

The city sees the six-acre redevelopment as pivotal to the revival of a once largely industrial part of downtown that is getting housing, shopping, entertainment and cultural and civic attractions, including a new central library and a new home for KLRU and its "Austin City Limits" music show.

Ultimately, Green is seen as a key link in the city's vision to connect downtown's western edge to the Austin Convention Center via the planned extension of Second Street.

Developers who plan to pursue the project include:

Atlanta-based Cousins Properties Inc., developer of the Frost Bank Tower downtown.

• Catellus Development Corp., which is redeveloping the 711-acre former Robert Mueller airport.

• Stratus Properties Inc., which will team with AMLI Residential and architect Larry Speck of PageSoutherlandPage. The city picked Stratus to develop Block 21, the block just north of City Hall, which will have a W hotel, upscale condos and a new home for KLRU's "Austin City Limits." AMLI has two apartment projects on each side of Stratus' future project.

• Simmons, Vedder & Co., which has several large mixed-use projects built or planned in Central Texas.

• Larry Warshaw and Perry Lorenz with Austin-based Constructive Ventures Inc., which will team with Trammell Crow Co. Warshaw and Lorenz are co-developers of Spring, a residential tower under construction west of Green. Trammell Crow is the developer of the Shore condominium high-rise downtown.

Representatives of Colonial Properties Trust and Hines Interests were also at the meeting.

The city is asking, at minimum, the preliminary $41 million appraised value for the 4.4 acres being offered in four parcels at the site and an estimated $14.5 million for a fifth parcel, the nearby Austin Energy Control Center, which will be relocated. City officials said those figures are subject to change.

The winning team would pay for the extension of Second Street from San Antonio Street to Shoal Creek and the extension of Nueces Street to Cesar Chavez Street, plus other utility infrastructure work, all of which is preliminarily valued at about $18 million, Evins said.

So far, the price isn't deterring prospective bidders.

"It's a fantastic piece of property, and there's only a finite amount of that left downtown," Lorenz said. Although such private-public partnerships can be challenging, Lorenz said, "We'll sharpen our pencils and we'll get there. It'll be tough, but it's doable."

The city will weigh more favorably proposals that include rental housing, Johnson said. That's because the city would require 10 percent of those units to be "affordable" by federal guidelines: within reach of people making 80 percent or less of the area's median family income — or about $57,000 for a family of four and about $40,000 for an individual.

With that provision, "We have a chance to embrace the city's values," Matt Whelan, senior vice president of Catellus, said last week.

The Green site, he said, "is a key piece of real estate, (in) a vibrant part of downtown."

Johnson and Margaret Shaw, deputy director of the city's Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department, said the city is not dictating what they want to see built at Green, but rather is soliciting developers' best ideas.

With few moderately priced housing options downtown, "for me the exciting part is that the City Council has named" affordable housing as part of its vision for the project, Shaw said.

"We look forward to hearing proposals that include housing for working families too," Shaw said.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2008, 8:12 PM
mars-man's Avatar
mars-man mars-man is offline
the air is great up here
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Austin
Posts: 171
More in this week's Chronicle... Plan presentations in May! Sorry to see the height-dissing by Brewster McCracken, though (see bolded paragraph). I think there's room for at least one really tall one there.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...d=oid%3A599854

MARCH 7, 2008: NEWS

Developing Stories

Don't Rush Seaholm East

BY KATHERINE GREGOR

City Council is almost doing a big thing so right. Almost.

Our elected officials deserve a hearty round of applause for setting forth their "guiding vision and policy principles" prior to soliciting a request for proposals for redevelopment of the Seaholm East Redevelopment District. That's an excellent beginning. Council has announced loud and clear to the community and future master developers its intent "to ensure that unparalleled excellence and high values are demonstrated and achieved."

A Feb. 14 resolution established council's goals for redeveloping the large tract of city-owned land, and a Feb. 28 follow-up detailed the specific criteria for qualified, national-caliber master developers: depth of resources, strong access to capital, and solid experience in similar public-private projects. Winning teams also must distinguish themselves for design and creativity, affordable-housing solutions, and exceeding the city's goals.

Yet council is now fast-tracking the process in a manner that threatens to sabotage its own goals. On Tuesday, March 4, the city hurriedly issued a Request for Proposals from developers, along with a compressed schedule that culminates in a selection decision by June. Likely responders to the RFP include Trammell Crow/Constructive Ventures, Endeavor, Stratus, Catellus, Cherokee, Forest City (with Peter Calthorpe), and Colonial.

