Austin | The Republic | 710 Feet | 47 Floors | U/C

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Any way we could start a grassroots campaign to defeat it? I'd rather it just not be built at all. Make them sell that property to someone else.

I've had to look down on this empty lot for 6+ years. So I've been paying close attention to this site for a while...and I'm a bit torn. While I'd like to see something more dense, I'm eager to finally see something *finally* go in there.

Judge Biscoe had previously said that the new courthouse would have ground floor retail...which is good. But the building won't make maximum use of the northern half of that block...not so good. They aren't developing the entire block initially which leaves the potential that the southern half of that block could become something more fitting...good. There is no telling what the future development of that southern half might be though...bad.

I'm holding off judgement until more details come to fruition.

[KevinFromTexas]

What are you guys worried about? I wouldn't really call two towers on the same block "not dense". And I doubt you could have two really tall towers on the same block right next to each other with two broad facades facing each other. The ~250 foot courthouse will probably be accompanied by something quite tall on the southern half of the block. The reality is that without the courthouse building being built on that block that we probably wouldn't see something very tall there since the developers of whatever other new private tower would have an entire block to worth with. Having the courthouse there taking up perhaps half the block is going to force the developers of the new private tower to go even more vertical. This could also be advantageous toward that desire because the entire block is going to have 4 levels of parking below grade. So, even if it has above ground parking, it's going to cost the developers of the new tower less since here will already be some parking in place. Plus there's no height restriction for the block, no capitol view corridors, no lake overlays and no bordering neighborhoods to complain. This is probably the most developable block in downtown in terms of hoping for a really tall building.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

What are you guys worried about? I wouldn't really call two towers on the same block "not dense". And I doubt you could have two really tall towers on the same block right next to each other with two broad facades facing each other. The ~250 foot courthouse will probably be accompanied by something quite tall on the southern half of the block. The reality is that without the courthouse building being built on that block that we probably wouldn't see something very tall there since the developers of whatever other new private tower would have an entire block to worth with. Having the courthouse there taking up perhaps half the block is going to force the developers of the new private tower to go even more vertical. This could also be advantageous toward that desire because the entire block is going to have 4 levels of parking below grade. So, even if it has above ground parking, it's going to cost the developers of the new tower less since here will already be some parking in place. Plus there's no height restriction for the block, no capitol view corridors, no lake overlays and no bordering neighborhoods to complain. This is probably the most developable block in downtown in terms of hoping for a really tall building.

I wouldn't say I'm worried, nor am I saying that this doesn't provide density, but I live right by this site. So I'm just hoping for the most lively addition to the neighborhood possible. They haven't yet said what the plan is for the other half of the block. You make some good points, but we don't yet have any idea if it will be privately developed or not. All we can do is speculate. That's why I'm holding off judgement until more is known.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

What are you guys worried about?

Personally? That gap in our skyline possibly never getting filled, thus looking weird forever. We only have 1 chance to get this right. This building is going to be there for the rest of our lives. Probably the rest of our children's lives. And their children's, even.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Having the courthouse there taking up perhaps half the block is going to force the developers of the new private tower to go even more vertical.

We don't even know if the remaining lot is going to be transferred to a private developer. The county could keep it. If they promised to sell it, I would drop my protest immediately, because I do value mixed-use infill. But for all we know, they're keeping the lot in case they decide they need to expand later, as someone else speculated.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

This is probably the most developable block in downtown in terms of hoping for a really tall building.

Exactly. That's what makes this so critical.

[paul78701]

What I'd like to see is a building *not* like the federal courthouse. Aside from the occasional gaggle of protesters due to some controversial court case, it doesn't bring any real amount of foot traffic. I wondered why until I once had federal jury duty. It was dead inside. Granted, that's mostly due to the nature of it's use, but taller buildings usually bring more people and more foot traffic and more customers to sustain more local businesses and thus a more interesting street level.

Aside from the number of people the building attracts, it is just not built to be engaging at the street level. It's a nice enough looking building with wide sidewalks, but the north and south sides give you long stretches of concrete wall to walk beside. Those walls are not the least bit pedestrian friendly. The west side is a little better with some landscaping, but it's still not really engaging. The only plus I see at the street level is the fact that San Antonio street is now closed to car traffic on the east side. It adds some niceness to Republic Square park, but from what I can tell, it doesn't get a whole lot of regular use. The lone exception is the farmer's market on Saturdays. But even they don't always use it.

