HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 5:09 AM
Mikey711MN's Avatar
Mikey711MN Mikey711MN is offline
I am so smart, S-M-R-T!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Moved south to Austin, TX
Posts: 569
A bit of what we've already seen, but then a bit more on the basic framework: http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...l_reduced2.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 4:34 PM
jngreenlee jngreenlee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey711MN View Post
A bit of what we've already seen, but then a bit more on the basic framework: http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...l_reduced2.pdf


I think this is a valuable takeaway:
Quote:
The 97 acres of the South Central Waterfront covers the equivalent
of 33 downtown blocks but are only divided into a handful of
superblocks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 5:04 PM
jngreenlee jngreenlee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 254
Personally I dislike the use of Portland's South Waterfront as a model for Austin's South Waterfront. My wife and I own a second home near Portland's South Waterfront.

The main problem in the comparison is that the PDX development is a monolithic build of a new district, reclaimed at once from some prior low-density use (AFAIK). It's a large, dense buildout, probably by one master developer. The result is something completely new, not organically developed within the character of the city.

I am pro-density, and not against such things in general, but PDX's version is cut off and separated from the rest of the city. It feels like a residential amusement park with tall buildings, some nice restaurants...and then you have to get in your car to get to real downtown or anywhere else.

The fabric of the old and new will surely expand and meld together, but we're not there yet. This is what makes this a troublesome comparison. The photos look great, the financial aspects will be appealing to developers, esp. if they can get the city to support the model.

Meanwhile, back in Austin, the South Waterfront is not a sleepy area yet to be reclaimed. It is a busy crossroads, that already is and will always be tied to downtown and South Congress. I'd prefer to see comparisons to downtown revitalization efforts that have encouraged/maximized private investment and density one structure at a time.

Also, just food for thought - the days of cheap dollars -might- be waning. QE tightening and future interest rate hikes may show that our boom has in part been fueled by cheap money for institutional investors. South Waterfront may not have the right properties available soon enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 9:56 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,768
Jngreenlee has a point, the South Shore is not like say Green or Seaholm for example, it's already a bustling part of the city and it's neither a quiet empty place nor a neighborhood. I like the idea of improving the infrastructure, but rather than create large swaths of set development, the area should be built piece by piece depending on the particular needs and demands. The overall area can be guided to a specific outcome but if large parts are predesigned then that sets a cap on density right from the beginning. This area is basically an extension of Downtown. It needs to be treated as such whether the surrounding NIMBY's like it or not.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 10:03 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
400 feet tall
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sunshine and taco trucks on every corner
Posts: 43,794
It needs some direction, though. We don't want another Rainey Street area with fugly parking garages and no street level retail.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2014, 10:05 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
It needs some direction, though. We don't want another Rainey Street area with fugly parking garages and no street level retail.
I agree, guidelines should be set as to how the buildings should interact with the streetscape.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2014, 11:33 PM
kadingpa kadingpa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: AUSTIN
Posts: 30
Am I the only one who thinks this would be a perfect spot for a new stadium that could host an MLS team in the future?
1. The MLS has stated that they are looking for their expansion teams to have a stadium downtown.
2. This is one of the last areas downtown that would be large enough to hold a stadium.
3. With a new bridge crossing the river at that location, it would be perfect for tying into and create public transportation options.
4. This stadium could be used for many other events and Austin needs a large concert venue downtown, especially with the Erwin Center closing in the future. leaving some (but not many) surface parking lots would keep areas for events like ROT Rally and others.
5. Many stadium projects now are built as mixed use developments, so you could have dense use around the stadium. Look at Detroit's plan for the new Red Wings stadium project. And Minnesota's new FB stadium
6. And finally... think about the potential views from the stadium...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2014, 7:15 AM
Cloud92's Avatar
Cloud92 Cloud92 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 87
The traffic that would cause
__________________
"If i had a world of my own"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2014, 9:06 AM
NYC2ATX's Avatar
NYC2ATX NYC2ATX is offline
Yank in Tex
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,939
That PDF was awesome, informative and comprehensive. I have to say, my single favorite feature outlined was most detailed around pages 46-50.

The central "rambla" they intend to build is great for a number of reasons. It will give the South Shore area a unique and fantastic public space which is sorely lacking that far east on Riverside. If executed correctly, it could become an iconic space associated with the city. I imagine one would look straight down it and across the river to land their eye directly upon the to-be-built Waller Park Place and Fairmont projects. One might even catch an urban rail train crossing the river in the foreground. Basically, all kinds of awesome, a must-catch photo of Austin circa 2023
__________________
"Also, to be frank, I like dense cities best and care about them most." from The Death And Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs.

