HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2013, 4:32 PM
tildahat tildahat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Christian democrats are a subset of social democrats, which emphasize the cultural and religious more than other social democratic ideologies.
Sorry, I just think that's flat out incorrect. Take Germany for example. The main center-left party? The Social Democrats. The main center-right party? Christian Democrats.

Having said that, party labels <> ideology labels in many cases, and people using the same label don't always agree on its definition, so we'll never prove each other wrong or right.

So I'm retiring from this interesting (to me) but terribly OT sidebar at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2013, 4:51 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by tildahat View Post
Sorry, I just think that's flat out incorrect. Take Germany for example. The main center-left party? The Social Democrats. The main center-right party? Christian Democrats.

Having said that, party labels <> ideology labels in many cases, and people using the same label don't always agree on its definition, so we'll never prove each other wrong or right.

So I'm retiring from this interesting (to me) but terribly OT sidebar at this point.
No, in this case the party labels are basically correct. The grand irony about German politics is that the two main parties are really not very far apart on any major policy issues. The main difference? The degree to which they support the private market. Social democrats prefer a larger state role, while Christian democrats - though generally similar - support a freer private market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2013, 6:23 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
400 feet tall
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sunshine and taco trucks on every corner
Posts: 44,155
Wow, those last few posts had Talking Heads' song "Once in a Lifetime."
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2013, 10:19 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,382
Paggi House is staying according to the Emerging Projects info.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/DowntownAu...s_jan_2013.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 2:31 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
I take it from your response that your idea of community is everybody acquiescing to the loudest neighbors.
No Sir ( or madam) that is not a logical or accuate conclusion from anything I have said. I quite clearly stated what my feelings are about the argument being "reported" from Bridges:
" The Sunlight Argument is silly and distorts other issues."

My idea of community in my city and forum is a place where there are ratioanl discussions and empathic responses to situations that may well affect any of us at some point in time. Be that Horizontal or vertical communities.

Change is inevitalbe. People should do their due dilignece before moving into a neighborhood. Reasonable timelines for change are hard to predict. Homeowners ( vertical and horizontal) need to look forward with "reasonable" expectations for growth patterns before investing. For me, reasonable timelines and change is what seems to be in play here. We all should know ( at least on here) that zoning and laws will evolve. I do feel that for the sake of investment, some "reasonable" stability and predictabily is necessary. Rapid growth seems to fuel the sense of what is reasonable. But, yes, let the buyer beware.

On the other hand: I have every right to work to affect development in the neigborhood I invested in ( mine being vertical and downtown)... and I have. I have fought for bars and restaurants that other neighbors thought would not be healhty. I have fought against ill planned and invasive student housing that would be transitory and value threathing. I have fought for high rises that would push boundaries of height but would bring welcome activity and value driven neighbors. My right in all cases.

I think more people need to ask themselves how they would feel if an unexpected development, ( for what ever the reason) was to be built 8 feet from your bedroom window.
Would you not at least work to have something to say about it.???? (... you should then pray, in my case and possibly the Bridges, the person quoted in the paper is not the silly old lady who has nothing to do but make up feeble quotes! LOL!)


( I am talking down the American flag and turning off the fife playing in the background now)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 3:01 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,385
But there isn't anything being built 8 feet from someone's window in this case. There are no windows other than a hallway window which affects noone tremendously AND their specific complaint (light) holds absolutely no water whatsoever. They are grandstanding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 3:32 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
But there isn't anything being built 8 feet from someone's window in this case. There are no windows other than a hallway window which affects noone tremendously AND their specific complaint (light) holds absolutely no water whatsoever. They are grandstanding.
WOW...

Clearly I stated I do not think this particlar claim by whomever represented Bridges is valid. Clearly. So I am not sure who you are arguing with?

I was attemting to evoke concersations that might get us away from "arguing" to a sense of how folks would respond to a parallel situation that we too often brush aside as not affecting precedent that may affect any one of us.

