HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2016, 10:50 PM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Far from the maddening crowd
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O View Post
Quoting myself. I wasn't expecting the news on Hooters triangle to break the next day! It is only the first of several to come.
Its currently zoned for a max of 60 feet in height, but the COA is looking for ways to allow for a 200 footer. Not sure what that means, I thought they could just do as they please.
source, AAS 4/9.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2016, 12:30 AM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral View Post
Its currently zoned for a max of 60 feet in height, but the COA is looking for ways to allow for a 200 footer. Not sure what that means, I thought they could just do as they please.
source, AAS 4/9.
I'm glad they can't just do as they please. In some cases, it might make things move more quickly, but there needs to be accountability and approval processes for the city just as with anyone else.
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2016, 6:17 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,612
Here's another write up:

http://buildingatx.com/2016/04/south...pe-renderings/

Quote:
Councilmembers got a preview of what might be included in the City’s South Central Waterfront Initiative master plan this week, including recommendations for dense, mixed-use development, expanded open and green space, and an elevated trail over Bouldin Creek.
On so many levels this makes me happy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2016, 7:39 PM
AusTxDevelopment AusTxDevelopment is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral View Post
Its currently zoned for a max of 60 feet in height, but the COA is looking for ways to allow for a 200 footer. Not sure what that means, I thought they could just do as they please.
source, AAS 4/9.

If the Statesman is right, this surprises me. Many, many developers have looked into developing that site over the years. In addition to the Schulz family being reluctant to sell, until now that is, all the developers were told by the City "off the record" that as long as the COA occupies One Texas Center the allowable height will not be changed on that site because the City doesn't want their view of Downtown blocked, even partially. I would think they would be even more against it now that the Catherine partially blocks their view. Or maybe that's why they changed their mind since that angle of their view is already blocked. Who knows. At least they are moving in a positive direction, ie more height not more restrictions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2016, 8:33 PM
Dcbrickley Dcbrickley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Zilker
Posts: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment View Post
the developers were told by the City "off the record" that as long as the COA occupies One Texas Center the allowable height will not be changed on that site because the City doesn't want their view of Downtown blocked, even partially.
This is disgusting, makes me sick to my stomach.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2016, 9:54 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,625
Yea that's pretty messed up for them to do that. I mean the One Texas Center is a crappy building (not as crappy as what Brandywine is proposing for 4th @ Colorado mind you) but still.... What gives the city the right to make those kinds of requests? I mean they will still have a view of the city, the only difference is that the city view will be closer and more impressive than before.

They were being worse than the NIMBYs in Bouldin IMO because One Texas Center is a "highrise" and some how you can't block the views from it??? Bring on the taller buildings so we don't have to look at One Texas Center...


On an other note, in my opinion the Shultz trust triangle is the second most important piece of land behind AAS. It's a prominent and very visible block that needs to be planned well because it along with AAS will ultimately set the standard for the rest of the district. I hope it has more than just office space. It truly needs to have a 24 hour use and it needs to be fairly tall. When you look at the map, that lot will basically the western gateway into South Shore Central.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)

Last edited by Jdawgboy; Apr 13, 2016 at 10:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2016, 11:58 PM
Dcbrickley Dcbrickley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Zilker
Posts: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
Yea that's pretty messed up for them to do that. I mean the One Texas Center is a crappy building (not as crappy as what Brandywine is proposing for 4th @ Colorado mind you) but still.... What gives the city the right to make those kinds of requests? I mean they will still have a view of the city, the only difference is that the city view will be closer and more impressive than before.

They were being worse than the NIMBYs in Bouldin IMO because One Texas Center is a "highrise" and some how you can't block the views from it??? Bring on the taller buildings so we don't have to look at One Texas Center...


