HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2017, 10:22 PM
Dcbrickley Dcbrickley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Zilker
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Ever had a big development go up next door to your house? Something your money will be at risk for?

Negotiating with big business interests and lawyers is not pretty business. Of course I'm gonna object to your height until you absolutely commit to what I want. It's 101. And believe me the developers play it well. Like throwing in extra height late in the game ( as happened here from what I read) and throwing you into another battle when all you want in affordable housing. Yeah.. not pretty business.
So at the end of the day, you wanna profit from my neighborhood.... You better be a damn ass good neighbor.! ;-).
While I may not agree with everything being asked. I',m very happy there are folks who are keeping the flow of development tempered to local needs and neighborhoods.
Otherwise you get ...... well, Houston.
I understand what you are saying. It is game played by both sides. In my neighborhood however, the old NIMBY's fight the smallest itty bitty tiny variances. I had to cut the brick I used on my new house in HALF (and apply it like tile to the side of my house), to use it. Otherwise I would have been over the impervious cover limit. This is just 1 of hundreds of little bs things we had to do build a 4 -3 bath house. 3100 sqft house on 8000 sqft lot. All because of NIMBY's....they add months to construction time and tens of thousands of dollars to my personal cost to build. It is an OUTRAGE.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2017, 10:49 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Ever had a big development go up next door to your house? Something your money will be at risk for?
at risk for? You mean "property values massively improved by"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2017, 11:22 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is online now
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
at risk for? You mean "property values massively improved by"?
If you are not wanting to sell, then having your property values go up can be a bad thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 1:18 AM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
at risk for? You mean "property values massively improved by"?
This is not always the case.
Not here to make an argument , just to get folks to be less judgmental.
It's a two way street. I have been involve in a case where the development would have hurt investment.
Sorry.
Point not made.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 1:19 AM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
If you are not wanting to sell, then having your property values go up can be a bad thing.
Again..... quick and quippy responses are not really helping.
Its a Real issue in neighborhoods bounding developing areas
Some compassion would be useful.

For me, that was not the case. SO... point not made .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 1:20 AM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dcbrickley View Post
I understand what you are saying. It is game played by both sides. In my neighborhood however, the old NIMBY's fight the smallest itty bitty tiny variances. I had to cut the brick I used on my new house in HALF (and apply it like tile to the side of my house), to use it. Otherwise I would have been over the impervious cover limit. This is just 1 of hundreds of little bs things we had to do build a 4 -3 bath house. 3100 sqft house on 8000 sqft lot. All because of NIMBY's....they add months to construction time and tens of thousands of dollars to my personal cost to build. It is an OUTRAGE.
Got it. Thats not a good one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 1:28 AM
SkyPie's Avatar
SkyPie SkyPie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Again..... quick and quippy responses are not really helping.
Its a Real issue in neighborhoods bounding developing areas
Some compassion would be useful.

For me, that was not the case. SO... point not made .
I didn't read his response as quippy. I agree with him in that long-term residents may have an interest in keeping development around them tamped down so that their property values...and in turn property taxes...don't go up exponentially. That strategy has the potential to backfire though if development is constrained in a hot area causing values to go up anyway due to lack of inventory. I actually think this is a good area for increased height and density due to its proximity to the interstate and because it has few (any?) single family houses adjacent to it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 1:51 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is online now
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyPie View Post
I didn't read his response as quippy. I agree with him in that long-term residents may have an interest in keeping development around them tamped down so that their property values...and in turn property taxes...don't go up exponentially. That strategy has the potential to backfire though if development is constrained in a hot area causing values to go up anyway due to lack of inventory. I actually think this is a good area for increased height and density due to its proximity to the interstate and because it has few (any?) single family houses adjacent to it.
You read my comment correctly. Thanks for expanding on it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 2:59 AM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 1,917
MichaelB, I totally get what you're saying. I do have compassion for neighborhoods; my frustration is more in line with dbrickley's personal story. There are some folks who fight tooth and nail every tiny little thing because they want zero change, period. There are other folks who simply want to be heard and want to have a say in how their neighborhood progresses. I wholeheartedly agree with the latter and believe developers absolutely *should* hear them and take their concerns to heart... But to simply refuse anything because of fear of more development to follow isn't a good enough reason in and of itself. There needs to be something more than "I just don't want that there" to go with their complaints. So many of the complaints against developments often include exaggerated/fabricated claims as opposed to thoughtful reasons. Of course, developers could do better, but I think that many developers genuinely want to be good neighbors (bad apples ruin it for everyone).
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 4:55 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Right here, right now
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suburban Low-rise
Posts: 5,013
The Planning Commission voted 9-4 tonight to approve the project with the 125' building along I-35. It goes to the City Council next where I suspect it will have more opposition than on the Planning Commission.

