HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2020, 2:50 AM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 3,208
If the developers weren't so greedy they could have their tower and keep the historical part of the property. The rear and side have lots of room...... plenty relative to properties being built : Hyatt centric comes to mind. This truly just needs the right "will". Also the folks who run the organization went after historical zoning when they saw it as a benefit. THEY ASKED FOR IT!@@@@ !!!!! You CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!! They knew ( or at least wanted to take advantage of historical designation. Sorry Sis , you KNEW the value of this building! And the white cat needs food.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2020, 1:38 PM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,592
I think Option 2 is a great compromise, although the 'retail' space would be pretty difficult to lease. Option 1 is still an improvement over the original proposal as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2020, 5:50 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
This got taller. Elevations dated this week show it as 32, maybe 33 stories and ~385' on tallest side.


http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=350228
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2020, 5:59 PM
Echostatic's Avatar
Echostatic Echostatic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: ATX
Posts: 1,360
This could have some potential based on the materials used, and I like the unique shape that you can see in the back of the South elevation.
__________________
It can be done, if we have the will.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2020, 6:01 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
The side facing San Antonio St. got an update:

__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2020, 5:08 PM
13th_and_Guad 13th_and_Guad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 22
Historic Landmark Commission met yesterday.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=350229

Quote:
STAFF COMMENTS
The building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2012 under Criteria A and C for its significance in the areas of education and architecture. As such, under City Code, it does not need to meet additional criteria for designation as a historic landmark.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
While staff appreciates the applicant’s sensitive approach to preserving a portion of the finishes of the building in the proposed new design, staff cannot recommend that a building individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places should be demolished. Staff recommends either postponing this case, or initiating the historic zoning case on this building so that the applicant and the Commission can have the opportunity for continuing dialogue on how best to preserve the character and integrity of the National Register-listed building while still considering a proposal for partial redevelopment of the site. In staff’s evaluation, preserving portions of the exterior finishes of the building into an interior space of the proposed new building is not sufficiently respectful of the integrity, design, and significance of the existing building. Providing an opportunity for continuing conversations about the relationship of historic and new may result in a proposal that is much more palatable to both
the owners of the building and the interests of preserving buildings that have demonstrated historical significance.
National Register nomination

Last edited by 13th_and_Guad; Nov 23, 2020 at 10:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2020, 1:16 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
The HLC is going to do everything it can to stop the project which is why they are initiating historic zoning. I'm not sure how this historical stuff works. But I think they can only end up delaying the project (like 90 Rainey) because its private property and the owners want to develop it. One of the commissioners said it was "horrifying" to image a 31-story building on 12th St.
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.

Last edited by The ATX; Nov 24, 2020 at 4:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2020, 4:09 PM
urbancore urbancore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Zilker
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ATX View Post
One of the commissioners said it was "horrifying" to image a 31-story building on 12th St.
self righteous pricks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2020, 4:14 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore View Post
self righteous pricks.
Another commissioner made a similar comment about a "30-story office building" on 12th street. This is not an office building - it's a residential building adding density to downtown.
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2020, 1:58 PM
mercury6 mercury6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore View Post
self righteous pricks.
basically, "we don't want people living around here unless they live in a $1M single family house"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2020, 3:35 PM
Myomi Myomi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury6 View Post
basically, "we don't want people living around here unless they live in a $1M single family house"
That is absolutely not what they are saying.

They are saying that a place listed on National Register of Historic Places should not be demolished (which most certainly for all intents and purposes would happen if this building goes up). Who pushed for the historic designation? The property owner originally from what I recall. Who benefitted from years of tax protection because of this designation? The property owner.

I'm sorry, but you can't apply for historic designation, get years of benefit off of it, and then try to appeal for removal of that designation to increase the value of the property as you sell.

