AUSTIN | Millennium Rainey | 99 FEET | 8 FLOORS | Complete - Page 2

migol24 · #21 Posted **Sep 14, 2012, 4:02 PM**

I can personally understand what MichaelB is saying. What Rainey St has going on is unique and its all the more unique that its right next to downtown (or is it considered downtown?).
Who knows if it will remain like that forever, I'm partial to it myself. But I can understand both sides of the story. It be nice if they keep it a mix of high rise and what its got going on now. That would help preserve its unique factor to it.

Jdawgboy · #22 Posted **Sep 14, 2012, 8:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by migol24

I can personally understand what MichaelB is saying. What Rainey St has going on is unique and its all the more unique that its right next to downtown (or is it considered downtown?).
Who knows if it will remain like that forever, I'm partial to it myself. But I can understand both sides of the story. It be nice if they keep it a mix of high rise and what its got going on now. That would help preserve its unique factor to it.

It is officially apart of Downtown and is zoned CBD with no height restrctions, one of the very few areas that Downtown has like that. Im pretty sure that Rainey Center will be a quality development and in an area with no height restrictions, I see no reason why it cant be tall. I look at it from the environmental point of view that a tall structure with a small footprint has less of an environmental impact than a shorter building with a larger footprint.

What the city needs to work on is the road infrastructure. Remove parking completely off Rainey street, create a well designed parking garage or have the new developments require to have public parking spaces. Need better sidewalks as I see that area more of a pedestrian oriented district than car centric. The houses wont be bulldozed over with nothing but highrises, what is evolving is an eclectic mix of original single family homes converted into business and residential highrises rising above a forest of Pecan trees. I think that particular fabric between old and new will stay.

migol24 · #23 Posted **Sep 14, 2012, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

The houses wont be bulldozed over with nothing but highrises, what is evolving is an eclectic mix of original single family homes converted into business and residential highrises rising above a forest of Pecan trees. I think that particular fabric between old and new will stay.

Yeah, I think that's the biggest concern here for guys like MichaelB. Not a lot of people are sure if it will stay the same if mid-rises and high-rises are continually built there. I guess everybody here is in favor of what Rainey St has become... and I'm sure we'd all like for it to stay that way. I personally don't mind height at all. I just also am in favor with what MichaelB is saying that I'd rather have this "quantity over quality" thing that's going on there.

The ATX · #24 Posted **Sep 14, 2012, 9:11 PM**

I think the city should define then protect and improve entertainment districts (Rainey, E. 6th St./Red River, Warehouse, etc.) After all the surface parking lots are developed there will be tremendous pressure on club and restaurant owners to sell. Ultimately we could end up with a city full of high rise apartments and condos, but very few cool places to go for fun. People will have to eat at the hotel restaurants.

Jdawgboy · #25 Posted **Sep 15, 2012, 6:25 AM**

We need to keep in mind the district is nowhere near finished and there are plenty of lot spaces that can be utilized. It is way too early in the development to say hold up there lets not do a whole lot more. We are nowhere near that point yet. Rainey street needs a lot more work done before it can truly get to its saturation point. It will be several years before that happens. Also consider some of the houses on Rainey are so dilapidated they are literally leaning sideways and others are falling apart. These may not be able to be saved so the opportunity to create a transition style development that will be able to connect the old houses with the highrise residential.

nixcity · #26 Posted **Sep 15, 2012, 11:39 PM**

ditto to what jdawg said in his last 2 posts

KevinFromTexas · #27 Posted **Sep 16, 2012, 7:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Also consider some of the houses on Rainey are so dilapidated they are literally leaning sideways

Here is a photo I took of the leaning house of Rainey Street.

Jdawgboy · #28 Posted **Sep 16, 2012, 8:20 AM**

Yup, I was there when you took that pic.

