AUSTIN | West Campus Development Thread

[427MM]

Item E2 on this Tuesday's Planning Commission agenda may interest some of you. It looks to nix parking requirements in UNO and to allow more height earned through the density bonus program. For inner West Campus this would mean up to 300' instead of the 175' of today (hopefully 21Rio won't be the tallest forever after all). Considering these young adults wake up and walk across the street to UT each and every day I hope we allow all the bedrooms there as possible.

3/26 at 6p at City Hall

http://http://www.austintexas.gov/ed....cfm?id=316529

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by 427MM

Item E2 on this Tuesday's Planning Commission agenda may interest some of you. It looks to nix parking requirements in UNO and to allow more height earned through the density bonus program. For inner West Campus this would mean up to 300' instead of the 175' of today (hopefully 21Rio won't be the tallest forever after all). Considering these young adults wake up and walk across the street to UT each and every day I hope we allow all the bedrooms there as possible.

3/26 at 6p at City Hall

http://http://www.austintexas.gov/ed....cfm?id=316529

Thanks for the explanation. I saw that, but I couldn't quite decipher the new height details. There's mention of a bonus up to 125'. So 175' + 125' is where the 300' comes from. There are not many 175' sites left right now, so the ability to build 300' towers will restricted by lack of sites. But we'll still see 3 or 4 I suspect.

[427MM]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Thanks for the explanation. I saw that, but I couldn't quite decipher the new height details. There's mention of a bonus up to 125'. So 175' + 125' is where the 300' comes from. There are not many 175' sites left right now, so the ability to build 300' towers will restricted by lack of sites. But we'll still see 3 or 4 I suspect.

Nixing the antiquated parking reqs will help here too. Tough to park a tower as it requires so much space to get an efficient garage. As the developers are currently subsidizing these spaces with revenue from the homes it will be great to get more projects in both faster and at a lower cost.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by 427MM

Nixing the antiquated parking reqs will help here too. Tough to park a tower as it requires so much space to get an efficient garage. As the developers are currently subsidizing these spaces with revenue from the homes it will be great to get more projects in both faster and at a lower cost.

People talk about the parking reqs downtown, (and I'm certainly for removing them, because why not?) but I've always been skeptical that they actually make a difference. Downtown offices need parking for the employees that work there. Even amongst those that live within the city core, the vast majority of Austinites commute via car. Downtown residents also are mostly going to want to own a car, even if they don't use it terribly often. I commute via bike and rarely use my car, but I still can't really imagine not owning one here.

West campus on the other hand is another story. UT students don't really need a car, if there was a substantial cost to owning I suspect most would leave the car at home. Getting rid of mandatory parking requirements in that area is a no brainier.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

People talk about the parking reqs downtown, (and I'm certainly for removing them, because why not?) but I've always been skeptical that they actually make a difference. Downtown offices need parking for the employees that work there. Even amongst those that live within the city core, the vast majority of Austinites commute via car. Downtown residents also are mostly going to want to own a car, even if they don't use it terribly often. I commute via bike and rarely use my car, but I still can't really imagine not owning one here.

West campus on the other hand is another story. UT students don't really need a car, if there was a substantial cost to owning I suspect most would leave the car at home. Getting rid of mandatory parking requirements in that area is a no brainier.

(a) We should get rid of minimum parking requirements altogether and let the free market dictate how many spots are necessary for each given development. If they're really necessary for a specific development, the developer will include them. If they aren't, they won't include them.

(b) Rail would fundamentally alter the economic calculus for developers of including parking in projects. BRT won't budge the needle that much.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

We should get rid of minimum parking requirements altogether and let the free market dictate how many spots are necessary for each given development. If they're really necessary for a specific development, the developer will include them. If they aren't, they won't include them.

That sounds like a damn good idea to me.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by The ATX

That sounds like a damn good idea to me.

#capitalismforthewin

[Jdawgboy]

I agree that minimum parking requirements should be removed but I do think there should be limits on how much parking there should be depending on location, road infrastructure ect. Letting developers do what they want in terms of parking sounds like an urban disaster waiting to happen.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I agree that minimum parking requirements should be removed but I do think there should be limits on how much parking there should be depending on location, road infrastructure ect. Letting developers do what they want in terms of parking sounds like an urban disaster waiting to happen.

I would leave in place design requirements such as locations for ingress/egress of garages, etc.