So basically... I don't want the county to give us what we got (or rather didn't get) with the federal courthouse.

[KevinFromTexas]

Plus, the security guards will come out to tell you you can't take pictures of the building. I had a hard time holding back saying that the building was a disappointment and that I'd be obliged not to take anymore of it. The best thing about the federal courthouse is the elevated plaza, but that's only because of the views of the city that don't include the courthouse itself. The architecture of our's and a few other federal courthouses make a good argument for having them be underground with public plazas/parks above them.

[The ATX]

The estimated start date is in about year - 11/2015. That would be assuming the voters approve the bonds, of course. The estimated date for the construction bids would be 07/2015. So the county appears ready to move quickly if the project gets funded.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/..._AULCC/141016/

[mebentley]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Well, at least it is highly unlikely that the building will be built on top of another ugly parking podium.

Don't get your hopes up on that one. The permit says:
"The below-grade parking structure will cover the entire block and will incorporate provisions for a future second building to be constructed on the south half of the block."

I doubt that a private development would take place on top of the county parking garage.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news....257263.735534

Bond election slated for May for Travis County civil courthouse

Posted: 5:36 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2014

By Andra Lim - American-Statesman Staff

But whatever the amount, it would pay for a downtown civil courthouse that, according to the latest plans, would stand 14 stories high, climbing about 270 feet, and contain 520,000 square feet of space. Underground would be a four-story garage with 548 parking spaces.

At recent meetings, including Tuesday’s, the Commissioners Court has heard plans from consultants for how much space the courthouse will contain and what that space will be used for — key factors in drilling down the cost of the building.

Those plans say the courthouse, slated to be complete in 2018, would include offices for 35 judges and 33 courtrooms, offices for nine other county departments and space for nonprofit agencies and a law library.

[wwmiv]

What a fucking travesty.

I wasn't disappointed about the Fairmont, but this is incredibly disappointing. What a joke.

[KevinFromTexas]

That's only a stacking plan. It's not a rendering as the article states. It's cheaper to go this route than to create an artistic rendering.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

That's only a stacking plan. It's not a rendering as the article states. It's cheaper to go this route than to create an artistic rendering.

I know it's a stacking, but the point still stands.

[KevinFromTexas]

I just meant it's not showing the actual design. The point of a stacking plan is to highlight the number of floors, general size, height and location. I remember seeing the stacking plan for the UT System Headquarters, and it was simply a box. Although that building isn't anything to write home about, it's not just a rectangular box as the stacking plan suggested. Besides, it can be a box and still be attractive. We'll just have to wait and see.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I just meant it's not showing the actual design. The point of a stacking plan is to highlight the number of floors, general size, height and location. I remember seeing the stacking plan for the UT System Headquarters, and it was simply a box. Although that building isn't anything to write home about, it's not just a rectangular box as the stacking plan suggested. Besides, it can be a box and still be attractive. We'll just have to wait and see.

Yes, the problem IS the size and height.

[KevinFromTexas]

I never expected this to be truly tall. The government is skiddish about paring it's buildings with private development, and it's impractical because of security issues. It doesn't matter so much in this case, though, because the other half of the block still has the ability to be something much bigger. Again, we'll see, but I would expect something significantly tall on that other lot since whatever is built would have to rise above the two neighboring buildings to have kind of views.

[ATXboom]

We are driving to a Portland / San Diego / Vancouver skyline...

[corvairkeith]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I just meant it's not showing the actual design. The point of a stacking plan is to highlight the number of floors, general size, height and location. I remember seeing the stacking plan for the UT System Headquarters, and it was simply a box. Although that building isn't anything to write home about, it's not just a rectangular box as the stacking plan suggested. Besides, it can be a box and still be attractive. We'll just have to wait and see.

Maybe they can design it to complement the Hobby Building next door.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

We are driving to a Portland / San Diego / Vancouver skyline...

All great cities. Vancouver is one of the most attractive skylines in the world, to me. I like the uniformity. Unfortunately, the Austonian kills any hope of us having that kind of look. So, we need at least a few more tall ones, which is totally cool with me.

What are the chances Travis County residents reflexively vote against this bond? The truth is, it's a waste of money to have the courthouse in downtown. Maybe people will realize that and vote against it?

[lzppjb]

It's shocking that this comes as a shock to some of you. I'm with Kevin. The south side of the block will get a tower.

[The ATX]

I don't think they would want to over shadow the court house rendering by putting a 70-story tower next to it.