HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8241  
Old Posted: Jun 25, 2012, 3:32 AM
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hill Country View Post
I'd like a solid wall of super talls on both sides of Lady Bird Lake from I35 to Lake Austin to shade everyone who ventures into the entire length of the lake during our steaming hot springs, summers and falls.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8242  
Old Posted: Jun 25, 2012, 3:38 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: AUSTIN
Posts: 33,202
I don't think they mean an actual wall right up against the river. I doubt the city would even allow that, and in fact, I wonder how the Hyatt ever got built. I even heard they had wanted 25 floors, which would have made it nearly 300 feet tall. We can have 200 foot buildings set back a ways from the river and still have a nice natural look while still having the kind of dense urban pedestrian friendly developments that should be that close to downtown. I'm mostly opposed to very tall buildings right up against the river on both sides, but I think what we've gotten so far is acceptable.
__________________
Facebook
I like the Raleighs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8243  
Old Posted: Jun 25, 2012, 3:53 AM
BevoLJ's Avatar
BevoLJ BevoLJ is offline
~Hook'em~
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Austin, TX/London, UK
Posts: 1,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral View Post
Kevin, BevoLJ, belated thanks for the replies on my apartment post...Friday thru Sunday in retail means little time for play. I am working with 3 potential customers who are moving here next month from California, one from San Diego who said we are still less than a third the cost of a home there and twice the size. I'm also seeing more people moving to Austin from the NYC, Long Island area where they are also "blown away" by how much more house they can by here for a 1/3 to half of what they were paying. So even at $215K avg, we are still very affordable, to transplants from CA and NY... but not so much for us locals. You know after my post on how I thought the numbers were way too skewed renters VS property owners, I started taking notice on credit apps I ran as to whether they were renters or owners....I ran 17 apps sat and sun, 11 were renting and 6 owned their homes.
I was recently talking to one of my older friends about the subject you mentioned about renting and she had some great points.

She graduated college in 1963 and her middle class parent were able to pay for all of it from what they had saved for her. After WWII/Korea many started going to college and taking advantage of the GI Bill. And that trend only continued to grow. Nowadays it seems like everyone has at least a degree if not a masters in something or another. But while after the wars the cost of college stayed pretty low it has skyrocketed now. So for many people who get out of school nowadays it is not uncommon for them to graduate with over $250,000 in debt. That is debt that used to be people's mortgage. A degree that used to be someone's home. And to make it worse in the modern economy there is no real guarantees that what they got for that debt will pay off. So they may have to move around for jobs.

As a result many people put off buying a home and starting families until much later in life than what they used to. Their biggest debt nowadays isn't their home but education, and to be able to start a family they need to get that payed off or at least a large part of it payed off. Thus a lot more people rent nowadays than when she was out of school and starting her family in the 60's.
__________________
Austin, Texas
London, United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8244  
Old Posted: Jun 25, 2012, 5:28 AM
Hill Country's Avatar
Hill Country Hill Country is offline
I hurt myself today.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Further down the spiral
Posts: 969
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral View Post
I've been to many of the cities you mentioned including London, Boston has a lot of waterfront Highrises, but I think the key differences between most of those cities and ours is that their water ways and rivers support industries and ours parks and wildlife. I'm all for enhancing the area on Congress Ave from Riverside south and around the Hyatt, but I'd hate to see a wall of towers along the south side of the lake. But of course I know you were all kidding about that...right
No kidding here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8245  
Old Posted: Jun 25, 2012, 5:42 AM
migol24 migol24 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral View Post

sorry Kevin, I know that wasn't your point, but previous posts...
what's wrong with combining both elements without ruining the natural landscape? i didn't think that would be a problem. isn't that what we're doing already?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8246  
Old Posted: Jun 25, 2012, 6:41 PM
MightyYoda MightyYoda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 123
Not to get political, but you don't have to look much further than how much of a % the state supports our public schools to see why tuition keeps going up. There are other factors, but when UT used to be 50% supported by the state and that is down to 11%, something has to give. They could practically be a private university at that % and it does make me wonder what % the state actually has to support to keep them as a public university.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8247  
Old Posted: Jun 25, 2012, 6:44 PM
paulsjv paulsjv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 521
You should take a look at this and maybe read it.

http://blogmaverick.com/2012/05/13/t...any-time-soon/

Quote:
Originally Posted by BevoLJ View Post
I was recently talking to one of my older friends about the subject you mentioned about renting and she had some great points.