I guess that attempt was not clear enough.
My appologies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 7:47 PM
Komeht Komeht is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
No Sir ( or madam) that is not a logical or accuate conclusion from anything I have said. I quite clearly stated what my feelings are about the argument being "reported" from Bridges:
" The Sunlight Argument is silly and distorts other issues."

My idea of community in my city and forum is a place where there are ratioanl discussions and empathic responses to situations that may well affect any of us at some point in time. Be that Horizontal or vertical communities.

Change is inevitalbe. People should do their due dilignece before moving into a neighborhood. Reasonable timelines for change are hard to predict. Homeowners ( vertical and horizontal) need to look forward with "reasonable" expectations for growth patterns before investing. For me, reasonable timelines and change is what seems to be in play here. We all should know ( at least on here) that zoning and laws will evolve. I do feel that for the sake of investment, some "reasonable" stability and predictabily is necessary. Rapid growth seems to fuel the sense of what is reasonable. But, yes, let the buyer beware.

On the other hand: I have every right to work to affect development in the neigborhood I invested in ( mine being vertical and downtown)... and I have. I have fought for bars and restaurants that other neighbors thought would not be healhty. I have fought against ill planned and invasive student housing that would be transitory and value threathing. I have fought for high rises that would push boundaries of height but would bring welcome activity and value driven neighbors. My right in all cases.

I think more people need to ask themselves how they would feel if an unexpected development, ( for what ever the reason) was to be built 8 feet from your bedroom window.
Would you not at least work to have something to say about it.???? (... you should then pray, in my case and possibly the Bridges, the person quoted in the paper is not the silly old lady who has nothing to do but make up feeble quotes! LOL!)


( I am talking down the American flag and turning off the fife playing in the background now)
1. What's with the distinction between vertical or horizontal housing? Do you think there's some inherent bias against people who live in vertical housing? Here? On this board? Skyscraper page - right? I mean - really where is this coming from?

2. Your right to a rational discussion (I think you get that here) doesn't give you a right to agreement. It doesn't even get you a right to empathy if unwarranted.

3. The developer wants to replace a Taco Cabana - a Taco freaking Cabana - on town lake - with VMU. Sorry for those people who thought they got to keep those views forever - but - the rest of us we benefit.

4. Far too often too much weight is given to neighbors (who always oppose something next door) and not enough weight to the wider community.

5. NIMBYism began in an era where new development almost always meant new crappy development and the trade-off wasn't a fair deal. But it has a life of its own now and that's unfortunate, because the urban development today isn't what it was in the 1980s. And this PUD is exactly the kind of thing the city should be doing everywhere. And even here - Jeff Jack wants to deny the process. He doesn't just think that the developers shouldn't be granted the variance - Jeff Jack thinks they shouldn't even have the right to ask for the variance in the first place. He opposes PUDs for lots like this when the whole purpose is to get development exactly like this.

6. As for all of us having to ask how would we feel if a particular development went in - you know what - too bad. That is not my job. All I have to do is look at it from MY perspective. And from MY perspective, we're trading a Taco Cabana for exactly the kind of thing I want in this city - dense VMU. And if they don't like it - that's fine. But I'm not going to agree with them.

This is an attractive development. It is exactly where we need to be developing. It is exactly what we need to be doing more of. It is unfortunate that when a developer wants to do the right thing they are punished and when they want to do the wrong thing (low density, set backs, lots of parking) they are rewarded with easy permits.

You want empathy for that position?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2013, 11:18 PM
AustinBob AustinBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
1. What's with the distinction between vertical or horizontal housing? Do you think there's some inherent bias against people who live in vertical housing? Here? On this board? Skyscraper page - right? I mean - really where is this coming from?

2. Your right to a rational discussion (I think you get that here) doesn't give you a right to agreement. It doesn't even get you a right to empathy if unwarranted.

3. The developer wants to replace a Taco Cabana - a Taco freaking Cabana - on town lake - with VMU. Sorry for those people who thought they got to keep those views forever - but - the rest of us we benefit.

4. Far too often too much weight is given to neighbors (who always oppose something next door) and not enough weight to the wider community.