On an other note, in my opinion the Shultz trust triangle is the second most important piece of land behind AAS. It's a prominent and very visible block that needs to be planned well because it along with AAS will ultimately set the standard for the rest of the district. I hope it has more than just office space. It truly needs to have a 24 hour use and it needs to be fairly tall. When you look at the map, that lot will basically the western gateway into South Shore Central.

agreed. how do they dare complain that there is not enough housing, when they block housing at every turn?

You CANNOT solve the problem of inadequate housing without adding more housing. Fir Fuk Sake
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 1:15 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is online now
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,701
Do y'all think we're past the point where we can fix that Riverside/Barton Springs X? If not, what do you think should be done to realign them, and how would the names be changed?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 1:25 AM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
Do y'all think we're past the point where we can fix that Riverside/Barton Springs X? If not, what do you think should be done to realign them, and how would the names be changed?
I read something a long time ago (I think an article linked on SSP) that it wasn't going to happen with all of the new construction already underway.
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 3:15 AM
Dcbrickley Dcbrickley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Zilker
Posts: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
Do y'all think we're past the point where we can fix that Riverside/Barton Springs X? If not, what do you think should be done to realign them, and how would the names be changed?
I recall seeing a rendering (back in the 90's) of Butler Park and it did not include Riverside at all. I remembering being shocked by that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 10:50 AM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dcbrickley View Post
This is disgusting, makes me sick to my stomach.
Except that it is complete BS.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 1:24 PM
Dcbrickley Dcbrickley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Zilker
Posts: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O View Post
Except that it is complete BS.
I hope you are right. I was very naive regarding the city till I built my first home.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 3:09 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dcbrickley View Post
I recall seeing a rendering (back in the 90's) of Butler Park and it did not include Riverside at all. I remembering being shocked by that.
I know they've floated the idea of depressing it and/or partially capping it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2016, 8:55 PM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,165
This rendering has been posted before, but here's a bigger version.



It came from the "final" South Central Waterfront Vision Framework Plan as adopted on June 16, 2016.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/npzd/Austi...estEdition.pdf

First, they talked about a "baseline buildout" - what could be done under existing regulations without any intervention from the City, but several of the parcels wouldn't see enough return on investment under the existing regulations and those parcels probably wouldn't be redeveloped in the next 5-7 years. Because of this, the public loses out on benefits like more open space, affordable housing, etc.

The rendering above and those below are based on a test scenario, where the developers are allowed to build more/higher than what current regulations allow to make it worth their while, and the public gets more benefits.

One of the things in the report is about a possible Statesman Waterfront Park.

Quote:
The Statesman Waterfront Park transforms this section of the 10 mile Anne and Roy Butler Hike and Bike Trail around Lady Bird Lake by adding a park that is unique among Austin's parks. Framed by a lively pedestrian market street to the south and a natural wetland habitat along Lady Bird Lake to the north, the park embraces Austin’s natural beauty as well as its vibrant and quirky energy.

At its eastern edge, an outdoor amphitheater, called the Bat Observation Theater, provides an ideal vantage point for Austinites and visitors to watch the iconic spectacle of Mexican Free-tailed bats emerging at sunset. At the same time, the amphitheater enhances access to the waterfront by creating
a gentle vertical transition from the Congress Street Bridge to the trail at waterfront trail below.

The center of the park serves as a Great Lawn that integrates stormwater ponds with active and passive recreation opportunities and access to the Cox Martketplace promenade. The western portion of the park, called the Pontoon Landing, features a boardwalk that could serve as a landing for a pontoon bridge across Lady Bird Lake connecting to the Waller Creek greenway.

Finally, the middle portion of the park becomes a tranquil space with a series of rain gardens that filter and purify runoff from nearby streets and development before releasing it into the lake.


(There are also renderings of The Great Lawn, The Pontoon Landing, and the Barton Springs Plaza Rain Gardens in the report.)

The report also envisions a Crocket Square and Cox Marketplace.

