AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II - Page 144

drummer · #**2861** Posted **Mar 3, 2016, 2:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

1301 West 5th Street multi-family. 75 feet with 6 floors.

I remembered that this project was originally requesting a height variance to allow it to go to 113 feet, but it was rejected. The elevations say 75 feet with no exceptions.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...reet_PLANS.pdf

Is this in a CVC? Looking at a map, it seems that there are two CVCs somewhat near this lot, but this lot shouldn't be affected. Is the height restriction then because it's not technically in the CBD?

wwmiv · #**2862** Posted **Mar 3, 2016, 3:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

Is this in a CVC? Looking at a map, it seems that there are two CVCs somewhat near this lot, but this lot shouldn't be affected. Is the height restriction then because it's not technically in the CBD?

Yes. And sadly we now know that the city is not amenable to taller buildings west of Lamar, because this lot is not within a CVC. Close, but not quite. It's in that area that I keep talking about being ripe to taller buildings and higher density, but it is clear city leaders aren't of the same mind. Besides, this is still more density.

drummer · #**2863** Posted **Mar 3, 2016, 3:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yes. And sadly we now know that the city is not amenable to taller buildings west of Lamar, because this lot is not within a CVC. Close, but not quite. It's in that area that I keep talking about being ripe to taller buildings and higher density, but it is clear city leaders aren't of the same mind. Besides, this is still more density.

You're right, it is more density. I'd be a fan of lots of ~6 story buildings in this area if the street interaction was decent along with them. Given that just a few blocks north of this is a bunch of single family homes, it might complement that well while achieving a better urban feel on the major roads (5th/6th).

If street-cars ever become a reality in Austin, I'd love to see an East-West rotator that went from essentially Mopac (maybe Campbell St.) along 5th/6th through downtown, and then down 6th/7th into East Austin - perhaps as far as Robert Martinez or Webberville Rd. If anything, at least to the Plaza Saltillo area, but I'd prefer it continue on past that.

wwmiv · #**2864** Posted **Mar 3, 2016, 5:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

You're right, it is more density. I'd be a fan of lots of ~6 story buildings in this area if the street interaction was decent along with them. Given that just a few blocks north of this is a bunch of single family homes, it might complement that well while achieving a better urban feel on the major roads (5th/6th).

If street-cars ever become a reality in Austin, I'd love to see an East-West rotator that went from essentially Mopac (maybe Campbell St.) along 5th/6th through downtown, and then down 6th/7th into East Austin - perhaps as far as Robert Martinez or Webberville Rd. If anything, at least to the Plaza Saltillo area, but I'd prefer it continue on past that.

These are my thoughts exactly if we can't get 15-25 story towers just west of Lamar as well.

AustinGoesVertical · #**2865** Posted **Mar 5, 2016, 5:34 PM**

The SkyscraperPage has "7th and Colorado" listed under proposed. Is this the UT site with that Nelson Partners rendering or a totally new development I missed over.

The ATX · #**2866** Posted **Mar 5, 2016, 7:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

The SkyscraperPage has "7th and Colorado" listed under proposed. Is this the UT site with that Nelson Partners rendering or a totally new development I missed over.

What are you referring to as "The SkyscraperPage"?

AustinGoesVertical · #**2867** Posted **Mar 5, 2016, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

What are you referring to as "The SkyscraperPage"?

This site. Not the forum part but the "database" section that lists all the Austin proposed or U/C projects (Doesn't have as much as your list over at Urban planet

) but it has different categories and under "proposed" there's one that says "7th and Colorado"

The ATX · #**2868** Posted **Mar 5, 2016, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

This site. Not the forum part but the "database" section that lists all the Austin proposed or U/C projects (Doesn't have as much as your list over at Urban planet

) but it has different categories and under "proposed" there's one that says "7th and Colorado"

I've never looked at that list before. I'm guessing Kevin updates it. "7th & Colorado" could refer to either Block 71 or U.T.'s HQ building. Since it's near the top of the list which is roughly ordered by height it has to be Block 71.

KevinFromTexas · #**2869** Posted **Mar 6, 2016, 3:11 AM**

Yes, that's the one. And yes, I update the database. I didn't add that one, though.

ahealy · #**2870** Posted **Mar 10, 2016, 6:03 AM**

a bit off subject (and I can't find the proper thread) but does anyone know if the pontoon bridge is still happening for Waller?

drummer · #**2871** Posted **Mar 10, 2016, 8:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy

a bit off subject (and I can't find the proper thread) but does anyone know if the pontoon bridge is still happening for Waller?

I sure hope not. I would rather have no bridge at all than one on pontoons. I'd much prefer they put a pedestrian bridge similar to the Pfluger bridge. A pedestrian crossing in that area is an eventual must, in my opinion, especially as the Statesman property gets developed (in fact, I think it would help expedite the development and make it even more desirable), but I really don't like the pontoon idea.

Novacek · #**2872** Posted **Mar 10, 2016, 3:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

I sure hope not.

Agreed. Especially with their asinine "it's moved/not there every few hours". What's the use of a bridge you can't depend on?

427MM · #**2873** Posted **Mar 10, 2016, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy

a bit off subject (and I can't find the proper thread) but does anyone know if the pontoon bridge is still happening for Waller?

No such thing as off topic on this thread.

KevinFromTexas · #**2874** Posted **Mar 10, 2016, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

I sure hope not. I would rather have no bridge at all than one on pontoons. I'd much prefer they put a pedestrian bridge similar to the Pfluger bridge. A pedestrian crossing in that area is an eventual must, in my opinion, especially as the Statesman property gets developed (in fact, I think it would help expedite the development and make it even more desirable), but I really don't like the pontoon idea.

Same here. I hated the pontoon idea as soon as I read about it. And I totally agree with everything you said. A pontoon bridge is a lame idea - like something you'd find in an amusement park or something.

Digatisdi · #**2875** Posted **Mar 10, 2016, 10:17 PM**

Honestly I'm so glad I'm not the only person who hates the pontoon bridge. I'd probably double my contributions to TTF if they'd axe the plan and replace it with a proper bridge

lzppjb · #**2876** Posted **Mar 10, 2016, 11:34 PM**

The moment I saw the renderings and saw that pontoon bridge, I hated it. It's just a product of trying to be too cute. It's stupid.

the Genral · #**2877** Posted **Mar 11, 2016, 12:41 AM**

I like people who think outside the box, but this was the work of a creative stinker. Get it? Thinker, stinker, ok...never mind....

drummer · #**2878** Posted **Mar 11, 2016, 2:16 PM**

Is there a reason that they thought of a pontoon bridge rather than a standard, permanent bridge? I mean, I get that it's cheaper and "moveable" for various reasons...but a regular bridge would allow canoe/boat traffic to go under it anyway. Surely there was a reason that it made the proposal.

Novacek · #**2879** Posted **Mar 11, 2016, 2:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

Is there a reason that they thought of a pontoon bridge rather than a standard, permanent bridge? I mean, I get that it's cheaper and "moveable" for various reasons...but a regular bridge would allow canoe/boat traffic to go under it anyway. Surely there was a reason that it made the proposal.

Because it was different.

Make sure you understand, those "proposals" weren't plans (in that someone was proposing something that should actually be built, was developing a budget, any contracts were written, etc.).

They were "visions".

The process of that competition was to get people excited about the project and start fundraising. It was basically an art show.

ahealy · #**2880** Posted **Mar 12, 2016, 9:50 PM**

My hopes and prayers: They build a fucking epic PERMANENT pedestrian/bike bridge. I'm envisioning a unique and tall arch that frames the skyline.