HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2041  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2013, 6:14 PM
MightyYoda MightyYoda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic View Post
Y'all, keep in mind that these tenants aren't permanent, but the buildings are. I'm primarily concerned with changing Austin's urban fabric. The culture will evolve from there, and the retailers and restaurants will change over time.
Pretty much this. The building looking pretty good and taking full use of the CVC with ground retail are the important parts. Yes it's a downside that there are so many drive-throughs, but retail is dynamic and will change over time. Overall this is a great addition. We need as much ground retail as possible at Republic Park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2042  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2013, 6:31 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,859
re:3Eleven: Love that almost all the roof space is used for residents benefit! Nice.!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2043  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2013, 7:36 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,701
I love Bowie's rooftops and overall shape. I don't like the facade as much as the previous render, but it might just be the picture isn't showing the reflections of all that glass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2044  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2013, 8:12 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
I love Bowie's rooftops and overall shape. I don't like the facade as much as the previous render, but it might just be the picture isn't showing the reflections of all that glass.
Computer modeling a la this never looks as nice as detailed renders created for marketing purposes. The real product is always closer to the middle, with high quality products closer to the marketing renders and cheaper products closer to the models.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2045  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2013, 9:52 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic View Post
Y'all, keep in mind that these tenants aren't permanent, but the buildings are. I'm primarily concerned with changing Austin's urban fabric. The culture will evolve from there, and the retailers and restaurants will change over time.
What are you suggesting? Are you arguing against more renters? If so, the majority of those who create Austin’s fabric are renters (~54%). In fact, Austin has the nation’s 6th highest renter-to-owner ratio. Those above Austin are:

#1 New York City (~66% renters)
#2 Boston (~63%)
#3 San Francisco (~62%)
#4 Los Angeles (~61%)
#5 Dallas (~55%)

Those rounding out the Top 25 are:

#T-7 Chicago (~53%)
#T-7 Houston (~53%)
#T-9 San Diego (~51%)
#T-9 Columbus (~51%)
#11 Seattle (~50%)
#12 Baltimore (~49%)
#13 Denver (~48%)
#14 Memphis (~47%)
#15 Detroit (~46%)
#16 Philadelphia (~45%)
#T-17 Indianapolis (~44%)
#T-17 Nashville (~44%)
#19 Charlotte (~43%)
#T-20 Phoenix (~41%)
#T-20 San Antonio (~41%)
#T-20 San Jose (~41%)
#T-20 El Paso (~41%)
#24 Ft. Worth (~40%)
#25 Jacksonville (~38%)

FYI: The U.S. average is ~33% renters vs. ~67% owners.
__________________
Austin (City): 950,715 +20.28% - '10-'17 | Austin MSA (5 counties): 2,115,827 +23.28% - '10-'17
San Antonio (City): 1,511,946 +13.90% - '10-'17 | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,473,974 +15.47% - '10-'17
AUS-SAT "CSA" (13 counties): 4,589,801 +18.94% - '10-'17 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2046  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 12:14 AM
deerhoof deerhoof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 251
I wish this would happen today. I think I-35 through downtown is so ugly.
http://impactnews.com/articles/i-35-...plan-proposed/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2047  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 1:10 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by deerhoof View Post
I wish this would happen today. I think I-35 through downtown is so ugly.
http://impactnews.com/articles/i-35-...plan-proposed/
THIS IS THE BEST OPTION EVER and EVERYONE here needs to write letters to all of our city councilmen and women AND the mayor today. Sit down right now and write. I'd write three rounds of three letters per each person to really get the message to sink in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2048  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 1:54 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,701
I suggested this just about a week ago.

Quote:
My pipe dream: I-35 below ground level through town with a lot of lanes for through traffic, and capped at ground level by some lanes and a green median for in-town traffic. Could harken back to East Avenue.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=2995
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2049  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 2:06 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,701
btw...$550 million? I'd rather have this than the rail project for the same price.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2050  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 2:11 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,612
We can do both. In fact, if we do this, we could embed north-south rail above.

