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

[The ATX]

Developer's are seeking approval for a large mixed use PUD where Hooters and all that surface parking is currently located. The tallest building(s) would be 195'. That's decent height for south of the river.

Austin Environmental Commission: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=267433

Community Impact: https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...vironmentally/

One member of the Environmental Commission - Mary Ann Neely - that will decide if the PUD is approved seems rather anti-development:

“I’m tired of these PUDs that want a whole lot of space, but do very little to give our city something special,” Neely said. “These aren’t special. I’m tired of PUDs coming up that don’t make Austin a better place.”

She apparently doesn't like dense or urban development downtown. Just about anything would be better than that huge parking lot and a Hooters.

[drummer]

"Something special" is a pretty subjective way of describing anything, by the way...perhaps lots of people think that PUDs often provide something special - namely more places to live, shop, eat, work, etc., that don't push folks out to the suburbs and choke freeways and neighborhood roads even more than they already are...perhaps they should consider the environmental impact of not providing more dense development in the core.

[Jdawgboy]

Was skimming over the PDF file and right at the beginning something caught my eye. Why in the world is that block even considered part of the Bouldin Creek Neighborhood planning area? It isn't in the neighborhood, it's not event right up against it. How many blocks do neighborhood planning areas go beyond their actual boundaries? 1-2-3 or more?

If we were talking about the southwest corner of S.1st and Barton Creek where Wataburger is, then it would be right up against the neighborhood. I just don't see the reasoning behind it other than blocking redevelopment of the site which should be high density.

[drummer]

^ Good point. I didn't catch that. It truly is a severely underutilized location at present. Perhaps the neighborhood thinks that Hooters and a large surface lot is a better source of "something special" for the community.

[corvairkeith]

Hey, that Hooters is the "heart and soul of South Austin" ever since we lost the Taco Cabana on South Lamar and Riverside.

[KevinFromTexas]

Ha. Suburban housewives like Hooters more than PUDs. There, I said it.

Anyway, yes, we need that parking lot there. Where else are the grackles and pigeons going to fight over stray french fries?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by drummer

"Something special" is a pretty subjective way of describing anything, by the way...perhaps lots of people think that PUDs often provide something special - namely more places to live, shop, eat, work, etc., that don't push folks out to the suburbs and choke freeways and neighborhood roads even more than they already are...perhaps they should consider the environmental impact of not providing more dense development in the core.

You obviously don't belong on any City of Austin commission responsible for urban planning.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by The ATX

You obviously don't belong on any City of Austin commission responsible for urban planning.

Hey, if they would let me conference in through Skype and accommodate a 13 to 14 hour time difference, I'm all in!

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Ha. Suburban housewives like Hooters more than PUDs. There, I said it.

Anyway, yes, we need that parking lot there. Where else are the grackles and pigeons going to fight over stray french fries?

They can just join the rest of their friends over at HEB Hancock, they're missing out on the party.

[deerhoof]

Redevelopment partner selected to shape future of sprawling Statesman property

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...489&j=76993721

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by deerhoof

Redevelopment partner selected to shape future of sprawling Statesman property

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...489&j=76993721

It's great that Austin based companies are being chosen for projects such as this but Endeavor really needs to push the envelope with architectural design.

[futures]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

It's great that Austin based companies are being chosen for projects such as this but Endeavor really needs to push the envelope with architectural design.

100% agreed. Such a prominent location deserves high quality architecture. If they want to stick with an Austin architect, then Michael Hsu should be a front runner.

[NYC2ATX]

If it's Endeavor, I'm sure it's gonna be pretty good. I've been consistently impressed with the projects, planning and designs they've put out in the past.

[JoninATX]

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

If it's Endeavor, I'm sure it's gonna be pretty good. I've been consistently impressed with the projects, planning and designs they've put out in the past.

[drummer]

I'm excited for the potential of this site. I trust (hope) that such a prominent location that would be a significant statement from any firm will yield something quality.

I especially like this point from the article:

Most of the property is not in a Capitol View Corridor, which restricts building heights to preserve views of the Texas Capitol Building.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by drummer

I'm excited for the potential of this site. I trust (hope) that such a prominent location that would be a significant statement from any firm will yield something quality.

I especially like this point from the article:

The only thing is it doesn't look like the tallest portion will be over 400 feet going by the South Shore Central overlay. I guess that could change but it seems like the city doesn't want anything over 400 feet south of the river.

[drummer]

Or in the rest of the city for that matter, haha. I'm okay with 400 feet as the max south of the river. I want to see more height north of the river, especially utilizing areas without the CVC restrictions.

[wwmiv]

Whether the tallest portion can be 400' or not doesn't mean it will be 400'. After all, if we can only get 400' towers generally north of the river, I doubt we'll get any that tall in an untested part of downtown.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by futures

100% agreed. Such a prominent location deserves high quality architecture. If they want to stick with an Austin architect, then Michael Hsu should be a front runner.

Perhaps it is high quality but can we really say that Michael Hsu "pushes the envelope" architecturally?

Sorry, I mean, I guess people like that stuff, but personally I favor architecture that's more classic/traditional-looking and/or curvy. Here are some examples of things I'd like to see in Austin:

[_Matt]

Those are nice, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Traditional style is built to be compatible with nearby existing character. Austin doesn't have much (if any) of that traditional style. South Shore area is a clean slate, architecturally. There's very little existing neighborhood character to match.