AUSTIN | The Grove Mixed Use | U/C - Page 4

JAM · #61 Posted **Aug 19, 2015, 9:25 PM**

You fellers in posts 59 and 60 betta check your density math.

Novacek · #62 Posted **Aug 19, 2015, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAM

You fellers in posts 59 and 60 betta check your density math.

Huh? I didn't do any math. Just listed total areas.

Novacek · #63 Posted **Aug 21, 2015, 9:19 PM**

They've posted a response to the Bull Creek neighborhood calling for minimal development in the area.

http://www.thegroveatshoalcreek.com/responsetobcrc

JAM · #64 Posted **Aug 22, 2015, 5:48 PM**

write up over here: http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/...-of-the-grove/

drummer · #65 Posted **Aug 23, 2015, 12:25 AM**

^^ Difficult to read through the comments. Some folks just don't understand the long-term impact of poor planning. Dense is actually better to reduce traffic, develop a better community-feel to neighborhoods, and encourage healthy growth - let's face it, growth will happen either way in the central portion of one of the fasting growing cities in the country. I'm always amazed by this. Also, another thing to consider is better mass transit throughout the central part of the city - something nobody from the neighborhood association has brought up. Less cars on the road = more people can happily live in that area = actually better for the environment in the long run = they're obviously NIMBYs even though they say otherwise.

...done preaching to the choir now...

Flatiron · #66 Posted **Oct 6, 2015, 6:26 PM**

It would be nice to see more density in the central city, rather than endless bureaucracy:

http://communityimpact.com/2015/10/0...t-shoal-creek/

drummer · #67 Posted **Oct 6, 2015, 11:11 PM**

What are you talking about...America runs on endless bureaucracy...

Tech House · #68 Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 1:13 AM**

So, let me see if I understand... The COA spent a bunch of money on a consulting firm that told COA that we have the worst planning process the consultant has ever seen... and COA's response is to make it even worse?

Digatisdi · #69 Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 1:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech House

So, let me see if I understand... The COA spent a bunch of money on a consulting firm that told COA that we have the worst planning process the consultant has ever seen... and COA's response is to make it even worse?

I mean... It's a Tovo proposal, I'm not exactly surprised.

Flatiron · #70 Posted **Dec 14, 2015, 5:08 PM**

This development is central enough that there should be at least a few mid rise. The article is misleading though: there aren't "residents" in this development yet.

http://kxan.com/2015/12/12/public-me...lopment-plans/

drummer · #71 Posted **Dec 14, 2015, 11:38 PM**

The comments on that article continue to demonstrate the general lack of understanding of urbanism and its benefits.

Tech House · #72 Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 11:03 PM**

It's painful to watch this potentially fantastic project being tortured by obstructionists and control freaks. The developers have been spectacularly accommodating, far beyond what would ordinarily be expected, but there seems to be no end to the obstacles. It's almost capricious the way some neighbors and planners are interfering.

I recently heard an interview with a psychologist who discussed the general human tendency to avoid disruption. He made many excellent points, and I hadn't ever considered just how powerful a motivator this is. For example, if you look at the violent reaction of the public against any change to economic incentives that could even minimally disrupt their lives, it appears to be completely irrational and yet it's such a potent force in politics. As I listened to him, I looked within and could easily find many examples of my own irrational resistance to disruption. There's a psychological resistance to the process of accommodating change. We perceive forced adaptation as a fundamental violation of our personal and/or collective sovereignty. But there isn't a human being alive who hasn't fought to preserve a mediocre situation that could easily be improved if we would let go of our incorrigible attachment to the familiar.

jbssfelix · #73 Posted **Feb 19, 2016, 9:50 PM**

Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Spanning Shoal Creek Added To Plans for The Grove at Shoal Creek

wwmiv · #74 Posted **Feb 20, 2016, 12:10 AM**

This is HUGE news, less because of the bridge itself (which is nice), but more because of how seamlessly this bridge is getting political stakeholders behind the project.

Digatisdi · #75 Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 3:42 PM**

Grove at Shoal Creek Scaled Back Amid Neighborhood Concerns

wwmiv · #76 Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 4:02 PM**

Totally fine with that. It's still massively increased density from what's there now, and it is real density, still, too. In fact, one thing they've gotten rid of are the some of the larger single family homes and essentially replaced it with parkland. Office space has also been reduced, which will help cut down on the project's contribution to peak hour traffic in this area. That's smart for the area, but horrible regionally, where this parcel could have housed significant amounts of office space creating a more equitable geographic distribution of commute traffic flows thus not overburdening certain areas of our transportation infrastructure.

drummer · #77 Posted **Apr 1, 2016, 1:19 AM**

The one and only comment likens this development to "following fads."

wwmiv · #78 Posted **Apr 1, 2016, 2:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

The one and only comment likens this development to "following fads."

Oh it's even worse than you let on: that "lowers quality of life"

verybadgnome · #79 Posted **Apr 1, 2016, 3:31 AM**

"The traffic study found drivers currently wait about a minute to clear the intersection of Bull Creek Road and 45th Street during afternoon rush hour. By 2024, the analysis estimates drivers would have to wait more than 95 seconds to clear the intersection if no improvements are made and the Grove at Shoal Creek is not built."

35 extra seconds?

Again we go down the same path of not allowing density near employment centers and then are surprised that the deficit in transportation infrastructure worsens. I wish we were as progressive as Seattle where I think the general population has a greater understanding of how cities work best. Shame.

And secondly they seem to want both low density and affordability. How does that work without massive subsidies that come from where? Do they realize if the builder built for the market there would be zero single family homes less than $1M? I propose the neighborhood associations buy out the developer and build their appropriate-for-Austin-in-1960 style development. Then I will take them seriously.

The ATX · #80 Posted **Apr 1, 2016, 5:08 AM**

Increasing the supply is what lower prices. That's it. So many people think that we should stop letting developers build homes/condos/Apts. just because of the high prices/rents they are getting for them. I just keep SMH at how people don't see that stopping/eliminating development is what's keeping prices higher on existing places.