[drummer]

I would be all for removing minimums. Developers want to make money. Parking garages are dang expensive due to all the concrete, so far as I understand. A building without a garage would be relatively cheaper so far as construction cost, right? That said, they do need to consider what tenants want, and it seems like the market would find a balance.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by drummer

I would be all for removing minimums. Developers want to make money. Parking garages are dang expensive due to all the concrete, so far as I understand. A building without a garage would be relatively cheaper so far as construction cost, right? That said, they do need to consider what tenants want, and it seems like the market would find a balance.

Agreed, however, garage parking generates a non-insignificant amount of revenue for downtown buildings.

For those that don't know, downtown office building tenants do not get free garage parking the way suburban office building tenants do. In addition to their rent, companies are charged $125-plus (unreserved) to $250-$350 (reserved) to up to $500 (executive) per space per month for each parking space they are assigned in the building. Companies are allotted parking based on how much square feet they lease in the building, and for downtown that's between 1 space per 1,000 sf to 3 spaces per 1,000 sf. That is not enough to cover all of their employees so they lease parking at other properties or surface lots to make up the difference, or they give an allowance to their employees to find their own parking/transportation alternative.

In addition the daily in-out, charged-per-hour parking, which buildings refer to as transient parking, generates a nice chunk of change.

For example Third + Shoal, which is for sale thus why I know this, is estimating $11M in rent for 2020, supplemented by $2M in contract parking and $738K in transient parking. Parking makes up almost 20% of the building's annual income.

And finally, building tenants absolutely want parking. If your downtown building doesn't have parking, the rent you can charge is significantly lower because companies expect to be able to park at their office location and will pay more to do so.

[427MM]

Love talking parking reqs and how unbelievably bad they are especially in a time when we realize we had damn well better decarbonize our economy or else we're all F'd.

If you haven't checked it out, the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan is pretty good. It is also on the Planning Commission agenda for tomorrow along with the UNO item. You can read it below. Here is a taste: “Minimum parking requirements have resulted in an overabundance of parking in many locations throughout Austin and have encouraged people to drive to their destination. These parking spaces are expensive to build and maintain and promote automobile use even when short trips can be easily accessed by walking, bicycling or by taking transit."

ASMP

Remember, it's really easy to write City Commissioners and Council Members and share your thoughts. I assure you, the NIMBYs do it early and often.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

Agreed, however, garage parking generates a non-insignificant amount of revenue for downtown buildings.

For those that don't know, downtown office building tenants do not get free garage parking the way suburban office building tenants do. In addition to their rent, companies are charged $125-plus (unreserved) to $250-$350 (reserved) to up to $500 (executive) per space per month for each parking space they are assigned in the building. Companies are allotted parking based on how much square feet they lease in the building, and for downtown that's between 1 space per 1,000 sf to 3 spaces per 1,000 sf. That is not enough to cover all of their employees so they lease parking at other properties or surface lots to make up the difference, or they give an allowance to their employees to find their own parking/transportation alternative.

In addition the daily in-out, charged-per-hour parking, which buildings refer to as transient parking, generates a nice chunk of change.

For example Third + Shoal, which is for sale thus why I know this, is estimating $11M in rent for 2020, supplemented by $2M in contract parking and $738K in transient parking. Parking makes up almost 20% of the building's annual income.

And finally, building tenants absolutely want parking. If your downtown building doesn't have parking, the rent you can charge is significantly lower because companies expect to be able to park at their office location and will pay more to do so.

This was my point, but you brought actual facts and numbers! Nice!

I'm in a big downtown office. Sure, there are some who get there without driving, whether that's biking like me, walking from a downtown condo, taking the bus or train, scooters, etc.
But the vast majority drive and park every day. If our company took away our free parking there would be an absolutely massive uproar, with a lot of people changing jobs over it. That's just reality in Austin, Texas.

[427MM]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

If our company took away our free parking there would be an absolutely massive uproar, with a lot of people changing jobs over it. That's just reality in Austin, Texas.

More and more companies will *hopefully* start to charge for parking. Check out the High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup. Great read! One way they can do it that will help them and the employee to make different choices is to provide $100/mo for transportation. If they decide to spend it all, and some extra, on parking--Good for them. If they carpool with a buddy and pocket the remaining $35--great. If they make choices to take transit and learn that it's pretty great to not lug a 3,000 pound human squisher with them in and out of downtown--well that's just dandy.