http://www.statesman.com/news/transp...ky0Kap1T4aZ1K/
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 2:11 PM
jbssfelix jbssfelix is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ATX View Post
The Planning Commission voted 9-4 tonight to approve the project with the 125' building along I-35. It goes to the City Council next where I suspect it will have more opposition than on the Planning Commission.

http://www.statesman.com/news/transp...ky0Kap1T4aZ1K/
Which is something I find confusing. It has sailed through mostly untouched by staff, by commission (aka people personally appointed by councilmembers), and now council (aka, the non-experts) want to pick it apart even after it's been deemed "just fine as-is" up to this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 5:58 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,769
Wouldn't it be better (in this particular instance) to have the extra density? Affordable housing is very important but in some ways the developers are taking a loss. No, it shouldn't be about how much money they will ultimately make when it comes affordable housing but if the community demands more affordable housing, which is badly needed, then the developers have to offset that need with added density/square footage for office and retail or the project will become less viable. Or and I totally off?

I'm not well versed in how these sorts of deals are made and I may be missing out on other aspects such as incentives given for adding affordable housing but I figured someone here could annswer my questions.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 7:59 PM
verybadgnome verybadgnome is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Holly neighborhood, Austin
Posts: 172
It's funny that many of the "against" speakers like Jose Valera were talking about the 125' tower setting a new precedent for height on the east side. They should take a look a little ways south to the 46 year old RBJ tower that stands at 155' .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 12:06 AM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 1,917
Haha, that tower, in fairness, could be the reason many oppose new height. It's a fortress and not a pretty one at that.
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 4:25 AM
verybadgnome verybadgnome is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Holly neighborhood, Austin
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
Haha, that tower, in fairness, could be the reason many oppose new height. It's a fortress and not a pretty one at that.
I live in that neighborhood as does Pio Renteria. It is adjacent to single family housing and a school, yet negatively impacts neither. This existing tower simply further illustrates how parochial and anti-urban they really are. It also illustrates how these stalwarts will flat out lie to a city commission to supposedly protect "their neighborhood."

Last edited by verybadgnome; Jan 12, 2017 at 4:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 2:51 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Right here, right now
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suburban Low-rise
Posts: 5,013
I moved the political posts beginning with the first mention of Trump to the Off Topic thread.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 3:30 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Right here, right now
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suburban Low-rise
Posts: 5,013
Community Impact has a decent summary of the project and NIMBY concerns as this goes to Council:

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...hings-to-know/
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 1:47 AM
Urbannizer's Avatar
Urbannizer Urbannizer is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: ATX, HTX, GTX
Posts: 6,373
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...ew-domain.html

Quote:
At any rate, documents filed at TDLR show Endeavor plans to build Plaza Saltillo Block 1 Commercial, a $35 million office tower with retail and parking garage at 901 E. Fifth St. The second component — “Plaza Saltillo Block 1 Residential” — is a 152- unit apartment community valued at $15 million at the same address. The third document outlines “Plaza Saltillo Block 3 Commercial,” which is a $7 million parking garage at 1109 E. Fifth St.

Based on the information filed at TDLR, the parking garage would be the first to break ground in April of this year. The office tower is projected to break ground in May and the residential would not be started until April 2018.
__________________
HAIF
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2017, 8:18 PM
Urbannizer's Avatar
Urbannizer Urbannizer is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: ATX, HTX, GTX
Posts: 6,373
Plaza Saltillo project in East Austin gets initial approval, but building heights lowered

Quote:
Endeavor Real Estate Group LLC has won preliminary approval for the rezoning of the Plaza Saltillo track in East Austin, a critical step to turn 10 acres on six blocks into a mixed-use center. Still, the measure passed with shorter building heights than the real estate company had hoped for, while negotiations continue with nearby residents worried about the scope of the development.

Austin City Council voted 8-3 Thursday on the first reading of the zoning change and other measures for the land near Fifth and Comal streets, but with building heights capped at 70 feet instead of the 125 feet desired by Endeavor and partner Columbus Realty Partners Ltd.
__________________
HAIF
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2017, 10:25 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
400 feet tall
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sunshine and taco trucks on every corner
Posts: 43,798
Lame. That smoke stack across 4th Street is 111 feet tall. That tallest office building would have been only 14 feet taller.

I would be more worried about what's laying around in those industrial yards on those blocks that border those residential blocks than a midrise commercial office building.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
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 6:43 AM.

     

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