Quote:
Crockett Square provides the South Central Waterfront with a public
plaza counterpart to the lake edge and a social space for district
workers, residents and visitors. Its edges are highlighted by street
trees and raingardens.

The Square’s primary circulation paths define three key areas of
program within the square. An urban demonstration wetland in the
southeast corner is both a display of district-level water strategies
and a play-and-learn discovery garden for kids and kids-at-heart.

To the north, a bermed central lawn gently sculpts four small
amphitheater spaces, places where people can gather, eat, sunbathe,
or take in a movie from a small bandshell. The plaza also includes
a large tree-lined plaza, gridded with small fountains that entice play
and contact with water or are turned off so that a farmer’s market or
other vendor events can regularly enliven the plaza.

The Square has both grand spaces for congregation as well as
smaller spaces for friends, lovers or quiet reflection. Small look-outs
edge over the wetland area for views across the water to the park and
forested cloister seating creates more intimate seating moments. A
lengthy pergola along the Square’s primary walking path also serves
as a canopy for the Cox Marketplace, where food trucks and other
entrepreneurial innovations and events can spring up periodically.


From Page 102 of the report:

Test Scenario Development Program

Quote:
The Financial Framework requires private properties to "buy-in" to the Vision by building the public realm on-site, as well as financially contributing to city-led improvements. To incentivize property owners to contribute, their costs must be offset through increased development allowances.

The Test Scenario is a “what if” financial model to calibrate the additional development needed beyond existing entitlements to incentivize private
properties to participate in the Vision. The map below shows the Test Scenario on “tipping parcels” – properties most likely to redevelop within the
next 15 years. Under the Test Scenario, private properties ultimately pay for the whole public realm vision through on site improvements and the
recommended Funding Toolkit on page 97.


Most of the buildings depicted on the above map are 200 feet or less in height, but I see three residential towers of 240 feet, a hotel that's 280 feet, and two office buildings - one 300 feet tall and the other 400 feet tall.

There's a lot more in the report, but those were just some of the highlights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2016, 1:55 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
you suck
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 47,063
That's actually quite a lot. I count 11 200 footers. Austin right now has 24 200 footers, plus three more that are under construction - two of which have topped out. So technically we have 26. 11 more would be quite an increase especially considering it's just one neighborhood.
__________________
Hear me. And if I close my mind in fear, please pry it open. - Metallica
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2016, 6:28 PM
Geckos_Rule's Avatar
Geckos_Rule Geckos_Rule is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Austin
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post
This rendering has been posted before, but here's a bigger version.



It came from the "final" South Central Waterfront Vision Framework Plan as adopted on June 16, 2016.
So that rendering is a real..."ideal" scenario right? I mean could we realistically see this type of development in that area in the next 10 years? I have a hard time believing that riverside/barton springs/Soco property owners would like this many highrises right in their neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 12:47 AM
jbssfelix jbssfelix is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post
Just let me know when they actually make these bike lanes reality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 1:16 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post

Quote:
The western portion of the park, called the Pontoon Landing, features a boardwalk that could serve as a landing for a pontoon bridge across Lady Bird Lake connecting to the Waller Creek greenway.

Oh god, they're not still talking about that absolutely moronic idea of a pontoon bridge that isn't always there?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 7:33 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
Oh god, they're not still talking about that absolutely moronic idea of a pontoon bridge that isn't always there?
No kidding... It's a ridiculous idea and would only be used a couple of times a day and when it is in use it would block boats and canoes from passing up and down the waterway.

If they want another pedestrian bridge then build another pedestrian bridge, maybe one where some sort of future light rail component could be built onto.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 8:40 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
you suck
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 47,063
That's just one aspect of Austin that always bugs me. We try to cut corners way too much to save money or time. I mean, I think that with the boost to the property tax revenue the city and county would get from all of that development that we should get something more substantial and permanent than a floating bridge.
__________________
Hear me. And if I close my mind in fear, please pry it open. - Metallica
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 11:40 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.