As much as I would like this tower to be built, I think HLC is well within their guidance in this decision. The debate for actual historical significance is separate. What is on the books is on the books, and they should act accordingly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2020, 3:53 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myomi View Post

As much as I would like this tower to be built, I think HLC is well within their guidance in this decision. The debate for actual historical significance is separate. What is on the books is on the books, and they should act accordingly.
I agree and that owner should have to pay back taxes to change that designation if that is the person who made the change in the first place.

BUT there are 2 comments and I'm seeing them out of context. IF commisioners said they are horified about a 30 story bldg on 12th regardless of historical building tear down, then they should not be commisioners as they are part of the systemic biases make the city unaffordable and traffic packed. 12th/downtown is exactly where density should go of all places in the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2020, 5:56 PM
mercury6 mercury6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myomi View Post
That is absolutely not what they are saying.

They are saying that a place listed on National Register of Historic Places should not be demolished (which most certainly for all intents and purposes would happen if this building goes up). Who pushed for the historic designation? The property owner originally from what I recall. Who benefitted from years of tax protection because of this designation? The property owner.

I'm sorry, but you can't apply for historic designation, get years of benefit off of it, and then try to appeal for removal of that designation to increase the value of the property as you sell.

As much as I would like this tower to be built, I think HLC is well within their guidance in this decision. The debate for actual historical significance is separate. What is on the books is on the books, and they should act accordingly.
Sometimes the motives of "National Register of Historic Places" benefit certain groups while disadvantaging others. It's 2020, we need to reform what is considered historic and to what extent "historic" outweighs multifamily/unit housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2020, 7:16 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
I used a piece of paper to measure the lowest elevation point and compared it to the space between the podium roof and bottom of the 2nd floor above the podium. That distance is 14 feet, meaning that we can add 14 feet to every height on the elevation above grade. That would give it a height of 388 feet to the parapet.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2020, 12:46 PM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myomi View Post
That is absolutely not what they are saying.

They are saying that a place listed on National Register of Historic Places should not be demolished (which most certainly for all intents and purposes would happen if this building goes up). Who pushed for the historic designation? The property owner originally from what I recall. Who benefitted from years of tax protection because of this designation? The property owner.

I'm sorry, but you can't apply for historic designation, get years of benefit off of it, and then try to appeal for removal of that designation to increase the value of the property as you sell.

As much as I would like this tower to be built, I think HLC is well within their guidance in this decision. The debate for actual historical significance is separate. What is on the books is on the books, and they should act accordingly.
National Register designation does not come with a tax break, unless they apply for federal historic tax credits as part of a restoration. Only local historic designation can abate property tax. That is what the Historic Commission is now initiating.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2020, 3:12 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
The PC will take up the zoning change request again on 01/26 after the HLC has another chance to show their disdain for development of the site.
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2021, 10:24 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
The uphill climb continues for this project. The Planning Commission staff is recommending that the Commission vote no on the Demo at next week's meeting.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=353548
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=353540
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 2:03 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
What a shocker - to me anyway. The Planning Commission voted to let this project move forward and rezoned the site for the requested height. There was a very good discussion about the project and the historical significance of the building. There was also some thought that this should be kicked to the City Council for a final decision. But from what I understand, the project is a go now.

Awesome comments 427MM.
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 4:02 PM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
I haven't been watching this project much aside from skimming this thread, but based on what I've read here it does seem impressive that this is moving forward at all. Would be nice to have some height over there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 6:13 PM
13th_and_Guad 13th_and_Guad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ATX View Post
What a shocker - to me anyway. The Planning Commission voted to let this project move forward and rezoned the site for the requested height. There was a very good discussion about the project and the historical significance of the building. There was also some thought that this should be kicked to the City Council for a final decision. But from what I understand, the project is a go now.

Awesome comments 427MM.
Really? Wow. Didn't expect that based on the comments I had been seeing. Very cool if it goes through. the DKG building is pretty ugly IMO. Would love to see a new addition to my block.
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 9:28 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.