AUSTIN | Avenir (Formerly Dorsey) | 170 Feet | 15 Floors | Complete - Page 7

resansom · #**121** Posted **Apr 1, 2016, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I love their designs, and they're great for what they are: pretty. generic. infill.

What's Rise? Where's that at?

You may know its former name - Aspen Heights:

wwmiv · #**122** Posted **Apr 1, 2016, 4:30 PM**

Oh they changed the name to Rise?

the Genral · #**123** Posted **Apr 2, 2016, 12:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

I don't think this particular rendering from Rhode Partners via BuildingATX has been posted. According to BuildingATX the project is being tweaked for the reduced height of one of the buildings.

http://buildingatx.com/2016/03/whats...st-renderings/

I like this design, they are substantial, light, imposing, but not thick with exterior brick and mortar or God forbid, stucco. They will look awesome from I35 and across the interstate. This is one of the few times I'll endorse a rather simplistic design for a midrise downtown.

drummer · #**124** Posted **Apr 2, 2016, 1:09 AM**

I like it too. And I hope the changes in height are enough to satisfy the neighbors so they can move forward.

Jdawgboy · #**125** Posted **Apr 2, 2016, 5:59 PM**

I also like it. Actually just shrink the footprint, stack it into a single tower and I'd say build it at 4th@Colorado instead of that hideous thing that they released renderings for.

KevinFromTexas · #**126** Posted **Apr 2, 2016, 7:24 PM**

This is nice and all, but with this design, I think the height is appropriate as is. I'd rather not have a tower with this basic of a look.

drummer · #**127** Posted **Apr 3, 2016, 4:10 AM**

^ I agree with Kevin. I think this fits the area well enough.

_Matt · #**128** Posted **Apr 4, 2016, 5:30 PM**

Also agreed. A sustainable city core with 700+ ft. buildings needs to be buttressed with this type of mid-rise+ density at the fringes.

austlar1 · #**129** Posted **Apr 4, 2016, 5:53 PM**

So what legal hurdles remain before construction can begin on this project, assuming the developers secure financing? I understand that there is some neighborhood opposition, and Councilwoman Houston (and Tovo?) is opposed. That does not seem to be enough opposition to kill the project unless a majority of the city council opposed it. How likely is that to happen? I am not interested in another discussion about 10/1. I just want to know whether there is enough opposition to the project to kill it. I get the feeling that won't happen, but I really don't know any details regarding organized opposition, etc.

The ATX · #**130** Posted **Apr 11, 2016, 12:36 AM**

The Council hears this one on Thursday 04/14. Here's the Planning Commission's recommendation taken from a 44 page PDF about the project. The full service grocery story is a requirement for this project to go forward.

http://austin.siretechnologies.com/s...6073345192.PDF

wwmiv · #**131** Posted **Apr 11, 2016, 12:51 AM**

This is a great deal for the community.

The ATX · #**132** Posted **Apr 11, 2016, 1:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This is a great deal for the community.

I would definitely agree with that. A lot of people would love to live close to the central core and be able to walk to a full service grocery store. But apparently that particular community (or at least a handful of noisy people) don't think so.

The ATX · #**133** Posted **Apr 11, 2016, 4:49 AM**

Ora Houston should realize she will get more future votes (by the new One Two East residents) than what she'll lose by the handful of loudmouth NIMBYS fighting this project. I would hope that she's smart enough to do the math. The community benefits of this project are much more significant than most projects.

http://onetwoeast.com/

drummer · #**134** Posted **Apr 11, 2016, 8:19 AM**

Cool to see!

verybadgnome · #**135** Posted **Apr 14, 2016, 2:14 AM**

Looks like we have a 2nd council member spouting nonsense over this project:

“Even my priest damned this project,” said Renteria. “Nowhere in East Austin has there been any kind of development east of I-35 that size at all – not even 100 feet. I was very shocked to hear they wanted 185. I thought, ‘Wow, how did you even get 150 feet? I thought we fought you on that in the ’90s,’ but I guess somehow it went ahead and got approved.”

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...uncil-preview/

The RBJ tower, which is east of IH-35, is 16 stories and comes in at 155 feet. You would think that someone who grew up in east Austin would know about this 1971 building.

lzppjb · #**136** Posted **Apr 14, 2016, 2:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Looks like we have a 2nd council member spouting nonsense over this project:

“Even my priest damned this project,” said Renteria. “Nowhere in East Austin has there been any kind of development east of I-35 that size at all – not even 100 feet. I was very shocked to hear they wanted 185. I thought, ‘Wow, how did you even get 150 feet? I thought we fought you on that in the ’90s,’ but I guess somehow it went ahead and got approved.”

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...uncil-preview/

The RBJ tower, which is east of IH-35, is 16 stories and comes in at 155 feet. You would think that someone who grew up in east Austin would know about this 1971 building.

Don't confuse people with an agenda with facts.

KevinFromTexas · #**137** Posted **Apr 14, 2016, 4:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Looks like we have a 2nd council member spouting nonsense over this project:

“Even my priest damned this project,” said Renteria. “Nowhere in East Austin has there been any kind of development east of I-35 that size at all – not even 100 feet. I was very shocked to hear they wanted 185. I thought, ‘Wow, how did you even get 150 feet? I thought we fought you on that in the ’90s,’ but I guess somehow it went ahead and got approved.”

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...uncil-preview/

The RBJ tower, which is east of IH-35, is 16 stories and comes in at 155 feet. You would think that someone who grew up in east Austin would know about this 1971 building.

Oh, they knew about it - they just didn't want anyone else to.

The ATX · #**138** Posted **Apr 14, 2016, 1:08 PM**

The mayor speaks about this project in a KXAN interview.

http://kxan.com/2016/04/14/one-two-e...enior-housing/

From the story accompanying the video:

Quote:

...concern is that the condo will block downtown views. Neighbors worry the 185 feet tall development will loom over their housing, casting a shadow and blocking their views.

The City Council has a 6:30 PM time set for discussion on this tonight. I suspect there will be another delay/postponement.

airwx · #**139** Posted **Apr 14, 2016, 3:53 PM**

This item has been postponed until the August 4th council meeting. The developer requested a postponement due to changes. The neighborhood requested that it be postponed until September so they could look over the changes. The developer said that would be too long. Council Member Houston won't be available in June and council goes on vacation in July, so it got postponed until August. I didn't catch all the changes the developer stated, but it sounded like they are removing the request for additional height and are reducing the FAR they are asking for.

Jdawgboy · #**140** Posted **Apr 14, 2016, 8:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I also like it. Actually just shrink the footprint, stack it into a single tower and I'd say build it at 4th@Colorado instead of that hideous thing that they released renderings for.

I think my comment was missunderstood. It was a joke, I was just jokingly implying that almost anything would be better than what Brandywine is proposing at 4th and Colorado.

Unfortunately the way it seems to be going with the council, this looks like it's going to be scaled down. At what point is a project not even viable after it is forced to shrink in height? Imo it only makes it harder for the developer to include affordable housing.