Big problem though: the current rail alignment east-west would have to be shut down in order for a project like this to move forward. The last stop would have to be just before the interstate, effectively making the current rail useless (not that it already wasn't) for ~3 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2051  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 2:40 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,612
Also, it doesn't just open up land immediately above 35, it would open up significant chunks of land immediately east of 35 to expand the central business district in a cohesive way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2052  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 2:41 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
you suck
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 47,060
$550 million isn't even that much when you think about it. Apparently the new Bush presidential library in Dallas cost $550 million. Think of what you could do with all that new land in downtown. You could even build a presidential library on it...
__________________
Hear me. And if I close my mind in fear, please pry it open. - Metallica
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2053  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 2:58 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,701
Using the middle for the N/S rail would be perfect. Surround it on both sides with CBD. The ROI is obvious.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2054  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 3:26 AM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,178
I thought this was already proposed a few years ago. Even that one future skyline illustration from Imagine Austin in 2039 shows I-35 covered up. I'm too lazy to look up that photo but I'm sure it's there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2055  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 4:10 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,612
It's been proposed at many stages, but this time now that the state is serious about fixing the situation it may garner some currency.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2056  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 4:14 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,701
I did a quick estimate on the acres this project would add to downtown. The I35 ROW from the river to 15th is roughly 65 acres. That's a very rough estimate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2057  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 6:23 AM
Syndic's Avatar
Syndic Syndic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,278
I mean, it's a very positive idea, but I want to see a full I-35/130 swap. I want to see the current I-35 turned completely into a toll road and have 130 be free. Until that happens, the trucks are not going to take 130. They're going to keep blasting through our city with no regard for anybody who lives here, clogging the streets, driving like assholes. Maybe we could have a system set up whereby Austin metro residents don't have to pay very much (maybe $10 a month, like Spotify or Netflix) and only people passing through Austin have to pay full price.

Even with that, though, there would still be a need to bury the highway. Maybe this is a step in direction of my grand vision? It would certainly do a lot for the downtown area.
__________________
Anti-Leslie Pool. Death to I-35!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2058  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 6:33 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,612
Reply to general argument: simply do both. In fact, they'll have to do both (I.E. re-route traffic onto 130) in order to fix 35 downtown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic View Post
Maybe we could have a system set up whereby Austin metro residents don't have to pay very much (maybe $10 a month, like Spotify or Netflix) and only people passing through Austin have to pay full price.
Fix: have a single toll each coming in on the north side and south side that is sufficient to re-route significant portions of traffic onto 130. Unfortunately, that would suck for alot of people in our southern suburbs, but it is the most realistic vision.

Last edited by wwmiv; Apr 26, 2013 at 6:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2059  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 7:05 AM
Syndic's Avatar
Syndic Syndic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Fix: have a single toll each coming in on the north side and south side that is sufficient to re-route significant portions of traffic onto 130. Unfortunately, that would suck for alot of people in our southern suburbs, but it is the most realistic vision.
I don't like the idea of charging people in the metro area an arm and a leg to use the road. Maybe the city could strike a deal with surrounding municipalities whereby those residents wouldn't have to pay any more than Austinites. I don't want to tax commuters. A lot of people live so far out because they can't afford to live (well) in Austin. They don't have a lot of money. So it would be a tax on the poor. I just want to attach a punitive charge for people who are using the highway to pass through Austin instead of taking 130.

I-35 is the main corridor for traffic from Mexico into the United States and vice versa. People always think that the traffic is because of the native population (and to a large degree it is), but I think it gets clogged up to a standstill because of the added traffic of people traveling through.

Though if we do have to charge commuters more to use the road I guess one benefit would be creating more of an incentive to live in the city proper. Unfortunately, that would mean more demand, which means higher cost of living still.
__________________
Anti-Leslie Pool. Death to I-35!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2060  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 7:08 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,701
Like has been mentioned before and it's something I like...

If a car passes both 130 exits (north and south of town) on I-35 in a set amount of time (thru traffic), they get tolled. If they don't pass both, or it takes longer than a set time that accounts for slow traffic, then they are in-town traffic and would not be tolled.

That would hit truckers and travelers blasting through town, but not hit the wallets of locals and commuters.
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 > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.