I understand and agree about overdoing or overwhelming the district but it has awhile to go before that kind of concern becomes an issue. For now lets let it organically evolve as it has been doing so since they the changed the zoning. I think it will be just fine.

the Genral · #29 Posted **Sep 17, 2012, 1:19 AM**

I wouldn't mind seeing more pictures of this area before it changes forever. Despite the condition of the leaning house, I do find it rather charming, and feel preserving it and others like it is essential to maintaining some of the history there. I'm not a tree hugger but it seems to me that if you raze that house and others like it for new development, you would also have to cut down a lot of the trees which I would hate to see. I also wouldn't want to see every house turned into a tavern or restaurant. It would be nice to take a page from Wimberley and have a kind of craft house district where people can sell their art from renovated houses. But I'm sure the value of the land would prevent that from happening which is why eventually everything about the old Rainey will give way to new developments and new people from out of town who could care less about what used to be under the new highrises they live in. I don't know what that business is behind the leaning house, but I don't like it.

KevinFromTexas · #30 Posted **Sep 17, 2012, 1:29 AM**

Maybe I'll do a photo thread on it. I have to go downtown either tomorrow or Tuesday anyway.

Jdawgboy · #31 Posted **Sep 17, 2012, 7:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

I wouldn't mind seeing more pictures of this area before it changes forever. Despite the condition of the leaning house, I do find it rather charming, and feel preserving it and others like it is essential to maintaining some of the history there. I'm not a tree hugger but it seems to me that if you raze that house and others like it for new development, you would also have to cut down a lot of the trees which I would hate to see. I also wouldn't want to see every house turned into a tavern or restaurant. It would be nice to take a page from Wimberley and have a kind of craft house district where people can sell their art from renovated houses. But I'm sure the value of the land would prevent that from happening which is why eventually everything about the old Rainey will give way to new developments and new people from out of town who could care less about what used to be under the new highrises they live in. I don't know what that business is behind the leaning house, but I don't like it.

If a building is structurally not sound and if it costs more than its worth than there isn't much that can be done but to tear it down. Not saying that particular house will have to be im just saying its a waste to just leave buildings there just because their old houses. I'd like to see some art galleries and small shops along there and that could be done in a way that would easily tie in with the rest of the district. I also doubt the renovated houses are gonna go anywhere plus I doubt thats what the end result will be, the city will ensure that many of the origional properties wont be replaiced by nothing but highrises.

MichaelB · #32 Posted **Sep 17, 2012, 5:32 PM**

One sees what one wants to see. Perspective is everything. While a huge fan of construction. I am a bigger fan of design and unique areas , oh, and quality. We are lucky to have Rainey. We are lucky that area of town was delayed in development so we can have this debate. When I first moved here in the late 80s that area extended over to where the convention center is. While I bemoaned for a moment the loss of a favorite watering hole or two, I was in favor of the convention center.

Live in an area like Rainey and you will appreciate more the unique mix that is that area. As far as the leaning house goes. ..... I love it. And yes, the investment in a space like that is totally worth it to the eyes that want to see it work. Hell, look at The old "Liberty Bar/grill" in SA. It was so loved partially because it was leaning.

So. Debate at will. The more "tall" there is downtown, the more people will long for escapes like Rainy. A little forsight might just make that happen.

Jdawgboy · #33 Posted **Sep 17, 2012, 8:29 PM**

Remember taller is better from an environmental standpoint. What would you rather have a tall thin structure like the tower formally known as legacy or would you rather have a short stubby low rise building like the Monarch. Between those two buildings, from an environmental standpoint the White slinder tower not only has a smaller carbon footprint, it also doesn't retain heat like its shorter neighbor. When it rains, it produces less water runoff than the Monarch, and most importantly it doesnt cover as much ground. Give me twin 50 story point towers any day over a short stubby midrise in the Rainey Street District. Want to keep the charm, then hope we dont see anymore Monarchs built there.