She graduated college in 1963 and her middle class parent were able to pay for all of it from what they had saved for her. After WWII/Korea many started going to college and taking advantage of the GI Bill. And that trend only continued to grow. Nowadays it seems like everyone has at least a degree if not a masters in something or another. But while after the wars the cost of college stayed pretty low it has skyrocketed now. So for many people who get out of school nowadays it is not uncommon for them to graduate with over $250,000 in debt. That is debt that used to be people's mortgage. A degree that used to be someone's home. And to make it worse in the modern economy there is no real guarantees that what they got for that debt will pay off. So they may have to move around for jobs.

As a result many people put off buying a home and starting families until much later in life than what they used to. Their biggest debt nowadays isn't their home but education, and to be able to start a family they need to get that payed off or at least a large part of it payed off. Thus a lot more people rent nowadays than when she was out of school and starting her family in the 60's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8248  
Old Posted: Jun 27, 2012, 8:23 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: AUSTIN
Posts: 33,202
I thought this was interesting/funny. They wanted to designate the Westgate Tower as being historic? Check out the comments section.

This one by Rick Hardin, (who I presume is the Rick Hardin who is one of the developers of 7Rio and The Bremond). His comment was funny and so very true.

http://blog.preservationnation.org/2...ing-in-austin/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Hardin
If Westgate is designated as an historic landmark, then 80% of central Austin is “historic”. This is silly!

Austin’s Historic Landmark Commission and Heritage Society have already allowed the bar to to be lowered, allowing historic landmark status to be bestowed on dozens of marginal buildings of little or no historic merit This “landmark” proliferation without restraint, cheapens this designation, robs the taxpayers (by giving tax exemptions), and in the long run weakens historic preservation by losing public support.

Everything that is 50 years old is not “Historic”. I suspect if this building were proposed today and this site, the very people who might advocate for this structure, would be screaming in opposition to it being built.
I suspect this is all about tax exemptions and little to do with historic preservation.
__________________
Facebook
I like the Raleighs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8249  
Old Posted: Jun 28, 2012, 5:25 PM
kingkirbythe....'s Avatar
kingkirbythe.... kingkirbythe.... is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 205
That certainly would hurt my long range plan of buying it and tearing it down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8250  
Old Posted: Jun 28, 2012, 7:51 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: AUSTIN
Posts: 33,202
http://www.statesman.com/business/re...r-2405582.html
Quote:
Austin City Council to hear plans for four proposed mixed-use developments

By Shonda Novak

Published: 10:23 p.m. Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The Austin City Council is scheduled to be briefed today on four planned projects whose developers are seeking a special type of zoning to allow greater flexibility in development regulations in exchange for providing public benefits.

Three of the projects — Estancia Hill Country, Easton and Sun Chase — are mixed-use developments that would add thousands of residences and millions of square feet of commercial space to the region. A fourth would be just south of downtown Austin, on land now home to the RunTex store where 230 apartments are planned.

Developers are proposing to incorporate various community benefits into the projects, from affordable housing, energy efficiencies and public transportation to parks, open space and recreational facilities.
__________________
Facebook
I like the Raleighs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8251  
Old Posted: Jun 29, 2012, 2:54 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
Imagine Austin is an ASPIRATIONAL document. It establishes the vision for how we want to grow. The next step is an overhaul of the Land Development Code to make sure it aligns with Imagine Austin. That is a huge project in itself, and will probably be even more controversial than the plan.
It's a complete waste of time - because it subrogates itself to the neighborhood plans which were almost all written to exclude any future development that could increase density in any way, shape, or form.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8252  
Old Posted: Jun 29, 2012, 4:45 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
It's a complete waste of time - because it subrogates itself to the neighborhood plans which were almost all written to exclude any future development that could increase density in any way, shape, or form.
Laura Morrison was the one who added the opt out option which in effect made the entire effort pointless. But there is something in the works that can hopefully help counter that.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8253  
Old Posted: Jul 4, 2012, 1:30 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: AUSTIN
Posts: 33,202
This is literally in my backyard. Our side of the street backs up to this property. All I'll have to do for photo updates is look over the back fence.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...e-2409422.html
Quote:
New psychiatric hospital could ease Austin bed shortage

By Mary Ann Roser

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Published: 8:17 p.m. Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Austin is getting a third private psychiatric hospital, a development that could prevent dozens of people a month from seeking care in another Texas city.

Officials of the planned for-profit 80-bed Austin Oaks Hospital will break ground July 11 at 1407 W. Stassney Lane for the $17 million facility. The 55,000-square-foot hospital will serve people ages 4 and up and will employ about 200 workers when it opens next spring, CEO Ramona Key said.