The next major step for Austin is getting our percentage of single occupant vehicles down from around 75% (today) to under 50% (like most walkable cities). You think we're urban/walkable/dense today--just wait and see what can happen when we really start building a city for people and not for cars. Our future is riding on it.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by 427MM

More and more companies will *hopefully* start to charge for parking. Check out the High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup. Great read! One way they can do it that will help them and the employee to make different choices is to provide $100/mo for transportation. If they decide to spend it all, and some extra, on parking--Good for them. If they carpool with a buddy and pocket the remaining $35--great. If they make choices to take transit and learn that it's pretty great to not lug a 3,000 pound human squisher with them in and out of downtown--well that's just dandy.

The next major step for Austin is getting our percentage of single occupant vehicles down from around 75% (today) to under 50% (like most walkable cities). You think we're urban/walkable/dense today--just wait and see what can happen when we really start building a city for people and not for cars. Our future is riding on it.

We actually get $150 for public transit in addition to free parking. But for me, I'm looking at a 10-20 minute drive depending on traffic conditions, whereas taking the bus (and my house has two lines in fairly easy walking distance) is 35-50 minutes. So if you aren't the type that's interested in biking, it's difficult to look at those two choices and choose the bus. What we need are public transit options that skip traffic. Ironically, one of the groups with the highest rates transit use in my office is the Cedar Park / Leander residents. They have both the train and the express busses that are able to travel approximately the same speed as a car with much more convenience, so why not?

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

We actually get $150 for public transit in addition to free parking. But for me, I'm looking at a 10-20 minute drive depending on traffic conditions, whereas taking the bus (and my house has two lines in fairly easy walking distance) is 35-50 minutes. So if you aren't the type that's interested in biking, it's difficult to look at those two choices and choose the bus. What we need are public transit options that skip traffic. Ironically, one of the groups with the highest rates transit use in my office is the Cedar Park / Leander residents. They have both the train and the express busses that are able to travel approximately the same speed as a car with much more convenience, so why not?

I don't think it's ironic at all. Our transportation system, even our transit, has focused primarily on regional mobility at the expense of everyone who lives within Austin proper. Outside of the downtown bus lanes there has been almost no investment in improving the in-town experience until just recently with the expanded frequent network. Metrorapid buses and shelters look nicer but they're still stuck in traffic and ride on the same bumpy roads the old buses did.

I'm optimistic about project connect if only b/c the commitment to dedicated lanes appears to be real, even if we only end up getting BRT instead of light rail. That the CapMetro CEO is a regular bus rider is also reason for hope. The last few couldn't even be bothered to do that. A couple CMs like Flannigan are transit boosters too.

[Vexal]

I think it is unfair to say that free parking encourages driving. It makes it sound like driving is bad behavior. Some people just like driving and consider it to be superior to taking a bus. Adding parking doesn't encourage parking, it just allows people to live a lifestyle they're more comfortable with. We shouldn't force citizens to conform to any specific city structure. We should find ways to accommodate our growth in a way that doesn't intrude on existing ways of living. We don't even have enough public transportation options for people who would rather take public transport than drive. We should expand public transport and take care of people who want to use it before taking a stance that we should instead penalize those who don't want to use it.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by Vexal

I think it is unfair to say that free parking encourages driving. It makes it sound like driving is bad behavior. Some people just like driving and consider it to be superior to taking a bus. Adding parking doesn't encourage parking, it just allows people to live a lifestyle they're more comfortable with. We shouldn't force citizens to conform to any specific city structure. We should find ways to accommodate our growth in a way that doesn't intrude on existing ways of living. We don't even have enough public transportation options for people who would rather take public transport than drive. We should expand public transport and take care of people who want to use it before taking a stance that we should instead penalize those who don't want to use it.

The problem is driving is bad behavior. It pollutes, it’s inefficient, it’s expensive, it encourages sprawl and it contributes to the massive traffic problems we have here. We need to invest in more public transit options now.

[Vexal]

My comment explicitly stated that we need to have more public transportation. But that does not need to come with a crusade against cars. Cars are becoming more efficient, anyway. Look at Tesla. Also, living is not always about what is most efficient. If that were the case, we would all live in 300 sqft highrise dorms like Jester in the middle of the city. It would be technically more efficient, but everyone would be miserable. There are middle grounds that can make everyone happy.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by Vexal

My comment explicitly stated that we need to have more public transportation. But that does not need to come with a crusade against cars. Cars are becoming more efficient, anyway. Look at Tesla. Also, living is not always about what is most efficient. If that were the case, we would all live in 300 sqft highrise dorms like Jester in the middle of the city. It would be technically more efficient, but everyone would be miserable. There are middle grounds that can make everyone happy.

Only in Texas