MichaelB · #34 Posted **Sep 17, 2012, 9:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Remember taller is better from an environmental standpoint. What would you rather have a tall thin structure like the tower formally known as legacy or would you rather have a short stubby low rise building like the Monarch. Between those two buildings, from an environmental standpoint the White slinder tower not only has a smaller carbon footprint, it also doesn't retain heat like its shorter neighbor. When it rains, it produces less water runoff than the Monarch, and most importantly it doesnt cover as much ground. Give me twin 50 story point towers any day over a short stubby midrise in the Rainey Street District. Want to keep the charm, then hope we dont see anymore Monarchs built there.

Oh Jdawg....start laughing now... .cause this is Just kidding...

you will say anything to see a tall building built! You are not an envoirmenatlist.... that is just babble.... you are a size queen! LOL!

Jdawgboy · #35 Posted **Sep 17, 2012, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Oh Jdawg....start laughing now... .cause this is Just kidding...

you will say anything to see a tall building built! You are not an envoirmenatlist.... that is just babble.... you are a size queen! LOL!

Lol if you saw the person I was talking to at the club the other night earlier before we ran into eachother your assumption would be accurate. Lets just say pants were not hiding anything LMAO.

KevinFromTexas · #36 Posted **Sep 17, 2012, 10:50 PM**

Well I'll throw a bolt into the engine. Shorter buildings do better with green roofs than tall ones. Think about how windy it is atop a 600 foot building versus a 150 foot one. It's harder to have a green roof that high up without all the soil blowing away and shredding the plants to pieces. I remember trying to take pictures atop the Austonian was like standing in a wind tunnel.

Jdawgboy · #37 Posted **Sep 17, 2012, 11:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Well I'll throw a bolt into the engine. Shorter buildings do better with green roofs than tall ones. Think about how windy it is atop a 600 foot building versus a 150 foot one. It's harder to have a green roof that high up without all the soil blowing away and shredding the plants to pieces. I remember trying to take pictures atop the Austonian was like standing in a wind tunnel.

True but as you just pointed out how it was at the top of the Austonian, taller buildings are perfect for small wind turbines as well as solar panels. If its a point tower there is not a whole lot of area for a green roof as it is. While really tall buildings are not as ideal for green roofs,I have seen pictures of green roofs with trees on some fairly tall buildings in New York City.

KevinFromTexas · #38 Posted **Sep 18, 2012, 12:15 AM**

Oh yes, there is a highrise, like 250 to 300 feet tall in Vancouver with a rather large tree on top. The building had a purpose built planter placed on the end of the building on the roof for this tree. It is the craziest thing.

This would be one hell of a way of saving a tree that was growing on a downtown block to be replaced by a highrise.

Here's a photo:
http://www.mylatestobsession.org.uk/2011/07/vancouver

You can find more photos of it. Just Google "Vancouver skyscraper with tree on top"

the Genral · #39 Posted **Sep 18, 2012, 1:17 AM**

Mmmmm.... looks like a topping out tree they forgot to take down...it looks unnatural and stupid to me.

the Genral · #40 Posted **Sep 18, 2012, 1:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

If a building is structurally not sound and if it costs more than its worth than there isn't much that can be done but to tear it down. Not saying that particular house will have to be im just saying its a waste to just leave buildings there just because their old houses. I'd like to see some art galleries and small shops along there and that could be done in a way that would easily tie in with the rest of the district. I also doubt the renovated houses are gonna go anywhere plus I doubt thats what the end result will be, the city will ensure that many of the origional properties wont be replaiced by nothing but highrises.

That's what I'm saying...convert a block or two into renovated houses where artists can house their galleries of hand made jewelry, blown glass, pottery, crafts, antiques, ect... throw in some coffee shops, sandwich shops whatever and make it another spot to visit dt. The more I consider the possibilities, the less highrise construction I want to see here. I think I could handle tall buildings along the edges though and leave the center green and park like. Shoot, I'm even thinking a zoo would be cool here.