What's the rush? Austin will get only one shot at this crucial redevelopment, which will take many years to complete. The city should take the time – a few months at least – to first translate its own vision and principles into a solid land-use plan, based on community-generated values as well as market realities. The fast-track schedule satisfies a desire to let the current council select the developer – but in five years or 20, that consideration will mean nothing next to the quality of Seaholm East.

Promoting Public Values

Council intends to turn the land into about six new city blocks, which would knit together the emerging Seaholm redevelopment, to the west, with City Hall and the emerging 2nd Street retail district, to the east. The 7.7 acres house the defunct Green Water Treatment Plant and an adjacent Austin Energy facility. Sited across Cesar Chavez Street from Lady Bird Lake, the existing utility facilities are anachronisms in a revitalizing Downtown. The council resolution designates the 1.4-acre AE substation site for a new stand-alone central public library. The city plans to sell the remaining 1.7-acre AE control center site and the 4.5-acre Green WTP property to one private master developer.

Because the prime land is owned by the city – that is, by all of us – and worth many tens of millions, Seaholm East represents a tremendous and rare public resource for advancing community goals, aspirations, and values. The council's key goals include top-notch urban design and architecture, public spaces, sustainable/green building, transit connectivity, city-owned parking, and (most recently) on-site affordable housing.

Among the goals listed are "community values, public facilities, and/or public benefits," but those remain undefined. How will the community prioritize its own most-desired values, through what process – and who decides when the standard of "unparalleled excellence" has been met? Another goal is "maximized taxpayer value" through "maximum scale" – implying the troubling and unproven suggestion that optimal value-creation equals erecting skyscrapers.

One council member bullish on a medium-height plan is Brewster McCracken. "The ROMA Downtown Plan report gave us the important realization that achieving density doesn't have to mean height," said McCracken recently. He wants to see the city adopt the Mueller neighborhood plan – another public-private development partnership on city-owned land – as the model for Seaholm East. "As Mueller builds out, it's a timely reminder that we know how to incorporate and promote public values, with our public redevelopment projects," he said. "Every one should be an enactment of our community values."

Downtown revitalization has been so successful and swift, McCracken points out, the city needs to update its initial goals of simply attracting new employers and housing. For example, in selling the city-owned Block 21 to developer Stratus Properties three years ago, the city's primary goals were achieving economic development and a strong urban fabric. The still-unbuilt project includes a high-dollar W Hotel and residences (with concierge poodle-walking service) but no housing affordable to average Austinites. "We're now promoting wealthy people's housing," McCracken lamented. "Government doesn't need to use public land for that."

A Place For Everyone

McCracken says council members want instead to make Seaholm East "a place for everyone." But how? A developer understandably has a vested interest in making a profit, but that alone can become a conflict or at least curtail creative thinking. A key problem with issuing a request for proposal (rather than a request for qualifications) is that it leaps to a specific solution. That can dangerously shortchange master-planning: the critical first phase in which broad goals get identified, prioritized, and translated into a workable program.

Yet the RFP schedule gives development teams just eight weeks (from March 4 to April 30) to propose a full-blown development plan. Between May 12 and 28, council is scheduled to hold up to five special-called meetings for public presentations by the proposing teams. Council would select the winning master developer June 19.

If it's serious about achieving "unparalleled excellence," council should contract first for its own land-use plan – to which master developers then respond. That's exactly the process followed at Mueller: The city hired consultants ROMA Design Group (urban planning) and Economic & Planning Sys tems (market realities) to translate city and community goals into the Mueller master plan, prior to issuing the master developer RFP. The outcome at Mueller is becoming the pride of Austin. By comparison, the city failed to require a community-vetted land-use plan as a condition of providing similar city tax-increment financing at the Domain. As McCracken said of that project, "Popular sentiment is at best neutral." Who takes pride in subsidizing a Tiffany's?

