Austin | The Republic | 710 Feet | 47 Floors | U/C

[Digatisdi]

Maybe it's not all bad, perhaps it could drive up the prices of nearby parcels of land and someone could make the state a good enough offer and we could finally get rid of the Hobby building

It's a long-shot but a man can dream

[Syndic]

I understand the thinking. The city and county want to duplicate the dynamic of Wooldridge Square Park which has the old Travis County Courthouse next to it. They're probably trying to establish a regular, daily base of patrons for the park; i.e. people going out there on their lunch breaks, etc. Could they do this with residential? Maybe, but likely not as much as they would with office or a public building. They also have the Hobby Building, the State Department of Insurance building, and the US Federal Courthouse next door, so it's like a little mini-government workers' district.

It's important to have workplaces downtown, but still, I think the old post office site would be a better location. And, at worst, only *half* of this lot. I don't get the obsession with filling entire square blocks with one building. Especially if you want your city to be a lively, diverse place.

With all that said, infill is infill, so I imagine I'll still be pretty interested in this development; especially if it has ground-floor retail. And, I can't lie, I have warm feelings when I think about Wooldridge Square Park and the public buildings around it. That park is where my parents got married and where we sprinkled my mom's ashes. I still go there sometimes if I just want to relax and think. It's a calm, peaceful place. If they accomplish something similar with Republic Square Park, I can't say for certain that I won't consider it a success.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...itect-for.html

Apr 17, 2014, 11:10am CDT
Travis County hires architect for downtown courthouse project

Robert Grattan
Staff Writer-
Austin Business Journal

Travis County's Commissioners Court this week voted to approve a nearly $3 million contract for independent representative/compliance architect services with Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum LP, or HOK.

[The ATX]

This really sucks. Travis County has just filed a permit request for the new court house. It's only 14-stories and ~250' with 4 underground parking levels.

But it does mention a possible second building on site.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11225682

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, that's kind of a bummer. At that height to floor ratio it would have been 303 feet if it had been 17 floors.

[Digatisdi]

I feel like there was once a plan that called for the courthouse to take up the entire block so honestly as long as there's room for development in addition to the courthouse I'm happy.

Perhaps this is a bit too optimistic of me but perhaps the lower height of the courthouse could encourage denser development on the southern half.

[Syndic]

I feel the same way. The lack of height for the courthouse sucks but I also loathe it when one building takes up an entire block. If we could get another building in there it would be a nice concession.

[GoldenBoot]

I too, am not happy with the 14-story decision. The county will regret that in the coming few decades when they are scrapped for additional space...again!

However, there is still a sliver of hope that a tall, mixed-use development could still be constructed on the other section of the site. We will see if that comes to fruition. I believe the county is saving that spot for future expansion and/or the development of a tower utilizing a PPP to develop it (when the time is "right").

It would be hard to gain public support in the development of a "larger than currently needed" building in this city/county. Austin/Travis county does not have a history of good planning for the future (in many different areas).

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

I too, am not happy with the 14-story decision. The county will regret that in the coming few decades when they are scrapped for additional space...again!

However, there is still a sliver of hope that a tall, mixed-use development could still be constructed on the other section of the site. We will see if that comes to fruition. I believe the county is saving that spot for future expansion and/or the development of a tower utilizing a PPP to develop it (when the time is "right").

It would be hard to gain public support in the development of a "larger than currently needed" building in this city/county. Austin/Travis county does not have a history of good planning for the future (in many different areas).

Well, at least it is highly unlikely that the building will be built on top of another ugly parking podium.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

This really sucks. Travis County has just filed a permit request for the new court house. It's only 14-stories and ~250' with 4 underground parking levels.

But it does mention a possible second building on site.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11225682

If I recall correctly, voters still have to vote on the funding for this project next spring. So this isn't exactly a done deal just yet.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by paul78701

If I recall correctly, voters still have to vote on the funding for this project next spring. So this isn't exactly a done deal just yet.

That's mentioned in the filing. It says they will take the project to 30% design completion to define the May 2015 bond requirements.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by paul78701

If I recall correctly, voters still have to vote on the funding for this project next spring.