BUILD IT. BUILD EVERYTHING. BUILD IT ALL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2014, 6:54 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by kadingpa View Post
Am I the only one who thinks this would be a perfect spot for a new stadium that could host an MLS team in the future?
1. The MLS has stated that they are looking for their expansion teams to have a stadium downtown.
2. This is one of the last areas downtown that would be large enough to hold a stadium.
3. With a new bridge crossing the river at that location, it would be perfect for tying into and create public transportation options.
4. This stadium could be used for many other events and Austin needs a large concert venue downtown, especially with the Erwin Center closing in the future. leaving some (but not many) surface parking lots would keep areas for events like ROT Rally and others.
5. Many stadium projects now are built as mixed use developments, so you could have dense use around the stadium. Look at Detroit's plan for the new Red Wings stadium project. And Minnesota's new FB stadium
6. And finally... think about the potential views from the stadium...
I agree with you. In fact I think they stated in a past article that the AAS site is one of the possibilities. I doubt traffic would be any worse than when there are other major events like at Auditorium Shores. If mass transit is done right then there shouldn't be a major traffic issue.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2014, 1:42 AM
ClendonRoss ClendonRoss is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Downtown Austin
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by kadingpa View Post
Am I the only one who thinks this would be a perfect spot for a new stadium that could host an MLS team in the future?
I'm with you on this! Austin is a great demographic fit for MLS and a downtown stadium is a must to land a franchise. I think just east of I-35 would work as well but I don't know if there is large enough tract that isn't already being developed/planned for development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2014, 2:15 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClendonRoss View Post
I'm with you on this! Austin is a great demographic fit for MLS and a downtown stadium is a must to land a franchise. I think just east of I-35 would work as well but I don't know if there is large enough tract that isn't already being developed/planned for development.
Welcome to SSP ClendonRoss, I take it your a soccer fan. Feel free to post any news or info regarding the Austin Aztex, please share it with us.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2015, 8:20 AM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,117
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2015, 11:07 AM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 1,911
Those arch bridges in the first rendering look to be I-35. That'd be a pretty cool aesthetic addition if they ever needed to replace the bridges. Also, I really like the smaller HEB concept as shown in the third rendering. As downtown densifies (as well as the south shore central area), that'd be a great addition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2015, 12:10 PM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
Those arch bridges in the first rendering look to be I-35. That'd be a pretty cool aesthetic addition if they ever needed to replace the bridges.
I think that's supposed to be the bridge that connects the South Shore to Trinity Street on the North Shore.





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2015, 3:56 PM
Cloud92's Avatar
Cloud92 Cloud92 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 87
I think the bridge went out with the bid last year?
__________________
"If i had a world of my own"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2015, 6:33 PM
Tech House's Avatar
Tech House Tech House is offline
Harbinger of Skullduggery
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 749
There are a couple of interesting concepts shown but it's hard to take any of it seriously when they've included, in the second illustration, the annihilation of any trace of the hike-and-bike trail, along with the removal of all vegetation right down to the waterfront. I mean... how can their ideas be taken seriously if they're so divorced from reality?



Can you imagine... "Yeah, we're going to just pave everything, concrete right up to the water, no trees, no trails, it's gonna be awesome." I guess they could move the trail up to Riverside at that spot. It's like something the Army Corps of Engineers would have come up with in 1960.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2015, 7:25 PM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,117
It's only along a small portion of the trail, though. (Look for the red mark.) The image is a screen shot of a pdf file on the same site where I found the renderings.



They might have considered it as a place where people could put their canoes/kayaks in the lake.

At any rate, it was done by one of several teams of students at UT so it may not happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2015, 11:48 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia
Posts: 3,313
I would actually advocate for a small section of the trail in that area to be more mixed use in its approach, just like this proposal gets at.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2015, 4:39 AM
cvalkan's Avatar
cvalkan cvalkan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 75
Those steps would make a good impromptu amphitheater if they'd include a stage/bandstand on the river side. Wouldn't be very comfortable in the day from May to September, though. Grand Rapids has a smaller version on their river. Design it right and you could enjoy a concert from the water, too. Probably a stupid idea.
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 2:50 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.