Integral to the Mueller outcome is the Mueller process: Community involvement occurred early and meaningfully, and citizen advisers continue to stay the course. If the community-input process to shape Seaholm East occurs only after a developer proposal is selected, the greatest opportunity will have been lost. To date, just one community group has pushed and helped refine council's vision for Seaholm East: affordable-housing advocates. In response, council revised its draft resolution to add on-site affordable-housing requirements. How many other smart and dedicated community voices might further refine the Seaholm East vision, given a real chance? If we don't invite them to the table now, we'll never know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2008, 9:22 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
I would actually rather see some height at Seaholm than at Green. Still have some 200 footers about the height of AMLI on 2nd. But at Seaholm have one closer to The Monarch's height.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2008, 9:36 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Putting stuff downtown which pays large amounts of tax revenue is, or damn well ought to be, a public goal and of itself. The Austonian is going to pay for a lot of libraries, or affordable housing elsewhere, or for that matter, will make up for a lot of blocks covered in stupid state and UT uses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2008, 9:46 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
Putting stuff downtown which pays large amounts of tax revenue is, or damn well ought to be, a public goal and of itself. The Austonian is going to pay for a lot of libraries, or affordable housing elsewhere, or for that matter, will make up for a lot of blocks covered in stupid state and UT uses.
Isn't that a conundrum when affordable housing is tax subsidized, has lower sale prices which bring less tax revenue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2008, 4:41 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
From the Austin American-Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/business/co...28seaholm.html

REAL ESTATE

Austin close to deal with developer for Seaholm project
City would pay for $18.6 million of $117 million deal.

By Kate Miller Morton

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, March 28, 2008

The City of Austin and the local group it chose to redevelop the Seaholm Power Plant and surrounding property three years ago are close to reaching an agreement that would allow the $117.2 million project to move forward.

The proposed deal, which the City Council will probably vote on next month, calls for the development group to pay $98.6 million, or 84 percent of the cost of the project, with the city paying $18.6 million.

The city money would be used to build a 315-space parking garage on city-owned land just west of the Seaholm site. It would also pay for street and utility improvements and public plazas, and to offset the cost of renovating the Seaholm Power Plant, which the city would continue to own.

The city would raise most of its money by dedicating all of the property and sales taxes generated by the project and revenue from the city-owned parking garage for 30 years.

The development group would be responsible for all costs associated with the planned 22-story hotel and condo tower and a two-story office and retail building. Those properties would be sold to the developer.

The City Council will hear a public presentation on the agreement April 10. The public can view the proposed plan on the city's Web site: www.ci.austin.tx.us/seaholm.

Assistant City Manager Laura Huffman emphasized that the deal has safeguards for the city if development doesn't go as planned, including termination and repurchase rights in the event of major delays and defaults, and a prohibition on major changes of uses. A completion guarantee also requires a private investment group to either complete construction or raze the uncompleted buildings and reimburse the city for money already paid out if the developer failed to perform.

Three local companies are behind the development group. Commercial developer Southwest Strategies Group did the Penn Field mixed-use development on South Congress Avenue. Residential developer Centro Partners helped build luxury apartments at the Domain. La Corsha Hospitality Group is the hotel management and consulting company founded by Jeff Trigger, ex-managing director of the Driskill Hotel.

Getting all of the paperwork done might be the hardest part of the project, joked the development group's managing director and Southwest Strategies principal John Rosato, who in the past three years had to refute several rumors that the deal was dead.

But, he said, the delays aren't that surprising given the complicated nature of the deal. "The main issue is that it's a very unusual endeavor for the city to enter into a joint venture and provide (financial) support to save a historic structure," Rosato said. "It's not a cookie-cutter partnership."

Built in the 1950s and decommissioned in 1996, the Seaholm plant sits on about 8 acres along West Cesar Chavez Street overlooking Lady Bird Lake. The location is prime, but the redevelopment will not be easy, particularly renovating the 136,000-square-foot art deco plant building.

"It was built incredibly well to be an industrial power plant," Rosato said. "Converting that type of a structure to another use will be very challenging."

The massive concrete building with its 65-foot cathedral ceiling is largely below grade. Creating the planned office, retail, restaurant and event space involves adding restrooms and elevators as well as modern electrical and heating and cooling systems without changing the iconic facade.

Renovation is expected to cost $23.6 million while yielding just 99,000 square feet of usable space.

Further complicating matters are two Capitol view corridors that limit buildings to just two stories on nearly two-thirds of the site.

Rosato hopes the group will be able to start construction by this time next year. If that happens, construction could be completed in 2011.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2008, 4:42 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
See the plans here:
www.ci.austin.tx.us/seaholm.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
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 11:51 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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