I thought we weren't going to be having any more local elections in the spring.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

I thought we weren't going to be having any more local elections in the spring.

That's what I thought too. That apparently doesn't go into effect before May though.

[Austin1971]

Man such a waste of a prime piece of property. I wish a developer would make an offer the county couldn't refuse and build something worthy there....I recall someone had the idea of the county buying the old Freescale complex and using that as a court complex.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

Man such a waste of a prime piece of property. I wish a developer would make an offer the county couldn't refuse and build something worthy there....I recall someone had the idea of the county buying the old Freescale complex and using that as a court complex.

This is all due to politics. They could be developing this site more densly with a public-private partnership. This could be done without a public vote. In fact, from what I've previously read, this is what a consultant recommended. However, the officials in charge are probably afraid that they won't get re-elected if they anger the public with such a decision. There would be a chorus of people decrying the misspending of public money and their taxes be raised.

I have no idea if doing a PPP would involve any extra taxes, but reactionary types aren't exactly known for researching such things before they complain about them. So it's being put it up for a vote. They're pushing responsiblity to the public instead of taking what was recommended and making a decision based on that. Typical politicians playing the re-election game.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by paul78701

This is all due to politics. They could be developing this site more densly with a public-private partnership. This could be done without a public vote. In fact, from what I've previously read, this is what a consultant recommended. However, the officials in charge are probably afraid that they won't get re-elected if they anger the public with such a decision. There would be a chorus of people decrying the misspending of public money and their taxes be raised.

I have no idea if doing a PPP would involve any extra taxes, but reactionary types aren't exactly known for researching such things before they complain about them. So it's being put it up for a vote. They're pushing responsiblity to the public instead of taking what was recommended and making a decision based on that. Typical politicians playing the re-election game.

You are correct. They said as much in July when they unanimously rejected two consultants reports that recommended doing a public-private partnership.

Austin American-Statesman
Travis County commissioners approve building method for new courthouse
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...3381287.735508

Snips:

Travis County commissioners decided Tuesday to take a more familiar route for building a $300 million courthouse downtown, rejecting the advice of judges and consultants who lobbied for a private-financed model that could have been a tough sell to voters.

A $490,000 consultant’s report had outlined other options, including a public-private partnership, called a “P3,” in which the county pairs with a developer that builds and essentially owns the building for 30 years. A separate $50,000 report by consultant URS Corp. recommended that approach, which would transfer much of the risk and up-front expense to a private developer, who would then receive millions of dollars a year in rent from the county.

“We didn’t know any kind of specifics with the P3,” Commissioner Margaret Gómez said. “Design-build is a known. P3 is an unknown.”

Commissioners said it would be difficult to explain the public-private concept to voters.

“That would result in an inability on our part to explain to voters what we’re doing and why,” said County Judge Sam Biscoe, chairman of the commissioners.

[Syndic]

Any way we could start a grassroots campaign to defeat it? I'd rather it just not be built at all. Make them sell that property to someone else.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by paul78701

This is all due to politics. They could be developing this site more densly with a public-private partnership. This could be done without a public vote. In fact, from what I've previously read, this is what a consultant recommended. However, the officials in charge are probably afraid that they won't get re-elected if they anger the public with such a decision. There would be a chorus of people decrying the misspending of public money and their taxes be raised.

I have no idea if doing a PPP would involve any extra taxes, but reactionary types aren't exactly known for researching such things before they complain about them. So it's being put it up for a vote. They're pushing responsiblity to the public instead of taking what was recommended and making a decision based on that. Typical politicians playing the re-election game.

FYI, this isn't what 'reactionary' means.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Syndic

FYI, this isn't what 'reactionary' means.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

That's not exactly what I meant. I wasn't using 'reactionary' itself in a political sense. I failed to do proper "word smithing". I was simply referring to people who react without really thinking. Maybe I chose the wrong word, but I would hope everyone would get the point I was making.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

I thought we weren't going to be having any more local elections in the spring.

Actually, now that I think about this, I'm not sure that the elimination of spring voting applies to Travis county elections. It may be that this only applies to the city of Austin.