5. NIMBYism began in an era where new development almost always meant new crappy development and the trade-off wasn't a fair deal. But it has a life of its own now and that's unfortunate, because the urban development today isn't what it was in the 1980s. And this PUD is exactly the kind of thing the city should be doing everywhere. And even here - Jeff Jack wants to deny the process. He doesn't just think that the developers shouldn't be granted the variance - Jeff Jack thinks they shouldn't even have the right to ask for the variance in the first place. He opposes PUDs for lots like this when the whole purpose is to get development exactly like this.

6. As for all of us having to ask how would we feel if a particular development went in - you know what - too bad. That is not my job. All I have to do is look at it from MY perspective. And from MY perspective, we're trading a Taco Cabana for exactly the kind of thing I want in this city - dense VMU. And if they don't like it - that's fine. But I'm not going to agree with them.

This is an attractive development. It is exactly where we need to be developing. It is exactly what we need to be doing more of. It is unfortunate that when a developer wants to do the right thing they are punished and when they want to do the wrong thing (low density, set backs, lots of parking) they are rewarded with easy permits.

You want empathy for that position?
I don't think you understood what Michael is trying to say which is a much broader statement than a simple commentary on this particular development. Not all development is good development, even when it involves redeveloping an underutilized property. For example, not all uses are compatible with neighboring development and I agree with Michael that we need to exercise our right to protest a change when that happens.

In this case I think we can all agree that this proposal, if built, will be a very good thing for that corner and the argument against it is weak at best. Density in and near downtown is good, it's unlikely that this development will negatively impact its neighbors, and the use is very appropriate and compatible with nearby development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2013, 11:46 PM
Komeht Komeht is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinBob View Post
I don't think you understood what Michael is trying to say which is a much broader statement than a simple commentary on this particular development. Not all development is good development, even when it involves redeveloping an underutilized property. For example, not all uses are compatible with neighboring development and I agree with Michael that we need to exercise our right to protest a change when that happens.

In this case I think we can all agree that this proposal, if built, will be a very good thing for that corner and the argument against it is weak at best. Density in and near downtown is good, it's unlikely that this development will negatively impact its neighbors, and the use is very appropriate and compatible with nearby development.
Not only is not all development good development - I would say the vast majority is crap - drive 5 minutes out of the city core and then keep driving for the next 30-45 minutes in virtually any direction and you will know exactly what I mean. That's why stuff like this needs to be encouraged, celebrated and supported. The NIMBYs have an enormous voice in this city - disproportionate against all reason. Planners and council and decision makers of all kind need to constantly hear the other side - that the whiney speakers at city council and the obnoxious letters from CAVE people in the Statesman don't comprise the entire community.

And MichaelB is asking for more than a right to protest, he seems to be asking for us to be empathetic when none is earned. Neither I nor any poster have questioned his right to voice an opinion, here or elsewhere. And god only knows the NIMBYs in this town have amazing power to control and derail in very good development - as they quite often do.

Far too often we listen with the utmost concern to neighbors who think the world will come crashing in if some variance is granted. And it just is so rarely the case.

I don't stand up for bad development - never have, never will. If MichaelB is making a different point that what I believe he is, he picked a strange thread to do it in.

This project is good - it replaces bad - it should go forward - we need this to happen over and over and over if we are going to develop into the city that it has the potential to be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 1:46 AM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinBob View Post
I don't think you understood what Michael is trying to say which is a much broader statement than a simple commentary on this particular development. Not all development is good development, even when it involves redeveloping an underutilized property. For example, not all uses are compatible with neighboring development and I agree with Michael that we need to exercise our right to protest a change when that happens.

