Austin | 305 S. Congress | 6 Towers - 215'/295'/365'/375'/445'/525' | Approved - Page 11

Syndic · #**201** Posted **Jan 9, 2017, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Matt

Austin doesn't have much (if any) of that traditional style.

Most of the architecture on Congress Ave and 6th Street is pretty traditional and Texan. I'd like to see local architects take some inspiration from this, if they want their work to feel truly local.

drummer · #**202** Posted **Jan 10, 2017, 1:40 AM**

Yeah, I agree with Matt. I think that traditional could absolutely work to complement some of the historic buildings in downtown - the Driskoll, the Capital Building, some others along Congress, etc., but I also think there's room for some more modern stuff. I'm not asking for something like European cities are putting out there necessarily, but something edgy could be fun - so long as it's also timeless (can that happen?). I hate seeing some mid-century architecture that just didn't make it past its decade. Some of works still, but some just needs to go away.

AusTxDevelopment · #**203** Posted **May 4, 2017, 6:10 PM**

CBRE is marketing a new development that is part of (or technically adjacent to) the South Shore district. The marketing brochure was sent out today, but they have not posted it on their website yet. I'm sure it'll be posted shortly since this is such a big project. I have included some screen shots below. There was also a construction progress photo of the Oracle campus, which I posted in the Oracle thread.

drummer · #**204** Posted **May 4, 2017, 10:55 PM**

Does anybody know if that pedestrian bridge is more than a good idea?

wwmiv · #**205** Posted **May 4, 2017, 11:16 PM**

This is nowhere near the land area (South Central Shore - I.E. basically the Statesman parcel and the land immediately around it) that this thread is about, just for clarity. This is a good two miles away on the other side of I-35. That being said, this is a significant improvement from the state of the land usage now. It expands the urban footprint. Pretty, too.

wwmiv · #**206** Posted **May 4, 2017, 11:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

Does anybody know if that pedestrian bridge is more than a good idea?

It's a great idea and is actually in the city's pipeline. Not currently funded or designed, but in the pipeline.

sammyk · #**207** Posted **May 5, 2017, 1:06 AM**

That's a lot of apartments they're going to demolish for this.

KevinFromTexas · #**208** Posted **May 6, 2017, 4:59 PM**

So those are fairly tall. It's sort of hard to count the floors on those, but one seems to be 8 to 11 floors and the other is 11 floors. One of them (the one on the left) might even be a short high rise.

The ATX · #**209** Posted **May 6, 2017, 5:42 PM**

The site of Catalyst Two (behind HEB) was demo'ed late last year. Catalyst One would take out a huge swath of what I would call some of the better "affordable" apartments in the area. I see trouble ahead with the city in regards to Catalyst One.

KevinFromTexas · #**210** Posted **May 6, 2017, 6:41 PM**

It seems kind of pointless to be stubborn on a new project's development after the apartments on the site have already been demolished. It's not like even if the Catalyst project were to not happen that developers would swoop in and build some cheap rundown apartments to replace what was lost. What's done is done. Let the office project go forward and encourage more apartments on other lots in the area. This area should be peppered with 8 to 12-story apartment buildings mixed with office space.

LoneStarMike · #**211** Posted **May 12, 2017, 7:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

It seems kind of pointless to be stubborn on a new project's development after the apartments on the site have already been demolished.

The apartments on the Catalyst One site have not been demolished. I think he's saying that the site for Catalyst Two has been cleared, but the site for Catalyst One has not and the Catalyst One site is where there is currently a huge swath of the better "affordable" apartments in the area.

The ATX · #**212** Posted **May 24, 2017, 5:50 AM**

TXDot will have a new Austin home to move to once they vacate their Riverside offices.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/stat...RS1uWOSwwsOtL/

The ATX · #**213** Posted **Oct 31, 2017, 7:40 PM**

The Statesman newspaper is being cut loose (for sale) by Cox, These may mean the site is getting closer to being redeveloped.

http://www.statesman.com/business/co...LJO8aXlbhXblL/

Novacek · #**214** Posted **Oct 31, 2017, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

The Statesman newspaper is being cut loose (for sale) by Cox, These may mean the site is getting closer to being redeveloped.

http://www.statesman.com/business/co...LJO8aXlbhXblL/

The site was already sold off, and the printing of the paper was already moved to Houston.

Doesn't hurt, but I don't know that it speeds up the development process any.

MichaelB · #**215** Posted **Oct 31, 2017, 8:59 PM**

Amazon.... Amazon.....

brando · #**216** Posted **Nov 1, 2017, 1:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

TXDot will have a new Austin home to move to once they vacate their Riverside offices.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/stat...RS1uWOSwwsOtL/

Their building on E. Riverside is connected to the statesman site. It's owned by the same guy that owns the building next door that is also on the statesman site. He also owns the small lot the Threadgills is on and he is kicking them out. I'm sure he is working with the Cox Family on selling all the land in that complex where the statesman is to a single developer.

There are a lot of smaller parcels in the statesman complex that are owned by various people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

The apartments on the Catalyst One site have not been demolished. I think he's saying that the site for Catalyst Two has been cleared, but the site for Catalyst One has not and the Catalyst One site is where there is currently a huge swath of the better "affordable" apartments in the area.

What do you mean Catalyst One or Two? Are there actual plans/permits anywhere? I thought it was all just talk.

mumu · #**217** Posted **Nov 1, 2017, 12:54 PM**

Quote:

What do you mean Catalyst One or Two? Are there actual plans/permits anywhere? I thought it was all just talk.

Catalyst Two (the smaller lot immediately north of the HEB and below Lenox Boardwalk) has a permit in process to clear the burned building on the site. Nothing else.

The ATX · #**218** Posted **Dec 22, 2017, 7:08 PM**

The site plan for South Shore IV was filed for AULCC this week. The site is at S. Lake Shore and Tinnin Ford.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...20IV_PLANS.pdf

mumu · #**219** Posted **Dec 22, 2017, 11:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

The site plan for South Shore IV was filed for AULCC this week. The site is at S. Lake Shore and Tinnin Ford.

I always wondered about this land's viability for development because it has so many huge "heritage" trees on it. Many of them appear to be far beyond the 30" diameter range, meaning they typically must be transplanted.

Presumably the developer knows what they're doing; it'll be interesting to see how the finagle the whole thing.

427MM · #**220** Posted **Dec 23, 2017, 1:45 AM**

That west elevation is awful. So long and unbroken/sad and uninteresting. Really wish their was more urbanity in everything popping up over there. I fear it will lack a walkable vibe once all of this is complete.