The hospital site is the former home of the Oaks Treatment Center, a mental health facility for children that closed in September 2009. Key led that treatment center for a few months before the owner, Psychiatric Solutions Inc., closed it. That company was acquired by Universal Health Services, based in King of Prussia, Pa., in November 2010.
__________________
Facebook
I like the Raleighs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8254  
Old Posted: Jul 5, 2012, 5:03 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: AUSTIN
Posts: 33,202
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...inglePage=true
Quote:
Austin seeks to rewrite onerous development rules, amid neighborhood concerns

By Marty Toohey

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Published: 9:47 p.m. Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Last month, as he waited for the City of Austin to issue long-awaited permits, Will Schnier got a $280,000 surprise.

City officials had told Schnier, president of Big Red Dog Engineering, that he wouldn't need to pay a park-development fee for a South First Street real estate project that he was ushering through the application process.

But more than a year later, another Austin official was reviewing another Big Red Dog development on South Lamar Boulevard being built under the same rules, and told Schnier the park fee did apply for that one.

The situation was further muddied when the city provided Schnier copies of the code incorrectly stating the park fees were not required, according to email correspondence from the city.
__________________
Facebook
I like the Raleighs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8255  
Old Posted: Jul 5, 2012, 6:09 PM
Cloud92's Avatar
Cloud92 Cloud92 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 73
why do people get so but hurt when something changes
__________________
"If i had a world of my own"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8256  
Old Posted: Jul 5, 2012, 11:14 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
...I doubt the city would even allow that, and in fact, I wonder how the Hyatt ever got built. I even heard they had wanted 25 floors, which would have made it nearly 300 feet tall...
I believe it was built prior to the implementation of the original (1986) Waterfront Overlay District ordinance.
__________________
Austin (City): 820,611 +3.82% from 2010 Census* | Austin-Round Rock MSA (5 counties): 1,834,303 +6.88% from 2010 Census**
San Antonio (City): 1,359,758 +2.44% from 2010 Census* | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,234,003 +4.27% from 2010 Census**
--*Source: U.S. Census Bureau-July 1, 2011; **Source: U.S. Census Bureau-July 1, 2012--
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8257  
Old Posted: Jul 8, 2012, 10:56 PM
Syndic's Avatar
Syndic Syndic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 319
Man, this zoning code battle is going to be epic, ugly, and very messy. Prepare to see the full extent of Austin NIMBYism. Consequences will never be the same. We need to come out victorious, though. We need to disregard Neighborhood Group concerns. These neighborhoods are suburban and need to be destroyed and redeveloped according to sound urban planning principles. We have to make sure urbanism wins. For Austin!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8258  
Old Posted: Jul 8, 2012, 11:05 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: AUSTIN
Posts: 33,202
Well I doubt suburban neighborhoods will be "destroyed". Most of the development would happen on the main arteries. The only way bigger projects could be built on smaller residential streets is to actually demo those neighborhoods completely and widen those streets. It would be like starting over. Personally, I'd rather see all our fugly apartment complexes demoed for more urban projects. I hate HATE apartment complexes. Their fenced off borders and maze of parking lots. Sure, they're packing in more people onto that property, but it is NOT urban. Even skyscrapers can be suburban. Density by itself isn't urban, it's how it interacts with its surroundings that makes it truly urban. And I would actually be against the idea of demolishing neighborhoods since it would also mean destroying our city's tree canopy of 200+ year old Oaks.
__________________
Facebook
I like the Raleighs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8259  
Old Posted: Jul 9, 2012, 6:10 PM
Syndic's Avatar
Syndic Syndic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
Well I doubt suburban neighborhoods will be "destroyed". Most of the development would happen on the main arteries. The only way bigger projects could be built on smaller residential streets is to actually demo those neighborhoods completely and widen those streets. It would be like starting over. Personally, I'd rather see all our fugly apartment complexes demoed for more urban projects. I hate HATE apartment complexes. Their fenced off borders and maze of parking lots. Sure, they're packing in more people onto that property, but it is NOT urban. Even skyscrapers can be suburban. Density by itself isn't urban, it's how it interacts with its surroundings that makes it truly urban. And I would actually be against the idea of demolishing neighborhoods since it would also mean destroying our city's tree canopy of 200+ year old Oaks.
I feel you. Apartment complexes are not urban. But they are more likely to be demolished. They're easier to be bought out, because they have single owners, whereas neighborhoods of suburban houses have completely decentralized ownership. It's just a huge nightmare. I like the idea of demolition of these neighborhoods, because these neighborhoods are such serious problems, with almost no solution in sight. They might as well be fenced off, because there's no reason for any person to go into them unless they live there or are visiting someone who lives there.

Is it possible to retrofit them, so that they're mixed-use? I don't know. Doesn't seem likely. Residents and Neighborhood Groups would be against it, because it would mean that their neighborhoods would see increased pedestrian activity and through-traffic. In other words, they would be incorporated into the city (not secluded from it) and they can't have that!