In this case I think we can all agree that this proposal, if built, will be a very good thing for that corner and the argument against it is weak at best. Density in and near downtown is good, it's unlikely that this development will negatively impact its neighbors, and the use is very appropriate and compatible with nearby development.
yup

....and yup

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 3:26 AM
Syndic's Avatar
Syndic Syndic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,115
I don't think owning a property in a general area should give you any more say over laws and development than someone living across town. I fundamentally disagree with the whole basis of the neighborhood group/NIMBY concept. Property ownership (or even residence) shouldn't give you any special benefits. We live in a democracy, not a society wherein the propertied class controls things and wields extra influence. Or, at least, not in theory. That area of Austin is ALL OF OURS. It's part of OUR city and I want the building built. My opinion should count just as much as theirs. No one is forcing them to live there and we're all potential property owners there. I have no empathy for their contrived concerns. These residents don't own those hallway windows and their balconies don't even face northward. It's just a big blank wall. It was built like that for a reason. I know none of you are arguing against that, but I just wanted to make it clear where I stand on the whole neighborhood group/NIMBY mentality. I wish there were some way we could render them completely powerless.
__________________
Anti-palm trees. Death to I-35!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 7:56 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,382
When I rotated the view from the east, I can see how a taller building will block some of current building's views. I don't think it's a huge deal, but I couldn't see it in the render till I looked at it differently.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 6:34 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
When I rotated the view from the east, I can see how a taller building will block some of current building's views. I don't think it's a huge deal, but I couldn't see it in the render till I looked at it differently.

A shorter building will block the same views. The folks living in those units still have a view looking to the east. I suspect that they have substantial morning light with park views (treetop mostly since the existing building is only 5 floors) and possibly some snippet of a downtown view. Nobody guaranteed them a northeastern view when they bought those units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 10:42 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
A shorter building will block the same views. The folks living in those units still have a view looking to the east. I suspect that they have substantial morning light with park views (treetop mostly since the existing building is only 5 floors) and possibly some snippet of a downtown view. Nobody guaranteed them a northeastern view when they bought those units.
I agree. I think the light issue is more of a lake view issue. I think it's unfortunate for those folks that lose their view, but like you said, they weren't guaranteed it. You can't stop the development because they are unhappy with their view changing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 12:27 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
400 feet tall
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sunshine and taco trucks on every corner
Posts: 44,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
When I rotated the view from the east, I can see how a taller building will block some of current building's views. I don't think it's a huge deal, but I couldn't see it in the render till I looked at it differently.

That's not even how it will appear, though. The U or C shape will have the open end facing Bridges on the Park. So they have a very weak argument here. Imagine that shape flipped around so the open side is facing Bridges on the Park. It will NOT block their sunlight. And the wall of this new building will be quite a ways away and with a gap in the middle.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 1:00 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,382
You're totally right that I had it flipped. My mistake.

Looking at the render closer, does it appear more like an L to you? It does to me now. Am I just not seeing it right?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 1:12 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
400 feet tall
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sunshine and taco trucks on every corner
Posts: 44,155
^I think the green highlighted structure is the Cole Apartments across Lamar.

And then of course the blue building to the right is the Zach Scott Theatre.

The blue outlined structure I believe is Bridges on the Park.

And you're right, the new development does look like an L shaped building. Or the number 7.

I'm just not seeing this supposed "wall" that will blocking the views/light from Bridges on the Park.

It would be smart of the developer to release some more renderings to show it from a few more angles.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 8:02 PM
ivanwolf's Avatar
ivanwolf ivanwolf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
^I think the green highlighted structure is the Cole Apartments across Lamar.

And then of course the blue building to the right is the Zach Scott Theatre.

The blue outlined structure I believe is Bridges on the Park.

And you're right, the new development does look like an L shaped building. Or the number 7.

I'm just not seeing this supposed "wall" that will blocking the views/light from Bridges on the Park.

It would be smart of the developer to release some more renderings to show it from a few more angles.
I think that the render is wrong in that the Bridges should abut against the L portion of the new structure. Think the Bridges is up against Lamar, so shall the new structure. that makes them meet. Either physically touching with the flat walls or a small break. Whoever did this render was way off on placing the other buildings in background falsely. Maybe they suck or they did it on purpose to confuse, but its clearly wrong.

Or its just that they are illustrating the height difference of the old and new structures and this perspective is just hard to see without clear detail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 8:25 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,382
I believe the two do touch in this render. The height difference is creating an optical illusion.
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 1:43 PM.

     

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