When I was young, probably in my early teens (this would have been the late 90's), there was this sno-cone trailer in this lot on North Lamar, really close-by my neighborhood; within walking distance. Maybe some of you remember it. It was run by this old, retired couple. They sold shaved ice. Really a labor of love for them. Sno-cones on hot summer days. For the kiddos. You could mix any flavors you wanted. Every kid in my neighborhood in the summer would set out from their doorstep on a walk to this sno-cone place. We couldn't drive, so this is what we did. It was glorious. The place ended up getting really popular. But after a few summers, they stopped coming out.

The point of the story is that suburban housing subdivisions are desperate for places like these. They're each a desperate, hungry, untapped market and keeping commerce out of them is unnatural and the result of overbearing government restrictions. The only companies that are able to penetrate and capitalize on these markets are ice cream truck companies. And, even then, not very well, because they're forced to be mobile, and not stationary. I would be okay with not demolishing these neighborhoods -- because I do love their greenness and abundance of majestic old oaks -- if there was an easing of the zoning laws that keeps out commerce. Stores belong in these neighborhoods. Not just outside of them; IN them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8260  
Old Posted: Jul 9, 2012, 8:51 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: AUSTIN
Posts: 33,202
Yeah, I guess you could label our neighborhood as "suburban". It's single family at least. Our street gets a fair amount of pedestrian activity because it's the main residential street into our neighborhood from the main artery (Stassney). There's two bus stops on Stassney and one on Emerald Forrest that are convenient to us. So we get a lot of foot traffic, not just from Crockett HS students either, but actual pedestrians, and I see a lot of people walking their dogs or jogging in the evening. Our street doesn't even have sidewalks. When this neighborhood was built in the early 60s, our street and the two other streets in the middle didn't have them, and still don't. All the other bordering streets do. They didn't even put a sidewalk on Stassney until the mid 90s, which I think is crazy because it had bike lanes long before that. There are days when I might see a dozen bicycles go by our house, and those are just the ones I notice when I'm looking. It's not uncommon for me to see 10 bicycles around our neighborhood when I leave to go somewhere. And we have convenient stuff nearby, restaurants and grocery stores within walking distance. And we have ACC's South Austin Campus nearby (I can almost see it from our backyard), and the Manchaca branch library is a 5 minute bike ride from our house. Actually it's easy to walk down our street to get out of our neighborhood to those places. What becomes difficult then is trying to cross Stassney and also the distances between businesses on Stassney. I would like to see businesses closer together with improved sidewalks (wider, even and straight), and more bike racks. I ride my everywhere I go, so bike racks are important. And there is at least one lot in our neighborhood that is up for sale. It's vacant and could be developed with vertical mixed use. It's zoned for retail right now. I would like to see something that is 3 to 4 floors there with shops and eateries. I was telling JDawgboy this. Both he and nixcity have seen that lot. It would be perfect for vmu since there are few trees on it and the ones that are are "trash trees".

I wish the plans had come sooner, though. There were other opportunities for lots to be developed. My brother and our friends used to ride bikes on a vacant lot on the southern end of our neighborhood near William Cannon. All the neighborhood kids built dirt jumps and hills to ride on. Then around 2002 or so I think, a developer bought the land and built single family member, 2-story houses on the property. They built a limestone wall between the property and William Cannon and there's a gate facing the smaller neighborhood street. Yeah, it's pretty awful. By time it was built I hadn't rode there in years, but by then I was aware that the property should have been developed better than that. There was also a vacant lot on the other side (north side) of Stassney. That lot has been under construction now for a while. They're building single family 2-story homes. It's probably the same developer as that other lot. That was a missed opportunity. All that was on that lot were mostly Mesquites and Cedars. They bulldozed all the trees which doesn't bother me since they were trash trees, but they really missed a great opportunity to develop that lot with some nice mixed use. There could have been retail facing Stassney with residential above and more residential down the hill. There's even a small skyline view there, at least, I can see the top of The Austonian from the bottom of our street (or could until they built one of the houses).

All the major arteries around our neighborhood see a lot of foot traffic. And the buses are usually fairly full actually. The bus stops always have riders waiting. So I don't understand why there couldn't be more pedestrian oriented development on those streets. The pedestrians are already there, but there's little in the way of development that caters to them. There are other options, too. There are at least two strip shopping centers that I eye everyday and wish they could be redeveloped. At least build something facing the main artery and do away with the nasty blacktop.

Anyway, I can remember way back being a little kid and noticing urban development and architecture. Studying building designs and noticing their placement vs other ones that weren't the same. I always thought it was odd how suburban development was spread out and forced you to go farther to access it. I didn't quite get it then that other people might be thinking the same thing. After I discovered this website my interest in it just grew more of course.
__________________
Facebook
I like the Raleighs
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
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 5:28 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.